We scientists don't believe in God....

Loading Image...

b***@gmail.com

2017-10-05 08:01:12 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:42:25 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:59:51 -0700, El Castor

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.

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:59:51 -0700, El Castor

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.

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?

Same here.

El Castor

2017-10-06 18:33:55 UTC

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor

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?

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

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor

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?

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor

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?

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/

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

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:05:23 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:47:51 -0700, El Castor

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?

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/

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, 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.

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

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

The universe, and existence, is indeed mind-boggling.

El Castor

2017-10-08 20:52:31 UTC

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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 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?

Post by El Castor
On a different topic ...
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

rumpelstiltskin

2017-10-09 10:42:46 UTC

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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 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

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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
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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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 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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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.

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
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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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.

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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.

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

"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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:42:11 -0700, El Castor

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:42:11 -0700, El Castor

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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:26:49 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:42:11 -0700, El Castor

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

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

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

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

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

Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.

As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."

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

Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.

As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."

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

Or that the human mind only relies on reason to support what it already
believes.

As I often say, "Most reason is rationalization."

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.

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:08:16 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:13:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:52:31 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:14:10 -0700, "Bill Bowden"

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:49:46 -0700, El Castor

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.

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.

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

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>

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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>

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.

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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:31:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>

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 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

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:31:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>

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 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

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:23:46 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:31:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:36:08 -0700, El Castor
<snip>