The Truth (As I see it)

On record, I said that I'd quite agree with you if we were speaking the same language.

I mean that I disagree with your definitions of terms, sir.

But let the record show, you are an arsehole that don't know shit, sir.

 

So what do you think science is, if it isn't the process of discovering how the universe works?

Or is it my definition of religion that you disagree with? That would be difficult, since I didn't really give one.

I assume your definition of "arsehole" is something like "super intelligent guy" though - it's the only way I can make sense of your last sentence.

 

Science is just magic we've figured out duh.

 

I've been telling people that for weeks! Every subject you can study in university is either Magic or Lies.

E.g., Physics is Magic, Chemistry is Magic, Philosophy is Lies, Psychology is Lies, Biology is Lies dressed up as Magic, Law is particularly offensive Lies, Geography isn't a real subject, &c.

 

Painful Truth (personnal preference).

I have always considered the term Jew to refer to them as a people not as practitioners of a religion.

Hence the difficulty in actually accomplishing it.

I have found this thread beneficial.

 

Is there actually anything, except the Bible, which would lead me or anyone to believe in God (premises/evidence, rather than conclusions/results, obviously)?

I disagree!

 

It's obviously the time we live in that prevents some people from believing in God. Depending on what age in which a person lived, they needed relatively less evidence of God than today, as now everyone fancies themselves a scientist or philosopher. The scientist asks, "What proves God?" The philosopher asks, "Which God do you mean, if indeed there is one?"
I don't think there's anything someone can offer today that counts as evidence of a supreme deity other than that peculiarly shaped charring on a grilled cheese sandwich that looks like it possibly may be Jesus, or perhaps just consider this; idealism or materialism?
Does the mind come first and usher the matter into existence, or does the matter come first and through natural processes ushers the mind into existence?
It's all about what you want to believe.

 

Spoke to my housemate, we both agree it is better to live in blissful ignorance, that or don't date a slut.

 

Very true; I become positively enraged when people ask me for evidence of the Almighty Teapot which orbits the sun! Imagine! Evidence? For something which was revealed to me by the Teapot? Nonsense! Who do these regular Joes think they are, asking for 'proof' and 'evidence' and 'reasons'? That's esoteric knowledge reserved for professional scientists and philosophers, and the public don't need to know it!

Both ridiculous questions, of course. Only the fool says in his heart, "I need to know, first, what I'm talking about, and, second, what there is to support my claim." In this modern age of fast-paced techno-life, we don't have time to waste investigating that which doesn't even need clarity of expression!

What's the difference?

Of course, Cllr Muro would have you believe that consciousness is itself simply something naturally resultant of a physically manifest entity, making it just as much a part of any physical theory as gravity, quantum electrodynamics, and Zanza's mutated penis. A vote for Cllr Muro is a vote for dogmatic, unsupported, discredited, deterministic reductionism. Would you vote for Cllr Muro?*


*Paid for by the foundation to elect ytzk.

 

I dislike your implication of Zanza's member. I don't believe it's mutated, merely that it's misunderstood.
Idealism; mind comes first and ushers the matter into existence,
or
materialism; matter comes first and through natural processes ushers the mind into existence
You didn't even pay attention to what I was writing, Wayne.

 

Does not even need clarity of expression??? That says it all, WS.

Look, monkeys and dolphins go crazy and sing at the moon, or stare at beautiful landscapes. Bowel-wrenching, mind-numbing awe of the impossible size and complexity of the world goes hand-in-hand with imagination and intelligence.

The evolved coping mechanism for the amazingness of life is to chant and chatter away the awe, sum it up in a sound-byte, or bite-sized story, and then block it out. That makes popular science and popular religion look the same to me.

Alternatively, you sit and stare with a stupid grin and no end of interest in the simplest of things, or the most complex. This makes serious science and serious religion look the same to me.

Also, I vote Muro for councillor and Grossenschwamm for antichrist.

 

I think the main reason people today need more evidence of God is because we are surrounded by evidence of not-God. A thousand years ago when a child asked why there are stars in the night sky, the answer that "God put them there to watch over you while you sleep" was as good an answer as any. These days we know what stars are and how they are formed in incredible detail, and the explanation does not include God. At some point, when so many questions have been answered without recourse to God, it becomes obvious that God is unnecessary. So any claim along the lines of "No, no, we still need one!" requires extraordinary evidence to support it.

I can't imagine what definition of "mind" you are using to make sense of this question. We can observe a mind being formed all the way from a single cell. It's like asking "Which came first, the chicken, or gravity?" Gravity came first. So did matter. Life is a side-effect. And the mind is a side-effect of that.

What the hell is "popular science"?

P.S. I suspect Wayne was being sarcastic.

 

Thy mother, English!

 

Firstly, I don't see what my mother has to do with popular science.

Secondly, YOUR mother is "popular" with "scientists", if you know what I mean.

 

Of course I was being sarcastic; except about Zanza's penis: that's too serious an issue.

Clearly, Gross is talking about quantum mechanics and the collapsing of wave functions as they become observed.

 

Alright, firstly, Wayne is correct in his assertion. Secondly, my definition of mind in the question I made was the celestial overmind, AKA God. Did god come first and usher the universe, or did the universe come first and usher god? Fairly simple.

 

I'd imagine the premise of materialism is that there's no need for God, if the universe can come before him; unless it's a whole different idea of God than what I'm thinking of!

 

Well that's easy, since God is a concept made up by humans. So the universe came first. Then humans. Then God.

Next!

 

Alright, if you're so confident, what spawned the primeval atom that birthed the universe? I won't accept spontaneous generation.

 

I wouldn't accept God, either—or anything whatsoever, for that matter—if I were you!

Hey Smuel, if you're so confident, how come things fall to the ground at the same rate? I won't accept gravitational theory.