sometimes when I get bored I do a search on a random phrase just to see what comes up. Last week I learned that a search for the phrase " Is god real?" gets you a complete different list of results than a search for the phrase " god is not real". I found another interesting website like kyroot called 50 proofs that God is imaginary.
https://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
A little bit of entertainment if you only read one or two, but it starts to get repetitive and boring if you read them all. Soon it will be time to search a new phrase...
Quote from: fencerider on September 11, 2017, 04:18:39 AM
sometimes when I get bored I do a search on a random phrase just to see what comes up. Last week I learned that a search for the phrase " Is god real?" gets you a complete different list of results than a search for the phrase " god is not real". I found another interesting website like kyroot called 50 proofs that God is imaginary.
https://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
A little bit of entertainment if you only read one or two, but it starts to get repetitive and boring if you read them all. Soon it will be time to search a new phrase...
Does "god is imaginary" include "human society wouldn't by insane "?
Quote from: fencerider on September 11, 2017, 04:18:39 AM
sometimes when I get bored I do a search on a random phrase just to see what comes up. Last week I learned that a search for the phrase " Is god real?" gets you a complete different list of results than a search for the phrase " god is not real". I found another interesting website like kyroot called 50 proofs that God is imaginary.
https://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
A little bit of entertainment if you only read one or two, but it starts to get repetitive and boring if you read them all. Soon it will be time to search a new phrase...
If reality is imaginary (it is) then someone imaginary could be real ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on September 11, 2017, 04:18:39 AM
sometimes when I get bored I do a search on a random phrase just to see what comes up. Last week I learned that a search for the phrase " Is god real?" gets you a complete different list of results than a search for the phrase " god is not real". I found another interesting website like kyroot called 50 proofs that God is imaginary.
https://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
A little bit of entertainment if you only read one or two, but it starts to get repetitive and boring if you read them all. Soon it will be time to search a new phrase...
It does look like an interesting and well-constructed list, but it's waaaaaay too long for me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 11:29:06 AM
It does look like an interesting and well-constructed list, but it's waaaaaay too long for me.
I think so to. Which is why I bookmark those sites and return to them every now and again and read a little further down the list. Helps on those days when boredom seems to lurk everywhere.
I just read the whole list, and I can see someone's put a lot of thought into it. I'll have to check it out more fully later, when I have more time. I want to see if anything can be added to the list, or if they've exhaustively covered the field. I didn't see anything obviously missing, which is great! Atheists should know as much as they can about why they don't believe in God. Apatheism's OK, but on a forum we should all be on our toes when these "people" come here to preach at us.
This thread should get the defenders of the faith going
Quote from: SGOS on September 12, 2017, 12:25:18 PM
This thread should get the defenders of the faith going
Assuming they're willing to read.
Quote from: SGOS on September 12, 2017, 12:25:18 PM
This thread should get the defenders of the faith going
Not defending faith as in ... believe in this without justification. I only accept it, if I can see, touch or feel it ... and then I am not engaged in any beliefs.
Fides = trustworthiness ... as in the old Roman dog name, Fido. I do want to be trustworthy, even if you don't care to trust me. But I have nothing to sell you anyway.
You can accept something if you can see, touch or feel it, and if you do, we are in potential agreement. Extrapolation from that gets more and more tenuous.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 12:29:12 PM
Assuming they're willing to read.
Oh I accepted this clear attempt at "clickbait". But I didn't prematurely raise my expectations. Rationalist arguments are ... meh, anyway. But they are a small step up from arguments from authority, like Randy gave us. Without empirical observation or experimentation ... it is just pissing up wind. Drew vs Others is simply a rationalizer pissing contest. But I keep the cow patties as WMD for myself ;-)
I've heard some theists ask how we can trust our senses - since we must have faith that our senses are showing us the world as it really is, and sometimes we hallucinate. All I can say is we have no choice but to assume that what we see and feel is really there, though we may interpret those things differently. We each are a context, waiting to write the world into our story.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 12, 2017, 01:27:54 PM
I've heard some theists ask how we can trust our senses - since we must have faith that our senses are showing us the world as it really is, and sometimes we hallucinate. All I can say is we have no choice but to assume that what we see and feel is really there, though we may interpret those things differently. We each are a context, waiting to write the world into our story.
Can't praise this post enough! Yes, there are multiple paths to nihilism. Theists and atheists just choose different paths. Even David Hume didn't go full retard ... he let Rousseau do that.
Well, as Clarence Darrow understood:
"We are born and we die; and between these two most important events in our lives more or less time elapses which we have to waste somehow or other. In the end it does not seem to matter much whether we have done so in making money, or practicing law, or reading or playing, or in any other way, as long as we felt we were deriving a maximum of happiness out of our doings.â€
"The best that we can do is to be kindly and helpful toward our friends and fellow passengers who are clinging to the same speck of dirt while we are drifting side by side to our common doom."
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 01:13:40 PM
Not defending faith as in ... believe in this without justification. I only accept it, if I can see, touch or feel it ... and then I am not engaged in any beliefs.
Fides = trustworthiness ... as in the old Roman dog name, Fido. I do want to be trustworthy, even if you don't care to trust me. But I have nothing to sell you anyway.
You can accept something if you can see, touch or feel it, and if you do, we are in potential agreement. Extrapolation from that gets more and more tenuous.
Baruch, I have never doubted you had/have first hand experience with your g-d. And I like the way you explained faith. As you said, if you can see it, touch it or feel it---belief is not needed, for you it has happened in a tangible way. You don't believe it, you know it. And from that gnosis (knowing) your experience can be acted upon. All of that is valid--for you. For anyone else to accept your experience requires belief. I need to believe you really experienced that; had that happen to you. For you have no way of providing any empirical evidence for me or anyone else. And so I don't accept what you say about your g-d, not because I think you are making things up, but that your brain did that for (or to) you for some reason. And I think that in a day far, far from now, science will be able to explain it. Belief and magic belong in the same universe--the universe of the unnatural, or supernatural--or the land of fiction. It is real only to one person.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2017, 07:42:46 PM
Baruch, I have never doubted you had/have first hand experience with your g-d. And I like the way you explained faith. As you said, if you can see it, touch it or feel it---belief is not needed, for you it has happened in a tangible way. You don't believe it, you know it. And from that gnosis (knowing) your experience can be acted upon. All of that is valid--for you. For anyone else to accept your experience requires belief. I need to believe you really experienced that; had that happen to you. For you have no way of providing any empirical evidence for me or anyone else. And so I don't accept what you say about your g-d, not because I think you are making things up, but that your brain did that for (or to) you for some reason. And I think that in a day far, far from now, science will be able to explain it. Belief and magic belong in the same universe--the universe of the unnatural, or supernatural--or the land of fiction. It is real only to one person.
You have the same arm as I have. You just don't believe it ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 10:24:33 PM
You have the same arm as I have. You just don't believe it ;-(
Correct. I don't believe it. Oh, the arms are the same--I can show you mine and you can show me yours. There is nothing to believe about that--except in your mind. And I don't mind--you can believe what you want about your arm. But if you can't show me, then that is all it is,---a belief.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2017, 10:41:26 PM
Correct. I don't believe it. Oh, the arms are the same--I can show you mine and you can show me yours. There is nothing to believe about that--except in your mind. And I don't mind--you can believe what you want about your arm. But if you can't show me, then that is all it is,---a belief.
No man is an island, except Mike ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 06:43:09 AM
No man is an island, except Mike ;-(
As Simon and Garfunkle say:
"I Am A Rock"
A winter's day
In a deep and dark December
I am alone
Gazing from my window
To the streets below
On a freshly fallen, silent shroud of snow
I am a rock
I am an island
I've built walls
A fortress, steep and mighty
That none may penetrate
I have no need of friendship
Friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock
I am an island
Don't talk of love
Well, I've heard the words before
It's sleeping in my memory
And I won't disturb the slumber
Of feelings that have died
If I never loved, I never would have cried
I am a rock
I am an island
I have my books
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room
Safe within my womb
I touch no one and no one touches me
I am a rock
I am an island
And a rock feels no pain
And an island never cries
You are a node in the great network of Mother Nature. You didn't come from nowhere, you are connected to everything and everyone ... you will never be separate. Not even an isolated hydrogen atom in outer space is separate ... its degree of separation ends at the Big Bang when it was created.
Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 03:00:20 PM
You are a node in the great network of Mother Nature. You didn't come from nowhere, you are connected to everything and everyone ... you will never be separate. Not even an isolated hydrogen atom in outer space is separate ... its degree of separation ends at the Big Bang when it was created.
Yeah, I agree with that--even from my island--so what? The universe is constructed of a finite list of materials and substances--we are all connected in that way. There is no need for a god nor creator for that to be so.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 13, 2017, 03:37:54 PM
Yeah, I agree with that--even from my island--so what? The universe is constructed of a finite list of materials and substances--we are all connected in that way. There is no need for a god nor creator for that to be so.
G-d lies in that connectedness. Particularly in the connectedness between people, that is more recent than the Big Bang.
Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 06:12:19 PM
G-d lies in that connectedness. Particularly in the connectedness between people, that is more recent than the Big Bang.
What lies in that 'connectedness' is evolution--no need for g-d or god or gods. Humans represent the best of the best; the worst of the worst; and all that is in-between. God is not needed. (Nor wanted) As our brains and our bodies evolve so do our societies. It's just that that process takes sooooooo much time. Theists want to put an end to waiting for that process to end (which is never) and provide them with answers now. Impatient buggers--fuck us all over.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 13, 2017, 07:33:01 PM
What lies in that 'connectedness' is evolution--no need for g-d or god or gods. Humans represent the best of the best; the worst of the worst; and all that is in-between. God is not needed. (Nor wanted) As our brains and our bodies evolve so do our societies. It's just that that process takes sooooooo much time. Theists want to put an end to waiting for that process to end (which is never) and provide them with answers now. Impatient buggers--fuck us all over.
So our connection is some very tenuous quantum field? What QFT is ... "Six degrees of separation"?
Darrow is a hero of mine...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 01:30:43 AM
Darrow is a hero of mine...
And WJB is one of mine, but not for the Scoped trial. For the Cross of Gold speech. Have you read it?
Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 01:12:26 PM
And WJB is one of mine, but not for the Scoped trial. For the Cross of Gold speech. Have you read it?
Read it? I dissected it for a Poli-science class. It was bad economics, bad politics, and poorly-constructed. William Jennings Bryan had a brain a mile wide and as shallow as a plate... He was the Trump of his time.
Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 06:12:19 PM
G-d lies in that connectedness. Particularly in the connectedness between people, that is more recent than the Big Bang.
Now if we just had enough Brazilian power crystals to cover the Earth we'd be much more loving.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:10:29 PM
Now if we just had enough Brazilian power crystals to cover the Earth we'd be much more loving.
A lot of Tinkerbelle dust would be good...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 02:14:08 PM
Read it? I dissected it for a Poli-science class. It was bad economics, bad politics, and poorly-constructed. William Jennings Bryan had a brain a mile wide and as shallow as a plate... He was the Trump of his time.
Perhaps. But if you hate Populism, you must love Elitism. And you will burn in Hell, sorry.
Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 07:50:27 PM
Perhaps. But if you hate Populism, you must love Elitism. And you will burn in Hell, sorry.
Not respecting William James Byran's unsensible gold standard claptrap views is not an argument against populism. Other politicians were anti- gold standard but otherwise populist.
I am not elitist. The only thing 1%s mean to me is $3000 bottles of champagne (like Trump's lawyers were caught drinking this week) and utter waste. If you can't control your own spending, you sure won't care about MY tax dollars.
Elitist? I laugh at you while eating my dinner of pork stew drinking half my $10 1.5 liter bottle of Zinfandel!
Which is very decent, BTW!
So you disagree with him on his support for the Silver Mining Subsidy that existed from the early 1870s until the early 1890s. Are you against the Grange as it existed in the 1890s? Or do you disagree with the view that the gold standard at that time, was a conspiracy by the British Empire and against American interests?
I think it is true, regardless of the money situation, that without the farmers, all you city folks are dead. But the battle was lost, farmers are the bitch of the city folk, until the city folk kill all the farmers, and wonder where the food went to.
Quote from: Baruch on September 19, 2017, 10:04:30 PM
So you disagree with him on his support for the Silver Mining Subsidy that existed from the early 1870s until the early 1890s. Are you against the Grange as it existed in the 1890s? Or do you disagree with the view that the gold standard at that time, was a conspiracy by the British Empire and against American interests?
I think it is true, regardless of the money situation, that without the farmers, all you city folks are dead. But the battle was lost, farmers are the bitch of the city folk, until the city folk kill all the farmers, and wonder where the food went to.
Going off the gold standard would have severely reduced US trade with Europe. "According to rhetorical historian William Harpine in his study of the rhetoric of the 1896 campaign, "Bryan's speech cast a net for the true believers, but only for the true believers."
Bensel said "In a very real sense, adoption of the silver plank in the platform was akin to a millennial expectation that the "laws of economics" would henceforth be suspended and that the silver men could simply "will" that silver and gold would, in fact, trade on financial markets at a ratio of sixteen to one."
The fluctuations of the silver market would have caused more harm than good to US farmers in the following years.
The laws of economics do not yield to political populism then or now. The Silver argument was Fool's Gold and has been historicall refuted.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 04:57:20 AM
Going off the gold standard would have severely reduced US trade with Europe. "According to rhetorical historian William Harpine in his study of the rhetoric of the 1896 campaign, "Bryan's speech cast a net for the true believers, but only for the true believers."
Bensel said "In a very real sense, adoption of the silver plank in the platform was akin to a millennial expectation that the "laws of economics" would henceforth be suspended and that the silver men could simply "will" that silver and gold would, in fact, trade on financial markets at a ratio of sixteen to one."
The fluctuations of the silver market would have caused more harm than good to US farmers in the following years.
The laws of economics do not yield to political populism then or now. The Silver argument was Fool's Gold and has been historicall refuted.
So the one and only component of the then GDP that mattered was foreign trade, or trade with the British Empire? Really? Or was the lobby community supporting that decision just better funded than the lobby community supporting the alternatives? In what way has lobbying changed? (rhetorical).
I happen to agree that Free Silver was a subsidy for certain sectors of the economy. That is how the Feds have been interfering in commerce since before the Civil War. One of the objections of the South to the North was because of that kind of economic extraction (NYC banks). The NYC banks are still sucking us dry.
There is only one economic law (given business and government interference) ... F the other guy before he F's you. And we do, though it is particularly good strategy to use the Feds or States as your bitch in Crony Capitalism (the game, children not allowed).
Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:27:07 PM
So the one and only component of the then GDP that mattered was foreign trade, or trade with the British Empire? Really? Or was the lobby community supporting that decision just better funded than the lobby community supporting the alternatives? In what way has lobbying changed? (rhetorical).
I happen to agree that Free Silver was a subsidy for certain sectors of the economy. That is how the Feds have been interfering in commerce since before the Civil War. One of the objections of the South to the North was because of that kind of economic extraction (NYC banks). The NYC banks are still sucking us dry.
Feeling a bit bitter about money these days are we?
The wealthiest Southerners were living off indebiting themselves recklessly to people who actually HAD money, and they were in the North. Who actually produced thing efficiently and earned actual money.
The slave trade wasn't doomed by the Civil War; it was doomed because even the richest Southern plantation-owners were deep in debt as a result of a failed system economically even if you ignore the moral horror of the system. It was going to collapse anyway and the Southern elite manufactured reasons to succeed economic and slavery. The system they loved and still try yo support in some States.
Free silver was always a fake issue. It never really mattered whether silver was currency. Currency is always just trusted bits of paper for individual exchange after modern governments came into being.
Ever tried to eat a $1 bill? Is it more nutritious than a $5? Or a $100?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 05:17:26 AM
Feeling a bit bitter about money these days are we?
The wealthiest Southerners were living off indebiting themselves recklessly to people who actually HAD money, and they were in the North. Who actually produced thing efficiently and earned actual money.
The slave trade wasn't doomed by the Civil War; it was doomed because even the richest Southern plantation-owners were deep in debt as a result of a failed system economically even if you ignore the moral horror of the system. It was going to collapse anyway and the Southern elite manufactured reasons to succeed economic and slavery. The system they loved and still try yo support in some States.
Free silver was always a fake issue. It never really mattered whether silver was currency. Currency is always just trusted bits of paper for individual exchange after modern governments came into being.
Ever tried to eat a $1 bill? Is it more nutritious than a $5? Or a $100?
I agree ... debtors always bitch that they didn't get a good deal ;-) Yes, I do think it was going to fail, because of low cyclic prices for cotton (available from Egypt and India). Well, if we can kill all of Congress, when they go $1 over budget ... then we don't need a hard money standard. The only value of hard money, is that it is hard for the politicians to buy votes. Otherwise all countries end up like Venezuela. And you prove my point regarding Populism of 1890s ... the farmers should have gone John Galt and starved the cities out.
Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 06:51:51 PM
I agree ... debtors always bitch that they didn't get a good deal ;-) Yes, I do think it was going to fail, because of low cyclic prices for cotton (available from Egypt and India). Well, if we can kill all of Congress, when they go $1 over budget ... then we don't need a hard money standard. The only value of hard money, is that it is hard for the politicians to buy votes. Otherwise all countries end up like Venezuela. And you prove my point regarding Populism of 1890s ... the farmers should have gone John Galt and starved the cities out.
You should learn the lesson of the 2 chinese villages about to war with each other over making hoes. A bearucrat stepped in and declared that one village would make the blades and one the handles and they all lived happily ever after selling the assembled hoes. The end. Go to sleep now...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 09:33:05 AM
You should learn the lesson of the 2 chinese villages about to war with each other over making hoes. A bearucrat stepped in and declared that one village would make the blades and one the handles and they all lived happily ever after selling the assembled hoes. The end. Go to sleep now...
Good story, but we are uncivilized "round eyes" and we have no Mandate From Heaven via the Emperor. This is how paper money was first propagated in China under the N Sung dynasty, and shortly later by the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty. The Mongol officials were succinct ... accept this official paper in lieu of payment, or the divine Kublai Khan will be pissed, and have us remove your head (and that of all your other relatives ... that is a lot of people in China). The resulting hyperinflation helped bring down the Yuan dynasty, that and Divine Wind destroying two invasions of Japan. Banzai!
Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 03:32:27 PM
Good story, but we are uncivilized "round eyes" and we have no Mandate From Heaven via the Emperor. This is how paper money was first propagated in China under the N Sung dynasty, and shortly later by the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty. The Mongol officials were succinct ... accept this official paper in lieu of payment, or the divine Kublai Khan will be pissed, and have us remove your head (and that of all your other relatives ... that is a lot of people in China). The resulting hyperinflation helped bring down the Yuan dynasty, that and Divine Wind destroying two invasions of Japan. Banzai!
The Chinese invasion of Japan failed mostly because they thought river boats could cross the ocean. Almost all naval battles are between obsolete ships and new ideas.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 04:23:19 AM
The Chinese invasion of Japan failed mostly because they thought river boats could cross the ocean. Almost all naval battles are between obsolete ships and new ideas.
That isn't how the Japanese describe it ;-) Here, I have a fresh plate of fugu for you to try ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 08:27:50 PM
That isn't how the Japanese describe it ;-) Here, I have a fresh plate of fugu for you to try ;-))
Yeah, the Japanese prefer the Divine Wind idea suggesting they were supernaturally favored. But the Chinese Emperor's demand for "boats now" was mostly to blame. And I read an article once that gave some evidence that the Chinese actually used Japanese slaves to build the boats designed to attack Japan. Talk about STUPID! LOL!