This time, ami has a point....

[amicus]

The means by which the Cassini-Huygens project was able to reach its destination was the use of planetary alignments to utilize a 'slingshot' effect to increase velocity.

There is some validity to the reality of the alignment of planets in our Solar System, just as there are gravitational tidal effects from the Moon.

You mentioned Astrology, not I, nor would I, as a science, but as a pursuit of knowledge, like all things, it is a pursuit of knowledge, to be judged valid only by the nature of reality, and as such, holds value, whether you acknowledge it or not.

You obviously do not understand the inter-relationship of all disciplines, but perhaps others will. Be snug in your complacent and confined world view and sense of life.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

The means by which the Cassini-Huygens project was able to reach its destination was the use of planetary alignments to utilize a 'slingshot' effect to increase velocity.

There is some validity to the reality of the alignment of planets in our Solar System, just as there are gravitational tidal effects from the Moon.

You mentioned Astrology, not I, nor would I, as a science, but as a pursuit of knowledge, like all things, it is a pursuit of knowledge, to be judged valid only by the nature of reality, and as such, holds value, whether you acknowledge it or not.

You obviously do not understand the inter-relationship of all disciplines, but perhaps others will. Be snug in your complacent and confined world view and sense of life.

Amicus Veritas

Ami, can you read? Do you read?

I brought up astrology to debunk your pompous assertion that science should and must incorporate all fields of knowledge.

For fuck's sake, don't try to use your idiocy as a weapon against me. It's almost as embarrassing as your assertion that astrology, when judged by the nature of reality, holds value.

Astrology, judged by the nature of your self-made definitions and by what goes on in the heads of astrologers, may hold value but don't try to conflate what goes on in your head or their heads, with reality, much less science.

NASA got Cassini-Huygens to it's destination using only calculations based on Newtonian gravitational mechanics (do you understand the use of the word mechanics in physics?). I used Newtonian gravity as an example of why there are no absolute truths in science (read the book by Chalmers and you will understand...if you choose to understand). My point was that while general relativity would give a more accurate set of answers to those calculations, they are almost hopelessly difficult to crunch. Newtonian gravitational mechanics is duck soup compared to general relativity. And because, while not the absolute truth, it's close enough to get a spacecraft to do all the things NASA got it to do, NASA was happy to use the less than absolute truth of Newtonian gravitational mechanics.

What I understand has nothing to do with what you assert I obviously don't understand.

What I assert is that you are not the fount of Science and Philosophy you claim to be. The harder you try, the more obvious it becomes. Science has its own rules and definitions. Knock yourself out creating new ones. Just don't expect them to fly.

 

[amicus]

Your sarcasm about Astrology didn't escape me, instead, I turned it around on you by offering evidence that the premise of Astrology, the father of Astronomy, that the alignment of the Planets does have measureable effects of Earth and on individual humans beings, just as Lunar gravity does,

Of course, it is gravity itself that actually influences all objects in the Universe, and our understanding was added to by the observation and plotting of the Planets which is and was the basis for Astrology.

You keep name dropping as if that were knowledge; I would prefer an ounce or so of original thinking from you at least once in a while to indicate that you can, indeed, have an original thought.

Izzat asking too much?

The true pursuit of knowledge is a human joy, perhaps the greatest of all, but to confine that pursuit to your definition of science is to enjoy only Vanilla while a gourmet course awaits those with an open mind.

Everything is connected and related in the miracle that is the Universe and life itself; all all truths rest on objective perception of reality in a non contradictory manner. Yes, there are steps along the way...we walked before we rode horses or rode in automobiles....but golly gee, feet and horses and cars are still around and still function, just as they always have.

Your blindered approach to learning is stilted at best.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

The alignment of the planets does have measurable effects on individual human beings.

Well...yes...there does exist a force of gravity between me and Mars...not that it's ever effected me in a way that anyone would bother to measure. It's so weak I doubt it is measurable. If I was so inclined, I could go to one of my astronomy websites and, knowing the current distance between myself and Mars and our respective masses, I could easily calculate that force of gravity between us but why bother? It doesn't and never will make astrology anything more than a pseudo-science.

Everything is connected and related in the miracle that is the Universe and life itself; all all truths rest on objective perception of reality in a non contradictory manner.

Poetic and almost beautiful. Deepak Chopra would be proud. Right up there with "The universe is unfolding as it should".

A question; why would the universe unfold in any way other than the one in which it should?

Izzat asking too much?

 

[amicus]

The alignment of the planets does have measurable effects on individual human beings.

Well...yes...there does exist a force of gravity between me and Mars...not that it's ever effected me in a way that anyone would bother to measure. It's so weak I doubt it is measurable. If I was so inclined, I could go to one of my astronomy websites and, knowing the current distance between myself and Mars and our respective masses, I could easily calculate that force of gravity between us but why bother? It doesn't and never will make astrology anything more than a pseudo-science.

Everything is connected and related in the miracle that is the Universe and life itself; all all truths rest on objective perception of reality in a non contradictory manner.

Poetic and almost beautiful. Deepak Chopra would be proud. Right up there with "The universe is unfolding as it should".

A question; why would the universe unfold in any way other than the one in which it should?
Izzat asking too much?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Thank you for the 'Poetic and almost beautiful...', I do take a small pleasure in writing prose and poetry and some of it does seep through in these essays.

I think you are one of those who 'believe' in the Global Warming predictiions, so, in essence, to answer your question above; you already know.

There is an 'ele' extinction level event' in the form of an asteroid due to intersect with the Earth in about the year 2859, if memory serves. Man will cause the universe to unfold differently by changing the course of that object and thus save Earth and civilization.

As the Moon recedes from the Earth, as it is at X number of centimeters per year, it will eventually bring about an extinction level event of its own if the Universe if left to unfold in a physical manner, but man can and will change the velocity of the Moon and return it to a desired position and keep it there, to benefit all mankind.

The cognitiive and focused mind of man will alter the unfolding of the Universe in ways that we choose...and that answers your question, like it or not.

I agree that Astrology is a pseudo-science, but when I read the characteristics of my own Triple Leo status and find they match quite well with me own characteristics, I get a goose-bump or two contemplating the serendipity of it all.

I do not know how to rationally continue this conversation with you or any other educated individual who holds no values to be absolute and rejects traditional concepts of morals and ethics, and hides in obscure scientific dogma to hide those facts.

You, like Pure and Liar and a handful of others, who are easily capable of expressing your concept of basic human values, refuse to do so, but readily attack me or any other person who does advocate a consistent, logical, rational set of ethics and morals that can be explained, justified, supported and defended by reason.

Which is why I often refer to my opposition as 'believers', for the faith expressed equals any deist I have ever crossed horns with. Their faith, as irrational as it may be, sustains them, as your faith sustains you. I don't begrudge you whatever you believe in and I have been in this business long enough not to suffer the barbs you throw in defense when I get close to a weak spot in your expository efforts.

Those who faithfully follow what you believe are sincere and sanctimonious in their fervor; those, such as yourself, who know your whole faith is a farce, are the ones I enjoy confronting as your defense is always the same, deny and attack.

You stated that you are not a subjectivist or a relativist, yet when to express an issue and your position on it, you reveal your inner faith and it is clear for all to see.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

You enjoy coming up with personal definitions about science and especially about philosophy. I suspect the reason you feel you can't continue to carry on a rational conversation with me is simply because I disagree with you on several things.

What bothers me is that you like to go after for me on what you seem to think my ideals are when, by writing things like...


You, like Pure and Liar and a handful of others, who are easily capable of expressing your concept of basic human values,

those, such as yourself, who know your whole faith is a farce, are the ones I enjoy confronting as your defense is always the same, deny and attack.

You stated that you are not a subjectivist or a relativist, yet when to express an issue and your position on it, you reveal your inner faith and it is clear for all to see.

...I have a similar problem.

If I disagree with you on something, it doesn't help to tell me that I have contempt for basic human values.

I'm an atheist. I like to think of myself as being reasonably literate about science. I am very literate about medicine. You like to think of me as a socialist but by Canadian standards, I'm a small 'c' conservative. So what is my faith and why is it a farce?

I do get a tad miffed when you make points that I feel are clearly absurd. For example, in another thread, you stated that Germany was inconsequential in WWII. I know it wasn't a typo. How do you justify saying that Germany was inconsequential in WWII?

It's one thing to come up with the thought that science should and must incorporate all fields of human knowledge, but when I point out that science itself disagrees, it doesn't help to say I obviously don't understand the inter-relationships between all disciplines.

What disciplines? Between physics and chemistry there are all kinds of inter-relationships. Between astrology and chemistry...I don't think do. My guess is that working chemists would agree. I have no idea what an astrologer would say.

In my experience, making very broad, all-encompassing statements is fraught with pitfalls. There are simply too many exceptions for them to be true. They make nice slogans and they make lofty ideals, but only if you're willing to overlook the myriad of ways in which they break down.

Believing that the world is a very complex place, with all kinds of ideas and attitudes doesn't make me someone with contempt for basic human values. Sticking to very basic rules and definitions about science that I learned going through my bachelors and masters programs (and about medicine in med school) doesn't make me oblivious to the inter-connectedness of a host of disciplines.

I am, however, not impressed when you get some very basic ideas wrong. If that makes me irrational, then blame it on your own definition of irrational.

 

[squarejohn]

Amicus and stephen55

I am thoroughly enjoying the back-and-forth between you two. You are both obviously very bright boys who are enjoying it as much as I. I'm tempted to jump in myself, but I don't want to spoil the fun. It's like watching Errol Flynn in a swordfight (watch the candle sticks) or Abbot and Costello doing a "whose on first routine." Keep up the good work.

 

[stephen55]

The revision of revisionist history

The Errol Flynn swordplay analogy I like. Laurel and Hardy? Please...

I'm noted here at Lit for my bonne homme, my savoir-faire and above all for my encyclopedic knowledge and the stellar IQ to use the same. No, wait...I'm noted for that back on my home planet. Around here I'm know as the author of "A revisionists view of history that would be humorous if it were not so tragically wrongheaded and stupid."

That came after I posted, in another thread, that the bulk of the fighting in WWII took place along Germany's eastern Front.


Ami is a mere pitiful, soulless ant in the great collective colony of those who can't or won't think for themselves and who would rather hide under rocks, babbling Randisms with spittle flecked lips, while gleefully pitying the free and upright individuals who walk heads up and shoulders back in the bright sunshine of freedom of thought and the ability to (gasp!!...horrors!!) recognize claptrap when it comes in the guise of...

The Germans and the Russians were two Barbarian Tribes fighting it out; inconsequential by all accounts to the meaning of World War Two.

No wonder Ami finds it difficult to have a rational conversation. My guess is that he believes the Soviets were inconsequential in WWII is because his Heroine and mental mentor, Ayn Rand, didn't like the Soviets. Just as Ayn Rand expunged from Randian Objectivist history the name and works of her jilted lover Nathaniel Brandon, Ami feels obligated to expunge the significance of the Soviet efforts in WWII because Ayn didn't like them.

So Ami, what were you saying about a revisionist view history?

Ami isn't going to say anything about a revisionist view of history. He thinks he's got it right. Being Randroid means never having to argue from a factual basis.

BTW, feel free to jump in, squarejohn. Just understand that if Ami says something like North Vietnam was inconsequential to the meaning of the Vietnam war, there's a good chance that he actually means it, from a Randian Objectivist point of view.

In a day or two, he'll post that I believe that North Vietnam was inconsequential to the Vietnam war, but that's another story.

 

[squarejohn]

The Errol Flynn swordplay analogy I like. Laurel and Hardy? Please...

Not Laurel and Hardy; Abbot and Costello.

 

[amicus]

Hello, Squarejohn and thank you for following this exchange.

Part of my learning process, outside the classroom and the degrees, was in a variety of radio and television studies where my forte' was to bring together two opposing guests, the best in their fields, and 'moderate' the discussion so as to draw out their opinions and then question their foundations, seeking to draw them out as to their basic assumptions.

I listened, and learned, much more than I spoke and my audience seemed to enjoy that, as unlike modern day talk show moderators who insert themselves into the discussion, claiming, but not possessing the gravitas to do so.

That process seems to have made me somewhat unique in my style, as I type and write as I would speak and that includes pauses...and grammar and punctuations that may not seem proper, but to me, form a matrix within which I can express ideas and thoughts without formal restrictions.

I think I have a fairly good understanding of world war two in both the European and Pacific theatres. I also claim some knowledge of world war one, the aftermath and the period between the two wars.

The disintegration of Empire by the European Powers, the rise of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, along with Imperial Japan and the emergence of the United States as an industrial and military power to be reckoned with all figured into that war and although Germany started it with the Blitzkreig that quickly overran most of Europe or shared the spoils with the Soviets.

The reason I state that Gemany and Russia were inconsequential is that both were Socialist nations, National Socialism for the Nazi's and Communism for the Russians, both of which were doomed to fail because of the oppressive nature of their governments.

What was and is consequential concerns the emergence of the United States and the hundred plus Democracies that came into being following the war; that has changed the world in a way never before realized.

The reason I can speak with knowledge and certainty of these issues is because I comprehend the essential characteristic of man and his continuing quest for individual liberty, freedom and prosperity.

I owe a great debt to Ayn Rand and through her reading suggestions, hundreds upon hundreds of writers who addressed every area of human existence with that common thread, the quest for human freedom, in the market place, on main street and on the trading lanes of the world. That is also why I am aware of the interdependence of disciplines and the interconnection of the free exchange of thought between those disciplines that have slowly combined to increase the knowledge of man to a level never before imagined.

I don't short Stephens knowledge of medicine nor his acqaintance with science; I do fault his knowledge of human philosophy and psychology in that he has not yet discovered the amazing universality of human endeavors throughout time.

Man is destined to populate the universe once the oppressive faith of collectivism is relegated to the footnotes of history and individual man is free to pursue his dreams without restrictions or regulations.

I do not tilt at windmills, but I do fight the good fight...always have...always will.

ami

 

[Dragonlipz]

S55 - You can't be serious: (you're AmiCoot's Alt!)

As to let the AmiCoot hijack your thread and make a complete mockery of it.....much less to let SQ-J fester with his meek and impotent ramblings...........
So that is the meat I bring to roast: You must be AmiCoot's alt....no one else who 'discusses' or holds forth with him on an adult level does so for any length of time without him blocking them....Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but I'm observing that anyone who has the intellectual bonafides as well as any grasp of modern history can bust his move.....(in the vernacular)....Anyone who's been in an English 303 class can see what a twit - intellectually and philosophically that Alisa Rosenbaum was...........and a big emphasis on the WAS.....she wrote FICTION and not very good fiction at that.....very ersatz, impotent versions of 'Das Kapital' from a 'capitalist' slant.......of course he is not afraid of 'Pure' or OG so he bandies with them but cowers like the jailhouse bitch he is when it comes to intellectual discourse with me...........
I guess ya gotta go wit whatcha know................

 

[loumey1]

I would just like to say that history has been full of people that said 'you can't' or 'that's impossible.' We used to think the world was flat, that man would never fly, that the sound barrier was unbreakable, the moon was unreachable, or that only humans demonstrated any kind of cognitive ability.

The people and discoveries that we remember are not the ones that said 'it can't be done,' but rather the ones that said 'yes it can' and kept trying till they figured out how to make it happen. That is source of invention and innovation, to dream, to believe, and to keep trying.

I choose not to put limits on what is and is not possible. What you choose is up to you.

 

[stephen55]

The reason I state that Gemany and Russia were inconsequential (in WWII) is that both were Socialist nations, National Socialism for the Nazi's and Communism for the Russians, both of which were doomed to fail because of the oppressive nature of their governments.
ami

Now I understand!!

Ami has defined the fascist Nazis as socialists and defined the Communist Soviets as socialists, therefore, they were inconsequential in WWII.

Why, the entire history of WWII can now be re-written, leaving out Germany and the Soviet Union and no one will bother to complain.

I guess that means WWII boils down to the massive struggle between the United States and Italy.

Yup, yup, yup...what a clusterfuck that was....

...moron...

 

[amicus]

I would just like to say that history has been full of people that said 'you can't' or 'that's impossible.' We used to think the world was flat, that man would never fly, that the sound barrier was unbreakable, the moon was unreachable, or that only humans demonstrated any kind of cognitive ability.

The people and discoveries that we remember are not the ones that said 'it can't be done,' but rather the ones that said 'yes it can' and kept trying till they figured out how to make it happen. That is source of invention and innovation, to dream, to believe, and to keep trying.

I choose not to put limits on what is and is not possible. What you choose is up to you.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello, loumey1, and welcome...I offer my apologies for my absence and delay in responding....You provide an insight that I judge to be pertinent, in that Stephen is locked into a mantra of the Malthus context, wherein the population of humans on the earth will overwhelm the available resources and we are all doomed to starvation.

Stephen and the other Collectivists, by whatever name the Pavlovian like respond, are of a mind that the Pastoral, pre Industrial Revolution days of yesteryears, were the ideal time in human history. They live in the Past and yearn for a return to the simple agricultural existence.

Man has somewhat conquered his environment, and I mean that...should the YellowStone Super Volcano erupt, we might send aloft balloons to capture the dust and sulphuric acid and minimize the effect, no nuclear winter; should an ice age approach, we might coat the glaciers with black carbon products and limit the effects; we already know how to divert an extinction level event of an asteroid and most any threat to civilization, we at least have a chance to overcome and survive.

It is a challenge, for me at least, to comprehend the medieval mindset of Stephen and his cohorts, who, at heart, believe man must adapt to nature and live within the dictates of climate change or natural disasters; they are so foolish and unthinking.

Man rose to the top of the evolutionary tree by changing his environment to suit his needs, not by adapting and conforming to existing circumstances; the power of the human mind is the determining factor, but our detractors look to collective, negotiated solutions rather than the epiphany of brilliance of the individual human mind.

Big mistake.

Stephens pusillanimous disdain for the ingenuity and the efficacy of the human mind and our ability to overcome diversity without sacrificing individual identity, is the fatal flaw in his world view and sense of life.

It is destructive to visualize humanity as a failed evolutionary experiment and can only lead to dysfunction, both intellectually and in real, every day life.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

At the risk of offending no one but you, Ami, I'll point out that I have no disdain for the ingenuity and the efficacy of the human mind. Nor do I view humanity as a failed evolutionary experiment. I'm also not a socialist or in your terms, a collectivist.

Your ability to continue to argue otherwise is the result of your immersion in Randroid Collectivism 101.

As for humanity being destined to populate the universe...an Earth-like planet or several, close to Earth (astronomically speaking), perhaps, in the far distant future.

Making the jump to the nearest large galaxy, Andromeda, is problematic. All the human ingenuity and efficacy on the planet isn't going to change the fact that said galaxy is 0.79 Mpc (2.56 million light years) away.

Even if future humans were able to get a spacecraft up to a velocity of one tenth the speed of light, the trip would take about (relativistic time dilation ignored for now) 25 million years. That should give even a Randroid like you, pause for concern.

The Virgo Cluster of galaxies is the nearest galaxy cluster after our own Local Group galaxy cluster. It is 16.5 Mpc (53.5 million light years) away. At one tenth the speed of light, the trip would take a measly half a billion years. Feel free to book yourself a ticket.

 

[stephen55]

As the Moon recedes from the Earth, as it is at X number of centimeters per year, it will eventually bring about an extinction level event of its own if the Universe if left to unfold in a physical manner, but man can and will change the velocity of the Moon and return it to a desired position and keep it there, to benefit all mankind.

The mass of the Moon is 7.35 x 10 to the twenty-second kg.

It looks more impressive if you actually write it out.

73,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg

It has a mean orbital velocity of 1,023 m/s, which gives it a momentum of...

7.519 x 10 to the twenty-fifth kg.m per sec.

That's 75,190,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.m per sec

Ami, have fun slowing it down...moron...

 

[amicus]

Stephen...for all your erudite copy and paste abilities, you display a mean streak in your nastiness that implies a character defect and demonstrates a banal perception of our species and characteristics...what are you so bitter about?

I had a small discussion with my Primary Physician a week or so ago...the subject was a fictional novel and how one might go about acquiring a years supply of certain prescription drugs and anti-biotics during a time when no doctors or hospitals would be available...he got all huffy and gave me a lecture on medical ethics and a practical statement that sufficient drugs didn't exist at any one given time to supply everyone with a years worth, and thus, no one should be special.

In my novel, I will still find a way to acquire said medications, but he, like you, seem so very short sighted and incognizant of the importance of the individual and the preservation of individual lives...he, like you, I surmise, tend to view the collective rather than the individual as the primary motivation.

Even at this early time in human history, we possess the technology to slow the velocity of the Moon in its' current orbit around the earth. Knowing the rate of recession, perhaps ten thousand years would be required; but it is possible and could be done.

New and exotic materials had to be created, (by the mind of man) to even permit escape velocity of current vehicles without melting the material of the craft. There is an atomic Ion drive, so I understand, that, theoretically, can increase the speed of a vehicle beyond your ten percent of K, perhaps approaching ninety percent of the speed of light over a give time.

There is a curious corellation between science fiction writers and science itself that I am pressed to fully explain...but in essence, if the laws of physics are taken into consideration and reality is not contradicted, that which can be imagined, is often realized a few generations later.

I will express a matter of faith and belief here, which I seldom do, for obvious reasons, and in essence, it is that, since we can see the Stars and we are part of the Universe, I believe it is not beyond the ability of the mind of man to conquer the distances involved.

I could speculate on 'warp drives' or wormholes, as Sagan, and the author of Starwars and Startrek did, and I do have a theory on 'harmonics', that so far, as much as I have read, is an unique idea. Radio waves, should I generate one at 14.2 megacycles (megahertz in current terms), I inadvertantly generate both harmonics and sub harmonics to the original frequency, in my example, at 28.4 and 7.1 megacycles.

Creating laser and maser emanations at a given frequency, also generates harmonics and at some point, creating those pulses, should create magnetic/light impulses that exceed the speed of light. It is said....that at the instant of the 'big bang', that energy was expelled at speeds in excess of the speed of light...curious indeed...but....?

Like in Atlas Shrugged, wherein Rearden discovered an architectural method of building a bridge that was different and stronger than any before, and in such a silly little film as "The Last Mimzy", a spider web bridge construction exceeded all known applications, I have a faith and a belief in the efficacy of the mind of man to conquer any and all problems or obstacles that currently seem to limit our future.

I suppose you will perceive as demeaning, my constant referrals to your profession, but I truly wonder if administering to the ills of man acts as a jading effect to your psyche and dampens your view of the best and brightest of the species.

I, once upon a time, landed my sailboat on an Island in the Bahama chain; a tiny island, all black inhabitants except one white Catholic Priest, but I learned from those former slaves and their society which still existed as it did two hundred years ago. There is goodness and even greatness in even the least of our species, something I sense you have failed to learn in whatever travels you may have made in your life.

Among the best and brightest, of which you should be aware, you don't have a clue.

Such is life...I guess...

Amicus Veritas

 

[Cicca_Jai]

If I may...

At the risk of ruining an other wise amusing debate.
The first post asked what people believe in, and was then followed by so much misunderstanding, Ego and psycho babble that I think the original idea was lost.

To that end I would like to interject what admittedly will come under fire. As my own thoughts echo somewhat with "the collective"

Do I believe in God, Yes I do. I studied most major religions and found during my studies that personally (for me) the Hindu Philosophy is everything I already believed to be true to start with.

Does this mean that I am right or wrong, Not necessarily. I believe that God comes to us as we need him to whether the name we assign be Christ, Krishna, Allah etc. all the same just different names and faces. Different way of getting to the same place, the same end.
But that is MY belief it is how I manage to make it through life knowing that their is a reason a purpose for it all. We come to learn that which we need to. I do not claim to know what comes next but I hope that it is something better then what is or was as the case may be.


Do I think that we are alone in the universe. I doubt it but my contemplating "alien life" is like a chipmunks trying to do quantum physics.

So why do we feel the deep need to tear each other apart when One presents a valid argument to their own personal beliefs?

A simple explanation is in order here.
We hold our beliefs tightly, they are the foundations of who we are. One who believes in nothing takes comfort in that fact, whilst the opposing side takes comfort in their own system of beliefs.
Humans have always had conflict, there is a deep seated desire to "Prove" that their way of thinking is the right way, in some cases the “righteous” way. The end result is more strife than need be usually.
Other times the consequences of the proving are dire.


Through out history there have been Holy men proving their case as well as people bent on disproving it.
I think there is room enough for both Science and religion with out one there can be no other the way I see it.


To sum all this up I leave you with this.
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Feel free to dismiss or accept these thoughts as you like. There is not reason to reply to this post because I do not feel a need to prove my point of view.

I hope that we all learn to respect one another’s beliefs.
~Hare Krishna~

 

[amicus]

At the risk of ruining an other wise amusing debate.
The first post asked what people believe in, and was then followed by so much misunderstanding, Ego and psycho babble that I think the original idea was lost.

To that end I would like to interject what admittedly will come under fire. As my own thoughts echo somewhat with "the collective"

Do I believe in God, Yes I do. I studied most major religions and found during my studies that personally (for me) the Hindu Philosophy is everything I already believed to be true to start with.

Does this mean that I am right or wrong, Not necessarily. I believe that God comes to us as we need him to whether the name we assign be Christ, Krishna, Allah etc. all the same just different names and faces. Different way of getting to the same place, the same end.
But that is MY belief it is how I manage to make it through life knowing that their is a reason a purpose for it all. We come to learn that which we need to. I do not claim to know what comes next but I hope that it is something better then what is or was as the case may be.


Do I think that we are alone in the universe. I doubt it but my contemplating "alien life" is like a chipmunks trying to do quantum physics.

So why do we feel the deep need to tear each other apart when One presents a valid argument to their own personal beliefs?

A simple explanation is in order here.
We hold our beliefs tightly, they are the foundations of who we are. One who believes in nothing takes comfort in that fact, whilst the opposing side takes comfort in their own system of beliefs.
Humans have always had conflict, there is a deep seated desire to "Prove" that their way of thinking is the right way, in some cases the “righteous” way. The end result is more strife than need be usually.
Other times the consequences of the proving are dire.


Through out history there have been Holy men proving their case as well as people bent on disproving it.
I think there is room enough for both Science and religion with out one there can be no other the way I see it.


To sum all this up I leave you with this.
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Feel free to dismiss or accept these thoughts as you like. There is not reason to reply to this post because I do not feel a need to prove my point of view.

I hope that we all learn to respect one another’s beliefs. ~Hare Krishna~

~~~

Cicca_Jai...you certainly may and are indeed welcome....

I study a lot, think a lot, read all the time, ponder what I have read and think some more...I am on the downhill leg of life...with no regrets, but knowing that with all my physical frailties, it ain't gonna get any better, only worse, perhaps permits me to meditate on a different level than those with a span of years yet ahead of them...if that makes any sense to you...

I enjoy reading those who speculate on the origins of man, through evolution, and just how we came to be what we are today and will be in the future. Man has always wondered from whence he came and where he is destined to go...man has always postulated that there must be more to life than what we struggle through, and I understand that and the reason behind it.

Education and intellect, or turn that around, intellect and education, is, I surmise, more of a curse than a blessing, as a curious mind always questions the status quo. For all of history, God, in one form or another, has been the status quo, and the answer to those ultimate questions...but...and it is a big BUT, each religion requires faith and belief...and when knowledge, learning conflicts, then violence follows...history illustrates that, time and time again.

I am a bit disappointed that you view this thread as a battle of ego's. Stephen is a believer in the collective, although he is loathe to admit it. I am of certainty of the primacy of the individual. My supposition requires no faith, no belief, no dogma, no mantra and is composed only of rational thought and non contradictory logic; the unabashed use of my single, individual and unique mind, through which I attempt to observe the reality I find myself esconsed in.

We have life. A short span of years between adolescence and maturity, before our bodies and minds begin to fail. I do not fault the true believers, like Nuns and Monks who dedicate their lives to others and have faith of life ever-after; if that satisfies their desires, all the better.

Taking into consideration the intelligence quotient, a full half of all humans simply don't have the mental ability to think beyond belief and thus must accept whatever mantra is available to guide them through life. That, too, if it satisfies them, is as it should be.

But...there are those of us who use our minds. We 'know' that without any evidence of a supreme being or an afterlife...there is none...we are what we are; we live...and we die....a beginning, a middle, and an end, just like any story.

There is an old saying, that the joy in a journey, is neither the departure or the arrival, but the journey itself, which is the life we live between birth and death.

Perhaps you will read my thoughts and alter your opinion of this thread....it is not my Thread, I didn't start it, I was called out and I responded, as best as I can, to the challenges to the thoughts I express.

Your thoughts and comments are solicited and will be welcomed, with civility and interest...if they are worthy.

amicus

 

[stephen55]

Let's see...

I looked up the mass of the moon and it's mean orbital velocity, figured out it's mean orbital momentum...and for that I'm bitter? Here I was simply thinking that the idea of someone altering said momentum sounds kind of muddle headed.

Ami, you like to post broad accolades to human ingenuity. Go for it. We do have a wonderful ingenuity. But there are some things, such as altering the orbit of the moon, that are beyond our ability and for starters...why the hell would we try?

The moon is receding from the earth at the rate of about one centimeter per year. That isn't hurting anyone and it shouldn't bother you.

And would you get off with the idea that I don't respect individual life? Why do you think I went into medicine in the first place? If you're still on about Baby Joseph Maraachli, think about this. The poor kid is terminal. That's not going to change. I feel for the parents. I really do, but I don't see the point of prolonging the life of a child in a persistent vegetative state, who is dying by inches.

Priests For Life figured that it would cost about $150,000 to keep the boy in paediatric intensive care for seven to ten days following his surgery (all of which they expect someone else to pay). The procedure took place on Mar. 21. It's now Apr. 21 and he's still there, still vegetative and I haven't heard a peep from the good priests. The bill is likely up to half a million and counting.

If said priests were serious about saving lives, they could give the half million to an organization like Village Outreach and save 500 lives, all of whom could then live healthy, productive lives. Quietly and effectively saving 500 lives doesn't garner press headlines and get time on TV from the talking heads, but...damn...now I understand why the good priests are putting someone else's half a million into a terminally ill, vegetative boy.


http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...FlockInc.:en-US:official&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1

So Ami, what would you have done? Given 500 children a chance at a long and healthy live, or given one terminally ill, comatose boy the chance to be terminally ill and comatose for a few more months?

Behind the press headlines and the talking heads there are real children dying every day due to lack of immunization, infectious disease, lack of clean drinking water, famine, war and all the other causes of infant and child mortality in this world. Some of us think they deserve a better chance. Some of us think there are reasons to allocate money in a way that does real good. We think all of those individual children are of value.

Do you?

 

[squarejohn]

I invite anyone who is part of this discussion to consider their personal beliefs/philosophies, by assuming that space and time are illusions, conditions of consciousness. Then report back here and reiterate your philosophy as it appears when viewed through that prism. I believe if you do this, there is only one possible conclusion.

 

[MarlowBunny]

I invite anyone who is part of this discussion to consider their personal beliefs/philosophies, by assuming that space and time are illusions, conditions of consciousness. Then report back here and reiterate your philosophy as it appears when viewed through that prism. I believe if you do this, there is only one possible conclusion.

Space and time are relative but not illusive. Unlike the tree falling in the forrest, we can be fairly certain that space and time exist whether we consciously perceive them or not. However, it appears that space and time are almost interchangeable, so perhaps you mean that our perception of any distinction is an illusion?

Here is one that will drive Ami and others crazy:
All of science is based on at least two articles of abject faith that are neither provable nor falsifiable. (Anything that cannot be falsified or proven must be taken strictly on faith)

1) No matter how many times an experiment produces the same result as last time, there is no certainty that the result will be the same next time. It is handy and practical to assume on faith that the next result will be the same, but no matter how many times the test is performed, there is always an uncertain next time.

2) Just because an experiment produces a certain result here, how do I know it will produce the same result over there? Unless an experiment is repeated everywhere, I must assume based on faith alone that the experiment does not change based on location. We already believe that observable physical effects vary in extreme environments like particle accelerators, big bangs, at event horizons, etc.

I am a scientist. Scientists can't KNOW very much at all. Science is based on faith! The only real distinction between science and other "faiths" is that science relishes skepticism, and to the practitioners, the value of the scientific faith is directly proportional to the practical benefits it yields.

Many other faiths may provide some practical benefits too, but science has a track record that is hard to beat.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I invite anyone who is part of this discussion to consider their personal beliefs/philosophies, by assuming that space and time are illusions, conditions of consciousness. Then report back here and reiterate your philosophy as it appears when viewed through that prism. I believe if you do this, there is only one possible conclusion.

Upon what foundation do you make that assumption? And why should anyone else share it?

All of science is based on at least two articles of abject faith that are neither provable nor falsifiable.

But so abject as all that, having been shown to be reliable and faith-worthy through millennia of practical demonstration, IE if tomorrow the sun doesn't set there will be a reason for it. Not that any of us will live through that catastrophe, but still.

 

[sexBandersnatch]

deleted

delete

 

[Black13]

I am officially jacking off all over the patient, waiting face of this thread. Ohhhh! Right in the eye...