BTW, you show (,luckily!) a lot of interest in theism/gods/God. Why? — EugeneW

I am surprised you ask! Due to its historical use by nefarious humans to facilitate small elites to control large populations. Its power has been reduced since but remains still very very powerful and it still presents clear and present danger to the progression and survival of the human species.

Again: You're my man Earthling! I guess we're not that different after all! Both looking for meaning. You find it in science, I think it doesn't provide meaning at all. But we're both seekers! — EugeneW

I agree, we are all looking for meaning, we are just arguing about the best way to go about it.
I respect true seekers that's why I gave time and brain space to the DIMP guy and the Klein Bottle/Mobius strip guy and YOU, the 5D torus guy. :smile: I am not claiming that my particular brain space offered them much but at least I was supportive and I label them 'true seekers.'

Because all the creatures we made extinct, have a counterpart in heaven — EugeneW

What about the ones we didn't make extinct? 99.9% of all species that there have ever been on Planet Earth have gone extinct. The number of species that human activity has made extinct is depressing but it is small in comparison. We didn't make the dinos extinct? Are you suggesting the dinos have heavenly counterparts?

I have no intentions leaving the planet, universeness. The colonialization of the Milky Way is another myth cooked up in the fantasy blender of science. Nice to write about but to actually undertake is something completely different! — EugeneW

Fine but do those who disagree with you have to stay on this planet as well or will you let them try to develop technologies that will allow them to leave, explore and populate that which is outside of this planet?

The gods created that much space for making possible a csrbon copy for all heavenly creatures, god-kind. They don't forbid anything. They are just worried that we fuck up nature and kill species, even make them extinct. Because all the creatures we made extinct, have a counterpart in heaven. You could ssy, then why dont these continue their life in heaven. Indeed! I havent an answer yet — EugeneW

No, these are your concerns EugeneW, not any god(s). You just assign the god label in an attempt to enforce the viewpoint you state here or/and as an attempt to shift responsibility for YOUR personal directives onto a nonexistent god which has no ability to take responsibility. So if people followed your directives and as a result, the human race stagnated over time and we went extinct because we could not control over-population etc. Your future supporters could always play their 'get out of responsibility' card by saying but it was not our directives, it was gods!

Im serious! I wanted to write it but then thought you would say me writing it is actually a sign I am pissed off... Well, maybe I am, but then only at a personal level — EugeneW

I'm serious too! Write what you want, from 'a pissed off at science' perspective or not. You are a free man. I fully support you in this. If you want to claim that your words are based on a dream you had then that's totally valid. If you want to claim that you are relaying the word of god to humanity then you will not be the first to claim this and you will not be the last. I will not support you in that claim, that's a bridge too far for me!
If you want to suggest something like this is what YOU THINK god would say to humans if it could, then I for one, would support you. Of course, you don't need my support one way or the other. You can decide to 'publish and be damned.' You will have followers and dissenters, as per previous examples of such. Then everyone will just move on and your typing will be filed and referenced in the same way as previous examples of such writings have been.
You might even start a new religion, who knows. It's your decision and any consequences, good or bad are yours as well.

Tech. The future. ????? — EugeneW

So how else will we be able to leave this planetary nest EugeneW? should we wait for god instructions on how to extend humanity beyond our little pale blue dot. Should we just stay here forever and just control our population better? Why did your god(s) create such a vast space? are we not allowed to explore it?

I knew you would bring this up. No its not because Im pissed that my cosmology isnt accepted or understood. It's just that its importance is way overestimated. — EugeneW

Ok EugeneW, I have to accept your word. I am sure you understand why I might consider the possibility. :smile:

But it happens. Not in the name of god but in the name of science, the magic words which, when uttered, legitimize — EugeneW

No, it's mostly in the name of capitalist f***wits who want as much profit as their sweaty hands can bank as quickly as possible. Animal experiments for reasons of developing medicines to help save humans I can live with but only if no other way can be found.

It will be dark then in our cozy cave! I would miss your cuddling — EugeneW

:lol: I only cuddle women EugeneW they used to let me do that a lot more than they do now! :gasp:

Why should we go back to the caves? — EugeneW

Make up your mind, do you welcome the technologies produced from science or not.
If you think that humans need to control technology better and prevent it falling into the hands of the nefarious, the crazies, the autocrats etc then say so and I will agree. If your solution is abandon science and embrace theism then I am against you.

What about them scientists torturing animals to know how the brain works and even get paid or prizes? — EugeneW

I disapprove, are you a vegetarian or a vegan? or is that a whole other thread.

And what's so important about finding a small fucking particle at CERN — EugeneW

The search for knowledge regarding the origin, structure and workings of our Universe!
Your hypothesis has not moved past the posit stage yet.
I hope the fact you are pissed off at the current cosmology and physics worlds has not influenced your wink towards theism.

Einstein said: "der Herr Gott würfelt nicht"... How clear can it be? — EugeneW

I don't speak that language but I am content with the Wikipedia quote on Einstein, for now.
If I am wrong then I am sure some god will permit his 'essence' to comlink with me in one of my dreams to correct me, as it seems all the available documentation on Einstein is unable to irrefutable settle this issue.

Without science no A-bomb — EugeneW

Back to the cave for you then, to cower in the corner at all the scary noises outside.
I won't be joining you.

I’m happy to discuss with Eugene. You appear to be here to poke fun and present yourself in a poor light for some reason.

Congrats! — I like sushi

I will file your opinion under the philosophy of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry.
"Opinions are like assholes, everybody got one!'

Then I have more right to do, because Oppenheimer was involved in the making of the A-bomb. And what to think of Teller, proudly presenting his thermonuclear toy? Oppenheimer thought he had become dead — EugeneW

Would you prefer it if the Nazis had produced the Abomb first?
Sometimes you have to get filthy yourself to defeat dirty evil!

And again... you lay the Christian monstrosities at the door of Christians? — EugeneW

The so-called christian leadership at the time, absolutely yes, they are guilty as are all those 'christians' that took part in a particular atrocity. I don't scapegoat a god fable or nonparticipating Christians.
I judge each atrocity based on those responsible for it alone. I don't think it's valid to project individual atrocities onto the general labels the perpetrator's claim as theirs and as supporting their heinous acts

I mean, you said I asked a question I have an answer to — EugeneW

No, I said that, I think, one of the techniques you employ on a discussion website like this, is to ask 'but why why why? style questions when you know find well, what the response is going to be. It's an old ploy also used by politicians who don't want to answer a question directly. They will dance around with repetition and clarification and will constantly ask their opponent to give more detail on their point etc. All attempts to frustrate and exasperate their opponent so they are compelled to stop their dialogue and make an excuse to discontinue the exchange. This allows the other person to claim victory due to possession of the 'battleground.' You have declared this as your own opinion when you typed that people often make excuses to me that they have to 'go walk the dog' or 'go get something to eat.' etc and you suggest that such excuses are evidence of you being victorious over them. I think this is mischievous on your part.

If you think I worship gods, absolutely no. — EugeneW

I previously asked you about your relationship with YOUR god(s) as did @I like sushi. At last, you have now offered a little more insight. So, you don't worship god(s). It sounds to me then that YOUR god(s) are AT BEST, 'background decoration,' in your life and not as significant as your more emotive postings would suggest. As I said, you are a mischievous provocateur, in my opinion, and an unconvincing theist. You just get a buzz out of 'annoying' atheists. But most atheists are well-practiced at dealing with such. Individuals like Matt Dillahunty would quickly chew you up, in my opinion.

But they add an unexplainable element to a world where science claims that everything is answerable. Well, it cant explain where the universe came from, but it says we just wanna procreate genes or memes. Life becomes meaningless then. — EugeneW

This is just a repeat again so:
"I refer you to previous on record comments I have made, on this issue."

Pantheist is theist also — EugeneW

It you keep stretching the elastic of your rebuttals EugeneW, they will snap!

He/she's right uni! You should effectively mind your own business! — EugeneW

:rofl:
What's that quote from 'A Christmas Carol?, from Marley's ghost to Scrooge?'
Something like 'The human race IS your business,' something like that anyway!

Aint that theist? — EugeneW

No its pantheist and perhaps if he were still alive, he would have probably updated it to panpsychist.

should I continue? — EugeneW

:rofl: and you lay this confidently at the door of science?
You don't accuse the human's abuse of science/technology. You give them no responsibility for firing the gun, you blame the technologies of science for providing the gun and the bullets.
So, you do think we should have stayed in the caves then, as you blame the inventors of the spear and the spear+ for our 10000 years of tears. yes? and your solution to this human record of technological abuse is to immerse your primal fear of potential human behavior in the protection of god fables?
I thought you were made of stronger stuff than that EugeneW!
F*** primal fears, I will boldly go where no one has gone before, if I ever get the chance. I will be shit scared probably but i will do it anyway! slava ukraini!!!

The OP is garbage. That is the truth. I explained why.

Bye — I like sushi

:lol: :rofl:
I tried to warn you that the exchanges on this tread would test your exasperation tolerance level but you suggested I should effectively 'mind my own business.'

You said that I know why people wanna prolong their life artificially. — EugeneW

Then copy the quote you are referring to, I don't recall typing that or the context you present.

I dont, so I asked why — EugeneW

Why someone might choose to extend their life was not part of my presentation. I presented future human life extension as 'within the capability of science,' based on the fact that science is the main reason why general human lifespan has been extended. More humans get to 100+ now than at any previous time in the history of our species. That tendency to human lifetime extension is not going to stop unless we go extinct.

Are you afraid there is nothing after this life? — EugeneW

What?? have you read my previous comments on this issue at all?

"I refer you to previous on record comments I have made, on this issue."

Is your certainty the reason? — EugeneW

My certainty about what? that there are no god(s)?
Science attempts to extend and maintain human life and lifespan regardless of the god posit.

Science has done no good. — EugeneW

What?? Should we have just stayed in or caves then and not made the use of fire that we did and not have employed science to attach a big bit of sharpened flint/stone to the end of a strong long pole and used it to more easily kill animals for food or spear the local tribal invaders?

the other is destroying religion — Gregory A

You give Richard a great compliment here, you should send him a copy of your compliment, it will help brace him in this, in my opinion, honorable goal but I think 'destroy' is unlikely, 'vastly reduce its influence in politics, education, commerce and society,' would be more accurate and a more realistic and achievable goal.

The most dangerous species is still the scientist. — EugeneW

Then stop doing science and go help build a tabernacle for your god(s) or you run the risk of being assigned the label hypocrite!!

No! I truly don't! I dont give a fuck how old I get and are absolutely not interested in prolonging my life scientifically. — EugeneW

What's your personal opinion got to do with science's projected ability to extend human lifespan?

That's my hat! — EugeneW

To quote Rod Stewart
"You wear it well, a little old-fashioned but that's all right!" :smile:

Scientists are obliged to stay out of what are philosophical positions, and they mostly do — Gregory A

Scientists are obliged to do no such thing! They often choose to, when they think that the philosophical points made are erroneous and of little value or meaning to the hypothesis/theory/experimental results under discussion at the time. But they will speak to philosophical claims if and when they feel it is prudent to do so.

Agree! That's why you dont believe in gods. Your measure is one amongst many though — EugeneW

As is yours (welcome back to the pantomime! act III, I think.)

The number of particles in the universe, 10exp80, is by way not enough to even approximate brain memory capacity — EugeneW

Wrong! Which scientific document are you getting your number for human brain capacity from?
How can a human brain hold more information than the number of particles in the universe that the brain you are talking about IS PART OF! The information quanta you refer to is part of this Universe!

Every way of life, way of thinking and being, has its pros and cons. — EugeneW

Agree! and each also has its associated measure of fact against fiction.

Einstein was not an atheist, which doesn't make him a believer
— Gregory A

He believed in god. Said even he dont play dice. Thats an inspiration for his science. He believed, and I think rightly, QM isnt the final answer — EugeneW

I think @Gregory A is probably closest on this one but it remains controversial.
The quote from Wikipedia is:

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups.

About the maximum memory of a computer. The number of 1s and 0s to be stored. — EugeneW

A computer is built with an amount of memory which makes it commercially viable to the current home market. Computers not built for the home market are built for functionality purposes and are given the memory capacity they need based on their intended functionality but the point I have labored to you ad nauseam is that there is no upper limit to the amount of memory capacity that could be electronically assigned to a computer network as I demonstrated with my example of the memory capacity of the internet. Despite this, instead of accepting that this actually rather minor point that computer systems can surpass the processing speed AND MEMORY CAPACITY of the human brain is true. You insist on trying to blow air on the dying heat of your attempts at rebuttal. In my opinion, this does not reflect well on your debating skills.

Still no response to:

Sci-fi shows play with this concept all the time but from the point of sentient lifeforms who existed in our galaxy millions of years before humans. In Babylon 5 they are called the first ones. The Vorlons, The Shadows etc. To us, they would seem like gods, but they are not. Why are these god-like descriptions less likely than the descriptions you have been posting here to describe your version of god(s). Could I replace every mention you have made of god(s) on this thread with 'The Vorlons,' would it change your claims much? Apart from your 'but mine are real and yours are fantasy,' claim. The same claim that the Christians have about the Muslim god or hindu god(s) and vice versa.

Why not?

I can give you a similar list of complaints of the horrible doctrine of the sciences... — EugeneW

I am going to use an old politician's response to your employment of repetition EugeneW.
"I refer you to previous on record comments I have made, on this issue."

To be replaced by the con of science? — EugeneW

If you think science is a con then stop your own personal relationship with it, you insult your own house!

Do you really care how old we can get? Why? — EugeneW

I am learning more about your approach all the time EugeneW, you ask questions that you already know the answer to. I assume you just do so to annoy your opponent. The danger is that they might just decide you are not worth their time and they will excuse themselves with such as 'I need to go now!'

And the row continues to the ends of the Earth! A bit more than a chip memory.. — EugeneW

This approach is so tedious, computer memory does not consist of a single chip so what are you talking about?

and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again — EugeneW

000000000000000.... — EugeneW

This reminds me of a quote from Carl Sagan's movie 'Contact.'
If we are the only intelligent lifeforms in the whole Universe, it seems like an awful waste of space!
You seem to be wastin space EugeneW.

The consensus would be that atheism is simply a non-belief in god/s but the reality is that atheists are actively opposed to theism. — Gregory A

Yes or (no shit Sherlock!) atheism OPPOSES theism but most atheists will pick their targets wisely. I would prefer to debate a priest or imam or guru in comparison with a 'so-called,' theist, who simply has a personal theism! A person who merely gets comfort from belief in an all-powerful supernatural superhero that's going to protect them from their primal fears and award them existence for eternity after they die. One who imagines an eternity in a happy-clappy place where they want for nothing and everyone is equal and no minorities are treated as inferior etc. Good luck with that! I will inform them that I think they are dellusional and dbate the details with them if they want in the way I am doing with @EugeneW on this thread but I can tell the difference between a dangerous theist and a harmless one. My target is the dangerous ones. Most atheists are against organised religion but some atheists are rich powerful autocrats who run a country! There are many flavours of bas****, some absolute scumbags do label themselves atheist as part of their 'cunning plan.'