Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s — Tom Storm

And this doesn't happen in science?

What do theists have to share? — whollyrolling

The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play.

Your admission of guilt is noted, I rest my case. — DingoJones

"Objection, your honor! The prosecution thinks I admitted guilt. But they didn't say what I'm guilty of!"
"Sustained! Prosecution, proceed!"

One has to operate organized in the vanguard to combat the rigid corporate elect and crush it's wicked new slavery schemes with the remorseless and righteous left fist and blow a far left uppercut in the name of global freedom and justice. It's the argot, necessary to break the chains. The red star is on the rise my fiend.

but sadly theists have never been content to keep their willful delusions to themselves — DingoJones

That's because they have something to share. Atheists, on the other hand, don't.

Well, that might all be true. But when I hear my Italian grandfather talking about the old communist glory days, my heart gets filled with longing. Before 1970s , it was the far-left; and after, the left-wing, so already there a reduction in power can be noticed. The once iron red fist has become a rosa broken wing.

"The Communist Party (Partito Comunista, PC) is an Italian political party of Marxist–Leninist inspiration, founded in 2009. It defines itself as "the revolutionary political vanguard organization of the working class in Italy."

A staggering 0.88% voted on it. Compare with the 33.4 percent in 1947...

Some people label their belief system "Atheism" and then proceed to spend a great deal of time thinking and speaking about God--significantly more time than an average Christian. — whollyrolling

Ha! How true. :up:

The real atheists should not call themselves atheists or even engage in god debates. The real atheist just shuts up and lives life.

Does any culture believe stabbing and murdering people is acceptable (outside of war!)? — Jackson

Even the culture you live in currently finds it acceptable to drop bombs scientists have invented. But that's inside the domain of war. Which is stabbing and murdering between abstract entities like countries.

There is no left left. And neither is right right. There is production, consumption, production, and consumption only. In all the diversity in personality, individual markers, different cloth styles, musical tastes, etc. there is greater global monoty then efver seen before. The world turns into a grey, amorphous, uniform ball of sameness.

Insofar the catastrophe is involved, there are tours organized now inside atomic shelters that are now out of use. The TV said the tours were sold out months ahead...

The best food is straight out of natures, non-processed, non-genetically modified food. If you like animals, don't eat them. If you like animals but don't mind eating them, eat animals that have lived a life as natural as can be. All other uses of animals are not needed.

The atheistic claim can not even said to be false. It's the most incoherent claim one can think of since it speaks about gods one denies the existence of or asks evidence for.

Note -- The initial Singularity is often compared to a Black Hole, which is a repository of Information. But in reverse : the Information comes out of it, spewing stars & planets into empty space. — Gnomon

What comes out of the singularity are two universes filled with particles. They interact by means of the vacuum between them. Initially there are large scale structures formed. Vast amounts of particles condensing into massive cosmic droplets, due to the quantitatively small but attractive nature of gravity. The interactions that resist keeps these structures from forming black holes and around the spherical distributions that start to shine like stars (and in fact are stars) life develops on planets that periodically are exposed to the blackness and the cold of the universal void at night and the white light and the warmth of soothing star at day. All creatures with brains enactively create a universe that suits their needs and while interacting and playing with fellow creatures they little by little create ideosyncratic habitats. There are no zeroes and ones involved in the whole cosmic process and the it from bit is founded on a modern day computing fairy tale. There are no quantum computers (or Turing machines) running behind the scene computing the behavior of particles, nor is the brain a computing machine or a universal Türing machine).

Quantum scientists & Cosmologists (mathematical theorists, not empirical pragmatists) are coming to the conclusion that invisible-intangible Information (mathematical ratios between 1s & 0s) is the essence of material reality. — Gnomon

I don't agree, although the ebformation thesis is interesting and has a warranted applicability if applied to the relation between brain and physical world. But when applied to the material world of particles and their interactions it assumes a hidden reality that is not present, in my humble opinion.

A computerchip crammed with usable information weight a fraction more than an empty chip, but this doesn't mean that information can be weighed.

How can you show intangibles to exists? The Intangibles might roam around in the physical universe and occasionally might even decide to tangibly show themselves to us, though the universe alone seems enough proof already.

A thing coming into existence doesn't necessarily have a cause as defined by thermodynamic time. Thermodynamic time is an emergent time, and can't yet have an existence as thermodynamic time since it's emerging. During emergence the time used in the emergence process is not thermodynamical. So you can not yet speak of a cause. Only in a larger context this can be the case. So the era before the emergence of TD time has to have a connection with a previous TD time, which signals it to start from zero again. If we realize this we can ask the question of the origin of the larger whole. And in answering that question a reference to physics is doomed to fail. Physics fails to point at a physical cause of the physical laws and the matter they guide.

Ok. Nothing to do with what I said. — Jackson

Well, you said unicorns are real and flying horses are not. But in a year this can be the other way round.

It's okay. What I mean is that what is considered real today can be the delusion of tomorrow.

So horses can fly. If Pegasus was a horse with wings, what else can we conclude? It's a thin line though between psychosis and sanity.

But Pegasus was a horse with wings.

Wasn't Pegasus one?

Just imagine heaven. All creatures and organisms that ever lived and will live in the universe in eternal pure non-physical shapes.

Pegasus airlines can.

That is what I wrote. — Jackson

But why don't flying horses exist?

Do unicorns exist? Yes. Do flying horses exist, no. — Jackson

Flying horses don't exist and unicorns do?

I've always wondered about existence and God. Theists claim God exists, but they make it a point to state that God's immaterial/nonphysical. — Agent Smith

And rightly so. Ain't heaven a purely non-material state of existence? And the cosmos a material copy?

No offense AS! I read that, according to you, we might be young chimps and now that we might be monkeys. So, monkey business.

Have you heard of the infinite monkey theorem? — Agent Smith

What's your monkey business about?

Is it about Sophie?

People would legitmately ask: are we ruled by the chosen legislator, or by the supreme court? — Tobias

And I could ask: am I ruled by some stupid rule if law allowing incasso to raise my debt by almost 1000 euro?

Well, at least you're 'literate enough' to read a calendar, lil troll. — 180 Proof

Happy International Workers' Day! :victory: — 180 Proof

It's 1 May... Not the first of April.

Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

Well, that's that's the question. To god or not to god. If you consider not being observable not to exist, then virtual particles don't exist either. Still they have observable effects. Is god a virtual macronic? Can they show up by hidden mechanisms, and if so, what would be the message they try to convey? What are they. What kind of creatures we could expect, might they show up one day? How can a life without them be worthwile? These are the questions philosophy needs to address. It will articulate the concept.

Even if she would have found for you, the juddgment would be overturned by a higher court and with reason because it would be against the law. — Tobias

Yes. The incasso woman might have taken it a level higher. And the verdict would be that the judge operated against the law. But suppose, just suppose, the highest level judges (why is it called "rechter: in Dutch?) spoke the verdict I didn't have to pay because I couldn't pay the 580 euro? True, I didn't reacted to repeated pressure of the insurance company. But suppose they said, 1000 euro extra, for doing nothing (except sending a woman to court). What then?

The legislature does — Tobias

And who made the law? Mainly the possessing class. Als de rechter linkser was (of linker) had ze aan mijn kant kunnen komen staan!

The "Enformation Thesis"?

I had to pay 580 euro. Which I didn't in time. The incasso raised the amount to 1300. I took it to the judge because I didn't agree. But, nonewithstanding my financial situation, the law is such and such. That's the way the money system works. If you don't pay in time, you have to pay almost 1000 euro extra. Dus, de rechter is niet recht maar krom. Ze is een krommer, geen rechter.

Nice trick to mirror write: take a pen in both hands. A left hand pen and a right hand pen. Write the same word with left as with tight, but in opposite directions. You will see the miracle happening.

After the gaps are closed? I don't get your question. If you close the gaps with a demonstrable answer then by definition we all have to conclude to that answer? Did I misread your question? — Nickolasgaspar

What else can we conclude? If I know the fundamental workings of the universe, how can you explain then where the fundamental came from, or why?

Haha! No, I've always said it's only the inside part of the torus. It resembles a wormhole and has negative curvature. The outside part is absent. It's cut open to make the inside part stretch to infinity. SemiTorus strikes again...

If your model predicts something with a good degree of accuracy under various different test methods then there is likely something within it worth looking at. — I like sushi

I like sushi!