The worship of an alien super advanced and super "intelligent" species (the omniscient and omnipotent gods) who have created us in their super computer. — EugeneW
Cheers mate! You hang over from last night,? :smile: — EugeneW
In the labs they even beg nature!........... — EugeneW
Our friend Dawkins want to be famous — EugeneW
Scientists are people who 'specialize' in fields of what otherwise are part of regular human existence.
— Gregory A
and your point is....... — universeness
I will let Mr Dawkins answer for himself when it comes to whether or not he covets fame.
I personally don't think he does but I haven't asked him and I haven't watched an interview where he does discuss it directly. I did watch a session where he reads out all the hate mail he gets from theists and just general individuals who don't like him. It was quite entertaining. — universeness
And again, in what ways have you witnessed this 'worship,' displayed? — universeness
personally don't think he does but I haven't asked him and I haven't watched an interview where he does discuss it directly. I did watch a session where he reads out all the hate mail he gets from theists and just general individuals who don't like him. It was quite entertaining. — universeness
It would be the nature of the syndrome not who it would be named after that matters. And Oswald's first name was Lee, not Lee-Harvey — Gregory A
Fame and infamy are assigned to or removed from an individual by 'the masses,' regardless of the wishes of the individual involved. There is no doubt that some people actively seek and covet such as fame. Some also love infamy. Many people are often attracted to being considered notorious for example and notoriety is a sibling of infamy in my opinion. Such words are far more nuanced than you suggest.And who wants to be infamous — Gregory A
Oswald thought he was doing the right thing by communist standards killing an enemy — Gregory A
What exactly do you mean by worshipping? Singing praying and bend in awe? Then no. That's not to be seen in science as they have no gods to worship. They onky have nature to beat into submission. To make up for the lack — EugeneW
Well, it's a legitimate way of dealing with his haters if you ask me. Well done Richard!I'm sure he likes that mail. So he can proof his point. — EugeneW
science as they have no gods to worshi — EugeneW
You suggested science and nature are seen by scientists as equivalent to god(s) — universeness
It was you who associated the word 'worship' with atheists and scientists, not me. — universeness
I disagree, as scientists do not apply the Omnis to science or nature and they don't worship science or nature in any way that resembles theistic worship. — universeness
Oswald thought he was doing the right thing by communist standards killing an enemy
— Gregory A
Which 'communist standard' are you referring to? The epicurean communist standard, the hippy communist standard? The communist standard of Castro or the communist standard of each person that lives in Cuba/Russia/China that you have personally met and talked politics with? Or are you just spouting political generalizations? Nixion was just a — universeness
The point is we don't need science to attach a head to a stick to make a spear, these are natural progressions, not things handed to us by scientists. — Gregory A
Humans do science, science makes discoveries, humans like discoveries, you can play with the order any way you like. You add nor subtract anything of significance by doing so.It's the other way around in fact science owes its existence to the human need for discovery. . — Gregory A
It's a cultural thing (regardless of where he was born) the/you Brits are more likely to stand up and want to be acclaimed compared to say the Americans with their modesty and respect (the legacy of a strong Christian past). — Gregory A
Well, they worship the holy science books and the holy words in science festivals. The upper priest of science gather to spread the words and to proselytize. — EugeneW
The worshipping isnt manifest. It hides in the minds of scientists and they secretly worship. It is not done to openly worship. That would be a sign of weakness. — EugeneW
By the Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions. — Gregory A
The reality is that had his plans worked he probably would have been successfully extradited from whatever country he took shelter in. — Gregory A
You boys are getting all icky together. — Joe Mello
I do not consider myself a 'Brit,' I am Scottish. The need for acclamation is not cultural or national, it is individual. I watched a series on the humble Amish and even within their community there are those who are 'more acclaimed' within the Amish community itself, compared to others in the same community and some of those more acclaimed individuals seemed to covet their influential status.
The caricature of the arrogant fame/wealth/power-seeking American is well known if not indeed exaggerated and conflated as all caricatures of nationality, normally are. — universeness
I don't hear scientists call any science book 'holy,' they prove this by constantly challenging and reviewing their contents — universeness
By the Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions.
— Gregory A
Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed.
The reality is that had his plans worked he probably would have been successfully extradited from whatever country he took shelter in.
— Gregory A
Jack Ruby saved everyone the bother so what does it matter? — universeness
This just comes from your own musings EugeneW. This is an example of the kind of typing from you that I DO think is based on your bitterness towards the current influential Cosmologists not responding to you with the consideration you feel you deserve. The DIMP guy and the Klien Bottle/Mobius guy felt the exact same way as you do minus your wink towards theism — universeness
Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed. — universeness
This just comes from your own musings EugeneW — universeness
By the Cold War communist standards at the time. Oswald would have needed to believe he was doing something good and would become famous because of his actions.
— Gregory A
Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed. — universeness
An American thinks nothing of attention as they have everything they need — Gregory A
That's part of the doctrine. But what about the dogma of molecular biology — EugeneW
That's you projecting on me. Do you really think I care for some cosmologists not responding? I pity them arrogant bastard! Safely in their self erected towers of scientific ivory. I dont even try anymore to reach out (I asked a question on the podcast. No reply. Why not? Because I know things they dont and they are afraid of the unknown. Ooookhhh. Someone going against established order. They cant have someone knowing it better. But they cant prevent me thinking my thoughts. And I just know what the cosmos looks like on the fundamental level, unlike them, in their oh so important search for quantum gravity, or whatever silly approach. Like string theory. Nice theory but totally besides the truth. A fancy full fairytale. And they are content. So let them be happy. Let them wallow in their self-assigned importance and people watching in awe as if they are the possessors of some deep unknown truth knowable to the chosen ones, the lucky few only. There's your worshipping. It's the scientists that are worshipped... — EugeneW
Many political assassinations are not actually politically motivated. Instead done by people wanting a place in history. — Gregory A
An Ellipsis is ALWAYS a set of three dots.
After a period at the end of a sentence, an ellipsis is part of a set of four dots, but still three dots. — Joe Mello
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.