Discussion:
Is atheism real?
Add Reply
JTEM
2017-03-05 19:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Here. Science studying God, renamed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

This is nothing less than "Science" proposing
God, proposing creation -- proposing that an
intelligence existing outside of & beyond our
reality created the universe and everything in
it.

That's it, just cross out "God" and write
"Programmer" -- that's all it takes to
quiet your emotional spasms.

...that's all it takes to prove that the
problem all along has been you, not "God."

We leaped from "Ridiculous Fantasy" to "Real
Science" but doing nothing more than changing
a single word -- replacing "God" with "Programmer."

THAT'S how intellectually destitute you are. THAT'S
how thoroughly your emotions rule you.

And, yeah, THAT'S funny!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/DNA/page/3
default
2017-03-05 21:10:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Here. Science studying God, renamed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
This is nothing less than "Science" proposing
God, proposing creation -- proposing that an
intelligence existing outside of & beyond our
reality created the universe and everything in
it.
A scientist entertains a flight of fancy, writes about it, and it is
Science talking about god?

That's too big a stretch even for you.

The beauty of it is you can't prove his claim is any more or less
valid than claims about god, can you?

I suppose you read a novel and accept every word as literal truth.
JTEM
2017-03-05 21:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why I keep saying that the collective is
mentally ill...
Post by default
A scientist entertains a flight of fancy, writes about it, and it is
Science talking about god?
#1.
It's not a "Flight of fancy." You made that up! It's
an injection of your emotions. Didn't you know that?
Did it really escape you that "Flight of fancy" was
coming from YOU, your FEELINGS and not the theory?

#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.

#3.
It is science. Again, nothing more than your FEELINGS
are evident here. A scientists makes a valid proposition
and because of your emotional discomfort you have to
marginalize him like this...

Outside the collective, to an open minded person who
not only is aware of Google but is curious enough to
sometimes use it, how do you think you're coming
across?

You just placed your FEELINGS on parade you, you just
unleashed your emotions thinking that you had formed
an "Argument."

Consider these words.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/DNA/page/3
default
2017-03-06 16:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Why I keep saying that the collective is
mentally ill...
Post by default
A scientist entertains a flight of fancy, writes about it, and it is
Science talking about god?
#1.
It's not a "Flight of fancy." You made that up! It's
an injection of your emotions. Didn't you know that?
Did it really escape you that "Flight of fancy" was
coming from YOU, your FEELINGS and not the theory?
Science is not about emotion. Emotion in science is a weakness.
Post by JTEM
#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.
I doubt "many" subscribe to the idea that we are someone's computer
simulation. Anyone that buys into that, is playing way too many
computer games and needs to get a real life.
Post by JTEM
#3.
It is science. Again, nothing more than your FEELINGS
are evident here. A scientists makes a valid proposition
and because of your emotional discomfort you have to
marginalize him like this...
VALID PROPOSITION? No more valid than the flying spaghetti monster
and that's another god produced only to show how ridiculous it is to
accept things without proof.
Post by JTEM
Outside the collective, to an open minded person who
not only is aware of Google but is curious enough to
sometimes use it, how do you think you're coming
across?
You just placed your FEELINGS on parade you, you just
unleashed your emotions thinking that you had formed
an "Argument."
No. That's just a obtrusive attempt to manipulate me. You lose.
JTEM
2017-03-07 04:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Post by default
A scientist entertains a flight of fancy, writes about it, and it is
Science talking about god?
#1.
It's not a "Flight of fancy." You made that up! It's
an injection of your emotions. Didn't you know that?
Did it really escape you that "Flight of fancy" was
coming from YOU, your FEELINGS and not the theory?
Science is not about emotion. Emotion in science is a weakness.
Which condemns you further.

There is no doubt here: You reacted emotionally. You
injected your feelings. "Flight of fancy" is nothing
more, nothing less than your emotions on parade.
Post by default
Post by JTEM
#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.
I doubt "many" subscribe to the idea that we are someone's computer
simulation.
I agree. And so what? Who cares? The number that
subscribe to an idea does not alter the validity
of the idea.

...personally I have one whopping huge problem
with the theory that almost nobody voices, but my
complaint does not alter the fact that legitimate
men of science do consider it valid, some even
testable.
Post by default
Anyone that buys into that, is playing way too many
computer games and needs to get a real life.
Wrong.

You've arrived at the right conclusion by way of the
wrong thinking.
Post by default
Post by JTEM
#3.
It is science. Again, nothing more than your FEELINGS
are evident here. A scientists makes a valid proposition
and because of your emotional discomfort you have to
marginalize him like this...
VALID PROPOSITION?
Yes.
Post by default
No more valid than the flying spaghetti monster
and that's another god produced only to show how ridiculous it is to
accept things without proof.
Again, this is nothing more than your feelings on
display. Not a word of it is true. They're true to
your emotions, yes, but not the theory or the
circumstances surrounding it...
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Outside the collective, to an open minded person who
not only is aware of Google but is curious enough to
sometimes use it, how do you think you're coming
across?
You just placed your FEELINGS on parade you, you just
unleashed your emotions thinking that you had formed
an "Argument."
No. That's just a obtrusive attempt to manipulate me.
It's already too easy to manipulate you emotional
types. Well, at least as far as provoking your
emotions goes.

...the hard part is to get you to stop acting
out, stop reacting and start thinking.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/158094599898
default
2017-03-07 14:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Post by default
A scientist entertains a flight of fancy, writes about it, and it is
Science talking about god?
#1.
It's not a "Flight of fancy." You made that up! It's
an injection of your emotions. Didn't you know that?
Did it really escape you that "Flight of fancy" was
coming from YOU, your FEELINGS and not the theory?
Science is not about emotion. Emotion in science is a weakness.
Which condemns you further.
There is no doubt here: You reacted emotionally. You
injected your feelings. "Flight of fancy" is nothing
more, nothing less than your emotions on parade.
Wow, you really think you can manipulate me. What an out of touch
loser you are.

To manipulate someone successfully you have to think like they do,
then interject ideas that make them think it was their idea from the
start.

Castigation doesn't work. Presumably the idea there is to put someone
on the defensive and cause them to question their own motives. If
that's going to work, you'd have to be much more humble, since your
self-aggrandizing postings only make you vulnerable to criticism and
ridicule yourself. No one takes you seriously. (no one with half a
brain anyway)
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Post by JTEM
#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.
I doubt "many" subscribe to the idea that we are someone's computer
simulation.
I agree. And so what? Who cares? The number that
subscribe to an idea does not alter the validity
of the idea.
It doesn't determine viability of an idea, but it does or may predict
probability.

Don't use the fact that many people are religious in an argument -
half the time being non-religious was punishable by death or
ostracization from society throughout history.

We are only now recovering from this - yet some people still insist
religion has a historical factual basis.
Post by JTEM
...personally I have one whopping huge problem
with the theory that almost nobody voices, but my
complaint does not alter the fact that legitimate
men of science do consider it valid, some even
testable.
Testable that we are a computer simulation? Do tell, how could that
be tested?
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Anyone that buys into that, is playing way too many
computer games and needs to get a real life.
Wrong.
You've arrived at the right conclusion by way of the
wrong thinking.
Post by default
Post by JTEM
#3.
It is science. Again, nothing more than your FEELINGS
are evident here. A scientists makes a valid proposition
and because of your emotional discomfort you have to
marginalize him like this...
VALID PROPOSITION?
Yes.
Post by default
No more valid than the flying spaghetti monster
and that's another god produced only to show how ridiculous it is to
accept things without proof.
Again, this is nothing more than your feelings on
display. Not a word of it is true. They're true to
your emotions, yes, but not the theory or the
circumstances surrounding it...
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Outside the collective, to an open minded person who
not only is aware of Google but is curious enough to
sometimes use it, how do you think you're coming
across?
You just placed your FEELINGS on parade you, you just
unleashed your emotions thinking that you had formed
an "Argument."
No. That's just a obtrusive attempt to manipulate me.
It's already too easy to manipulate you emotional
types. Well, at least as far as provoking your
emotions goes.
You just proved my point that your only payoff is to think you can
manipulate others. That is part of your narcissism, and that is never
a laudable trait IMO.
Post by JTEM
...the hard part is to get you to stop acting
out, stop reacting and start thinking.
JTEM, the world does not revolve around you (or me) you need to start
thinking logically and leave your emotions where they are most useful:
enjoying life.

Without emotion I couldn't appreciate life and that would be
depressing, but when it comes to engineering design, emotion is a
liability most of the time (only aids in driving me to do a good job)
JTEM
2017-03-07 19:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Which condemns you further.
There is no doubt here: You reacted emotionally. You
injected your feelings. "Flight of fancy" is nothing
more, nothing less than your emotions on parade.
Wow, you really think you can manipulate me. What an
Are you mental, or what?

Go back to the initial post. Try to find the words
"flight of fancy." You won't. They're not there. I
never used them. I never described anything that way
in this thread. And the article I cited didn't either.

NOBODY described it as a "flight of fancy."

It was you. It was 100% you. YOUR feeling, YOUR
reaction.

This is not a matter for debate here. YOU injected
YOUR emotions into this discussion believing them
to amount to some kind of an "Argument."
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Post by JTEM
#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.
I doubt "many" subscribe to the idea that we are someone's computer
simulation.
I agree. And so what? Who cares? The number that
subscribe to an idea does not alter the validity
of the idea.
It doesn't determine viability of an idea, but it does or may predict
probability.
No it doesn't. It can't. Look at you, for example!
You blasted away emotionally at the topic, quite
unambiguously I may add, and claim to be unaware of
your own actions!

You think you're alone? LOOK AROUND! You're the
epitome of usenet -- OF THE INTERNET!

The "Simulated Universe" theory is AT LEAST as
valid, AT LEAST as testable as SETI.

If you can manage to keep your emotions in check
you could figure out why...


HINT: No matter how long you search for aliens,
not finding them doesn't prove they don't exist.
But if you find one, it proves that they do exist!






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/30289826006
default
2017-03-08 01:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Which condemns you further.
There is no doubt here: You reacted emotionally. You
injected your feelings. "Flight of fancy" is nothing
more, nothing less than your emotions on parade.
Wow, you really think you can manipulate me. What an
Are you mental, or what?
Go back to the initial post. Try to find the words
"flight of fancy." You won't. They're not there. I
never used them. I never described anything that way
in this thread. And the article I cited didn't either.
NOBODY described it as a "flight of fancy."
It was you. It was 100% you. YOUR feeling, YOUR
reaction.
Not feeling; I'm just using the phrase just like it was intended

flight of fancy. An unrealistic idea or fantastic notion, a pipe
dream. For example, She engaged in flights of fancy, such as owning a
million-dollar house. This idiom uses flight in the sense of “a
soaring of the imagination,” a usage dating from the mid-1600s.

Living in a computer program is exactly that - a flight of fancy.
Post by JTEM
This is not a matter for debate here. YOU injected
YOUR emotions into this discussion believing them
to amount to some kind of an "Argument."
You are wrong.
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Post by default
Post by JTEM
#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.
I doubt "many" subscribe to the idea that we are someone's computer
simulation.
I agree. And so what? Who cares? The number that
subscribe to an idea does not alter the validity
of the idea.
It doesn't determine viability of an idea, but it does or may predict
probability.
No it doesn't. It can't. Look at you, for example!
You blasted away emotionally at the topic, quite
unambiguously I may add, and claim to be unaware of
your own actions!
Now you are frothing at the mouth.
Post by JTEM
You think you're alone? LOOK AROUND! You're the
epitome of usenet -- OF THE INTERNET!
The "Simulated Universe" theory is AT LEAST as
valid, AT LEAST as testable as SETI.
If you can manage to keep your emotions in check
you could figure out why...
HINT: No matter how long you search for aliens,
not finding them doesn't prove they don't exist.
But if you find one, it proves that they do exist!
I agree. No argument. Gods may exist. I can't prove they don't; I'm
just going to require some unassailable evidence before I start bowing
and genuflecting. Scripture is not evidence.
JTEM
2017-03-08 07:27:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Not feeling; I'm just using the phrase just like it was intended
It's your feelings. Nothing in the cited story
suggests a "flight of fancy." It's you. It's
all coming directly from you. Your feelings. Your
emotions.

...and the fact that it's invisible to you, as
obvious as your emotions are here, goes to demonstrate
the problem. Which is to say, the collective doesn't
think, it lashes out emotionally. Atheism is a belief.
It's an feeling.
Post by default
Post by JTEM
This is not a matter for debate here. YOU injected
YOUR emotions into this discussion believing them
to amount to some kind of an "Argument."
You are wrong.
Go on. Quote the cited article. Justify your "Flight
of fancy."

This is what empiricism is, after all. You claim that
you can't see your over-the-top emotionalism, so just
go ahead and make your case. Quote what exactly is
telling you "Flight of fancy."
Post by default
Now you are frothing at the mouth.
you don't even know yourself. Your own feelings are
a mystery to you. And you can't see how this "Simulated
Universe" theory is every bit as scientifically valid
as SETI.

All because you don't like it.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/158120218463
default
2017-03-08 13:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Go on. Quote the cited article. Justify your "Flight
of fancy."
your Google is broken or you don't know how to use it?
JTEM
2017-03-09 22:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by JTEM
Go on. Quote the cited article. Justify your "Flight
of fancy."
your Google is broken or you don't know how to use it?
What am I Googling? YOU introduced the words where they
were never found. I didn't say them. NOBODY in the cited
argument so much as hinted that it was a "Flight of
Fancy." It was YOU.

YOU introduced your emotions here. YOU did.

And you're doing it now, running from what you did instead
of defending it or even admitting it.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/158171212503

h***@gmail.com
2017-03-08 07:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Why I keep saying that the collective is
mentally ill...
Post by default
A scientist entertains a flight of fancy, writes about it, and it is
Science talking about god?
#1.
It's not a "Flight of fancy." You made that up! It's
an injection of your emotions. Didn't you know that?
Did it really escape you that "Flight of fancy" was
coming from YOU, your FEELINGS and not the theory?
He has no flight of fancy like you.
Post by JTEM
#2.
It's a legitimate proposition. Many subscribe to it.
Some claim it can be tested and falsified -- very much
the OPPOSITE of the "abiogenesis" which you do believe
in.
Some are not the sensible ones. Their claim have no basis whatsoever.
Post by JTEM
#3.
It is science. Again, nothing more than your FEELINGS
are evident here. A scientists makes a valid proposition
and because of your emotional discomfort you have to
marginalize him like this...
A rational scientist would never make such a false proposition if he wants to work further in science.
Post by JTEM
Outside the collective, to an open minded person who
not only is aware of Google but is curious enough to
sometimes use it, how do you think you're coming
across?
You just placed your FEELINGS on parade you, you just
unleashed your emotions thinking that you had formed
an "Argument."
Consider these words.
You have nothing but your own fantasy. Pinning your own nonsense on science or scientists makes you a moron.
Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/DNA/page/3
Mynews
2017-03-06 09:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes "JTEM" It It!

I Need No Science study
On God, Renamed
Just cross out write
"Programmer" "Commander"

It's Nothing Unto Me

That Why I Believe
In The Son Of Nothing
Is not God
Davej
2017-03-07 19:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Here. Science studying God, renamed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
This is nothing less than "Science" proposing
God, proposing creation -- proposing that an
intelligence existing outside of & beyond our
reality created the universe and everything in
it.
I agree that it is outlandish, but it is different
from proposing that GAWD exists simply because we
don't understand something.
JTEM
2017-03-07 20:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
I agree that it is outlandish, but it is different
from proposing that GAWD exists simply because we
don't understand something.
Of course it's different, and I don't agree with it
any more than you do -- I probably have BIGGER
objections -- but that was never my point.

My point is bad arguments.

"Science says, SO NO GOD!"

Well it's valid to claim the opposite. As this
example proves, a rational person can rationally
argue that God is a scientifically valid proposition.

...just under a different name.

So, "BECAUSE SCIENCE" is not an argument. It's never
been an argument. But, this example illustrates the
point and, hopefully, highlights the needs for more
and better arguments.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/158044085876
Loading...