Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to the
big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy it at
Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter. There
are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. In the entire history of our species we have
found exactly zero credible evidence of any supernatural being who
created the universe. Moreover, the more we learn about the
universe the less necessary we find any such creator.

We're like ants exploring the kitchen. At this point in our
unsupervised brain evolution we know ZERO about what it is we're
exploring, and worse, unable to understand the picture even after
collecting the facts. Appealing to looking and not finding is quite
naive.

Utter, utter bull****. We know a lot about the universe and we learn more
every day. We are not the ignorant peons you would have us be, who need
religion to explain things because there's no alternative.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

to build comprehensive ethical systems.

What makes you obey rules of such a system?

Lyle
Depends.
/Lyle

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Seth Breidbart wrote in message

In article ,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Christ lives.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Really? What's his pulse rate?

Or does a "cardiologist" have a really strange meaning for "lives"?

Makes you worry, eh?

"Doctor! Doctor! His heart's not beating! He's dead!"

"No, he's alive."

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:21:32 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:

[...]

to build comprehensive ethical systems.

What makes you obey rules of such a system?

Lyle
Depends.
/Lyle

Profound; deliciously profound! ;o)

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:36 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to the
big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy it at
Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter. There
are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

This is obvious since none of the alleged 'great thinkers' were acting
collectively or in unison, or indeed had a valid thought in their
revered heads, or were members of a professional association that was
self-regulating.

Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations, thus making them ineligible for induction into
any reputable organisation requiring honesty and integrity - unless of
course earnest endeavour is a suitable qualification.

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:36 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to
the big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy
it at Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter.
There are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

This is obvious since none of the alleged 'great thinkers' were acting
collectively or in unison, or indeed had a valid thought in their
revered heads, or were members of a professional association that was
self-regulating.

I don't know what you're getting at there. My beef is with the idea that if
you don't have an explanation for something it's OK to make up a deity out
of thin air and carry on as if it were real.

Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward. That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:58:26 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote in message

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:36 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to
the big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy
it at Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter.
There are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

I think that philsophy entirely lacks integrity.

This is obvious since none of the alleged 'great thinkers' were acting
collectively or in unison, or indeed had a valid thought in their
revered heads, or were members of a professional association that was
self-regulating.

I don't know what you're getting at there. My beef is with the idea that if
you don't have an explanation for something it's OK to make up a deity out
of thin air and carry on as if it were real.

What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

That we deify the 'learned outpourings' of these demented 'sages', is
but a measure of our own insecurities.


Proof, if it were required, is that we are no wiser for all their
profound deliberations,

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward. That
we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers. Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!

John HUDSON wrote in message


[...]

What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

I didn't say *all* philosophies lacked integrity, I referred to the specific
philosophy espouse by DZ in the post to which I replied.

[...]

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward.
That we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have
made.

Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

I don't believe that for a moment. We have made progress, we do know more
than we did and we have every reason to believe we'll keep learning.

Stop asking the questions, there are no answers.

Bul****. There are answers. We know because we've found lots of them and
we have every reson to believe we'l find more.

Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

Not everything is possible and even if there's no Truth there are still
truthes.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!

It helps to be a fool.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:33:54 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

John HUDSON wrote in message


[...]

What I'm getting at is that philosophy doesn't require contemporary
concepts of integrity to validate it. In its most simplistic form
philosophy is but the collection of haphazard, if well-intentioned,
unverifiable answers to profound questions that are unanswerable.

I didn't say *all* philosophies lacked integrity, I referred to the specific
philosophy espouse by DZ in the post to which I replied.

My apologies for the generalisation.


[...]

Dead-ends are as useful in philosophy as paths that move us forward.
That we don't know everything does not deny the progress we have
made.

Enlighten in one area that which defines why we are here, and where we
are going when we 'once again' are not here?


Our thirst for knowledge is unquenchable; our journey on the path of
self-delusion is well-defined. We are no nearer the truth, if there is
such a thing, than we were when we set out on our journey of
discovery.

I don't believe that for a moment. We have made progress, we do know more
than we did and we have every reason to believe we'll keep learning.

That which we know is tangible, which is a relatively simple concept.
It is the intangible that is the mystery that besets us all.


Stop asking the questions, there are no answers.

Bul****. There are answers. We know because we've found lots of them and
we have every reson to believe we'l find more.

That is almost in unison with the established religions! We know
nothing other than that which we can see, touch or smell! ;o)


Which means that
anything is possible and that only a charlatan would claim to know the
'truth'!!

Not everything is possible and even if there's no Truth there are still
truthes.

The "truthes" are those which we have established from our
'discoveries' by sight, touch and smell! They explain nothing about
the profundity of our existence.


"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - I envy those that have a
profound and unshakeable belief!

It helps to be a fool.

Oh that I were such a fool and dwelt in the land of the permanently
sedated!