Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
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!


If you are saying that it is futile to try to make sense or explain the
'inconceivable', then possibly that has something to say about who is doing
the 'conceiving'. i.e. during most of our existence we could not conceive
that it was possible to go to the moon.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:42:46 GMT, DZ wrote:

John HUDSON wrote:
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.

Our brains are most well designed for hiding from lions and fooling
other monkeys into thinking they're not simply giving up their
food. As byproduct of adaptation to life in the woods we developed
limited ability to think abstractly and speculate about the laws of
physics. Why would there be anything more profound than that?

Because it is in human nature to impress and to make ourselves appear
more clever than we really are. The denizens of MFW do it all the
time! ;o)


DZ

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!

Wheel discovery department

Wheely?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:01:44 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
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!


If you are saying that it is futile to try to make sense or explain the
'inconceivable', then possibly that has something to say about who is doing
the 'conceiving'. i.e. during most of our existence we could not conceive
that it was possible to go to the moon.

H G Wells and others like him had us thrilled of all manner of things
that excited the imagination. They were futuristic ideas but not
beyond the bounds of possibility or expectation.

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:01:44 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
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!


If you are saying that it is futile to try to make sense or explain the
'inconceivable', then possibly that has something to say about who is
doing
the 'conceiving'. i.e. during most of our existence we could not conceive
that it was possible to go to the moon.

H G Wells and others like him had us thrilled of all manner of things
that excited the imagination. They were futuristic ideas but not
beyond the bounds of possibility or expectation.


yes we need the visionarys - then the scientists work at making it happen

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in
s.com:

Not only do we know what it is but we know how to induce it in the
laboratory (along with "alien abductions").

To conflate those two phenomena is to conflate left-wing ideology with
sanity.


I'm sorry, I just gotta ask--what on earth do alien abductions have to do
with left-wing ideology?

dogsbody

"DRS" wrote in news:bm9gaa$7fj$1
@lust.ihug.co.nz:

You're welcome to try to refute it. Many try... none successfully.

LOL! You're a riot! Biblical scholars don't believe your kind of
simple-minded loony understanding of the Bible, why should anyone else with
a brain? Your rubbish has been refuted so often it's a joke.


"Biblical scholars" are full of ****. Have you *read* that stuff? A deeper
morass of invention and circular reasoning I have never seen.

dogsbody

DRS wrote:
If you want me to believe that X exists you have to show me in
credible, reliable, *repeatable* ways.

What does it mean "to exist"? For example, does it make sense to ask
"what happened before the big bang"? Physicists say "nothing",
admitting that our way of reasoning involves the notion of linear
time. We're simply not capable of comprehending the complexity of
reality from the facts we collect. Some don't need religion and find
other ways to keep pieces of the brain in sync. But this has nothing
to do with how much we've learned about the world. Science is not
concerned with the question of "existence" of God and the fact that
there're many religious prominent scientists is a reflection of this.

For some, the scientific process itself is religious, and perhaps
you've seen what Einstein had to say about this.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department

DZ wrote in message

DRS wrote:
If you want me to believe that X exists you have to show me in
credible, reliable, *repeatable* ways.

What does it mean "to exist"? For example, does it make sense to ask
"what happened before the big bang"?

Yes, it does make sense to ask which is why the brightest and best in
cosmology and physics do ask it. If we have to invent new ways of
expressing the answer then so be it.

Physicists say "nothing",
admitting that our way of reasoning involves the notion of linear
time. We're simply not capable of comprehending the complexity of
reality from the facts we collect.

What's this "we", white man? You speak for yourself. People like Hawking
already conceive of things which would obviously blow your mind. I know I
have to work *really* hard to follow a lot of what he says and he's got some
amazing ideas.

Some don't need religion and find
other ways to keep pieces of the brain in sync. But this has nothing
to do with how much we've learned about the world. Science is not
concerned with the question of "existence" of God and the fact that
there're many religious prominent scientists is a reflection of this.

Rubbish. Science is concerned about everything which is. The problem is
we've never found a shred of evidence for God and lots against.

For some, the scientific process itself is religious, and perhaps
you've seen what Einstein had to say about this.

As a philosopher Einstein was a great physicist.

--

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

In misc.fitness.weights DRS wrote:
DZ wrote
Physicists say "nothing", admitting that our way of reasoning
involves the notion of linear time. We're simply not capable of
comprehending the complexity of reality from the facts we collect.

What's this "we", white man? You speak for yourself. People like
Hawking already conceive of things which would obviously blow your
mind. I know I have to work *really* hard to follow a lot of what
he says and he's got some amazing ideas.

The fact that some of Homo sapiens (that's what I mean by "we") are
more intelligent is of no consequence.

You bring in Hawking, yet Hawking himself repeatedly denied being an
atheist. He said, for example, "I thought I had left the question of
the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. It would be
perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being
who was responsible for all the laws of physics".

DZ

"DRS" wrote in message
...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message

Seth Breidbart wrote:

[...]

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

You are welcome to visit me for a confirmation on whether or not you
are alive or dead.

Anyone who thinks Christ is alive is clearly unqualified to make that
determination.

Anyone as unqualified as you is determined to be anyone except Christ (or
anyone else that had a consciousness without an object/subject
"experience").

Your psychosis extends to denial of realities that you cannot grasp Mr.
Reality.

And you say you understand Hawking?!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot even answer a few simple questions about certain topis in science
that test your ability to perceive and understand "Reality".