Greek Gods

Originally posted by Digi
Oh, we already know you think that. Remember when you went full super-villain on page 1? Let's remind our home listeners:

And good thing it does hold me down.

You're essentially writing a what-if novel here. Hey, it could possibly be proven that ice cream cones are sentient aliens slowly being absorbed into our bodies to make us transcendent beings!

That has literally the same level of evidential credence as your ideas. Possible vs. plausible. You fail to grok the difference.

I'd imagine there are scientists out there who are religious. I'm going into detail with my belief in why there's human suffering and the possibility of one minimizing it greatly by letting certain things sink in. Like the name of a school and its programs offered, dropped randomly in a conversation, and how it suits your goals perfectly. Who's to say that isn't providence? Throughout human history people have always practiced spirituality, yet there's no scientific method for proving or disproving spirituality entirely. Yet science builds a bigger picture and perhaps it might get us there someday but for now, I hold to it in that I'm blind without a guide. I've been able to put myself to a fuller use because of my guide. I've avoided a lot of heart-ache because of my guide.

We never have a complete picture of our future, yet we have a set of goals, and what we do to get there further paints that picture. What I'm getting at is letting certain events, phenomena and thoughts of others - specifically those that are coincidental - sink in has subjectively brought me changes, completely redirecting the course I was on, so much so that I believe the life I was trying to take may as well have been a blind man's. Was that fight I witnessed put there for a reason? How did I find my friend in a parade with 60,000 people so quickly having nothing to go off of? Was I meant to be there that day?

That is me questioning the notion that we are on our own subjectively, without doing science yes but I can remain dubiously skeptical, can I not?

But are they equally unlikely?

Between a super being just wanting us to be happy and the postulated influence of our collective potential on the world around us merely to the extent of pushing the individuals that compose this collective toward the right path, I mean. I'm speaking of a natural system exclusive to life, more precisely self-aware lifeforms intelligent enough to discern such phenomena. We don't know that much about how the systems in nature operate, we are very limited on what we can see.

To me, that would seem more likely based on the observations I've made on how we treat animals or insects that don't really concern us. We don't help an ant-hive flourish. We have pets, but we aren't necessarily concerned with getting our dog a mate and having it reproduce because pets are not in their natural environment, humanity is at this point in time.

Now does that make sense to you?

Honestly I'm afraid to be "dubiously skeptical". This notion of being on my own is absolutely mortifying. If I didn't have spirituality at this point I would attempt to commit suicide immediately.

But not only is this "sign-following" harmless and the notion of spiritual guidance comforting, but it's never not worked.

I'll use science to help me understand how things work, to learn, to develop, to improve things, to understand the cogs in play, and to influence some of my decisions but what something happens to me there's meaning in it. It is spirituality in its most undefined, unknown, form - the mechanisms that work it I don't understand and I have no method to understand them, but I follow its message.

You're all over the ----ing place. You need to spend some time describing your thoughts coherently. It will be much better time spent than another diatribe on your beliefs that hits a dozen unrelated points in the span of a paragraph.

You've seen my criticisms, and either ignored them or insufficiently addressed them. So with this latest batch of word soup, I think I'm checking out. Best of luck becoming god of reality and subjecting us all to your will...

Originally posted by Oneness
My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course.

🙄

Originally posted by Digi
word soup

Barring subjective because I used it correctly.

I'm addressing all of your points, just not very smoothly atm.

I wasn't expecting to be taken too seriously to begin with because I tend to come on here and let out what I'm thinking in threads like this from time to time.

You're erroneous to claim that I'm disregarding everything empirical in life for some self-invented "new-age" religious belief or whatever.

I know that I haven't accurately painted you the picture of what I'm thinking, because I'm having trouble being articulate as of late.

So really:

I wasn't expecting to be taken too seriously to begin with because I tend to come on here and let out what I'm thinking in threads like this from time to time.

I know that I haven't accurately painted you the picture of what I truly believe, because I'm having trouble being articulate as of late.

That's all I intended to convey in the previous post.

Ok, word soup? I'll bite. Let's just take one of those posts.

Originally posted by Oneness
But are they equally unlikely?

Starting with a non sequitur. Never a good sign.

Originally posted by Oneness
Between a super being just wanting us to be happy and the postulated influence of our collective potential on the world around us merely to the extent of pushing the individuals that compose this collective toward the right path, I mean.

"Postulated influence of our collective potential..." Already we're off to a possibly incomprehensible phrase. But this postulated collective potential on the world is "pushing the individuals that compose this collective toward the right path..."

So...a postulated influence of potential is pushing a collective toward a path. I'm pretty sure I could stop right there. Technically, it makes grammatical sense (probably?) but it's already straining my brain. But we're not done...

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm speaking of a natural system exclusive to life...

Wait, are we still on the postulated influence, or is this a new divergent point? Let's see if you clarify...

Originally posted by Oneness
...more precisely self-aware lifeforms intelligent enough to discern such phenomena. We don't know that much about how the systems in nature operate, we are very limited on what we can see.

Self aware lifeforms. So, humans? But in the next sentence, you talk about systems in nature and not understanding how they operate. So are the self-aware beings humans or the "systems in nature" of the next sentence? And how does this relate back to the postulated influence of the last paragraph. Are they two separate thoughts?

Originally posted by Oneness
To me, that would seem more likely based on the observations I've made on how we treat animals or insects that don't really concern us. We don't help an ant-hive flourish. We have pets, but we aren't necessarily concerned with getting our dog a mate and having it reproduce because pets are not in their natural environment, humanity is at this point in time.

And now we're talking about animal treatment. Are these the systems in nature? Presumably. But this also never materializes into a point. Pets aren't in their natural environment...but we are? What point does that make? How does this relate back to the earlier paragraphs on collective influence and/or God?

Originally posted by Oneness
Now does that make sense to you?

In a word, no. I used to have to grade hundreds of English papers on a monthly basis for a living when I was a teacher. I can't begin to tell you what I'd say in response to something like this. Oh wait, I just did.

And let's be clear: This doesn't even get into the validity of the content. This is your thought construction only. A full rebuttal to this would have to attempt to disambiguate the above confusion. But I'm limiting myself to your writing here.

...

You're right, of course. I'm being something of a tool. But it's not without reason.
1. You're barely making sense, at best, and jumping between topics in indecipherable ways.
2. You're on an internet forum, which means you're willingly subjecting yourself to rebuttals and/or criticism. If you're not willing to take some heat, you shouldn't be here. I'm not making ad hominem attacks. I'm sure you're a decent guy. I'm just saying your arguments are sh*t. The latter is acceptable. I just don't pull my punches when I think something's BS.
3. You haven't addressed many of the criticisms directly, instead opting to reassert your views in ways that don't even disambiguate earlier statements.
4. Oh, and you'd like to be the sole inheritor of reality shaping powers, and would use them to bend us in worship of you. So excuse me if I don't give you the moral benefit of the doubt. You'd do well in a comic universe. But fortunately for the rest of us unenlightened plebeians, we're in a universe we're you're simply wrong and won't get your chance at godhood.

The One makes some interesting points for his argument as does Digi.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd encourage you to watch the new Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson.

He's no Carl.* But with his authentic, boyish enthusiasm, Neil is, fer shurr, the worthy successor. And while I also miss Vangelis' musical score, the special effects and updated material certainly make up for it.

*I am biased. The original Cosmos was like a religious experience for me.

Originally posted by Mindship
*I am biased. The original Cosmos was like a religious experience for me.

👆 Me too.

I took the telecourse my first year of college.

Originally posted by Oneness
So really:

I wasn't expecting to be taken too seriously to begin with because I tend to come on here and let out what I'm thinking in threads like this from time to time.

I know that I haven't accurately painted you the picture of what I truly believe, because I'm having trouble being articulate as of late.

That's all I intended to convey in the previous post.

I enjoyed your posts regardless.

Originally posted by Mindship
👆

He's no Carl.* But with his authentic, boyish enthusiasm, Neil is, fer shurr, the worthy successor. And while I also miss Vangelis' musical score, the special effects and updated material certainly make up for it.

*I am biased. The original Cosmos was like a religious experience for me.

I'm only passingly familiar with the Sagan version.

Honestly, the audience is people who don't really know science. I feel like, even as a layman, I've had enough of an interest in scientific findings that a lot of the information won't be new to me. Some will, of course. But I can't personally be excited, even though I'm ecstatic that it's happening with NDT, and on a major network. Maybe subsequent episodes will go further into realms I'm unfamiliar with; I'm hoping the early stuff was just the primer.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm only passingly familiar with the Sagan version.

Honestly, the audience is people who don't really know science. I feel like, even as a layman, I've had enough of an interest in scientific findings that a lot of the information won't be new to me. Some will, of course. But I can't personally be excited, even though I'm ecstatic that it's happening with NDT, and on a major network. Maybe subsequent episodes will go further into realms I'm unfamiliar with; I'm hoping the early stuff was just the primer.

Agreed with this. The first episode had almost no new information for me, but I still enjoyed it's entertainment value.

I have had this issue with Oneness before, and I too disected one of his statements. The problem is they are words (some of them sure impressive), arranged in grammatical order, but they don't convey a message. They are empty.

So when Time Immemorials says

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The One makes some interesting points for his argument as does Digi.

that is not true. Because there were no points made in One's posts.

However, Oneness says he is working on his communication skills, so perhaps that will change in the future.

I just instinctively assumed Time Immemorial was Oneness' sock. Why else would anyone who actually read his posts say that?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm only passingly familiar with the Sagan version.

Honestly, the audience is people who don't really know science. I feel like, even as a layman, I've had enough of an interest in scientific findings that a lot of the information won't be new to me. Some will, of course. But I can't personally be excited, even though I'm ecstatic that it's happening with NDT, and on a major network. Maybe subsequent episodes will go further into realms I'm unfamiliar with; I'm hoping the early stuff was just the primer.

And of course, there's always the special FX. I could virtually watch any science program with great effects over and over again, especially if I prepare ( 😮‍💨 ) beforehand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have had this issue with Oneness before, and I too disected one of his statements. The problem is they are words (some of them sure impressive), arranged in grammatical order, but they don't convey a message. They are empty.

So when Time Immemorials says

that is not true. Because there were no points made in One's posts.

However, Oneness says he is working on his communication skills, so perhaps that will change in the future.

I try not to take sides in discussion like that and muddy the water. I think they both have an interesting debate going on.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I just instinctively assumed Time Immemorial was Oneness' sock. Why else would anyone who actually read his posts say that?

Completely different writing styles.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I try not to take sides in discussion like that and muddy the water. I think they both have an interesting debate going on.

Being peacekeeper is fine, I can respect it. But there's a reasonable line to be drawn. What if one side was espousing the ethnic cleansing of the Jews? Is playing peacekeeper the best option? Obviously that's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point: that the line exists somewhere. It's just a matter of where you draw it. Do you dutifully pat someone on the back who's being biased? Doesn't have his facts straight? Isn't making sense? I'd say that being respectful is actually the opposite. Truly being respectful of the debate process is the ability to call out BS when you see it, but not have it devolve into personal attacks. I have no issue with Oneness personally, but I think his logic is incoherent, and his points demonstrably false. I'd consider it more disrespectful to him if I said nothing or "agreed to disagree" than if I challenged him.

What interesting points do you think Oneness is making? I want to hear that. Because your endorsement of both sides lacks definition.

All that awesomeness aside, yes, the gods could fly through space.