Author: hepcat

No religion, no tooth fairy, no god... grow up! [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-11-16 21:35:57 |Display all floors
Matt6xx, respectfully the new cultures and the new emerging have no religion, and this will be the new way the world is, free from subjectivity and the caveman mentality of the past. No need toi carry that yoke any further. Internet and at least today English are the tools and franca lingua. In fact I love our expression of how  we call China in one way, xin hua, the new China, leading the world in the 21st century freeing people from the atavism of the past, especially the predatory governing by deception.

Living here in the 21st century feels more free as I look back at the 20th century. As far as addressing the "need to prove god" - and a recent contributor mistakenly contatenated by extension the need to prove what happened at the big bang, I will speak scientifically. Like we sometimes say on the bench in the laboratory, "Who ordered THAT?"  :)    Now the approach we have at our disposal scientifically to understanding the universe is top down, from this point back. We know nothing of the big bang singularity ~ 13.x thousand million years ago. And to mindlessly strap on the label code named god to this is more child's play; more of the same - excuse me - primitive thinking - which produces nothing.  We cannot simulate the conditions of the origin of the universe though we can know that time had a beginning, and that other dimensions clearly have a role in the way the forces of nature and in particular how particle formation takes place. The energies are (much) greater than what most laboratrory conditions can bring about. We are dealing with great force( s) and quantum is in full effect. Conversely all bottom up approaches to understanding the universe cosmologically including trotted out god, which was mistakenly included in the convolutions of a question posed here which I address, are impossible. Indeed there are heirarchies of quantum. For example information into a black hole is not retrievable; black holes may have infinite mass so that there are heirarchies of infinity/ies. The CPT symmetry of 3+1 dimensionality HAS directionality cosmologically because if we create some quantum conditions we can "transport" matter and even "time travel" - at least neutrinos - which would not be possible from a bottom up approach since nature would keep what we had in the past to herself.  

All arguments which stem from the form of "the way it was then to the way it is now" are are post hoc propter hoc logic which I did in fact make reference to in the original post.

And I do not care to attempt to link of how the issue of how we get from "no religion"   /  "no god" to proving the existence of god since it is false as mentioned above. All bottom up approaches to arrive at conclusions, much less scientific data are not correct even though words may make us think it is possible.

Indeed  one cannot help but be amazed at  how old century  reasoning attempting to pass for a framework / basis for reasoning for a question that is. Many westerners - familiarly - identify as a unifying cause something which they disagree with; a frequent indicator, in this case god. Failure to generalize by remaining dialectical.

Postulate: the more the flag waving the less credibility? Perhaps I will pose this on another thread sometime. Inverse relationships: greater suply = less demand; more supply = less demand ... harder you push Newtonian force the harder the opposing force (also in particle physics this happens). Subpostulate: can one bomb, by using bigger and better bombs,  people into agreement? Or is there an inverse relationship there as well?

If the fellow who wishes me to prove god here or the big bang does not understand I would be happy to address the issue in more detail - on another thread and scientifically since there were a lot of scientific terms mentioned there willy nilly and consideration of the atomism would be insightful - but perhaos that would be well beyond the scope of this board. And my time is quite limited anyway, I will not neglect my students by spending time here on un-puffing miscontrued statements into hobgoblins and tooth fairies.

Also  thank you greendragon huang lung peng you! :)
Thus be circuitous and entice the enemy,reaching goals before him: artifice of DEVIATION- SunTze

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-11-16 23:05:06 |Display all floors
Originally posted by hepcat at 2006-11-15 19:04
There is NO NEED for religion. Grow up!

Own up to your own misunderstandings and get off of the crack cocaine joyride of religion and look at yourself, what a joke your life is with religiosity! Big fool, bigger unhappiness to you and your family and to society.  Just say NO! You will be happy

You don't understand. Many of the religious people think they are happy or contented with their religions. They are so enthusiastic to want their friends and relatives to share the happiness. I have these friends trying to convience me to believe their god. I just avoid them though I know they have good intention. I don't need to debate with them about there's god or not. As long as they are happy with their god, and they are still open-minded for science just let them love their god. Moreover they just get together to help others. They are not cults.

The need of freedom is different between people. Some just feel empty when they are free. You think religion is bondage but they think there's a lot to learn or to contribute in their religions. This "a lot" provides a big enough dimension for their mind to be free. It took many years for me to view them that way. I'm old enough to not telling others to grow up.
Vision without action is illusion---Y.J.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-11-17 08:16:15 |Display all floors

Reply #8 --- hepcat's post...

In all that confusing rambling, I believe you stated you do not care to address questions you cannot model or simulate.  (Events leading up to the Big Bang).

Fair enough.   Then how can you dismiss a theory (existence of a supreme being --- weak as it may be) of how this event came to be when you have nothing better to supercede it?

When you come up with a better theory, support by valid evidence, facts, I will concede that a supreme being was not necessary for the creation of the universe, and, therefore, man.

I will be patiently waiting....

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-11-17 18:12:24 |Display all floors

yes ......

there was a god named........

eric clapton......

and no....he wasn't preaching  at that time, he was singing.....

mostly blues,

and he said there were tears in heaven........

It is important that man dreams, but it is perhaps equally important that he can laugh at his own dreams...............5555

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-11-18 08:06:21 |Display all floors
Persuasive, but not scientific...

Like we sometimes say on the bench in the laboratory, "Who ordered THAT?"

When someone says this to you, they are attempting to persuade you without science.  It's kind of a joke, and the humor is directed against those who believe that a Creator created it all.  But it really isn't scientific to use humor to advance a scientific theory.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-11-19 20:48:55 |Display all floors
my question is where did god came from and who made him. obviously the people who propagate religion has a ready answer to shut down further question. god has no beginning and he has no end. and to make matter unintelligeble to people they made god as one but with 3 persona, including the holy spirit. how the hell did they know this, did god talk to them?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-11-20 01:47:48 |Display all floors
Originally posted by reyquer at 2006-11-19 20:48
my question is where did god came from and who made him. obviously the people who propagate religion has a ready answer to shut down further question. god has no beginning and he has no end. and to ...

Yes, I also can't seem comprehend how someone will just explain the impossible with something even more impossible, and just settle with that. I think the question who created this supreem being then? is avery legitimate question. Although I must admit i am somewhat quasi-religious, so i will disagree to the unjust and very rash accusation that religion is the root to all misery.

The way i see it, rel. has allways been a useful tool for rulers to justify their cause, to mobilize the people in order to gain power for themself, with the help of corupt priest who didn't do their jobs. This is more politics than religion since war infact is against the teachings of any religion i know of.

War will never seize to exist as long as people can be led to believe there is something great to be gained by fighting, or scared to believe some huge amounts to be lost. Religion can easily be replaced by ideology, rasism, desperation, greed, everything a greater mass share together which with help of politacal retorics can be manuvered to set a fire. the motives behind are many, but way to often the motives are selfish. The problem is therefor powerabuse, which offcourse is a common phenomenon in most religions, since they tend to have been, and still are quite powerful intitusions many places.

I also like to point out that most Europeans aren't  really that religious, (christian) godfearing and superstitious as we used to anymore, as it seems like some people seem to have the impression so. Those who still believe, usually will keep it their personal business. Those who believe in holy crusades and dogmas, are so marginal i don't see religion as a reliable reason for anything happening in Europe the last 50 years.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.