Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by seeds »

Atla wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:37 am
seeds wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:38 am There is absolutely nothing easy (or logical) in assuming that the fantastic order of the universe is something that occurred without any design input, or teleological impetus.
Btw, why do you ignore the problem that to explain the existence of the designer, we would need an even more fantastic order than we already have? A being whose complexity and reach far exceeds what's available within our universe. You're just adding even more orders of magnitude of improbability, and call it easier and more logical?
I am not ignoring the problem.

The existence of an unthinkably advanced designer is implicit in my speculative proposition that if it is possible that consciousness (life/mind) has literally had forever (eternity) to evolve into ever-higher (ever-ascending) levels of being and mental capabilities,...

...then the creation of a universe - out of the living fabric of mind itself - would be a breeze.

The real mystery, however (as was pointed out to Tesla), is how and why it is possible that anything whatsoever (be it life, mind, or matter) even exists.

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Atla wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:37 am ...why do you ignore the problem....You're just adding even more orders of magnitude of improbability, and call it easier and more logical?
Clearly, for any of this to work, then the truth of the ontological conditions of “ultimate reality” must be an inversion of the illusion we are presently experiencing.

In other words, instead of mind being encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) physical matter, in truth, physical matter is encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) mind,...

(a higher mind in the case of this universe)

...wherein the stuff that we call “matter” is simply the infinitely malleable mental fabric through-which mind (consciousness) expresses itself - as is depicted in one of my oft-used personal illustrations:

Image

Ironically, hardcore materialism lends support to what I am suggesting.

And that’s because if it were true that there is literally nothing other than physical matter itself, then that means that our thoughts** and dreams are simply an inward extension of the exact same stuff that the suns and planets are made of.

And the point is that if we humans can willfully manipulate (via our imaginations) the stuff that the suns and planets are made of into anything we wish or desire within the inner-dimension of our own mind,...

...then why couldn’t a higher mind (an entity that we call “God”) do the same thing?

In which case, the ultimate point is that as we stand on the Earth and look out into the universe, we are viewing...

(from a “fetal” perspective)

...the extent to which the mental fabric of reality can be manipulated by a higher mind in the context of eternal life in the proposed transcendent level of existence.

**(Now I know what you might be thinking. You are thinking that our thoughts are just vague and ghost-like phantasms that seem to have no more substance than, perhaps, a weak beam of light.

However, that is not the case when we dream.

For when we dream, the phenomenal structures we experience inwardly seem to be almost as solid and real as the phenomenal structures we experience outwardly in the universe.

You just need to be open to the possibility that in the awakening we will undergo in our second and final birth at the moment of death...

[“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”]

...we will each acquire full-consciousness and full-control over the fabric of our minds.)


Now I realize that this all sounds pretty crazy. And I openly admit that I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the illustration I provided above seems to be a perfect representation of the old Hermetic axiom:

“as above, so below.”

Furthermore, if you reverse that axiom to read...

“as below, so above”

...you will notice how utterly “natural” this concept is, in that the “mammalian” feature of conceiving one’s own offspring “within” oneself, extends to the highest level of life and reality.
_______
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Atla »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:53 am...
Yeah I get that, but you have picked one highly unlikely picture of our world from countless highly unlikely pictures. Occam's razor cuts out your inversion idea (neither is mind embedded in matter, nor is matter embedded in mind; inverting a wrong idea is still wrong, this inversion is a common mistake), and it cuts out the creator (infinite existence plus creator versus just infinite existence).

Anything is possible, so what you propose may be correct, but I mean why should we pick one from the countless unlikely ideas, anyone can come up with one, instead of looking for the simplest and therefore most likely one?

As for why anything exists at all, that's the ultimate question and it doesn't have an answer. It just is so, without reason. We can only discuss what exists.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Tesla wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:57 am I'm sure many remember the courts ruled against it.

I argued on science forums in my youth that it should, but due to the attack structure of the forums administrators, I never got to explore the topic to say my peace.

I feel atheist and religious individuals have both blundered, because they decide absolutely one way or the other. I'm Agnostic, yet, not in the traditional sense. I despise religion for defining an undefined. I'd rather to explore, IF an entity existed that could be considered 'God' where do we look?

(ultimate reality assumed that science has the best picture of reality, and no thing that exists is outside of 'existence'. No empty space has been found, nor could be created though it was attempted. Though science through its own admission is potentially wrong, evidence is required as a prerequisite for acceptance as a potential reality.)

OK!

My 2 cents:

the universe is expanding, apparently infinite. Whats it expanding in?
If it were a being with awareness, isn't it more likely its awareness would not be of what is inside of it, (such as our own bodies, and bacteria, which keeps us alive, but we take medicine to kill any that are hurting us. Ever tried to talk to a colony of bacteria?).

There is tons here to discuss, and much not said. I'll let discussions begin if anyone would like to.
What has this to do with if God should be taught in school? What do you mean by teaching God? I kind of see 15 yos rolling eyes and sigh here...
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Ansiktsburk »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:53 am _______

(Continued from prior post)
Atla wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:37 am ...why do you ignore the problem....You're just adding even more orders of magnitude of improbability, and call it easier and more logical?
Clearly, for any of this to work, then the truth of the ontological conditions of “ultimate reality” must be an inversion of the illusion we are presently experiencing.

In other words, instead of mind being encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) physical matter, in truth, physical matter is encapsulated in (and dependent upon the existence of) mind,...

(a higher mind in the case of this universe)

...wherein the stuff that we call “matter” is simply the infinitely malleable mental fabric through-which mind (consciousness) expresses itself - as is depicted in one of my oft-used personal illustrations:

Image

Ironically, hardcore materialism lends support to what I am suggesting.

And that’s because if it were true that there is literally nothing other than physical matter itself, then that means that our thoughts** and dreams are simply an inward extension of the exact same stuff that the suns and planets are made of.

And the point is that if we humans can willfully manipulate (via our imaginations) the stuff that the suns and planets are made of into anything we wish or desire within the inner-dimension of our own mind,...

...then why couldn’t a higher mind (an entity that we call “God”) do the same thing?

In which case, the ultimate point is that as we stand on the Earth and look out into the universe, we are viewing...

(from a “fetal” perspective)

...the extent to which the mental fabric of reality can be manipulated by a higher mind in the context of eternal life in the proposed transcendent level of existence.

**(Now I know what you might be thinking. You are thinking that our thoughts are just vague and ghost-like phantasms that seem to have no more substance than, perhaps, a weak beam of light.

However, that is not the case when we dream.

For when we dream, the phenomenal structures we experience inwardly seem to be almost as solid and real as the phenomenal structures we experience outwardly in the universe.

You just need to be open to the possibility that in the awakening we will undergo in our second and final birth at the moment of death...

[“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”]

...we will each acquire full-consciousness and full-control over the fabric of our minds.)


Now I realize that this all sounds pretty crazy. And I openly admit that I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the illustration I provided above seems to be a perfect representation of the old Hermetic axiom:

“as above, so below.”

Furthermore, if you reverse that axiom to read...

“as below, so above”

...you will notice how utterly “natural” this concept is, in that the “mammalian” feature of conceiving one’s own offspring “within” oneself, extends to the highest level of life and reality.
_______
If you were to teach that to that bunch of 17yos, how would you put that?
Age
Posts: 5297
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Age »

If 'God' were to be taught, then what is there to teach?
User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Tesla »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:49 am
While you, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that the parameters of the search must in no way include any thoughts or ideas that contain the slightest reference or allusion to any of the world’s religions.

Again, your self-limiting (blinkered) approach to the quest of “where do we look?” seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your class.


_______
Anyone who takes critical reading and writing classes learns to examine the authors. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. The writers of religious thought who wrote the bible are full of antiquities. Even the idea of the soul was an antiquity based on the idea that thoughts were independent of the body. As we now know, they are in the brain. The initial assumption was wrong, so all built on it is wrong. I say to look for an 'entity' that could be considered 'God(s) with scientific tools. Real data, that built all of technology, that doesn't say it is fully right or wrong, but follows data to find out if it is right or wrong. Religions are imagination and sophistry built to retain followers, and convince others.

You will find nothing there 'real' except in your mind.

To find it in 'reality' you have to look outside those religions that offer nothing but falsehoods that are convincing enough, but holds no real scientific value or truth considering God(s).

If you have any intellectual capacity you know what I'm saying is true.
User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Tesla »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:34 am
What has this to do with if God should be taught in school? What do you mean by teaching God? I kind of see 15 yos rolling eyes and sigh here...
I love you man. Great direction for the topic.

Ok, well consider this: People look for agency even when it doesn't exist. It is human nature. Coupled with diverse teaching trust is eroding, and like Socrates taught a new god to youths to teach them to be skeptics, and reduce the potential to be swayed by any con artist with a convincing logic, The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:

Ok class. Question. Since this course is designed to explore real scientific potentials for an entity that is 'God' or gods to humankind, lets first explore the potential that our brains could be manipulated from an outside source. Let's say a true AI was built that could hack your brain, and insert ideas into it, or trigger euphoria, Should we call such an entity God? Worship it? How can we tell the difference with such technology in the hands of governments--should it exist--from a God or gods? To define an entity like 'God' we should recognize it will both be real in essence, with data the scientific community could support, But not necessarily a precursor to humanity, but potentially, A product of it. that is to say: mankind could build it.

So first task, everyone write their idea of what would constitute a 'God' or gods considering the potential one was built, or existed before mankind. Where would one look for it outside their minds? MLA format, double spaced and no less than two pages.

So, ansi, what would you write with those two pages?
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Skepdick »

Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6290
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:37 am
Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
I knew a martial artist one time. He practiced for years. Wasn't any good.

I knew another martial artist. He practiced for years. Was good.

Neither ended up applying those skills to real life much barring a few bar fights (which really is not real life because they were not necessary).

The same applies for programmers...what they create primarily is entertainment and distractions. That is it. Before one could have some sense of subtle peace and quiet. Now everything is noise.

Get rid of the tech, and noone is there because of the tech and you are left with a false quiet.

Most practices, using those two extremes (which really aren't that much different upon closer inspection), are fundamentally just a means to spend ones time.

In the age of AI approaching...what is a kid going to be taught but a reinterpretation of history?

What is he going to need math or biology for?

What is he going to even be needed for other than to act as a battery for the technocracy?

Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
BlackChristianMind
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 3:40 am
Contact:

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by BlackChristianMind »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am
In the age of AI approachinf...what is a kid going to be taught but a reinterpretation of history?

What is he going to need math or biology for?

What is he going to even be needed for other than to act as a battery for the technocracy?
Indeed.

To this thread's creator,
Public school teaches students what to think and not to actually think. As a result, most people "think" the earth is a spinning ball. They've been filled with so much disinformation. The problem is they aren't thinking at all, they are regurgitating false information they've been indoctrinated with while being held hostage in Satan's education system. You see, if you think the world was created by chance, or the ridiculous idea that a big bang started the inconceivable complexity and attention to detail that we see in nature instead of an inconceivably intelligent creator, then you are lost in the sea of disinformation that your own trusted leaders have given you. Read about disinformation and how it is used to subdue whole societies. They have you so confused that you are not even asking the right questions. It isn't, "Should God be taught in school?" The question you should be asking yourself is why has God been so effectively hidden from you?
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:37 am
Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
I knew a martial artist one time. He practiced for years. Wasn't any good.

I knew another martial artist. He practiced for years. Was good.

Neither ended up applying those skills to real life much barring a few bar fights (which really is not real life because they were not necessary).

The same applies for programmers...what they create primarily is entertainment and distractions. That is it. Before one could have some sense of subtle peace and quiet. Now everything is noise.

Get rid of the tech, and noone is there because of the tech and you are left with a false quiet.

Most practices, using those two extremes (which really aren't that much different upon closer inspection), are fundamentally just a means to spend ones time.

In the age of AI approaching...what is a kid going to be taught but a reinterpretation of history?

What is he going to need math or biology for?

What is he going to even be needed for other than to act as a battery for the technocracy?

Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
I knew a philosopher once, who spent most of his time spamming a philosophy forum - didn't really put his skills to any practical use. Neither towards his own benefit, nor towards the benefit of others.

Programmers on the other hand... They save lives.

https://www.geek.com/news/google-algori ... s-1788070/

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
All gods are cruel. That's why it's imperative for humans to not subjugate themselves to authorities of their own making.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6290
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:37 am
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
I knew a martial artist one time. He practiced for years. Wasn't any good.

I knew another martial artist. He practiced for years. Was good.

Neither ended up applying those skills to real life much barring a few bar fights (which really is not real life because they were not necessary).

The same applies for programmers...what they create primarily is entertainment and distractions. That is it. Before one could have some sense of subtle peace and quiet. Now everything is noise.

Get rid of the tech, and noone is there because of the tech and you are left with a false quiet.

Most practices, using those two extremes (which really aren't that much different upon closer inspection), are fundamentally just a means to spend ones time.

In the age of AI approaching...what is a kid going to be taught but a reinterpretation of history?

What is he going to need math or biology for?

What is he going to even be needed for other than to act as a battery for the technocracy?

Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
I knew a philosopher once, who spent most of his time spamming a philosophy forum - didn't really put his skills to any practical use. Neither towards his own benefit, nor towards the benefit of others.

I know, in our private emails you made it expressly clear you had every intention of destroying philosophy and pushing computing language as a means to create a new...whatever. and how is that working?

I just argue forms. For every form destroyed a variation is created. It is called conscious evolution. Everything is circular and we all reap what we sow... real simple message: it is all circles.


It helped me take care of dying relatives face to face something a computer cannot do.

It helped give my own coat off my back to a homeless person and spend time with them and help them through there struggles...something a computer cannot do.

It helped deal with physical injury, something a computer cannot do, by simply observing the suffering for what it is: intrinsically empty.

But most of all it forces one to be honest with themselves and others.


Programmers on the other hand... They save lives.

Actually they don't. People die anyhow. You are mistaking quantity of life for quality.

As a matter of fact they just make it easier to kill people in war without taking personal responsibility. Did you ever kill or permanently wound with your bare hands? A person or animal? You learn to respect life after it. A computer takes away the responsibility.

Or:

Why don't you look up the statistics for how social media negatively affects human society.


Or just actually experience life and walk and see how many people talk face to face any more.

Or the real paying jobs being replaced by tech and replaced with low wage jobs.

Or the environmental damage done by industrialization.

Or the continual advancement of surveillance technology and the police state?

Or the complete upswing of drug use because of the negation of meaning, the negation of balance, in everyday life.

But you don't see the suicides do you? Behind that computer screen.

You don't see the despair in the streets or the decay of loved ones from an absence of a balance life.

Or ...or....or....blah, blah, blah. These are just dramatic words at the end of the day, ones that strictly seperate your causes into sub causes and more sub causes.


Just look how many times the words "or" and "vs." are used on logical functions online. I mean that really all computing is: tautology making so one can label and label every little facet of reality in an attempt to control it.

But the joke? Noone knows what they want.


https://www.geek.com/news/google-algori ... s-1788070/

Or they can just not eat foods which will kill them and stop contaminating the environment with toxins and the cancer will decrease as well. Disease will always be around, as well as war, the best one can do is balance it.

And those algorothyms are controlled by people, they will just as easily euthanize them as well. Something industrialization, the beginning of computing, is also responsible for: over population so now everyone is at war with everyone over nothing.

As well as unbalanced resource distribution.

Or you can just look at the internet itself...hell even this forum? You don't see it bring peace and stability now do you? :)



Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
All gods are cruel. That's why it's imperative for humans to not subjugate themselves to authorities of their own making.

Like AI? Even Elon Musk is afraid of it...and I think his inventive accomplishments make yours look like dust. :)
You see men like you come and try to change...whatever it is you are trying to change with whatever cause, and there are alot.

Then men like me result, laughing and pointing saying "look it is a joke, everytime A manifests he creates -A...he is just running around in circles".

Hate to break it to you, but you cannot plan out life. You cannot put it in a sterile little algorythm.

What I like, and I think it fits you like a glove is the hypocrisy of your cause. I mean look at this conversation....hell look at the internet...computation helped speed up the war of all against all. Connection? Don't make me laugh.


You throw around the words "people" like some sort of catch all when all you have to do is look at the kids today: they spend more time on social media than with people, they are shooting and killing themselves more and more, and why? Because they feel isolated. And why do they feel isolated? Because they depend on your little square idol that creates a fortress around them rather than depending on "people".

Throw in the fact their families are dissolving because people work too much or not at all due to tech changes. Tech is how we see the world. It is rooted in the Greek for "art". And what is this "art"? Desolation and sterilization.

You create entertainment and distractions.

The great irony is that your programming just eliminates people and when people are eliminated the tech is useless.


Its self contradicting.
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:41 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am

I knew a martial artist one time. He practiced for years. Wasn't any good.

I knew another martial artist. He practiced for years. Was good.

Neither ended up applying those skills to real life much barring a few bar fights (which really is not real life because they were not necessary).

The same applies for programmers...what they create primarily is entertainment and distractions. That is it. Before one could have some sense of subtle peace and quiet. Now everything is noise.

Get rid of the tech, and noone is there because of the tech and you are left with a false quiet.

Most practices, using those two extremes (which really aren't that much different upon closer inspection), are fundamentally just a means to spend ones time.

In the age of AI approaching...what is a kid going to be taught but a reinterpretation of history?

What is he going to need math or biology for?

What is he going to even be needed for other than to act as a battery for the technocracy?

Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
I knew a philosopher once, who spent most of his time spamming a philosophy forum - didn't really put his skills to any practical use. Neither towards his own benefit, nor towards the benefit of others.

I know, in our private emails you made it expressly clear you had every intention of destroying philosophy and pushing computing language as a means to create a new...whatever. and how is that working?

I just argue forms. For every form destroyed a variation is created. It is called conscious evolution. Everything is circular and we all reap what we sow... real simple message: it is all circles.


It helped me take care of dying relatives face to face something a computer cannot do.

It helped give my own coat off my back to a homeless person and spend time with them and help them through there struggles...something a computer cannot do.

It helped deal with physical injury, something a computer cannot do, by simply observing the suffering for what it is: intrinsically empty.

But most of all it forces one to be honest with themselves and others.


Programmers on the other hand... They save lives.

Actually they don't. People die anyhow. You are mistaking quantity of life for quality.

As a matter of fact they just make it easier to kill people in war without taking personal responsibility. Did you ever kill or permanently wound with your bare hands? A person or animal? You learn to respect life after it. A computer takes away the responsibility.

Or:

Why don't you look up the statistics for how social media negatively affects human society.


Or just actually experience life and walk and see how many people talk face to face any more.

Or the real paying jobs being replaced by tech and replaced with low wage jobs.

Or the environmental damage done by industrialization.

Or the continual advancement of surveillance technology and the police state?

Or the complete upswing of drug use because of the negation of meaning, the negation of balance, in everyday life.

But you don't see the suicides do you? Behind that computer screen.

You don't see the despair in the streets or the decay of loved ones from an absence of a balance life.

Or ...or....or....blah, blah, blah. These are just dramatic words at the end of the day, ones that strictly seperate your causes into sub causes and more sub causes.


Just look how many times the words "or" and "vs." are used on logical functions online. I mean that really all computing is: tautology making so one can label and label every little facet of reality in an attempt to control it.

But the joke? Noone knows what they want.


https://www.geek.com/news/google-algori ... s-1788070/

Or they can just not eat foods which will kill them and stop contaminating the environment with toxins and the cancer will decrease as well. Disease will always be around, as well as war, the best one can do is balance it.

And those algorothyms are controlled by people, they will just as easily euthanize them as well. Something industrialization, the beginning of computing, is also responsible for: over population so now everyone is at war with everyone over nothing.

As well as unbalanced resource distribution.

Or you can just look at the internet itself...hell even this forum? You don't see it bring peace and stability now do you? :)



Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am Technology thrives off of attention, it is a cruel and cold god.
All gods are cruel. That's why it's imperative for humans to not subjugate themselves to authorities of their own making.

Like AI? Even Elon Musk is afraid of it...and I think his inventive accomplishments make yours look like dust. :)
You see men like you come and try to change...whatever it is you are trying to change with whatever cause, and there are alot.

Then men like me result, laughing and pointing saying "look it is a joke, everytime A manifests he creates -A...he is just running around in circles".

Hate to break it to you, but you cannot plan out life. You cannot put it in a sterile little algorythm.

What I like, and I think it fits you like a glove is the hypocrisy of your cause. I mean look at this conversation....hell look at the internet...computation helped speed up the war of all against all. Connection? Don't make me laugh.


You throw around the words "people" like some sort of catch all when all you have to do is look at the kids today: they spend more time on social media than with people, they are shooting and killing themselves more and more, and why? Because they feel isolated. And why do they feel isolated? Because they depend on your little square idol that creates a fortress around them rather than depending on "people".

Throw in the fact their families are dissolving because people work too much or not at all due to tech changes. Tech is how we see the world. It is rooted in the Greek for "art". And what is this "art"? Desolation and sterilization.

You create entertainment and distractions.

The great irony is that your programming just eliminates people and when people are eliminated the tech is useless.


Its self contradicting.
That's al eloquent and elaborate straw-man.

My idol is power. Power over nature/death. Computation is just instruments, a stepping stone to that end-goal.

Everything humans do has ethical implications. Your main failing is to externalise blame to the tools, rather than point fingers at the real culprits - the choice-makers. I create and popularise the tools - you distract yourself with them. Seems you have surrendered your free will while you romanticism over the idea of the noble savage.

We do what we can with the resources available at our disposal. Seems you gave given in to nihilism - naturally, it's the easy choice.
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6290
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:06 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:41 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm
I knew a philosopher once, who spent most of his time spamming a philosophy forum - didn't really put his skills to any practical use. Neither towards his own benefit, nor towards the benefit of others.

I know, in our private emails you made it expressly clear you had every intention of destroying philosophy and pushing computing language as a means to create a new...whatever. and how is that working?

I just argue forms. For every form destroyed a variation is created. It is called conscious evolution. Everything is circular and we all reap what we sow... real simple message: it is all circles.


It helped me take care of dying relatives face to face something a computer cannot do.

It helped give my own coat off my back to a homeless person and spend time with them and help them through there struggles...something a computer cannot do.

It helped deal with physical injury, something a computer cannot do, by simply observing the suffering for what it is: intrinsically empty.

But most of all it forces one to be honest with themselves and others.


Programmers on the other hand... They save lives.

Actually they don't. People die anyhow. You are mistaking quantity of life for quality.

As a matter of fact they just make it easier to kill people in war without taking personal responsibility. Did you ever kill or permanently wound with your bare hands? A person or animal? You learn to respect life after it. A computer takes away the responsibility.

Or:

Why don't you look up the statistics for how social media negatively affects human society.


Or just actually experience life and walk and see how many people talk face to face any more.

Or the real paying jobs being replaced by tech and replaced with low wage jobs.

Or the environmental damage done by industrialization.

Or the continual advancement of surveillance technology and the police state?

Or the complete upswing of drug use because of the negation of meaning, the negation of balance, in everyday life.

But you don't see the suicides do you? Behind that computer screen.

You don't see the despair in the streets or the decay of loved ones from an absence of a balance life.

Or ...or....or....blah, blah, blah. These are just dramatic words at the end of the day, ones that strictly seperate your causes into sub causes and more sub causes.


Just look how many times the words "or" and "vs." are used on logical functions online. I mean that really all computing is: tautology making so one can label and label every little facet of reality in an attempt to control it.

But the joke? Noone knows what they want.


https://www.geek.com/news/google-algori ... s-1788070/

Or they can just not eat foods which will kill them and stop contaminating the environment with toxins and the cancer will decrease as well. Disease will always be around, as well as war, the best one can do is balance it.

And those algorothyms are controlled by people, they will just as easily euthanize them as well. Something industrialization, the beginning of computing, is also responsible for: over population so now everyone is at war with everyone over nothing.

As well as unbalanced resource distribution.

Or you can just look at the internet itself...hell even this forum? You don't see it bring peace and stability now do you? :)





All gods are cruel. That's why it's imperative for humans to not subjugate themselves to authorities of their own making.

Like AI? Even Elon Musk is afraid of it...and I think his inventive accomplishments make yours look like dust. :)
You see men like you come and try to change...whatever it is you are trying to change with whatever cause, and there are alot.

Then men like me result, laughing and pointing saying "look it is a joke, everytime A manifests he creates -A...he is just running around in circles".

Hate to break it to you, but you cannot plan out life. You cannot put it in a sterile little algorythm.

What I like, and I think it fits you like a glove is the hypocrisy of your cause. I mean look at this conversation....hell look at the internet...computation helped speed up the war of all against all. Connection? Don't make me laugh.


You throw around the words "people" like some sort of catch all when all you have to do is look at the kids today: they spend more time on social media than with people, they are shooting and killing themselves more and more, and why? Because they feel isolated. And why do they feel isolated? Because they depend on your little square idol that creates a fortress around them rather than depending on "people".

Throw in the fact their families are dissolving because people work too much or not at all due to tech changes. Tech is how we see the world. It is rooted in the Greek for "art". And what is this "art"? Desolation and sterilization.

You create entertainment and distractions.

The great irony is that your programming just eliminates people and when people are eliminated the tech is useless.


Its self contradicting.
That's al eloquent and elaborate straw-man.

It is eloquent, something a computer cannot do...create :).

And straw man? Far from it, we are talking about God now aren't we?


My idol is power. Power over nature/death. Computation is just instruments to that end-goal.

I don't have any idols...I just do things...it is natural.

Everything humans do has ethical implications. Your main failing is to externalise blame to the tools, rather than point fingers at the real culprits - the choice-makers.

Oh no far from it, I just said above that technology is art. :)

We do what we can with the resources available at our disposal. Seems you gave given in to nihilism - naturally, it's the easy choice.

Technology just creates nihilism. I wouldn't call literally giving my coat off my back nihilism now would I? :)


You would be surprise what giving your favorite coat to someone who has nothing can do.

Program that.
Post Reply