Need a few geniuses to help save the world

[anti-christ]

Will IDEAS or BOMBS end wwiii? I think the answer is ideas...The way i see each person can either be part of the problem (i.e. apathetic) or part of the solution...So i have developed some ideas on how to stop all these stupid wars over religion if any1 wants to hear them?

 

[Njorl]

On the contrary. If we are ALL apathetic, war will end! It's these damn people who care so much making life difficult for the rest of us.

Njorl

 

[anti-christ]

well that is a good idea perhaps but the problem is all people aren't apathetic especially when u throw in a few religious fanatics...the idea is to come up with a way to counter religious fanaticism with science i.e. verifiable facts

 

[Esperanto]

Drop fuzzy stuffed animals over our enemies till they become too mushy-brained to do anything, ultimately dying like ants fed ant poison that kills by making the ants stupid. This might cause the ants to think your bed is the nest and drop the poison off there, but it works. Where's my nobel prize?

 

[zoobyshoe]

On the contrary. If we are ALL apathetic, war will end! It's these damn people who care so much making life difficult for the rest of us.

Njorl, sometimes your insights amaze me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Will IDEAS or BOMBS end wwiii? I think the answer is ideas...The way i see each person can either be part of the problem (i.e. apathetic) or part of the solution...So i have developed some ideas on how to stop all these stupid wars over religion if any1 wants to hear them?

As long as you stick to the rules this is the place for ideas. Just prepare yourself for the feedback.

 

[jimmy p]

Kill all the stupid people, then wars won't start... When i rule the world, stupidity will be illegal and punishable by death.

 

[Esperanto]

http://www.atmo.se/zino.aspx?pageID=12&documentID=59

This video clip might take around 4-5 minutes to download, but sometimes seemingly evil world leaders lip-synching to Born Free is necessary to remind you of how war makes everything okay.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Kill all the stupid people, then wars won't start... When i rule the world, stupidity will be illegal and punishable by death.

But wouldn't this mean the extermination of 95 percent of the human race mein fuhrer?

 

[jimmy p]

lol you are giving the human race a lot of credit there...i'd make it about 98.7%

 

[anti-christ]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=19879

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I think we've just been accused of being jack-booted Nazi thugs Herr Jimbo.

 

[Njorl]

Well I don't want to live in a world where everyone is smarter than me! Watching "Jeopardy" would be depressing, and the other posters on PF would make fun of me!

Njorl

 

[holly]

Isn't this is what is called "hijacking" someone's thread?

Someone has written something in all sincerity and seriousness, I believe.
Wishes to share insights.

There are lots of funny little threads on PF, lots of places for members to show off their wit, or lack of it. PF members are a jokey bunch, and that's really fun, but when it drowns out what someone is trying to say, that is disturbing. That's claque behavior.

I don't care for this person's name, and I don't think calling people Nazis, unless they are Nazis, is reasonable. But I can see that it must be frustrating to try to discuss something and receive all static in reply...

Is ANYONE in PF experienced as part of a research team? Worked at a university or entity such as NASA? If so, you'll know what I mean when I say that in science, there is too much tolerance for the shouting down of ideas that seem unpopular, or silly, or strange. That's not the ideal; that's the reality. I've witnessed it, I've heard about it. Physics history is peppered with suicides of great minds who were met with mockery when sharing tremendous insights.

Now, I don't necessarily think this individual necessarily has a tremendous insight, but I would like to think that the process of rational listening and unemotional rebuttal is firmly in place, because one day perhaps one of our own PF members will post something astounding and far ahead of the curve, and I hope it would be accorded a proper trial, so to speak. (Like my Martian Cats thread!) I realize it's irritating to think you have aholt of a crackpot, but please, accord each their due if it's just harmless remarks and has no malicious intent. And let your silence speak louder than words...when you Forum Heavyweights, as I privately (and now not-so-privately call you) ignore a thread, that says something...that's very crushing...very powerful.

 

[jimmy p]

actually in the martian cats thread i asked if i could see the pictures cos i genuinely wanted to see them for myself...

 

[anti-christ]

so they locked my other thread...big surprise

Your evidence is based on an unprovable assumption.

If so then every single experiment EVER performed via the scientific method is flawed bc they ALL require humans to use their 5 senses of taste, touch, smell, hearing, and/or vision to complete the data collection process...

as i c it the problem with some of u is that u too have been brainwashed by the 'scientific method' which might as well be a 'religion' in it's own right and the FALSE notion that ANYTHING that mentions the word 'GOD" is automatically by definition 'unscientific' when i have clearly used plain lowest common denominator common sense that even a mentally retarded person should be able to understand to develop my
"UNIFYING THEORY OF GOD". (which i blatantly admit is a THEORY)
the point of this theory is that if roughly 90% of humans believe in some form of "GOD" then the only way to get the message of good science i.e. the 'scientific method' across to the masses is to develop a 'religion' based on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and that is what i call REALITIANITY which is merely a belief in reality defined by an individuals own 5 senses... i.e. believing in things that are VERIFIABLE and agreeing to disagree on the things that aren't...

 

[jimmy p]

David Ben-Ariel was a lot more fun...

 

[Evo]

David Ben-Ariel was a lot more fun...

Yeah, and he at least knew how to do quotes so you could make sense of his posts.

 

[holly]

Now, anti-person, you have crossed the line and have moved into mean-spirited territory by denying mentally retarded persons their full humanity. I don't care for ad hominum attacks but rather the rebuttal of ideas with ideas; casting aspersions on the disabled to hammer home your point is very nasty.

I know a "mentally retarded" man who has a better grasp of this ol' world than most people will ever have; he is patient, kind, loving, minds his own business, and fair.
*****
I'm not reading any more of this person's posts!

 

[anti-christ]

my uncle is mentally retarded and i deal with mentally retarded patients all the time...my post was in no way a slam against mentally retarded people but a slam against people who are unwilling to accept obvious truths and dismiss them bc they believe they are 'too smart'

 

[jimmy p]

i don't actually think Holly thought you were slamming mentally retarded people. I think she meant that the person she knows makes more sense than you.

 

[FZ+]

the idea is to come up with a way to counter religious fanaticism with science i.e. verifiable facts

Most current religions are immortal. You can counter claim after claim, but there is always that core which is complete unfalsifiable. Religions aren't science.

as i c it the problem with some of u is that u too have been brainwashed by the 'scientific method' which might as well be a 'religion' in it's own right and the FALSE notion that ANYTHING that mentions the word 'GOD" is automatically by definition 'unscientific' when i have clearly used plain lowest common denominator common sense that even a mentally retarded person should be able to understand to develop my "UNIFYING THEORY OF GOD".

Ok, ok. Stop right there, and define scientific method. You seem to be using a drastically different definition from me, as I find no way that my concept of scientific method can be called a religion, or should be made into a religion. Also, define God as well, since the standard definition of God (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, conscious) give pretty obvious reasons why an argument based on such a being must be unscientific.

(The biggest reason, incidentally, for the banning of religious threads was the prevalence of "obvious truths". "Obvious truths", of course, which turn out not to be so obvious, or even so true, for everyone else.)

anti-christ... Are you LogicalAtheist? Ok, sorry if that makes no sense.

In any case, can I plead with you to stop doing the SMS style contractions? (eg any1. nice 2 c u. etc) I just find that sort of thing impacts negatively on overall readability, and encourage people to become irritated.

 

[anti-christ]

yes i know everyone hates my internet short hand so i will try to refrain from using it...of course i will be the first to admit i am lazy when i type but using standard English on the internet is like always having sex in the missionary position...boring...anyway...

"Most current religions are immortal."

Well that actually brings up another topic and that is how can humans achieve immortality? now i know it seems a remote dream but i figured out at least one way back in 99...i wrote/recorded a concept album called 'The Diary of Clone#9" which was basically a short sci-fi story with music to go with the story that i hope to make a trilogy movie some day...anyway the concept of using clones to achieve immortality is part of the storyline and the 'leap of faith' that at some point in the future maybe 100, maybe 10,000 years from now technology will allow a person to upload their memories/brain data to a hard drive and then download that info into the new cloned body...this is the sort of idea that the human brain is basically a biological hard drive...so this would basically allow humans to become immortal...but like i said that is really another issue...

"You can counter claim after claim, but there is always that core which is complete unfalsifiable. Religions aren't science."

religions based on UNVERIFIABLE ideas are not science i do agree but the basis of REALITIANITY is that one can certainly believe in what is VERIFIABLE via good double blinded placebo controlled studies...of course SCIENTOLOGY is a misnomer and has basically nothing to do with good science

"Ok, ok. Stop right there, and define scientific method. You seem to be using a drastically different definition from me, as I find no way that my concept of scientific method can be called a religion, or should be made into a religion.
Also, define God as well, since the standard definition of God (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, conscious) give pretty obvious reasons why an argument based on such a being must be unscientific."

ok i guess u missed it but i define 'GOD' as the scientific force(s) or entity(ies) that created the universe, multiverse, i.e. everything in existence...now why define 'GOD' this way? well ALL 3 major religions and pretty much all religions that i know of include 'the creator of everything in existence' in their definition of "GOD"...this would also include the "GOD" of Abraham who is the grandpapa of Judaisn, Islam, and Christianity...thereby serving as a grounding point for logical debate instead of hatred...

"(The biggest reason, incidentally, for the banning of religious threads was the prevalence of "obvious truths". "Obvious truths", of course, which turn out not to be so obvious, or even so true, for everyone else.)"

my 'obvious truths' are based ONLY on verifiable REALITY

 

[anti-christ]

no surprise this place is full of cowards who only like to waste their time with theoretical debate instead of taking a stand for something that actually requires action

 

[The_Professional]

no surprise this place is full of cowards who only like to waste their time with theoretical debate instead of taking a stand for something that actually requires action

Recent new member with 6 posts and you're already whining and *****ing.

Cowards who waste their time on "theoretical debate"? Go to the Physics section and the Math. You'll find a lot of real life proofs but I doubt you'll even last long..there or here. Get over it.

 

[jimmy p]

so what about religions with more than one god?

 

[anti-christ]

well i guess i could add an 's' to make the god word plural

 

[jimmy p]

but then you are suggesting that there are more scientific forces. Actually, come to think of it, i only remember 4 forces, electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak...no God(s) mentioned at all...

 

[anti-christ]

scientific force(s) OR God(s) lol

 

[Evo]

anti-christ, you're "religion" is based on a premise that if seriously flawed.

my
"UNIFYING THEORY OF GOD". (which i blatantly admit is a THEORY)
the point of this theory is that if roughly 90% of humans believe in some form of "GOD" then the only way to get the message of good science i.e. the 'scientific method' across to the masses is to develop a 'religion' based on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and that is what i call REALITIANITY which is merely a belief in reality defined by an individuals own 5 senses... i.e. believing in things that are VERIFIABLE and agreeing to disagree on the things that aren't...

Did you forget that not everyone has 5 senses? Did you forget about the blind, the deaf, those that lack a sense of smell, or taste, or "see" music, or "taste" music. There are many conditions of the brain that skew the senses. Perhaps you are too young or lack the education to be aware of these things. Obviously your proposed religion of having everyone agree on what you call your "undeniable truths based on the 5 senses" won't work because they are not the same for all people.

 

[anti-christ]

o gawd how stoopid r u?

i guess i must spell it out for u...
there are 5 KNOWN human senses...this doesn't mean that more may not exist but we only know of 5 so far...if someone is deaf than ok fine their 'god' is based on 4 senses...if someone is deaf and blind then their 'god' would be based on 3, etc...talk about nit picking lol...well i guess i should be glad bc if that is the ONLY flaw any of u can find then i have truly theorized the 'perfect' religion aka REALITIANITY...now go forth and spread the word my job is finished

 

[jimmy p]

So you are saying that our body and mind is a God? jeez i could have told you that, I mean, just LOOK at me! :)

 

[xck]

scientific force(s) OR God(s) lol

I agreed with your one comment. God is everything or else god is nothing. Same, same, same. If god is everything then god is science.

I do not lose sleep behind anyone's icon used to access that which they choose to call god-whatever. Sometimes I wish we would have called it Doe, John Doe...which reminds me...

your name on this forum is used only once or twice in the bible. In John, when he's carrying on about all those opposed to Jesus at that time. They were anti Jesus is all. I think it's funny that it was taken to the bizarre extreme ... I will stop here as I do not want to offend anyone.

 

[anti-christ]

well in the bible if u sin u r 'anti-christ' bc he 'died for sins' so since the bible also says 'all have come short of the glory of god' i.e. everyone has 'sinned' then that means everyone is 'anti-christ'

now as to this comment
"So you are saying that our body and mind is a God? jeez i could have told you that, I mean, just LOOK at me! :)"

that is NOT what i said bc humans did not create themselves therefore we are not 'god' pay attention! bc i am saying that whatever scientific force or spiritual deity that led to the creation of the universe and everything in existence is what we should call 'GOD'

 

[jimmy p]

Not really, because it could have been a freak chance, that the universe exists at all. And I don't think you are starting any new train of thought. A lot of people call the creator of the universe God. All you're saying is that we should deify the 4 forces. Because they are probably what would have caused the universe to create. And they are naturally occurring.