Anonycat
Crusader
Strange, I didn't use the word silly or question in my comment. Can you clarify? Thanks!
I'm an Ex Scn and Atheist - How many atheists are here at the board?
- Thread starter SuperPowers
- Start date
Strange, I didn't use the word silly or question in my comment. Can you clarify? Thanks!
You don't need to run your own server to participate in Usenet newsgroups, unless you want to run your own groups. Of course, if you want to use international Usenet groups, you need a server to connect to and that better be a free one. I don't know how many are till out there, but I believe my ISP still runs a free one for their customers. Last time I looked, which was a few years ago, there were still 65000 groups on that server.
You also need a client software to read and write in the newsgroups. Several browser suites contained such a software, but that seems to be no longer the case. The Forté Agent was a good Usenet client and free for non-commercial use IIRC, but that seems to also be no longer the case.
Anyway, to make a long story short: Usenet isn't completely dead (yet), but it sure does smell funny.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
You don't need to run your own server to participate in Usenet newsgroups, unless you want to run your own groups. Of course, if you want to use international Usenet groups, you need a server to connect to and that better be a free one. I don't know how many are till out there, but I believe my ISP still runs a free one for their customers. Last time I looked, which was a few years ago, there were still 65000 groups on that server.
You also need a client software to read and write in the newsgroups. Several browser suites contained such a software, but that seems to be no longer the case. The Forté Agent was a good Usenet client and free for non-commercial use IIRC, but that seems to also be no longer the case.
Anyway, to make a long story short: Usenet isn't completely dead (yet), but it sure does smell funny.
It's easier these days. Google bought Usenet.
. Here's a link through one's usual browser to alt.religion.scientology:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.religion.scientology
I can even see a couple of posts about Scientology!
Paul
strativarius
Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
It's easier these days. Google bought Usenet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.religion.scientology
I can even see a couple of posts about Scientology!
Paul
This is very interesting. I wouldn't have thought you could have literally 'bought' Usenet anymore than you could actually buy the wwweb.
When I used Usenet it was never necessary to have a special server, my email client automatically collected any new postings to the newsgroups I subscribed to when I logged on.
I see it's still totally fucked-up with spam and junk. I don't know why it isn't just abandoned. It's practically useless as far as I can see and pretty redundant.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Well, more or less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups
Google Groups is a service from Google that provides discussion groups for people sharing common interests. The Groups service also provides a gateway to Usenet newsgroups via a shared user interface.
Google Groups became operational in February 2001, following Google's acquisition of Deja's Usenet archive. (Deja News had been operational since 1995.)
Google Groups became operational in February 2001, following Google's acquisition of Deja's Usenet archive. (Deja News had been operational since 1995.)
Paul
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Sure.
Also, to massively misrepresent the position of an atheist is confusing. To follow your example correctly, an atheist would say "It doesn't exist". I don't know where "clear" or "color" comes from. In your example, above, you seem to be saying that an atheist is batshit crazy.
To clarify:
By definition a theist says "God exists"
By definition an agnostic says "God's existence is unknowable"
By definition an atheist says "God does not exist"
None of these opinions has anything to do with "it" or color.
Last edited:
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
I dunno - I think most put science up on a pedestal that is unrealistic. In principal it should be the quest for knowledge. The reality is if you have a germ of an idea, you have to raise hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of grant money to conduct the experimentation - but that's after you convince some one your idea's worth a damn. What corporation is going to fund you, unless they see dollar signs stemming from your research?
Then there's the next hurdle of being published in peer reviewed publications, and skeptics abound to shoot it down. Then what? If it's not particularly news worthy, it can die on the vine.
Lets say you have a concept for a cheap way to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen - who would fund it? Certainly not the oil conglomerates, who would likely spend big bucks to suppress your process. Maybe the govt. would fund you, if the oil companies lobbyists don't kill it. Pure science has a tougher go of it since there is not immediate commercial application.
The idea you can simply come up with an idea, publish it and have it universally accepted is a pipe dream. There is incredible inertia about changing established ideas in science.
Hence my comment - science has sacred cows and is dogmatic, and can be likened to a belief system such as found in religion. Not 100 percent, but it is present.
Mimsey
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
This little 16 year old schoolgirl invented a new polymer that will help people cope with drought. She did it with vegetable matter she had around the house.
This amateur Australian discovered a new galaxy.
I even hear that once an patent clerk and amateur scientist who got the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on the photoelectric effect and revolutionized physics. I'm afraid I don't have a link for that, though.
Anonycat
Crusader
I've been watching this cool crowdfunding project for a while, and their goal was $50,000, and now they have almost $3,000,000 in donations. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the-superbook-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop-f
Ghee, Mimsey! Have you ever lived in the real world? 
No, people who do that, are unrealistic.
Do you know how much rare high-precision equipment costs? Often enough, such specialized equipment doesn't even exist yet, it has to be developed and built from scratch. But science doesn't always have to be expensive. Many people developed their ideas at home, in their little hobby workshop or in their garage or even in their kitchen. Look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d6phzXnRYo
But once the idea is there, it needs to be tested and verified, which brings us to the next question:
Lol, Yeah! It's in the best interest of a corporation to not waste money on bullshit ideas
That is a very important part of the scientific method because many ideas are useless bullshit and not worth the investment of any time, equipment or money.
If it's a good idea, the free market will. But your example shows that you really don't seem to have much scientific knowledge. There are several methods to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and some are quite affordable I'd say.
Also: The energy contained in a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is, IIRC ,a lot less of what it is in an equal amount of gasoline.
If I had a process that isn't already known, I'm certain that nobody would suppress it. The worst they could do: Buy that process, pay me good money for it and then let it rot away in some storage room.
Do you have some examples for some of such "sacred cows"?
No, people who do that, are unrealistic.
Do you know how much rare high-precision equipment costs? Often enough, such specialized equipment doesn't even exist yet, it has to be developed and built from scratch. But science doesn't always have to be expensive. Many people developed their ideas at home, in their little hobby workshop or in their garage or even in their kitchen. Look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d6phzXnRYo
But once the idea is there, it needs to be tested and verified, which brings us to the next question:
Lol, Yeah! It's in the best interest of a corporation to not waste money on bullshit ideas
That is a very important part of the scientific method because many ideas are useless bullshit and not worth the investment of any time, equipment or money.
If it's a good idea, the free market will. But your example shows that you really don't seem to have much scientific knowledge. There are several methods to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and some are quite affordable I'd say.
Also: The energy contained in a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is, IIRC ,a lot less of what it is in an equal amount of gasoline.
If I had a process that isn't already known, I'm certain that nobody would suppress it. The worst they could do: Buy that process, pay me good money for it and then let it rot away in some storage room.
Do you have some examples for some of such "sacred cows"?
Last edited:
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Sigh. Thank you one and all for your comments. I am glad you have taken the time to point out how foolish my notions are. I dunno, I don't discount that sience can be done on the cheap, but not always. I have a friend who has spent about $100 K on some video patching hardware development, and will likely spend much more to get it ready to market, if he doesn't give up on it.
Just because you have these examples of dirt cheap sience, let me ask you, are those the exceptions or the rule?
On to the water cracker, if it is so easily done, where are the cars running on water instead of gasoline? Why would Tesla go the electric route instead? I recall, cracking water takes a lot of power to do so, because of the bond between the atoms. Anyway, it was an example. I was going to use the belief in water erosion in the canyons of mars, and the lack of credible evidence for that conviction.
But, aren't you missing the point of my post - sience is as much a dogmatic belief system as religion? Oh, right. Name a sacred cow Mimsey, as-if. LOL.
Exhibit A: the big bang. How, and by what means do you get an entire universe from nothing?
Best,
Mimsey
Just because you have these examples of dirt cheap sience, let me ask you, are those the exceptions or the rule?
On to the water cracker, if it is so easily done, where are the cars running on water instead of gasoline? Why would Tesla go the electric route instead? I recall, cracking water takes a lot of power to do so, because of the bond between the atoms. Anyway, it was an example. I was going to use the belief in water erosion in the canyons of mars, and the lack of credible evidence for that conviction.
But, aren't you missing the point of my post - sience is as much a dogmatic belief system as religion? Oh, right. Name a sacred cow Mimsey, as-if. LOL.
Exhibit A: the big bang. How, and by what means do you get an entire universe from nothing?
Best,
Mimsey
Last edited:
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
My level of respect for you has just increased.
You are correct that much of the important data we collect costs big money - the Hubble Telescope, the Large Hadron Collider etc.
Interestingly, every breakthrough in theoretical physics has come from an individual doing maths. I don't know if that can continue. I suspect the next and possibly last major breakthrough iin physics may need a supercomputer and may be outside the scope of an individual. Then again, no one knows.
You can certainly run a car on water that has been split into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the hydrogen, but every time you convert from one form of energy to another you get losses. Water cars just involve another step, so there are more losses. It's just not viable.
Science has abandoned many of it's ideas. Initially, we didn't know that the planets orbited the sun in elliptical paths. We thought they were circular paths.
You are actually conflating two issues. One is the big bang, the idea that all matter and energy were once in a small space and have expanded and are continuing to do so. The other is the origins of the big bang.
The big bang itself, which was discovered by Hubble is not in dispute. It's been known of for around a century. For some time, scientists debated this, but the debate is now over.
On the issue of a universe from nothing, that theory is fairly new. The best explanation of that is below.
[video=youtube;-EilZ4VY5Vs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs[/video]
AngeloV
Gold Meritorious Patron
As someone who as actually studied and used science and engineering in a corporate environment, that statement is 100% false. The science is a religion folks always point to things for which there is currently no exact explanation. Or make statements that like 'belief in water erosion on mars.' It is not a belief. It is based on observation and measurements and an understanding of geology.
Almost everything you use in everyday life is based on some scientific discovery in the last couple of hundred years. From cars to computers, plastics to pharmaceuticals. Scientists don't believe electrons flow through circuits in a certain way, they know it. They don't believe that carbon fiber is stronger than steel, they know it. And the only reason that carbon fiber exists is because of the exact understanding of atomic and molecular bonds.
The computer you are using right now uses a discovery made in the 1940's called a transistor. The first one was the size of a pea. Today, after many, many scientific discoveries, engineers can pack billions of these into a chip called a microprocessor that is running your computer right now. It took zero 'beliefs' to make this happen. Only hard work and using exact scientific methods.
People who think science is a religion are intellectually lazy. Science is hard work. Studying takes effort. Understanding physics and math takes effort. Poo-pooing science requires typing on a keyboard (which ironically exists because of science).
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Sorry for the spelling errors in my last post - the spell check wasn't working on my cell phone.
I know that a lot of what we use depends on hard science, I am not a complete idiot. But that was not the focus of my post. I know and agree that there are laws at work - you can't just turn water into wine. That's horse shit.
I remember reading about how reliable red shift was in determining interstellar and intergalactic distances. I was into astronomy as a teen and read tons of stuff about it. I even wanted to go to college in Berkley's astronomy program - but I wasn't accepted - my math was too weak. A year or so ago I was watching a video that was discussing how unreliable red shift is - the video showed a plume off the side of a cluster or galaxy and the stars were very obviously part of that plume, but had wildly different red shifts.
If in fact those objects are in a line and have different red shifts, what does that say about the continuing use of redshifts as a measuring mile stone? That would be a dogmatic fixed idea, which could give the whole big bang theory, and the size of the universe substantial problems. One of the big bang proofs is the base level background noise which has red shifted. By calculating the red shift they calculate the age of the universe, but what if this standard is thrown in question? To me, the continuing assertion of the redshift as a gold standard is an example of a sacred cow in science. There are now, more scientists questioning it, saying that it could be do to photons losing energy, etc. but there's a huge resistance to change.
I think it's a problem in human nature to hold on to fixed ideas. Here we are, posting on ESMB after having tossed aside the fixed ideas we had in Scientology. I am not a political person but I see a bunch of the republicans going on about human activity contributing to climate change is for shit, despite clear proof to the contrary. They have fixed ideas.
Why then, if it is a human frailty or an aspect of human thought processes, would scientists be immune to that sort of thinking?
Mimsey
Last edited:
strativarius
Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Interstellar, intergalactic and milestone are single words, and I notice with red shifts/redshifts you are hedging your bets Mimsey. Where's your spell checker now eh?
PS: Don't blame me, you're the one who brought the subject of spelling errors up.
Last edited:
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Damn.Interstellar and intergalactic are single words Mimsey. Where's your spell checker now eh?
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
If anything, now that I've shed the "Hubbardian Hierarchy of Soul's", OT down to BT, I'm much more inclined to believe in god(s).
None of the "God the Father or Heavenly Father" crap though.
I see God(s) as the creator's of all, including the masculinity/femininity dichotomy but not bound to manifesting either in terms of limitations.
But in terms of pure potential, the manifestation of both male and female as well as the in between is probable.
I say that because I read the arguments of many as to whether God is male of female.
I say there are no such factors limiting God short of his and hers apparent act of having centered the the self onto the original explosion that created the original universe and being blown into tiny particulate entities of varying sizes of which you and I are each a piece, for game's sake...
The Gods would appear to have thrown themselves into the explosions and machinations that created creation and now show nary a trace of their former glory, though I would wager that there are many major chunks of what was God who have taken up positions in a hierarchy of governance beyond our view.
These would have become our gods in a relative sense.
Perhaps being "blown to smithereens" is a hazard of being a God involved in universe creation.
Beyond the "big Bang Theory" meets modern religion, I don't know what else to believe.
None of the "God the Father or Heavenly Father" crap though.
I see God(s) as the creator's of all, including the masculinity/femininity dichotomy but not bound to manifesting either in terms of limitations.
But in terms of pure potential, the manifestation of both male and female as well as the in between is probable.
I say that because I read the arguments of many as to whether God is male of female.
I say there are no such factors limiting God short of his and hers apparent act of having centered the the self onto the original explosion that created the original universe and being blown into tiny particulate entities of varying sizes of which you and I are each a piece, for game's sake...
The Gods would appear to have thrown themselves into the explosions and machinations that created creation and now show nary a trace of their former glory, though I would wager that there are many major chunks of what was God who have taken up positions in a hierarchy of governance beyond our view.
These would have become our gods in a relative sense.
Perhaps being "blown to smithereens" is a hazard of being a God involved in universe creation.
Beyond the "big Bang Theory" meets modern religion, I don't know what else to believe.
Last edited:
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
Interstellar, intergalactic and milestone are single words, and I notice with red shifts/redshifts you are hedging your bets Mimsey. Where's your spell checker now eh?
PS: Don't blame me, you're the one who brought the subject of spelling errors up.
Is this why you are mistrustful of science?
This is very interesting. I'd actually never heard of the theory of 'tired light.'
Although most scientists apparently dismiss the idea, as it doesn't fit with observation, there are some still investigating it. I guess if they discover enough evidence we will need to rethink the age of the universe.
On that lecture I have provided, Lawrence says the universe is 13.72 billion years old. Wiki now lists it at 13.79. I recall another different figure entirely, so these things are constantly being revised.
Scientists are not immune. Ideally, they should be, but they are people. They sometimes lie, they sometimes fudge their data and they sometimes cling to bad ideas. In that lecture, they mention an astronomer, I think Kepler, who fudged his data. It is very much against the ideals of science to do this, but we are all flawed.
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
There was a lot of controversy about Robert Millikan (a scientist who did a lot of pioneering work on electrons) was another one; he was later found to have cherry-picked his data and ignored counted experimental observations which fitted his original hypothesis, though it's questionable how much difference this made in the long run.
It's precisely because scientists are human and are prone to do things like this that science has become so demanding in the standards it sets its researchers.
dchoiceisalwaysrs
Gold Meritorious Patron
Interesting thread. Perhaps I am closest to what Robert G. Ingersoll, an Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and sought-after orator in 19th-century America, has been referred to as the "Great Agnostic" said " Is there a God? I do not know. Is man immortal? I do not know. One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be. " OR.. I would call myself or rather my beliefs as PTS type. open minded...lol. Hell,on one hand what is wooo wooo today can be discovered to be true based on new discoveries and scientific theories can be replaced by new ones. By the way that is one of the goals I wished to accomplish in scn was to be able to perceive on as many levels and from as many viewpoints as needed or possiible to know the ultimate core truths. Well that scn path sure as F*&%$k didn't pan out to be a very profitable side tracking journey.
Now as to what normal label I would paste on that, it is to a large degree a question of semantics and definitions of God and the labels around the whole subject.
I forgot who posted the definition of agnostic earlier which is a bit skitso or bi-polar in itself or if you will two very different meanings within the apparently single definition.
"1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
I think the following article while somewhat sloppily and probably cut and pasted from various locations does however, illustrate that the labels used in this thread are a clearly defined as are Dn CLEAR and Scn CLEAR in the Tech Dictionary of yesteryear.
Maybe we need a cramming officer , which reminds me where the F*^# is Jesse Prince with his new book I thought was coming out this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
from which a couple of snippets
.....Etymology[edit]
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.[25][26]
Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge".
...and
....Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[58]
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.
*****
yea..okay I am probably an Atheist soft agnostic theist....but I am not so sure about that.
Now as to what normal label I would paste on that, it is to a large degree a question of semantics and definitions of God and the labels around the whole subject.
I forgot who posted the definition of agnostic earlier which is a bit skitso or bi-polar in itself or if you will two very different meanings within the apparently single definition.
"1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
I think the following article while somewhat sloppily and probably cut and pasted from various locations does however, illustrate that the labels used in this thread are a clearly defined as are Dn CLEAR and Scn CLEAR in the Tech Dictionary of yesteryear.
Maybe we need a cramming officer , which reminds me where the F*^# is Jesse Prince with his new book I thought was coming out this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
from which a couple of snippets
.....Etymology[edit]
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.[25][26]
Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge".
...and
....Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[58]
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.
*****
yea..okay I am probably an Atheist soft agnostic theist....but I am not so sure about that.
Similar threads
