I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference?

Wow!!  I didn't know you already figured out how to move the Earth away from the sun--what's the plan to deflect large asteroids?  We could win another Nobel with this shit, (I gave you some credit for solving the TOE).    

These things are unfeasible for many reasons. It's insane to give humans so much power over celestial bodies. No Nobel can compensate for this. And I am only interested in the stamp, not the prize.

Awesome

It's insane to give humans so much power over celestial bodies.

1000 years ago it was insane to say that man would go to the moon--nothing is impossible.  In a scant 10,000 years when humankind may be scattered throughout the entire universe, questions arise as to whether we could evolve into pure energy, becoming immortal and omniscient--i.e. Gods.  A Russian astrophysicist had some thoughts on this and his scale of society 'Types' is still recognized today.  Read this short article and dream of becoming a god Ersi--instead of worshiping one.  http://www.21stcentech.com/humans-achieve-type-1-civilization-2100/

yeah , nothing is impossible .

but  sometimes deluded also  another word for - thinking nothing is impossible

btw ..
in the Year + 1100  my ancestor also Write something about -  the  inverted World Era
also known as - The King Jayabaya   , Jayabaya's Compass

some Random point in English will be like :

there are Cart Without horse
there are Boat   that Fly in the sky
Many River losing the Source .

many Rain  in the Wrong Season
Women dressed like man

many people Die because bitten by   mosquito



People that Conscious  Create ideas

It's insane to give humans so much power over celestial bodies.

1000 years ago it was insane to say that man would go to the moon--nothing is impossible.

Not saying it's impossible, just saying it's insane to do. Man went to the moon and nothing good came of that either. Btw, 1000 years ago man dreamt of conquering the space just as they did in the fifties.

Your dream of progress in 10,000 years is futile. Humanity won't survive that long. Much better chances that humanity will turn this planet into another moon. In the best case humanity bombs itself back into the stone age soon so they can start evolving again.

A Russian astrophysicist had some thoughts on this and his scale of society 'Types' is still recognized today. 

I know all the things Russians dream up much better than you. I live in the midst of Russians if you didn't know by now.

Man went to the moon and nothing good came of that either. Btw, 1000 years ago man dreamt of conquering the space just as they did in the fifties.

For pity's sake Ersi, if you are going to colonize the galaxy and beyond--you have to start somewhere.  Man has always looked up to the heavens and dreamed of going there--perhaps that is a sign of our destiny. 

Your dream of progress in 10,000 years is futile. Humanity won't survive that long. Much better chances that humanity will turn this planet into another moon. In the best case humanity bombs itself back into the stone age soon so they can start evolving again.

Never knew you had such a pessimistic view of humanity, that explains a lot of your other worldly thinking.  Man is probably the most adaptable species there is, although a lot can be said of the cockroach.  The Toba eruption is thought to have reduces humans to between 1000-10,000 breeding pairs, but we came back nicely from that.  The last ice age caused our brains to increase 300% in size just in order to figure out how to survive.  We are a very, very young species compared to say the 250 million year old species of sharks, but I don't see us headed to extinction even in the unlikely event of an nuclear war.  Have faith in mankind--it makes this life so much more livable and fun. 

Have faith in mankind--it makes this life so much more livable and fun.

Now all you have to do is to prove that your faith is more reasonable than anyone else's and your individual life so much more livable and fun compared to eternity. Should be piece of cake.

Now all you have to do is to prove that your faith is more reasonable than anyone else's and your individual life so much more livable and fun compared to eternity. Should be piece of cake.

If you are a pessimist and think mankind is a joke, then of course you need faith in something else to keep you going.  I prefer to be a team player and spread my optimism that humanity just keeps on getting better every day.  We have our ups and downs but that is the nature of all life.  The overall trend for the graph of humanity is upward, despite what pessimists may say.  The peaks and valleys are just indications of our struggle to improve ourselves and our living conditions.  You may take a peek at this short blog post I wrote at the end of last year on WordPress--if you want a little inspiration about humanity:

http://jseaton2311.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/2013-the-best-year-in-human-history/

My faith is more reasonable because it deals only with this real world and not something make believe.  From there it is obvious to see that I am gaining much more from this life than believers by not being preoccupied about a possible second life and having to devote this life to worshiping some god who may or may not provide that for me--piece of cake.   

"Eternity"? When I consider eternity, I'm in a moment of bliss... That is, I'm not thinking of anything; I'm wholely absorbed in the moment. (My presumption is that everyone here knows what I'm referring to.) Time ceases to exist -- like going back to the Big Bang!
But it doesn't last. (I'd be unemployable, if it did...) And it shouldn't: It has a purpose.

That's where I disagree with the Heaven Chasers.
They would do anything to secure their place there... I would do what I can, to make my place here better.
(I don't mean The World! I just mean my everyday life, those circumstances that affect those around me... That's what life is about, isn't it? )

"Eternity" is a wet dream... Hey, it happens. But who in your life is less important to you...?

The last ice age caused our brains to increase 300% in size just in order to figure out how to survive

should we increase Human brain size 100% more ?

Flipped Logic , Lobotomy <--- Careful, this post may bite 

My faith is more reasonable because it deals only with this real world and not something make believe.  From there it is obvious to see that I am gaining much more from this life than believers by not being preoccupied about a possible second life and having to devote this life to worshiping some god who may or may not provide that for me--piece of cake.   

Given what I have seen about your definition of real world (and frankly all other concepts you hold, scientific and religious), your optimism is a complete make believe. It's symptomatic how you divide people into two classes, optimists and pessimists, forgetting realists.

"Eternity"? When I consider eternity, I'm in a moment of bliss... That is, I'm not thinking of anything; I'm wholely absorbed in the moment. (My presumption is that everyone here knows what I'm referring to.) Time ceases to exist -- like going back to the Big Bang!
But it doesn't last. (I'd be unemployable, if it did...) And it shouldn't: It has a purpose.

It can last throughout even while remaining employable. Requires practice. And requires dropping the booze*

That's where I disagree with the Heaven Chasers.
They would do anything to secure their place there... I would do what I can, to make my place here better.

If you only knew but it's obvious that you wouldn't know. I will tell you right now, and it's guaranteed that you forget it by your second next post.

The whole point of heaven is that anything you do won't get you closer to it. You have to do the right thing, and only that.

There's this Buddhist guru called Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. He did booze, heavily so, but he is a special case. He didn't do it to get addict's bliss, but because he had an earthly mission to fulfil. He had to drink and do some other worldly things "to keep it real" i.e. to be employable. Otherwise he would have had constant heavenly bliss and been lost to us. The situation is reversed in your case. You cannot make eternity and mundane life co-exist because of booze habit, while he had to do booze to make the earthly life feel concrete.

You cannot make eternity and mundane life co-exist because of booze habit, while he had to do booze to make the earthly life feel concrete.

Jean Cocteau knows it better...
Everything one does in life, even love, occurs in an express train racing toward death. To smoke opium is to get out of the train while it is still moving. It is to concern oneself with something other than life or death.

Open the Doors of perception...

Open the Doors of perception...

Wine is different from whisky

Given what I have seen about your definition of real world (and frankly all other concepts you hold, scientific and religious), your optimism is a complete make believe. It's symptomatic how you divide people into two classes, optimists and pessimists, forgetting realists.

Optimism and pessimism operate on a continuum, of which the midway point is realism.  However, the realist sees things only as they are, while the realistic optimists are prudently hopeful of favorable outcomes and they do as much as they can to obtain the desired results.  Pessimists tend to think that bad situations are their fault or always befall them and that good situations are not caused by anything they have done or are a fluke and will not be repeated. 

When it comes to optimism or pessimism, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is, more or less, my motto.  While it is advantageous for me to be an optimist in the real-world, the attitude is subconscious and a pessimist cannot just 'will' himself to be an optimist.  A change requires your inner wisdom to absorb a few important insights of the real world.  Real-world is defined as the realm of practical or actual experience, as opposed to the abstract, idealized or supernatural realms. 

As for your claim that optimism is make believe, I'm sure you realize that optimists suffer fewer real-world illnesses, recover faster and live longer than pessimists.  Don't take me for a Pollyanna, I am simply a practical and realistic optimist of this world.    

Some 35 years ago I read Matlin and Stang's book The Pollyanna Principle: Selectivity in Language, Memory, and Thought... I've not seen anything since that contradicts what it said.

Taking psychological science into account moots most of the "positions" here...

The whole point of heaven is [...]

Is there any way to fill that ellipsis that isn't extremely selfish?!

Taking psychological science into account moots most of the "positions" here...

The whole point of heaven is [...]

Is there any way to fill that ellipsis that isn't extremely selfish?!

As per your own theory, you fill it in on the level of your own corruptedness. It's clear from here that your psychological fetish is selfishness and that's why you see it everywhere, even when it's not there.

The whole point of heaven is [...]Is there any way to fill that ellipsis that isn't extremely selfish?!

Selfish is not always a dirty word and I can only guess that by 'extremely selfish' you mean narcissistic selfishness or being selfish to the detriment of others.  Were I a believer, I think it would be prudent of me to be selfish enough to want to avoid the alternative of burning in hell, but I don't think the whole point of heaven is just to avoid hell.  To the believer, there simply exists a heaven whether they want to go there or not and the whole point of heaven has not been completely revealed to them. 

Ersi's case is a different story.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time this morning to go into detail, however, I do think his 'wanting' there to be a heaven is for selfish reasons--but not horribly so.    

Were I a believer, I think it would be prudent of me to be selfish enough to want to avoid the alternative of burning in hell, but I don't think the whole point of heaven is just to avoid hell.  To the believer, there simply exists a heaven whether they want to go there or not and the whole point of heaven has not been completely revealed to them. 

What can be criticised is blind faith and unverified speculations. Atheists and theists are equally vulnerable to this criticism. For example your optimistic scientism perfectly qualifies as blind faith and the multiverse theory perfectly qualifies as an unverified speculation. The complete story is a bit more complex. Science is blind faith to JS, but to any proper scientist it's a matter of understanding, discovery, earning a living, etc.

Same with heaven to believers. Some believe in heaven because they are told so. This is dogmatic blind faith. Others come to understand what is truly meant by heaven and how it makes sense and cannot be otherwise. Still others come to a direct experience of heaven, and the experience has many levels, always subject to further depths. To those who have no clue about the experience it may look like blind faith, and if the believer has poor skills of self-expression, his talk may sound like unverified speculation, but for the sake of balance you should judge a scientist with poor skills of self-expression the same way.

Ersi's case is a different story.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time this morning to go into detail, however, I do think his 'wanting' there to be a heaven is for selfish reasons--but not horribly so.    

Please go into detail

As for 'selfish', I take it to mean egoistic, profiting from others without gratitude or recompense, asserting oneself above others without reason, etc. But heaven comes to saintly beings, so '(extremely) selfish heaven' as Oakdale would have it is a contradiction in terms. Well, he holds a bunch of contradictions in terms. Time to get used to it.

What can be criticised is blind faith and unverified speculations.

A point on that for those with an overture of the spirit:
Faith it's necessarily blind, if not then it's not faith. Therefore if reason criticizes it then it's because it's not reason.

The imposition for a "reasonable faith", usually meaning a" faith that should be reasonable", it's a silliness aimed to castrate the fullness of the being and level people to materialist normalization and control.

If there was no faith, described as I did it - pure, absolute, blind faith, people would suicide themselves by the millions just like pathetic lemurs trapped by the inexorability of reason, a reason way beyond their comprehension.
Faith points them heaven, reason points them hell. Such duality creates them hope, hope that is worthwhile of being lived.

For example your optimistic scientism perfectly qualifies as blind faith and the multiverse theory perfectly qualifies as an unverified speculation.

I am optimistic that science & technology will provide the answers to many of the problems we face today and those we will face in the future.  Science is a field of ideas without end and I rather like the way it has made my life more productive, exciting and comfortable--or do you rather enjoy rubbing sticks together to make fire?  Yes, I am optimistic about an even better scientific future of my children, grandchildren and mankind--how else should I be?  A radical religious terrorists? 

You are disillusioned and fed up with this world for whatever reason and so you have intellectually created an escape for yourself that allows you to suffer through this life until the Alice in Wonderland world of yours begins.  Nothing too wrong with that I suppose, but a mind such as yours is a terrible thing to waste on a simple escape mechanism.  Some people use alcohol and/or drugs to escape and, in a sense, I see you mimicking that.  I'll just keep my feet planted firmly and optimistically on this earth and enjoy the moment--my only moment (although I'm not beyond a margarita or five). 

You have the idea that theories in science are just dreamed up at random in some mad scientist's head.  But the fact is that theories have to fit perfectly with everything that science has already discovered and proven.  It must then reasonably answer certain questions that the theory was devised to answer.  It has to be rigidly correct in its mathematical formulations and until it can be proven experimentally, it must quite naturally remain a theory.  This is a far cry from your blind faith thinking of how I view the workings of science.    

EDIT: When science stops answering the tough questions, stops making life better for everyone on this planet and stops providing hope for the future then I'll stop believing in science.  Btw, what has god done for this world lately...or ever? 

But the fact is that theories have to fit perfectly with everything that science has already discovered and proven.  It must then reasonably answer certain questions that the theory was devised to answer.  It has to be rigidly correct in its mathematical formulations and until it can be proven experimentally, it must naturally remain a theory.

How many times did you go through this process? I know: You simply trust the scientific literature that you read. You never even repeat the math, not to mention the experiments. You believe the reported results plus the interpretations blindly. This is the dogmatic kind of faith that I always had a problem with.

I always verify things for myself. It's easy to become overly suspicious growing up in a society built on lies, where news are gross propaganda, visibly at odds with easily verifiable facts. To get rid of paranoia and to identify trustworthy information, one must thoroughly work on the background framework based on which to determine what is plausible and what is not, learn to read between the lines. I occasionally write between the lines too

Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth. It touts progress without any sensible definition of progress. Materialists don't even believe in math and this means there's no hope there's any logic in them. Whenever I talk about math with you, you always turn to physics, the absolutely wrong way to go. Modern physicists deny they have any background assumptions colouring their conclusions, even when they make most obvious demonstrable use of background assumptions. You are a similar blatantly self-contradicting example of the positivist perspective. At least I hope you will get those quantum mechanics gravity papers published and acknowledged by the next time the Nobel prize jury meets. It would be the first good thing you get out of physics, good according to your definition.

You can learn to identify background assumptions once you have identified your own background assumptions. Then you can do amazing things, such as understand the true meaning of propositions, even the meaning of the scriptures. The Bible though is the most difficult scripture to interpret. It's very hard job to figure out its symbolism and metaphysics. Obvious false interpretations abound concerning the Bible, but I suppose the purpose of this is that the Western people would not think too highly of themselves. Accusing believers of irrationality and hypocrisy when failing at the very basic understanding of the scripture that shaped the foundations of this civilization is a ridiculous self-contradiction by atheists indeed. This ensures that atheists and the religious community keep talking past each other and each one can remain largely themselves, to each other's annoyance.

Unless one can comprehend both sides and rise above the dispute. You will have convinced me that you understand the materialist science side when you get those papers written.

EDIT: When science stops answering the tough questions, stops making life better for everyone on this planet and stops providing hope for the future then I'll stop believing in science.  Btw, what has god done for this world lately...or ever?

God sustains the universe at every point in time. How? This is the bit that went over your head when I told you the way Ghazali argued for it. Without this, we would not exist in the first place.

What is some tough question science has answered for you and in what way did it make life better for everyone?

@Belfrager
You of course think that the scripture is not meant to be understood, but to be believed. Whereas for me seeing is believing. The problem with the Bible is that it's hard to see its point. Eventually I have gotten around to seeing its point myself, but I find the point hardly communicable and the effort to understand it too hard to suggest to ordinary people to undergo. It's much easier to recommend scripture that says something like this:

"Scriptures are numerous, divergent in their message, conflicting in their conclusions, confusing and laborious. They have to be studied over a long period of time, but time destroys what it builds, leaving one running around in an endless circle, vainly endeavouring to put the fragmented personality and life into order. Loving and benevolent Suta! You are the master of all the scriptures and are therefore in the best position to help us. Give us the quintessence of these scriptures..."

@ Ersi:  I see no reason why I must conduct my life by the same rigors you feel necessary in yours.  Moreover, when a field of study has the winning track record that science has, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in their reports and even more so, because I understand the very exact, careful and strict discipline that all scientific findings must go through. 

But tell me then, for how long did you actually rub two sticks together to make fire until you could experimentally prove it was okay and safe to use a stove?  Many modern gadgets use unproven theories of quantum mechanics, so I'm quite sure you don't have anything like a cell phone, computer or Blu-ray player.  The fact is, you merrily use these marvels of science every day and then stab science in the back by night--what has science ever done to you? 

Your anal retentive insistence on using a definition of the definition of the definition is endless, circular and in the end meaningless.  The fact of the matter is that, yes, religion, scripture, God all had their day in the sun, but it's high time people grew up, shed their old religious skin and moved on to where science is leading us--the stars. 

You call me an atheist which is not entirely true.  I have mentioned that I can't completely discount god's existence because, unlike you, I'm not omniscient.  Therefore, it is best that I be known to you as an agnostic-atheist and if there was any hope, whatsoever, of you being honest, you would say that you are a agnostic-theist.  Agnosticism addresses knowledge--atheism addresses belief.  The agnostic says, "I don't have a knowledge that God exists."  The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists."  You can say both things at the same time.  Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic.    

@ Ersi:  I see no reason why I must conduct my life by the same rigors you feel necessary in yours.  Moreover, ...

I see no reason why I must conduct my life by the same laxity as you do yours. Moreover, I didn't suggest any such thing in the first place. You are heavily projecting, which prevents you from seeing what I wrote and meant, and consequently talking past the topic, rendering the discussion pointless when it could be about something relevant.

Moreover, when a field of study has the winning track record that science has, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in their reports and even more so, because I understand the very exact, careful and strict discipline that all scientific findings must go through.

I have seen you assert this several times over but never prove it. You know the difference between assertion and proof, don't you? If you do, demonstrate it. Thus far you have consistently demonstrated that "very exact, careful, and strict discipline" is something you have no idea about.

But tell me then, for how long did you actually rub two sticks together to make fire until you could experimentally prove it was okay and safe to use a stove?  Many modern gadgets use unproven theories of quantum mechanics, so I'm quite sure you don't have anything like a cell phone, computer or Blu-ray player. The fact is, you merrily use these marvels of science every day and then stab science in the back by night--what has science ever done to you?

See, we are talking about totally different topics. Okay, you obviously don't see.

The fact of the matter is that, yes, religion, scripture, God all had their day in the sun, but it's high time people grew up, shed their old religious skin and moved on to where science is leading us--the stars.

You mean to the moon? When was the latest flight? I could say that science had its day in the sun and now it's high time for you to move on, but my point never was to suggest ways of living or beliefs to you.

Agnosticism addresses knowledge--atheism addresses belief. 

Nice play with the definitions here. What you have been actually addressing, different from your definitions, is probabilities, doubts, denial, constant wrestling with God. You know very well what God is and how and where and why, you just don't like it and therefore you refuse to acknowledge it, but it inevitably ends up being the recurrent theme in whatever you talk about. You'd fit better in a whole new category: negative theist.

let's bring that Nirvanna fallacy in the next level .

4th and 5th Dimension 

Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.

Much to ersi's chagrin, I would agree with these statements! Of course, where he sees failure and incompetence, I see intellectual honesty and honest effort...
An example: The basis of statistical reasoning can't be frequentism. Nor subjective Beyesianism. But objective Beyesianism makes sense...
Modern science is -much as was religion before it- a sopa de pedra. Some people can't accept that!