To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #170]

There are many things in the world for people to occupy their time on. If one is to say 'that isn't 'good' because it's doing XYZ not ABC' is only good for ego chest thumping and not much else IMO.

I think that an extinction event created by human invention isn't a 'good' way in which to use Science and engineering.

The data correlated, appears to support my thinking is correct on the subject.

I'm not looking in the direction you are.

Then you deny yourself the opportunity of seeing for yourself, what is to be seen.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #171]

I think that an extinction event created by human invention isn't a 'good' way in which to use Science and engineering.

Probably won't get a big argument over that, but when has that happened?

Then you deny yourself seeing what is to be seen.

Spoooky. Fortune telling isn't in my playbook. Care to give me the lottery numbers for the next draw? Or a stock tip?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #172]

I think that an extinction event created by human invention isn't a 'good' way in which to use Science and engineering.

Probably won't get a big argument over that, but when has that happened?

It WILL happen unless something of a new paradigm occurs in order to avert if from happening.

That is not spooky fortune-telling unless you are suggesting that the scientists predicting such an event WILL happen, IF humanity doesn't radically change the way it is currently doing things, are just soothsaying.

As great as the challenge obviously is, there is no need to approach it fearfully, superstitiously or for that matter, indifferently.

The results of the indifferent approach are the same as the results of the fearful, superstitious approach.

[Bust Nak]

What justifies these attributes as being the actual attributes of the creative mind of this universe?

Don't ask me, ask your peers who proposed such attributes.

So would you agree that this is a statement of faith, since the word "might" was - honestly - used?

I will call it a prediction, based on the fact that we have at least one example of space tech for everyday uses. I'll let you decide if that qualify as faith or not.

However, my question is not related to any argument against the practicality of S&E, but rather - re the way these are being practically applied.

With that in mind, would you re-read my question and give an answer to it?

To clarify, "what is already established" is the planet-space-ship it/herself.

I've already mentioned stuff like renewable energy, that looks to me like an example of investing in "what is already established."

Isn't it more practical to use the S&E to manage the land and resources already available, more resourcefully and responsibly?

We are doing that though, just not to the point of exclusion for space exploration.

Tag along with what? Yet another human fantasy? How is selling a fantasy in the face of reality any more practical or different than selling religious fantasy and having humans tag along in that?

It is more practical because it is providing actual results despite your fantasy label.

Much more of this is required for any real hope in solving the hard problems of humanity. That is what I am putting forward re the need for massive re-thinking and project the investment of wealth into the space-craft already established.

Fix what is broken and once that task has been done, THEN look to the stars...

Why not concurrently? We have to leave this planet sooner or later if we are to survive long term. One rogue asteroid could end us, and as far flung as it is, the sun presents a hard limit on the hospitality of the spaceship Earth.

They are in the sense that these technologies are not given the priority they have to be given in order to seriously reverse the numerous decades of harmful damage S&E have already done to this ship.

The closer we get to an extinction level event, the more obvious it becomes that these technologies - while real and potentially world-changing - were neglected by the necessary commitment and investment to make them anything more than fantasy.

Well they are all growing industry with a influx of investment now. It might be too little too late, but it's moving in the right direction.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #172]

I think that an extinction event created by human invention isn't a 'good' way in which to use Science and engineering.

Probably won't get a big argument over that, but when has that happened?

It WILL happen unless something of a new paradigm occurs in order to avert if from happening.

That is not spooky fortune-telling unless you are suggesting that the scientists predicting such an event WILL happen, IF humanity doesn't radically change the way it is currently doing things, are just soothsaying.

As great as the challenge obviously is, there is no need to approach it fearfully, superstitiously or for that matter, indifferently.

The results of the indifferent approach are the same as the results of the fearful, superstitious approach.

I think prediction is a haphazard idea for one to subscribe to; hindsight is always 20/20. There's a fear of science that is, in a sense, stupid, but in another sense, very apt. It's an interesting proposition. But I think, in this situation, fear normally wins out for most people. That's why religions that promise 'paradise after death for those that accept and punishment for those that don't' are so popular IMO.
It's easy to fear what one doesn't understand. It's also easy to ignore all potentials. There's a lack of faith in humanity that is, to me, a lot more apt than the fear of science itself. That, of course, supposes that the 'science' referred to is how it's used, and not the concept itself.
It bears to mention that not all scientists are predicting such cataclysm in the future. But the ones that are, well, they get much more attention. And, being people (for some reason) seem to like the more negative approach to life, they tend to gravitate more to these predictions than the flip side of the coin.
Still, fear isn't all bad. But one has to balance fear with knowledge and understanding - something many can't or don't seem to want to do.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #174]

What justifies these attributes as being the actual attributes of the creative mind of this universe?

Don't ask me, ask your peers who proposed such attributes.

I have to ask you, because you are the one asserting these attributes.

My peers are not religious theists, any more than they are your peers.

Are you willing to drop arguing attributes which are unhelpful to your argument and withdraw the equation;

1) If creative mind then no evil.
2) Evil.
3) Therefore not creative mind.

...on the grounds that it is unjustified?

there might be technologies developed with space exploration in mind, that ends up having other, more immediate useful, utility.

So would you agree that this is a statement of faith, since the word "might" was - honestly - used?

I will call it a prediction, based on the fact that we have at least one example of space tech for everyday uses. I'll let you decide if that qualify as faith or not.

Ah yes. The old stick-free pan.
For now I will treat your hopeful maybe-prediction, as an expression of faith...like how Alien-Jesus might return and fix the world problems.

I've already mentioned stuff like renewable energy, that looks to me like an example of investing in "what is already established."

Apparently the investment is too light to be making any substantially noticeable difference.
Does that not concern you?

Isn't it more practical to use the S&E to manage the land and resources already available, more resourcefully and responsibly?

We are doing that though, just not to the point of exclusion for space exploration.

Nor to the exclusion of making weapons of warfare and pumping trillions into military expenditure.

All creations of science and engineering.

Which is why I ask about practicality...

It is more practical because it is providing actual results despite your fantasy label.

The results it is producing are invested in fantasy rather than practicality. How is selling a fantasy in the face of reality anything other than a production of fantasy?
How is one production of fantasy-feeding any more practical than another, when the results are no different re hope and faith?

Much more of this is required for any real hope in solving the hard problems of humanity. That is what I am putting forward re the need for massive re-thinking and project the investment of wealth into the space-craft already established.

Fix what is broken and once that task has been done, THEN look to the stars...

Why not concurrently? We have to leave this planet sooner or later if we are to survive long term.

Sol is predicted to expand in about 5 billion years from now.
Climate change predictions are far more close at hand.

That is 'why not concurrently?' The events are non-concurrent.
That is why "Fix what is broken and once that task has been done, THEN look to the stars..."

Carts before horses are never the wise choice where forward moving is concerned.

One rogue asteroid could end us, and as far flung as it is, the sun presents a hard limit on the hospitality of the spaceship Earth.

Well there it is. Why try when it could all be undone by a single RA.
"Please return to your fantasy program."

Would you argue that those scientists predicting that the massive S&E-created problems which could trigger an extinction event, "why worry? We might fix it only to have a single RA come along and ruin everything?"

The closer we get to an extinction level event, the more obvious it becomes that these technologies - while real and potentially world-changing - were neglected by the necessary commitment and investment to make them anything more than fantasy.

Well they are all growing industry with a influx of investment now. It might be too little too late, but it's moving in the right direction.

Perhaps that RA is also moving in the right direction.

Which do you think is more likely to arrive first?

[Bust Nak]

I have to ask you, because you are the one asserting these attributes.

Like I said, I am just repeating what theists tell me.

...on the grounds that it is unjustified?

Is it unjustified? Tell them, not me.

Ah yes. The old stick-free pan.
For now I will treat your hopeful maybe-prediction, as an expression of faith...like how Alien-Jesus might return and fix the world problems.

That's up to you.

Apparently the investment is too light to be making any substantially noticeable difference.
Does that not concern you?

I noticed some difference, is it too little too late, maybe. That is concerning, at the same time I an encourage at the progress we are making.

Nor to the exclusion of making weapons of warfare and pumping trillions into military expenditure.

All creations of science and engineering.

Which is why I ask about practicality...

Well, I am not the one to blame for that. That money would be directed at the good stuff if I was in charge.

The results it is producing are invested in fantasy rather than practicality. How is selling a fantasy in the face of reality anything other than a production of fantasy?
How is one production of fantasy-feeding any more practical than another, when the results are no different re hope and faith?

Asked and answered. It is different to mere hope and faith.

Sol is predicted to expand in about 5 billion years from now.
Climate change predictions are far more close at hand.

That is 'why not concurrently?' The events are non-concurrent.
That is why "Fix what is broken and once that task has been done, THEN look to the stars..."

Carts before horses are never the wise choice where forward moving is concerned.

You don't know when the next asteroid would hit. That is concurrent.

Well there it is. Why try when it could all be undone by a single RA.
"Please return to your fantasy program."

Would you argue that those scientists predicting that the massive S&E-created problems which could trigger an extinction event, "why worry? We might fix it only to have a single RA come along and ruin everything?"

That's an entirely unfair characterisation of my stance. I proposed, "hey, lets solve two problems at once." Somehow you read that as "why bother with problem 1 when there is a problem 2."

Perhaps that RA is also moving in the right direction.

Which do you think is more likely to arrive first?

I don't know, that's the point.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #177]

I have to ask you, because you are the one asserting these attributes.

Like I said, I am just repeating what theists tell me.

1) If creative mind then no evil.
2) Evil.
3) Therefore not creative mind.

The posted equation is your doing, is it not?

And why imply that all theists tell you the same thing about creative mind when obviously this cannot be true?

Theism acknowledges creative mind but clearly the religious branches of theism have conflicting interpretations re that.

Are you willing to drop arguing attributes which are unhelpful to your argument and withdraw the equation;
...on the grounds that it is unjustified?

Is it unjustified? Tell them, not me.

What makes me think they will listen any more than you will listen?

They are not telling me this equation is justified. Are you?

For now I will treat your hopeful maybe-prediction, as an expression of faith...like how Alien-Jesus might return and fix the world problems.

That's up to you.

It is the truest interpretation so far...

I noticed some difference, is it too little too late, maybe. That is concerning, at the same time I an encourage at the progress we are making.

We share that pov - I soak up the amazing details of S&E creations and see the great potential therein to actually work diligently on investing in the Space Ship we already occupy...how such can save a species...

In that, since it is only potential and to little to late being the probable condition of now - the better thing to hope in has little if anything to do with keeping consciousness alive and active within the physical universe.

Rather, the theistic approach of going within and having the ability to effect actual changes on that world, is more realistic re the individual powerless to make any significant external changes.
Introspection [spiritual enlightenment] has its purpose.

That is why I use the system of Generating Messages. For the purpose of introspection.

That is why recent messages have mentioned not to be overly concerned with the goings on of the powers that be in the external reality of my experience - all is as it should be, even as it changes day to day.

Nor to the exclusion of making weapons of warfare and pumping trillions into military expenditure.

All creations of science and engineering.

Which is why I ask about practicality...

Well, I am not the one to blame for that. That money would be directed at the good stuff if I was in charge.

I am not approaching this from a judgmental position. I am just looking at the facts as presented and it is unavoidable that in speaking of those facts, one can come across as being judgmental about them.

I am simply trying to understand them for what they truly are...

I too would redirect the $$ into the good stuff [The Good Ship Earth] if I were in charge.

Most folk probably would, but again - most folk as individuals do not have that kind of power...

I call it the "Everybody wants to rule the world syndrome"
Which relates to the word-string;
"It doesn't seem the kind of thing that any GOD would do"

"The devil is in the details."

Which relates to the word-string;
"The physical universe"
and also
"The Mainstream Program "

Asked and answered. It is different to mere hope and faith.

Perhaps.

Or it could be a product of hope and faith which has been enabled through S&E.

You don't know when the next asteroid would hit. That is concurrent.

What I do know is, even that a lot of forms got destroyed, it didn't stop Mother Ship from making more.

In the case of S&E space investment programs - the investors don't want to be something dug up in some distant further as evidence of having once been...rather they want to use what is available in order to at least give them some kind of chance to avoid extinction.

That's an entirely unfair characterisation of my stance. I proposed, "hey, lets solve two problems at once." Somehow you read that as "why bother with problem 1 when there is a problem 2."

I have yet to understand the characterisation of your stance better. If it is based on the adage of killing two birds with the same stone, or maybe the adage that a bird in the hand is worth more than the two still in the bush...

Or some other thing...

As I say, it is not my intention to judge...I will try to frame my words better re that...

Which do you think is more likely to arrive first?
I don't know, that's the point.

And so - even that if you were in the drivers seat, you would channel $$ to where the "good stuff" would get the benefits BUT - the variables force you to spread it thinly, which prevents you from doing what you think might be better?

A rock and a hard place...

Which is what WingMakers Philo II "The Shifting Models of Existence" extensively explains.

When it was mentioned in a recent Generated Message;

Re: Generating Messages
Post #52
Post by William » Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:37 pm
A Pragmatic Realization Precipitated In Ones Mind
A Life Sentence Ending in a Death Sentence
Philo2

I searched the documentation and re-read it...and realized that even though I have known of the documents contents for over 20 years now, it was far more relevant to now and to the subject of the powers that be [theistic or otherwise and referred to as 'hierarchies' in said doc] we are discussing at present...I see that I did try to link the document in post #163 of this thread, but the click leads nowhere...I usual check first before publishing but obviously didn't in that instance.

Between a rock and a hard place = 210
Secrets of the soul
Central to The Message
Hologram Dimensions

[Bust Nak]

The posted equation is your doing, is it not?

Yes.

And why imply that all theists tell you the same thing about creative mind when obviously this cannot be true?

I didn't.

What makes me think they will listen any more than you will listen?

Don't know.

They are not telling me this equation is justified. Are you?

I am telling you it is logically valid.

In that, since it is only potential and to little to late being the probable condition of now - the better thing to hope in has little if anything to do with keeping consciousness alive and active within the physical universe...

That is why recent messages have mentioned not to be overly concerned with the goings on of the powers that be in the external reality of my experience - all is as it should be, even as it changes day to day.

Ironically, that sounded a lot like "Why worry? We might fix it only to have a single RA come along and ruin everything?" You are just selling the fantasy of an afterlife outside of the physical universe.

Or it could be a product of hope and faith which has been enabled through S&E.

That's still better than hope and faith without S&E.

What I do know is, even that a lot of forms got destroyed, it didn't stop Mother Ship from making more.

Making more of what though? Cockroaches could inherit the space ship. Great.

In the case of S&E space investment programs - the investors don't want to be something dug up in some distant further as evidence of having once been...rather they want to use what is available in order to at least give them some kind of chance to avoid extinction.

That's the idea, yes.

And so - even that if you were in the drivers seat, you would channel $$ to where the "good stuff" would get the benefits BUT - the variables force you to spread it thinly, which prevents you from doing what you think might be better?

If I was in charge, what would stop me from doing what I think is best? I would spread it thinly if I think that is best, or at the other end of the spectrum, put all the eggs into one basket if I think that is best.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #179]

So when you wrote "the good stuff" you would do, that amounts solely to what you think is 'best' - Would that be any different than what is already happening?