It's time to end humanity.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Kashai

 

That was talking about different religions and quotes about Hinduism with another poster-- intellectually and removed from it, not about my or his beliefs. Context is everything.

Thoughts?
If you wish to deify or worship dust, that is your prerogative. Go for it.

edit on 2/19/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

In context science actually understand 1 to 3 percent of reality. I can understand your claim if mankind in fact understood 95% and claimed that God does not exist.

That would make sense, otherwise it sounds like you forgot we today only understand 1 to 3 percent of what is real.

In some intellectual opinions we understand much less that that.

reply to post by Kashai


Again,

What claim?



No offense, but is English not your first language? Honestly asking, not mocking.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Kashai

 

Again

What claim?

No offense, but is English not your first language? Honestly asking, not mocking.

edit on 2/19/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

My first language is Nahuatl

It is not rational to commit to the conclusion that God does not exist based upon an analysis of 3% of anything. Especially given that proving God's existence requires an understanding of 100% of everything.

Kashai

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Kashai

 

Again

What claim?

No offense, but is English not your first language? Honestly asking, not mocking.

edit on 2/19/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

My first language is Nahuatl

It is not rational to commit to the conclusion that God does not exist based upon an analysis of 3% of anything. Especially given that proving God's existence requires an understanding of 100% of everything.

I would think that God would have a say in that....

Proof of God being dependent on understanding everything seems a bit of a conundrum.

reply to post by bbracken677


So does the idea that understanding God would not involve everything.

reply to post by Kashai


If your 3% understanding is good enough for your opinion, then my 3% is good enough for mine.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Not really.

I always thought human was a word that was deviated from the word hominid, not from the latin term meaning earth, or dirt. Homo, hominid, human... homo sapien! OH, THE HUMANITY!!

reply to post by Kashai


I dunno....do we gain an understanding of everything when we die? I hope so, but I honestly do not know.

Then there is the thought that what if he suddenly appeared in your home to sit down and have a conversation with you. Would you need to understand everything then to accept whatever proof he chose to present?

This is why I used the word conundrum as opposed to a different word.


co·nun·drum
kəˈnəndrəm/
noun
1.
a confusing and difficult problem or question.
"one of the most difficult conundrums for the experts"
synonyms: problem, difficult question, difficulty, quandary, dilemma; More
a question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.
synonyms: riddle, puzzle, word game; More

DARREN1976
I always thought human was a word that was deviated from the word hominid, not from the latin term meaning earth, or dirt. Homo, hominid, human... homo sapien! OH, THE HUMANITY!!

edit on 19-2-2014 by DARREN1976 because: (no reason given)

"Homo" is Greek for "the same as".

Kashai
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Not really.

Yes, really. If such a narrow understanding is enough to foster such a purportedly sound conclusion as yours, then why would I need any more of an understanding? Why is your 3% any better than mine?

bbracken677
reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi

 

Moral of the story? I am not ready to go right now. If you are, then you are quite welcome, but please leave the rest of us alone when you do.

What gives you the right to proclaim this nonsense? Did you just recently grow up or something?

edit on 19-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: -------------------

edit on 19-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

I have a hard time understanding what you are refering to. I don't think you have understood anything of what I have said. Where is the proclamation of nonsense? Don't I have a right to make a thread in the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum discussing alternative ways of looking at things? Do you have a better place for this discussion, if at all? What made you believe that I just recently grew up? My immature perspective? Where did I say I was going? Did I threaten to destroy anything or take anyone with me by force? This is not a follow-me kind of thing. It's the opposite! I have every right to proclaim whatever I want and you have every right to not listen. I thought that much was clear.

Please, don't take this response as an attack on you, because it isn't. It is just an observation. You can us it as a tool to help you re-examine the discrepancies between reality as it is and your way of interpreting it, because frankly, I observe a large gap in your ability to align this two realities.

That said: I gave you a star for the joke. It was funny. Though it has nothing in common with the topic at hand.

reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi


I am sorry I came across as arrogant in the above post. It was unnecessary. Back to your question: The answer is yes. Yes, I grew up.

reply to post by Kashai

You keep mentioning 3% knowledge of reality as being known.

Where did you get that figure?

Also as with many things, more knowledge on a subject often results in many many more questions and unknowns.

Who is to say what true reality is in the first place?

What does that 3% include to you in your opinion (assuming that figure is even anywhere true or accurate)?

reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi


Disregard the last sentence, I apologize. That was so much an opinion and not even one that should have been posted. I was of a weird mood that evening that, apparently, I violated one of my personal philosophies. The rest of the post was just humorous in an attempt to lighten up the thread somewhat.

I tip my hat to you for being as understanding and mature as you were in your response.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for a large part of the mass that appears to be missing from the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]

Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies by Vera Rubin,[6] in the 1960s–1970s, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and more recently the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle.[7][8] The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.[9]

Source

It not just that, our common senses provide us will a limited amount of information with regards to our immediate surroundings. What we perceive is best described as internal representations, if anything was we are able to perceive this way is represented in our brains andis in reality only an aspect of what is their.

Some scientists would say that it is actually less than 1% and I would not really have debatable point to offer otherwise.

AfterInfinity

Kashai
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Not really.

Yes, really. If such a narrow understanding is enough to foster such a purportedly sound conclusion as yours, then why would I need any more of an understanding? Why is your 3% any better than mine?

How important is your 3% to you? I mean I could go into all kinds of things that sound really cool but does that mean your going to suddenly abandon your 3%. Of course not that would be not only silly but I would seriously warn against any such behavior

Maybe some of my 3% is something you can relate to and maybe it can fit into things that you are into.

But you cannot replace my three percent with yours and neither can I do the same thing.

My 3% is best for me and your 3% is best for you.

reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi


And you sincerely believe you are not human?

That's the problem with those with the Human Extinction movement: they all put everyone in the same boat. Not only is that lazy it's also just plain insulting.

You want to be God. Are you sure you can put the universe onto your shoulders? Be careful what you wish for.

reply to post by swanne


Thank you for your input.I am sorry, but I don't relate to anything of what you said about me. I don't know how you misunderstood me but if this makes it clearer: No, I do not stand for anything of what you claimed about me in your reply to me. There! Ok?

If my posts have given you another impression, that led you to conclude the way you did, it's only because I am unable to communicate what I want to you in a manner that you understand. Having established that, I am not going to try either.

But sincerely, thank you for taking the time.

reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi


Ok but being humble is not a sign of inferiority especially when in relation to all things.

At least insofar as I see it