I believe she is benevolent.
Else why else would we exist?
Why would any life exist if she were completely hostile towards life.
It seems to me that the only way life could exist is if nature gave rise to life, billions of years ago, and has nurtured it, kept it alive for 3.8 Billion years, until now.
When we evolved to the point 70uears since we ended WW2 with Nukes covering the planet aimed at each other. An impeached President running around the field trying to kill clock holding the nuclear football with 1min40seconds to go on the Doomsday Clock and is he gonna spike it and end 3.8billion years of paradise on Earth?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2020 08:20PM by schrodingerscat.

Do you think that pebble in your shoe loves you or hates you?

You forgot "indifferent."

Why does that even require statement?

?

Scat is ascribing to a process with no intelligence and no will both intelligence and will. That assertion makes his musings du jour on race look wise by comparison.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scat is ascribing to a process with no
> intelligence and no will both intelligence and
> will. That assertion makes his musings du jour on
> race look wise by comparison.
If you were intelligent you might listen to black intellectuals and comprehend what they're saying.
They're the ones who still believe in realuzing MLK'S dream.

Scat, the Youtube scholar.

Choose a topic on which to make a fool of yourself. It can be affirmative action, which you applauded when it benefited white men like you but reject when it advantages people who aren't like you; or it could be your assertion that nature has a mind and wants to promote life. But this switching back and forth between losing arguments won't get you very far.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scat, the Youtube scholar.
>
> Choose a topic on which to make a fool of
> yourself. It can be affirmative action, which you
> applauded when it benefited white men like you but
> reject when it advantages people who aren't like
> you; or it could be your assertion that nature has
> a mind and wants to promote life. But this
> switching back and forth between losing arguments
> won't get you very far.

It never did benefit me.
WTF are you talking about?
Affirmative Action started before I was born and never benefitted me but did make it so I couldn't become a firefighter, no matter how hard I worked or wanted to be. There was a time when having family vouch for you meant something. Now that means nothing.
I like listening to people who speak the truth about excesses on both sides of the spectrum and want to actually acheive progress and real reform, not just make performative gestures and virtue signal like the daily gathering of the Mean Girls Club here.

> It never did benefit me.
> WTF are you talking about?

White/male privilege is the ultimate affirmative action. It is a preference enjoyed by dint of race and gender and independent of merit.


--------------------
> Affirmative Action started before I was born and
> never benefitted me but did make it so I couldn't
> become a firefighter, no matter how hard I worked
> or wanted to be.

You see? You can't even imagine benefiting from a system that benefited you. You think you deserve unmerited advantage.


-----------------
> There was a time when having
> family vouch for you meant something. Now that
> means nothing.

Precisely. But having your family vouch for you is privilege based on family and not on merit.

In the other thread you said that having a relative in the fire department used to help people like you get a job there. That too is undeserved advantage based on skin color and personal connections.

Your problem, Scat, is that you don't understand what affirmative action is. If you did, you wouldn't keep complaining about the dismantling of institutions that gave you and other white men an undeserved step up in professional life. You pretend to be a liberal but what you are arguing for is the restitution of a system of de facto affirmative action for yourself.


----------------
> I like listening to people who speak the truth
> about excesses on both sides of the spectrum and
> want to actually acheive progress and real reform,
> not just make performative gestures and virtue
> signal like the daily gathering of the Mean Girls
> Club here.

Well, I'll admit that you aren't virtue signalling. Quite the opposite, your sense of grievance over lost racial and gender preferences is pretty appalling. As for the "Mean Girls" rhetoric, that's just more evidence that you think everyone should defer to old white men.

Lottie, I'm only getting into this partway through, and I'm already tired and achey, but about letting women work as firefighters: My oldest daughter went through a period where she HAD to prove that she could "take it" as well as any man could.

She was always a fitness freak, running and biking for miles, working out at the gym, had a personal trainer, the whole bit. She actually passed the fitness test to work for the Fire Dept. where she lives.

From Day One, the Good Old Boys network assigned her tasks that she had not been prepared to do. On one fire, she was supposed to open a panel that has knobs and things to regulate water flow and all sorts of stuff. She had not been well trained on it. They told her to be in charge of that, and then humiliated her when she could not do it (while they were screaming at her, of course.) She could and did perform the routine tasks assigned to her - sharing a bunk room with the men, going from dead sleep to on the truck and rolling within a very few minutes, all that stuff.

She was physically and mentally able to do the job. She could not take the emotional hostility of her male co-workers and eventually had to quit.

I'm so sorry, catnip. That must have been a major disappointment.

Roughly how long ago did that take place?

Ah. 'ppreciate it. Please carry on.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot "indifferent."

If you were "indifferent" towards a houseplant how long would it survive?
Life has survived for 3.8billion years, despite all the destructive forces.
I guess Its both hostile and benevolent, but maintains a certain and very predictable balance. And in that balance between matter and anti matter, Nature gives a slight advantage to matter.
If Nature tended more towards destruction of matter than to mathematical, order, then complex life wouldnt have existed/evolvef for the past 3.8B.yrs.
Because it wouldn't even exist.
It wouldn't matter.
Nothing would.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2020 08:40PM by schrodingerscat.

Yeah, let's see how that logic works. . .

> If you were "indifferent" towards A ROCK IN YOUR GARDEN how
> long would it survive?
> ROCKS have survived for 3.8billion years, despite
> all the destructive forces.
> I guess Its both hostile and benevolent, but if
> Nature tended more towards destruction than order,
> ROCKS wouldnt have existed/evolvef for the past
> 3.8B.yrs.

If you are going to trumpet logic like that, people will continue to laugh at you.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------.
>
> If you are going to trumpet logic like that,
> people will continue to laugh at you.

Rocks have been around for 13.8 billion years. Not 3.8.
And you want to argue logic housewife?

Well, by your logic that just means Nature loves rocks more than life.

Tell me, Patriarch, why we womenfolk should listen to a man who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag?

I do not understand his current housewife kick. Insulting ~11% of the US population isn't enough, I guess?

When he is losing arguments with women, the misogyny comes out.

In general, he's a liberal. But his understanding of what that means is so superficial that at times he'll hop on whatever train is coming 'round the bend. It's unfortunate.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rocks have been around for 13.8 billion years.

Um, how do you know this? Did Mother Nature whisper it in your ear?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks

So far we've been lucky.

If the universe is a sentient being (I don't think that it is, but I'll roll with it for a moment), it's sitting back watching us kill ourselves.

Well, now that you've added text to your (n/t) post--quite an exercise in damage control--let's see where you've gotten.

> Why would any life exist if she were completely
> hostile towards life.

No one said nature is "completely hostile towards life." We said nature is "indifferent" to life. How could nature be indifferent to life? Because nature has no brain, no emotions, no love or hatred for anything.

You anthropomorphize inanimate objects and processes like a kid with an invisible friend.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, now that you've added text to your (n/t)
> post--quite an exercise in damage control--let's
> see where you've gotten.
>
> > Why would any life exist if she were completely
> > hostile towards life.
>
> No one said nature is "completely hostile towards
> life." We said nature is "indifferent" to life.
> How could nature be indifferent to life? Because
> nature has no brain, no emotions, no love or
> hatred for anything.
>
> You anthropomorphize inanimate objects and
> processes like a kid with an invisible friend.

I'm not anthropomorphizing an inanimate object.
There is nothing that is an inanimate object.
You like at a rock and call it an inanimate object when it's on a globe that's spinning around 1,000 mph, while the sun it's orbiting at 56,000mph is going half a million mph towards the center of the galaxy, the black hole at the center of our galaxy.
Which is going 1.4 million MPH towards the Great Attractor.
Along with all the other galaxies in our neighborhood. Along with our closest neighbor, Andromeda, which we're on a collision course with, predictably.
Because it's converging on the same spot at the same rate of speed as our galaxy.
It's all very predictable.
That rock you think is inanimate, only seems inanimate to you because you're doing the same speed and following the same trajectory through the fabric of space time.
The speed and trajectory where E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2
Super symmetrically
Energy slows down to become matter
and matter speeds up to become energy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2020 09:40PM by schrodingerscat.

You need to look up the word "inanimate." Do you own a dictionary?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You anthropomorphize inanimate objects and
> processes like a kid with an invisible friend.

All things are living. There is no boundary between animate and inanimate.

The Woo is strong with this one.

Of course there is a boundary, or boundaries. There are multiple ways that boundaries can be defined, some more useful than others in a given context. Fringe cases may be difficult to classify, which is why they are fringe cases. There are still plenty of cases that are quite easy to classify.

The Universe is made out of divine consciousness, but there are boundaries of experience. Subjectively, there are boundaries. Objectively, nature is holographic which makes it all one thing.

I think this is relevant to Mormonism because it explains how a man-made religion can be functional. Religion is subjective so it aligns with our life experience. Common beliefs create a kind of resonance between members of the tribe to produce supernatural effects.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, now that you've added text to your (n/t)
> post--quite an exercise in damage control--let's
> see where you've gotten.
>
> > Why would any life exist if she were completely
> > hostile towards life.
>
> No one said nature is "completely hostile towards
> life." We said nature is "indifferent" to life.
> How could nature be indifferent to life? Because
> nature has no brain, no emotions, no love or
> hatred for anything.
>
> You anthropomorphize inanimate objects and
> processes like a kid with an invisible friend.


So Einstein was being like a little kid with an invisible friend when he said,

"I think the most important question facing humanity is, ‘Is the universe a friendly place?’ This is the first and most basic question all people must answer for themselves.

"For if we decide that the universe is an unfriendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to achieve safety and power by creating bigger walls to keep out the unfriendliness and bigger weapons to destroy all that which is unfriendly and I believe that we are getting to a place where technology is powerful enough that we may either completely isolate or destroy ourselves as well in this process.

"If we decide that the universe is neither friendly nor unfriendly and that God is essentially ‘playing dice with the universe’, then we are simply victims to the random toss of the dice and our lives have no real purpose or meaning.

"But if we decide that the universe is a friendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to create tools and models for understanding that universe. Because power and safety will come through understanding its workings and its motives."

"God does not play dice with the universe,"

--Albert Einstein

Show me in there where Einstein said a rock is an animate object. He did not. So no, he isn't like a little kid with an invisible friend. You are alone in that respect.

Show me where Einstein answers the question whether the universe is friendly or hostile. He of course does not. He poses the question and leaves it unanswered. Therefore he has not agreed with you.

But this post does match your general style of argumentation: 1) assume an absurd position, 2) throw out famous people's names, and 3) under pressure produce quotations without regard to whether they say what you claim. In this instance, as so many others, Einstein's words do not bolster your position.

Once again you are left making arguments that Einstein would never touch with a ten-foot pole: that rocks are animate and the universe is teleological.

You are alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2020 11:51PM by Lot's Wife.

You are more dense than a rock if you can't figure that out.

Figure out what, O Wise One? Why Einstein didn't say the things you claim? That's easy: because he didn't believe them!

SCat wins debates by declaring himself the winner.

Of course he knows to follow the rules by citing authority, droning out lists of facts, citing his association with recognized authorities and being extremely sincere as he equates apples to oranges.

And he's very sincere when he calls us names and trumpets our stupidities.

"On balance", SCat wins all his debates. And yet he remains so humble.

Benevolent? Indifferent? Ignorant? Figure out that first.

An inanimate entity and process is by definition ignorant and hence indifferent, no?

Would you be comfortable with that?

Mother Nature threw her shoe at 2020.

It would explain the wet footprints on Earth's floor.

You can call a boat "she", as sailors do. You can call matter "she" as in Mother Nature if you still want to, and you can be like an old queen friend of mine and call everybody "she", even some crusty old truck driver with a beard, but anthropomorphizing gets us in a lot of trouble when it isn't just a plot device.

Nature, matter--self propagating matter, doesn't seem to have a plan but a built in system to ensure continued life that includes no agenda. All parts of the whole continually morph gifting us with the phrase Nothing Stays the Same. But goodness knows most humans love "same." More of the same they do want, but, always the same. Is same a "she"?

Humankind has a plan, though, which is not benevolent. Based on selfishness as it is, that plan fosters hostility toward nature, the planet, the creatures dwelling therein, and who knows what malice we may carry into the cosmos if we are around long enough to spread our poison that far? Soon to be picking up plastic bags off the shores and out of the ocean on the planets of star system Orion, or, even Kolob? Choking the entire solar system with our trash as we do?


Such an odd topic to be addicted to. Perhaps taking up needle work would help? No?

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Humankind has a plan, though, which is not
> benevolent. Based on selfishness as it is, that
> plan fosters hostility toward nature, the planet,
> the creatures dwelling therein, and who knows what
> malice we may carry into the cosmos if we are
> around long enough to spread our poison that far?
> Soon to be picking up plastic bags off the shores
> and out of the ocean on the planets of star system
> Orion, or, even Kolob? Choking the entire solar
> system with our trash as we do?

"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks." - "Fight Club"

Haha. And the WalMart Black Hole?

I hope Amazon gets to brand the CK as they have enough money to buy out even the Mormons.

Absolutely

I believe Mother Nature is.

Given the billions of possible habitable worlds and the fact that we supposedly haven't heard from any of them, it would appear that even when life ( intelligent life) arises it may not last very long.

But, that's just one theory based on what we see now.
--The UFOs could all be real and its covered up.
--God could have literally made only one planet with intelligent life.
--We could be living in a simulation with only one civilization set to run within it.

etc.....

Or it could be that once you develop technology to travel between stars you also develop the technology to turn your planet into a star, which is fatal, obviously.

No matter how technologically advanced a civilization becomes, it could always step on a crack, break its mother's back and cease to exist. Ceasing to exist is fatal, obliviously!!!

I wish I'd been able to make that connection unaided, but alas...

"Or it could be that once you develop technology to travel between stars you also develop the technology to turn your planet into a star, which is fatal, obviously."


That strawman is on fire, fam!

Schroedie has a talent for posting the same off topic topic over and over in such a way that we all go to them like moths to flames. Sort of like an itch that just has to be scratched which only leads to more itching.

I wonder if his patriarchal blessing foretold this.

He needs help, and doesn't quite know how to ask for it...or how to process what little help is offered.

He's gotten himself into a real pickle!!

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Schroedie has a talent for posting the same off
> topic topic over and over in such a way that we
> all go to them like moths to flames. Sort of like
> an itch that just has to be scratched which only
> leads to more itching.
>
> I wonder if his patriarchal blessing foretold
> this.


I've never posted this topic before.

And what does cosmology have to do with RfM?

Like Einstein said, ""I think the most important question facing humanity is, ‘Is the universe a friendly place?’ This is the first and most basic question all people must answer for themselves."

Got a better question to ask?
Shoot
Otherwise, quit your bitchin.

Get a job.

In the face of your chronic two-note comic opera, bitchins all we got.

I'm a better than average student and I swear on my souvenir 1961 Thunderbird Hotel dice that you are not teaching us a thing. Instead, You have a shot at Worst Substitute Teacher Of 2020 here at RfM Junior High.

Word, dude.

>I've never posted this topic before.

Other than April 9, May 2, May 23, September 25, and October 13 (that's just in the last 6 months.

I suppose if you change out at least one word each time, then , technically . . .

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I've never posted this topic before.
>
> Other than April 9, May 2, May 23, September 25,
> and October 13 (that's just in the last 6 months.

Bullshit.

4/29
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2301047,2301047#msg-2301047
"Is nature good or bad?

Or is evil just a human construct?"

5/5
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2306529,2307131#msg-2307131
"Nature is our creator because it created life 3-4 billion years ago and it is a savior, because it has saved life from going extinct over the past 3-4 billion years of continuous existence on Earth, despite all of the cataclysmic events that have occured, life goes on.
Life is good"

5/23
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2311053,2312593#msg-2312593
"Good and Evil do not exist in nature. They only exist in the minds and actions of humans. They are of no consequence to the natural processes. But if we see life as good, then nature is good, since it created and sustains life, despite all of the destructive (evil) forces in the world."

9/25
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2334812,2335721#msg-2335721
"at least over the past 13.8 Billion years of Universe's existence, which is long enough for me to draw the conclusion that nature is benevolent, in that it makes life not just possible, but probable"

10/13
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2338868,2339652#msg-2339652
"What nature produces is good, on balance. Despite all the destructive forces at work in the cosmos, life continues, which is good, in as much as life exists and has existed, without interruption, for 3.7 billion years. That to me means that nature tends towards life and order, more than it tends towards chaos, otherwise the cosmos wouldn't exist and there would be only chaos...
That's the complete opposite of the reality that life exists and has existed uninterrupted over the past 3.8 Billion years. If the universe preferred death to life, then we'd all be dead, not alive"

Yeah, recently he denied saying he was a Muslim at any point on RfM. I then pulled up several posts saying just that.

Neither memory nor consistency is Scat's strong suit. He's lucky, therefore, that he has breadth of knowledge, understanding of theoretical physics, and clairvoyant relationships with dead rock stars to keep him at the head of the class.