There is a hole one could drive a starship through in something you posted Schrodinger scat. In reply to the Summarian God's topic where humans were genetically modified apes by aliens you mentioned interstellar genetic code travel to earth.

How's this fit into your god Lambda thinking? Sounds like you like any other religious people worship a god of gaps. Pantheism is not a belief in gaps nor is deism. They place deity at the source instead of deterministic forces.

I think you don't have coherent beliefs. In my opinion your aligning yourself with people like Sagan is disengenious. I believe conscription of well known agnostics is bad.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2021 04:07PM by Elder Berry.

The Cat simply wants what we all want: to be noticed.

He just doesn't know how to do it such that he doesn't look like a fool. It's a learning process and some lag behind the curve. I doubt that I'm the only one who sees him 40+ years behind the curve.

His most recent foray into foolishness (in my opinion; hey, I'm not ghawd and I could be wrong!) came with his defense of his version of logos, wherein he cited https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

He quoted a small portion from this site as if it were probative of his position.

But that wiki page is just an overview of many of the uses, and meanings behind, the word logos. It even says it, the third line of the article: "This article is about Logos ... in philosophy, rhetoric, linguistics, psychology, and theology."

But The Cat wanted to imply that HIS favorite interpretation was the true, "official" meaning of the word.

Now I could call that intellectual dishonesty, but I won't. It gives him too much credit.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you don't have coherent beliefs.
===============================

That's a Very Good Thing!
To be not reliant on beliefs.

Means he can reason.

All generalizations are false.

In general, that's true.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a hole one could drive a starship through
> in something you posted Schrodinger scat. In reply
> to the Summarian God's topic where humans were
> genetically modified apes by aliens you mentioned
> interstellar genetic code travel to earth.

I believe Genius, the instructions for life, is contained in genes, in RNA, and it is is universal. I believe in Michio Kaku’s god, little ‘g’, which is Einstein’s god, which was Sagan’s god and the god of Spinoza, Marcus Aerelius, Epicurous, Buddha and Lao Tzu. There is only one god,
nature.
>
> How's this fit into your god Lambda thinking?

Perfectly.

> Sounds like you like any other religious people
> worship a god of gaps.

Do you believe 96% of the universe is Dark Matter/Energy?
I believe that missing 96% is Lambda, the Cosmological Constant.
But since that 96% is a complete mystery to all of us, I accept that mystery, and believe it is the source of all art, science and inspiration.

Pantheism is not a belief
> in gaps nor is deism. They place deity at the
> source instead of deterministic forces.

I am an Epicurean, but most most people don’t understand what that is, so ‘pantheist’ works for reductive people. Epicurus developed non-deterministic atomic theory 400 years before Christ. That’s where Epicureans disagree with Einstein, who believed ‘God does not play dice with the universe.”
Epicureans believe ‘God’ (Nature) plays dice continually, on a sub-atomic level, but the dice are loaded, in favor of matter, in lieu of anti-matter.
>
> I think you don't have coherent beliefs.

You’re welcome to your opinion. The feeling is mutual.

In my
> opinion your aligning yourself with people like
> Sagan is disengenious. I believe conscription of
> well known agnostics is bad.

I agree with Sagan 100%.

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” Carl Sagan

What’s wrong with agreeing with a genius?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2021 11:52PM by schrodingerscat.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What’s wrong with agreeing with a genius?

You can't agree with something you don't understand.

And please take note that agreeing with a genius doesn't make one a genius. I think The Cat may be saying, "I agree with a genius, therefore . . ."

Look how he posits that "Genius" is now a shortcut for identifying the 'instructions for life' contained in genetic material. Why not call the information contained in genes Idiotium? It doesn't change a thing! Even nameless, the genes do what genes do!

The Cat likes to select a dictum (an opinion that isn't binding) and run with it. I already pointed out what he did with the Logos wiki page.

He's done the same with Epicurus.

But first, if a reductive person can't figure out what an Epicurean believes, why would that reductive individual know what to do with a pantheist? (By the way, a 'reductive person' is basically a 'simple person'.)

>
> Epicurus developed non-deterministic
> atomic theory 400 years before Christ.
>


"Democritus’ atomism was revived in the early Hellenistic period, and an atomist school founded in Athens about 306, by Epicurus (341–270 BCE).

"The Epicureans formed more of a closed community than other schools and promoted a philosophy of a simple, pleasant life lived with friends. The community included women, and some of its members raised children.

"The works of the founder were revered and some of them were memorized, a practice that may have discouraged philosophical innovation by later members of the school.

"Epicurus seems to have learned of atomist doctrine through Democritus’ follower Nausiphanes. Because Epicurus made some significant changes in atomist theory, it is often thought that his reformulation of the physical theory is an attempt to respond to Aristotle’s criticisms of Democritus.

"Even more significant, however, is the increasing centrality of ethical concerns to Epicurus’ atomism, and the importance of the view that belief in an atomist physical theory helps us live better lives."


The above is from an overview in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entitled "Ancient Atomism". Epicurus' fame has always been because of his desire to "live a better life", not in "non-deterministic atom theory." And he was in no way a trailblazer regarding 'ancient atomism'.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/#EpicAtom


In the cited article's eight sub-headings, the phrase 'non-deterministic atom theory' does not appear even once. The divide between those who believed in free will v. determinism did exist, and of course, those favoring free will would be non-deterministic about 'atomism', along with what to eat for breakfast or what to name their pets.

And the notion that people today who wear the label, Epicurean, see themselves in conflict with Albert Einstein simply makes no sense! Epicureans no longer dwell on the subject of 'atomism' unless they happen to be scientists in that field or enthusiasts.

The Cat will of course dismiss the article, its content, and my points of view; he will continue to be The Cat.

The pity is that there are some very educated people on this board: Ph.D.s in mathematics and physics, for instance, who understand the subjects on which he incessantly pontificates. On more than one occasion S-cat has derided their views in a way that would be humorous if it were not so sad.

One cannot learn if he doesn't recognize when the person on the other side of the table is more informed than he.

"The pity is that there are some very educated people on this board: Ph.D.s in mathematics and physics, for instance, who understand the subjects on which he incessantly pontificates. On more than one occasion S-cat has derided their views in a way that would be humorous if it were not so sad."

RESPONSE: Who are these "educated people" you keep referring to? And why do they not speak for themselves if they think SC needs to be taken to task on some issue relevant to their expertise? And when has SC 'derided their views?' I have substantively (but civilly) criticized him on several occasions and have never received that kind of reaction. Like most of us, he reacts in kind to the critical tone directed at him.

Have these closeted RfM experts designated YOU, EB, and EOD as their spokespersons to personally and constantly personally attack SC? Maybe they are smart enough, and classy enough, to just keep quiet unless they have something substantive to contribute. That would be a good RfM policy in my view. So, tell me, why do the three of you personally feel threatened by SC?

In my opinion--for what its worth--SC has stimulated far more interesting scientific and philosophical discussion on RfM than you three combined. The fact that he is often wrong, misguided, confused, hard-headed, and unteachable, is unfortunate, but so what. Call him out for his errors, but why discourage him from raising issues that are important and relevant for a post-Mormon worldview simply because you think he is wrong or confused. Who knows, maybe someone who knows--e.g. one of your PhD. experts-- will be inspired to respond to such a thread in a way that is helpful to someone.

No offense intended; just trying to understand.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, tell me, why do the three of you
> personally feel threatened by SC?

I'm not.

> In my opinion--for what its worth--SC has
> stimulated far more interesting scientific and
> philosophical discussion on RfM than you three
> combined. The fact that he is often wrong,
> misguided, confused, hard-headed, and unteachable,
> is unfortunate, but so what. Call him out for his
> errors, but why discourage him from raising issues
> that are important and relevant for a post-Mormon
> worldview simply because you think he is wrong or
> confused.

I called him out on his errors in this thread.

> No offense intended; just trying to understand.

Lumping me with 2 other posters and broad brushing me with your criticisms of behavior is very offensive. But I find you offensive.

"Lumping me with 2 other posters and broad brushing me with your criticisms of behavior is very offensive. But I find you offensive."

RESPONSE: In hindsight, I should not have included you with LW and EOD in this criticism. And in particular this current thread presented a legitimate substantive criticism without any offensive tone.

So . . . I apologize! (to YOU!)

(Now, can LW and EOD make the same plea?)

What a wonderful "Do you still beat your wife?" post, Sr. Salvati!

Let's say that you have three darling children, 4,6 & 8, and one of their favorite activities is playing in the sandbox you made for them under the veranda.

One evening you look out a window and see a cat (not The Cat, just a cat) doing its business in the sandbox. Urine, feces!!

Do you say to yourself, "Well, I don't play in the sandbox, so I'm not affected..."?


Words are wonderful things and they allow themselves to be used in whatever fashion the user desires. Using the phrase, "why do you feel threatened?" was an example of verbal slow poisoning. You could have simply asked, "What's up with the way you react to him?"

Okay, now that I've been polite to myself, I tell you why I react as I do:

Because he has been behaving in this fashion for the 12 years I've seen him online. I would like to see him banned from here, just as he was from the board where I first took notice of him. While it may not be Christian to harbor such animus, I'll own it.

He's peeing & pooping in the sandbox of people I would wish to protect from suffering that indignity. Plus, I look good on a White Horse.

The people on RfM are not children. Moreover, you are not our intellectual protector; and from my perspective neither you or LW are qualified to assume that role.

In addition, what is "poop" on RfM is not a judgment for you to make (as far as I know). And, so far, CZ has not banned him, and I for one am glad he hasn't. In my opinion RfM is a better forum with SC, all things considered.

SC can be irritating; I grant you that. But so can you! and Me! and most everyone else who strongly expresses a point of view.
And remember, you do not have to click on his threads; particularly when your sole motivation seems to be to undermine them by non-substantive, cynical and sarcastic personal comments. That just makes him dig in, making his intellectual shortcomings, whatever they are, worse not better. Speaking personally, when I see this going on, it makes me not want to participate--even when I feel I have something of interest to contribute.

In any event, as long as he is allowed to post here, it seems to me that you and others should allow his voice to be heard unfettered by personal attacks.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moreover, you
> are not our intellectual protector; and from my
> perspective neither you or LW are qualified to
> assume that role.

None of us have pretended to be anyone's "intellectual protector." Yet here you are presenting that straw man so you have something against which to tilt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 01:49PM by Lot's Wife.

> The people on RfM are not children.
> Moreover, you are not our intellectual
> protector; and from my perspective
> neither you or LW are qualified to
> assume that role.

You are correct. I made myself out to be a lot more noble-sounding than I really am. It felt good, though!


So how about this? The Cat is the jerk who keeps cutting people off in traffic, sits at the new green light too long, drives too slow, drives too fast, changes lanes at inopportune times, and generally is a pain to share the road with. If you're a driver who never gets ruffled by drivers doing any of the above, you'd be quite the anomaly.

Or maybe it's personal for me? Maybe he kicked someone's chihuahua and I just want to see him punished? It is very likely that anything you say will have exactly the same effect what you say has on me: zilch.

You mentioned that CZ has not banned him. CZ has asked him to stop posting on the same tired old themes on which The Cat is fixated.

Has CZ asked me to stop responding to The Cat? Not yet!

I don't think I've made any personal attacks on The Cat. I attack his thought process (the lack thereof), especially how repetitive it is, and of course, his lack of intellectual rigor.

He has needs (we all do) and there seems to be an attempt on his part to use this board as a prop for a faltering ego. I'm pretty darn sure that the three of us (Roy G Biv has to be crushed!) you've ID'd as his opponents, use this board as an outlet for our egos, not as an exoskeleton to try to form one.

I can do this all day, Sr. Salvati. (Why does an exmo pick the name of an Italian landscape artist?) Unless you're the G. Salvati who owns the roofing company in West Haven, CT...

>> "(Roy G Biv has to be crushed!)"

Drop me in a mojito glass with some mint leaves and crush away!

Better yet, I prefer cremation, so roll me in and light it up!

I, for one, appreciate the protection. There's a reason I undertook the course of study and profession I did. I did well with biology and its related sub-sciences and could handle the amount of chemistry required for my degrees. I'm not sufficiently cerebral to deal with string theory, loop quantum gravity, quantum graphity, or the rest. (Neither is SCat, it seems, but that isn't the point.) If someone is attempting to pass off nonsense that's over my head as fact, I'm happy to have someone who understands it call it as it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2021 02:03AM by scmd1.

>> "The fact that he is often wrong, misguided, confused, hard-headed, and unteachable, is unfortunate, but so what."

So what? Who wants to get into discussions with someone like that?

>> "Call him out for his errors..."

He gets called out by those with better understanding of the subject over and over....then he cries "ad hominem" and starts name calling.

>> "...but why discourage him from raising issues that are important and relevant for a post-Mormon worldview simply because you think he is wrong or confused."

Who are the people here that find his posts "important and relevant" for their post mormon world view? His posts deteriorate as soon as they appear because few, if any here find his posts important and relevant. And I know, we don't have to click on them....that's how important and relevant they are.

>> "Who knows, maybe someone who knows--e.g. one of your PhD. experts-- will be inspired to respond to such a thread in a way that is helpful to someone."

The way they respond is intended to help the Scat understand his subject matter as it was intended to be understood, not how he interprets it. And as as you stated, he is "often wrong, misguided, confused, hard-headed, and unteachable" so its really a futile effort, wouldn't you agree?

So what? Who wants to get into discussions with someone like that?

RESPONSE: So don't. Who is forcing you?
______________________________________

He gets called out by those with better understanding of the subject over and over....then he cries "ad hominem" and starts name calling.

He responds defensively; with the same tone that has been thrown at him. We all do that.
______________________________________

Who are the people here that find his posts "important and relevant" for their post mormon world view?

RESPONSE: I for one! And with all humility, I think I probably understand his errors, mistakes, and intellectual shortcomings as well as, or better than, anyone here.
______________________________________

His posts deteriorate as soon as they appear because few, if any here find his posts important and relevant. And I know, we don't have to click on them....that's how important and relevant they are.

RESPONSE: Right! You don't have to click on them. So, why do you? You click on them not because you want to address the subject matter; instead, you want to revel in whatever errors you might find, or think you find, and follow-up with attacks. Really, its the school yard bully syndrome, and nothing more. That is why his threads deteriorate.
__________________________________________

The way they respond is intended to help the Scat understand his subject matter as it was intended to be understood, not how he interprets it. And as as you stated, he is "often wrong, misguided, confused, hard-headed, and unteachable" so its really a futile effort, wouldn't you agree?

RESPONSE: I have no problem with anyone substantively correcting him, no matter what their expertise; and, of course, he can either 'listen' or not. I have corrected him myself a number of times, and he often ignores it. But, I do not feel motivated to attack him for it.

No one has attacked him personally. They attack his interpretations of science. The fact that you're going there shows that you are him posting under a different name.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESPONSE: Who are these "educated people" you
> keep referring to?

If you were as percipient as you claim, you would know who some of them are.


-----------------
> And why do they not speak for
> themselves if they think SC needs to be taken to
> task on some issue relevant to their expertise?

They have spoken for themselves, as I insinuated when I said they had engaged S-cat.


-------------------
> And when has SC 'derided their views?'

If you recognized their expertise, you would have your answer.


-----------------
> Have these closeted RfM experts designated YOU,
> EB, and EOD as their spokespersons to personally
> and constantly personally attack SC?

Nope. That's why I haven't invoked their names. They can, and do, speak for themselves--at least the ones with whom I am familiar do; the odds are high that there are others: you know, people who have formal training in math and/or physics at a graduate level and do not dissemble about their own academic training.


--------------
> Maybe they
> are smart enough, and classy enough, to just keep
> quiet unless they have something substantive to
> contribute.

Passive aggression.


-------------------
> That would be a good RfM policy in my
> view. So, tell me, why do the three of you
> personally feel threatened by SC?

Not threatened at all, Henry. Just bored. S-cat is a prominent example of boorishness but he is not alone.

Does that threaten you?


--------------
> Who knows, maybe someone who
> knows--e.g. one of your PhD. experts-- will be
> inspired to respond to such a thread in a way that
> is helpful to someone.

As I said above, some of those PhDs have engaged many times. It didn't help--for reasons that appear to have eluded you.


-----------------
> No offense intended; just trying to understand.

Sure. And your post wasn't dripping with passive aggression, just "class" and "smartness."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 01:27PM by Lot's Wife.

"As I said above, some of those PhDs have engaged many times. You just didn't notice. It didn't help--for reasons that appear to have eluded you."

RESPONSE: I *have* noticed that on occasion. And I have also noticed that SC doesn't always (or ever) heed their admonitions. So, then what is their response? Constant stalking of his threads with personal attacks?

No. That is left for you; someone who is manifestly unqualified by your own admission to substantively engage the subject matter of such threads!

Well done!

HB (Happy now?)

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESPONSE: I *have* noticed that on occasion. And
> I have also noticed that SC doesn't always (or
> ever) heed their admonitions.

Then what was your point in demanding that I name them?


---------------------
> So, then what is
> their response?

Laughter, mainly.


-------------------
> No. That is left for you; someone who is
> manifestly unqualified by your own admission to
> substantively engage the subject matter of such
> threads!

Well that's silly.

There are topics into which S-cat staggers that I understand very well. There are also areas in which I am overawed by others' expertise, in which case I readily acknowledge my own limitations.

By your own admission (after you were caught dissimulating) you have an undergraduate engineering degree and a law degree. That in no way equips you to engage in the topics that S-cat pretends to understand. Not to worry, though, for S-cat will embrace you with open arms.

Two poseurs in a pod.


-----------------
> Well done!
>
> HB (Happy now?)

What a strange thing to say. Why would I care that you acknowledge what everyone already knows?

It simply doesn't matter.

And please take note that agreeing with a genius doesn't make one a genius. I think The Cat may be saying, "I agree with a genius, therefore . . ."

RESPONSE: Yes, of course. Moreover, agreeing with a "genius" does not make the point of agreement true!. In addition, disagreeing with a genius does not make a person not a genius--or even wrong. In short, there is no logical relation between "genius" (which is a psychological term representing cognitive ability) and "truth" (which is a logical and/or ontological term, representing how the world is as expressed in statements in a language)
_______________________________________

Look how he posits that "Genius" is now a shortcut for identifying the 'instructions for life' contained in genetic material. Why not call the information contained in genes Idiotium? It doesn't change a thing! Even nameless, the genes do what genes do!

RESPONSE: Exactly. And more broadly, the universe functions as it does regardless of how human beings describe such functions, or create theories related to such functions.
_______________________________________

The Cat likes to select a dictum (an opinion that isn't binding) and run with it. I already pointed out what he did with the Logos wiki page.

RESPONSE: But even assuming this general criticism is true, it is also true--to one degree or another--that scientists and philosophers do the same thing; i.e. they take an idea as an assumption or hypothesis, and "run with it." After all, that is one way of determining the potential validity of such assumptions; i.e. their implications. The problem, of course, is when one dogmatically confuses assumptions and implications with reality.
_______________________________________

But first, if a reductive person can't figure out what an Epicurean believes, why would that reductive individual know what to do with a pantheist? (By the way, a 'reductive person' is basically a 'simple person'.)

RESPONSE: I am not sure what the point is here: What is a "reductive person?" ALso, be careful in calling a "reductive person" a simple person. All scientists are committed to reductionism to some extent. Some are even ontologically committed to reductionism, e.g. Nobel Laurette, Steven Weinberg. What that means is that they believe that all of reality can ultimately be explained by the properties of matter and related forces. We might say that these folks are 'hard-core' atomists!
___________________________________________

In the cited article's eight sub-headings, the phrase 'non-deterministic atom theory' does not appear even once. The divide between those who believed in free will v. determinism did exist, and of course, those favoring free will would be non-deterministic about 'atomism', along with what to eat for breakfast or what to name their pets.

RESPONSE: The metaphysics of the atomists was very confused; particularly with regard to causation, motion, and mind. However, "atomism" as classically understood after Newton related only to the physical world, leaving room for a dualist account of mind that allowed for free will (e.g. Descartes) More recently, "atomism" has come to be associated with "materialism" which denies dualism and with it free will. (Free will requires mental causation, which does not fit into a materialist metaphysics.)
____________________________________________

And the notion that people today who wear the label, Epicurean, see themselves in conflict with Albert Einstein simply makes no sense! Epicureans no longer dwell on the subject of 'atomism' unless they happen to be scientists in that field or enthusiasts.

RESPONSE: Who today wears the label Epicurean? (In the scientific not the moral sense) That in itself makes no sense, and anyone identifying as such seems to me to be very confused indeed. Note, however, that Ernst Mach was an anti-atomist (i.e. a hard-core relativist) which attracted Einstein at first and to some extent inspired Special Relativity. However, Einstein changed his mind and accepted the atomism of Mach's critics, e.g. Planck, et al., and he himself identified the photo as a real particle that carried the electro-magnetic force. (light) Moreover, Einstein--as an atomist--was also determinist in this metaphysical views, stating:

"In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity."

Note that Einstein--genius or not--was very confused about this, and many of his statements imply the existence of metaphysical (philosophical) free will. Such confusion is typical of contemporary scientists and philosophers who do not understand the simple fact that free will--by definition--requires mental causation; and that mental causation is inconsistent with scientific materialism.

Anyone referring to themselves as a genius is suspect

Lethbridge Reprobate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone referring to themselves as a genius is
> suspect

Which is why I never have referred to myself as a genius and never would.

I just appreciate genius when I see it in others, like Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Krick, Kaku, Penrose, Epicurus, among many other wise men (including women, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Jane Goodall and Malala).

I learn as much as I can from them. Which doesn't mean that I agree with everything they've ever said or all of their personal choices. But generally, I try to align my world view with those cosmologists, scientists and thinkers I read often and respect greatly. I can also see genius in nature, in genes and in the natural tendency towards order, beauty and geometry.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." Einstein



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 08:16PM by schrodingerscat.

Thank you for the paragraphs!

Hey, if you're lucky he'll post something that "includes Latinos."

Then you too can be a junior member of the club too!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2021 09:05PM by Lot's Wife.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just appreciate genius when I see it in others,
> like Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Krick, Kaku,
> Penrose, Epicurus, among many other wise men
> (including women, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Jane
> Goodall and Malala).

Let's be clear about what's going on here. You constantly harp on about brilliant men even if you don't understand them and in some cases cannot spell their names (Krick???). Then you go on several misognynistic rants in a single day and feel somewhat sheepish. So what do you do? You tack on a parenthetical phrase mentioning a few women.

But note the subordinate phrase, the parentheses marking an afterthought, and the unprecedented listing of the women as "geniuses," a status you have never assigned to them before.Do you really think that will dissipate the impression of hostility to women that you exhibit daily?

Not everyone is as simple as you.

Let’s be clear about what’s going on here.
This whole thread is a giant ad hominem attack by the biggest most abusive bullies on the playground with you as their leader egging them all on.
I have a right to defend myself against abuse, even when it’s a woman doing most of the abusing.

>> "What’s wrong with agreeing with a genius?"

Agree all you want. Name drop all you want. What has it got you? How is your life better? All this profound knowledge and yet, here you are, day after day, bickering over definitions with strangers on the internet.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you believe 96% of the universe is Dark
> Matter/Energy?

I don't have a belief in it. If I had been born before nebula were discovered to be galaxies I wouldn't believe or disbelieve in galaxies.

I believe we live on a pale blue dot with lots and lots of space around out.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What’s wrong with agreeing with a genius?

You are scientistic.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientistic

You don't agree with geniuses in Science. You make them prophets, leaders, guides, minor gods in your misunderstood pantheist's pantheon.

Sagan said this about god.

“Thanks for your kind invitation. The question ‘How can I find God?’ assumes the answer to the key undecided issue. I’m sorry I won’t be able to participate. With best wishes…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/

It is a polite way of saying I don't believe in anything like God, gods, deity of any stripe.

Sagan didn't have a god. It didn't have an opinion on the existence of God/gods other than to not discount the possibility because he didn't want to be too skeptical in his existence. He knew too much skepticism was as bad as too much belief.

You are exactly what he didn't want to be like.

Good one, caffiend!!

Personally, I find Salviati's posts insulting. The implication that those reading them are too insufferably ignorant to be able to differentiate between a quote and his opinions by his need to point out his RESPONSE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLdO2V1CTF0

Now, what part does Schrodinger's Cat play?