3 hours ago, TheVat said:

So it was written in the book of Dyson.  

Truly his Eureka moment, when he wanted to reverse his powers, but the people spake unto him, "Bissell-mil-ah NO! We will not let you blow!"

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Truly his Eureka moment, when he wanted to reverse his powers, but the people spake unto him, "Bissell-mil-ah NO! We will not let you blow!"

Even the moderator has been...sucked into this madness.

It does take us back to the central topic, as we find that Freddie Mercury sometimes hinted at his Church of Nothing beliefs in his song lyrics, e.g.

Nothing really matters, anyone can see.

Nothing really matters to me.

13 hours ago, cpu68 said:

Nothingness

Is god really George Costanza?

Hmmm..that’s got me thinking 🤔 

Could someone (who has a lot of time on their hands)  not re-write the Bible, but using the correct Scientific terms? 
 

for example “And God said, let there be photons”, and there were photons. But then God realised he needed some electrons to go with them, so He said “ let there be photons and electrons”. 
That didn’t work either so God said “let there be photons and electrons and protons and neutrons” and that seemed to do the trick, more or less. And the Word was “Nothingness”, which later that week, He changed to “Void”, then later still He changed to “Vacuum” as He wasn’t really sure where this was going and it was all getting very,very complicated, very, very quickly. Word.

I’m going to hell aren’t I?

or maybe this religion is not so bad.

On 2/26/2025 at 8:04 PM, danielj said:

Hmmm..that’s got me thinking 🤔 

Could someone (who has a lot of time on their hands)  not re-write the Bible, but using the correct Scientific terms? 
 

for example “And God said, let there be photons”, and there were photons. But then God realised he needed some electrons to go with them, so He said “ let there be photons and electrons”. 
That didn’t work either so God said “let there be photons and electrons and protons and neutrons” and that seemed to do the trick, more or less. And the Word was “Nothingness”, which later that week, He changed to “Void”, then later still He changed to “Vacuum” as He wasn’t really sure where this was going and it was all getting very,very complicated, very, very quickly. Word.

I’m going to hell aren’t I?

No, you're not going to hell unless you place yourself there. 😉

To re-write the bible in a way that relates to our "scientific age" would mean we'd have to invent a believable bad guy; and that inevitably mean's a certain amount of woo.

We need a way to stop the people who don't fear the law, from doing whatever they please; they tend to be the poorest among us (and so less educated), so wheeling out the Socratean spiel about, what damage you do unto others, you do too yourself, is pointless.

We need a "bad man" that they respect and believe in, to stop them from doing the stupid shit that they'll live to regret... 

In this context, 'the religion of nothing' is more of an invite to fear nothing, which seems more like satan worship. 😝

Edited March 2Mar 2 by dimreepr

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We need a way to stop the people who don't fear the law, from doing whatever they please; they tend to be the poorest among us (and so less educated), so wheeling out the Socratean spiel about, what damage you do unto others, you do too yourself, is pointless.

I would like to see some statistics about this. As a percentage it wouldn't take very many wealthy crooks to skew it toward the upper class and I can think of a number of those folks just off the top of my head.

14 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I would like to see some statistics about this.

Just google something like "does poverty cause crime" or something about the differential of educational expectations of the poor v the not so poor; add in wealth expectations and the needle really spike's.

14 hours ago, npts2020 said:

As a percentage it wouldn't take very many wealthy crooks to skew it toward the upper class and I can think of a number of those folks just off the top of my head.

Indeed, but don't you think that a guy/bogeyman that they genuinely fear, to piss off, who tells them to "sit the fuck down and shut up" and they do as they're told; wouldn't help our society? 

If I may, your god of nothingness created our universe, that implies your god was outside of our universe, even if it's a universe of nothing, meaning there is another universe (of nothing) and wouldn't it follow that your god would also believe in a god that created their universe and therefore couldn't be a god if only one god exists because your gods god would really be your god who created the nothingness universe? ...nth?

Edited March 3Mar 3 by Imagine Everything

5 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

If I may, your god of nothingness created our universe,

Did he really???

What a clever bugger...

On 3/2/2025 at 5:17 AM, cpu68 said:

or maybe this religion is not so bad.

If it preaches that you should believe that an unobservable "creator" is the most powerful thing in the universe, I think it's bad. Really bad. It sets your brain up for manipulation, coercion, and guilt, and it makes people choose doctrine over people. 

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Did he really???

What a clever bugger...

According to cpu68 they did. Not me.

Edited March 3Mar 3 by Imagine Everything

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just google something like "does poverty cause crime" or something about the differential of educational expectations of the poor v the not so poor; add in wealth expectations and the needle really spike's.

How about something more like the frequency with which each is not successfully prosecuted for their crimes? 

These guys seem to think criminality is more widespread in the upper class, with many of their crimes simply overlooked or "not worth prosecuting". One of the things they point out is the following where more than 1 in 20 of the world's richest people are involved;

The release of the ‘Panama Papers’ last year suggests that more than 14,000 banks, law firms, company incorporators and other ‘middlemen’ acted in league with law firm Mossack Fonseca to get away with tax fraud on a monumental scale and to avoid a range of other legal duties.

Many of the world’s wealthiest people are alleged to be involved, including 12 current and former world leaders and 128 politicians and public officials from around the globe.

Those implicated include:

• 29 billionaires featured in Forbes Magazine’s list of the world’s 500 richest people,

• 33 people and companies blacklisted by the US Government because they had done business with Mexican drug lords, terrorist organisations or ‘rogue nations’ including North Korea,

• Close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who allegedly horded $2 billion through shadow companies,

• Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who owned an offshore firm that held millions of dollars in Icelandic bank bonds during the country’s financial crisis,

• Offshore companies controlled by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the King of Saudi Arabia, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who was revered for his anti-corruption stance, and

• The family of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the father of British Prime Minister David Cameron and the children of the President of Azerbaijan.

7 hours ago, npts2020 said:

How about something more like the frequency with which each is not successfully prosecuted for their crimes? 

These guys seem to think criminality is more widespread in the upper class, with many of their crimes simply overlooked or "not worth prosecuting". One of the things they point out is the following where more than 1 in 20 of the world's richest people are involved;

 

The release of the ‘Panama Papers’ last year suggests that more than 14,000 banks, law firms, company incorporators and other ‘middlemen’ acted in league with law firm Mossack Fonseca to get away with tax fraud on a monumental scale and to avoid a range of other legal duties.

Many of the world’s wealthiest people are alleged to be involved, including 12 current and former world leaders and 128 politicians and public officials from around the globe.

Those implicated include:

• 29 billionaires featured in Forbes Magazine’s list of the world’s 500 richest people,

• 33 people and companies blacklisted by the US Government because they had done business with Mexican drug lords, terrorist organisations or ‘rogue nations’ including North Korea,

• Close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who allegedly horded $2 billion through shadow companies,

• Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who owned an offshore firm that held millions of dollars in Icelandic bank bonds during the country’s financial crisis,

• Offshore companies controlled by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the King of Saudi Arabia, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who was revered for his anti-corruption stance, and

• The family of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the father of British Prime Minister David Cameron and the children of the President of Azerbaijan.

This was all a load of overblown cobblers talked up by media hype  and it was in the press in 2016, not last year. Many of the transactions "revealed" were perfectly legal, though certainly a number were due to tax evasion. 

As far as David Cameron's father was concerned, he was a stockbroker (not in itself anything remotely shady) who set up a company, offshore from the UK, for people wishing to invest in dollar denominated shares. That's all. It was perfectly legal and above board.  

Edited March 4Mar 4 by exchemist

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

How about something more like the frequency with which each is not successfully prosecuted for their crimes? 

These guys seem to think criminality is more widespread in the upper class, with many of their crimes simply overlooked or "not worth prosecuting". One of the things they point out is the following where more than 1 in 20 of the world's richest people are involved;

This has gone wildly off topic but OK.

Frequency of delinquents is exaggerated by wealth, bc the poor don't matter; what you're refering to is the relative impact on society, which has always been twisted, in many and varied direction's sometimes it strength and sometimes it's piety; but it's never 'my' fault... 😉

 

I was gifted, recently, an Amazon gift card; did I refuse to spend my Bezos Dollar's? No, I bought a lovely bottle of single malt whisky and I enjoyed every sip; but don't judge me...

Edited March 4Mar 4 by dimreepr

Nothingness can possess considerable power.

3 minutes ago, cpu68 said:

Nothingness can possess considerable power.

Can you provide an example?

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Can you provide an example?

No doubt he can, but he's projectoring... 

Nothingness and Absolute is the same.

Edited June 8Jun 8 by CPU29000

19 minutes ago, CPU29000 said:

Nothingness and Absolute is the same.

Only at a certain temperature... 😉

29 minutes ago, CPU29000 said:

Nothingness and Absolute is the same.

No it isn’t. For a start, nothingness is a noun and absolute is an adjective, which as such has no meaning until it is used to qualify a noun. Absolute what?

Edited June 8Jun 8 by exchemist

On 8/9/2024 at 1:28 PM, joigus said:

It's practiced nowhere, followed by no one, and you don't have to do anything to be a member.

Doesn't have a point of view,

knows not where he's going to

isn't he a bit like you and me...?

Gets my +1

All God existing hypothesises were born from assumption that everything has a manager. You have a boss at your job, your boss has his boss, etc. Our presidents should be working under someone, let's call him God.

The problem is, once the scientific community accepts this God existing hypothesis (which can't possibly be accepted cuz it can't be proved), the folk won't rest on this. They'll be claiming there is a supreme God that commands other Gods.

Just now, Postdam said:

All God existing hypothesises were born from assumption that everything has a manager. You have a boss at your job, your boss has his boss, etc. Our presidents should be working under someone, let's call him God.

The problem is, once the scientific community accepts this God existing hypothesis (which can't possibly be accepted cuz it can't be proved), the folk won't rest on this. They'll be claiming there is a supreme God that commands other Gods.

Although I don't accept the premise, it is an interesting idea that is not untrue either.

However you have several thousand years of catching up to do since most religions already have a pecking order of Gods.

23 minutes ago, Postdam said:

All God existing hypothesises were born from assumption that everything has a manager. You have a boss at your job, your boss has his boss, etc. Our presidents should be working under someone, let's call him God.

The problem is, once the scientific community accepts this God existing hypothesis (which can't possibly be accepted cuz it can't be proved), the folk won't rest on this. They'll be claiming there is a supreme God that commands other Gods.

The problem is, we're human, and we need an immutable authority from which to understand our world when we're growing up; but when grown we assume the mantle of authority and, mostly, we assume our correctness bc we haven't learned enough to understand why we aren't.

When you come to actually understand our humanity, then a God of any sort is superfluous.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by dimreepr