- This topic is empty.
- Posts
- Everyone is a Genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
- “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
- “Black holes are where God divided by zero.”
- “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
- “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
- “I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
- “Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.”
- “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
- “Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources”
- “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
- “When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.”
- “Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.”
- “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
- “A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.”
- “I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”
- “Never memorize something that you can look up.”
- “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
- “If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?”
- “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Actually if Albert never said some these things, then I still think they are worth repeating.
I strongly agree with this one.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Many blunders of science and religion can be boiled down to ignoring the other.
There are plenty of examples.
Ignoring belief in a creator for example leaves you with the foolish proposition that everything either came from nothing (impossible) or everything came from something eternal that has to have no awareness and no intelligence, all the while knowing that the most intelligent person could never create an atom, never mind a universe.
And
Religion that ignores science will put men like Galileo into prison.
Problem is, many people are just plain out of balance in their world view. In fact that has always been the problem with the world. One group or view takes dominance and then is overcome by another group or view and while the pendulum of opinion swings wildly from side to side, the truth is that quiet part in the middle that the pendulum speeds past so fast it is missed. That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes.
'That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes. '
Well said T8.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2011,05:24) One group or view takes dominance and then is overcome by another group or view and while the pendulum of opinion swings wildly from side to side, the truth is that quiet part in the middle that the pendulum speeds past so fast it is missed. That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes.
That's actually worth repeating.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2011,22:24) I strongly agree with this one. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Many blunders of science and religion can be boiled down to ignoring the other.
There are plenty of examples.
Ignoring belief in a creator for example leaves you with the foolish proposition that everything either came from nothing (impossible) or everything came from something eternal that has to have no awareness and no intelligence, all the while knowing that the most intelligent person could never create an atom, never mind a universe.
And
Religion that ignores science will put men like Galileo into prison.
Problem is, many people are just plain out of balance in their world view. In fact that has always been the problem with the world. One group or view takes dominance and then is overcome by another group or view and while the pendulum of opinion swings wildly from side to side, the truth is that quiet part in the middle that the pendulum speeds past so fast it is missed. That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes.
You were doing so well there t8, up until the point you missed the point.Einstein was subtle in what he said. Are you subtle enough to understand it?
From the Holy Wikipedia:
“In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religious belief. A poor understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, “The individual feels […] the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature […] and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.” Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner of the third style. As he wrote later, “[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other” there are “strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies […] science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind […] a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.”
You are talking about the kind of religion that Einstein thought was demolished by science. He believed in Spinoza's god, which I think we have established is not what you believe.
Einstein would have just said “Religion is blind” as far as your religion is concerned.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,13:28) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 19 2011,05:24) One group or view takes dominance and then is overcome by another group or view and while the pendulum of opinion swings wildly from side to side, the truth is that quiet part in the middle that the pendulum speeds past so fast it is missed. That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes.
That's actually worth repeating.
Why? It is bollocks. Should the pendulum fall evenly between geocentrists and heliocentrists? Should you be deficient if you do not allow yourself to be drawn into a central position with Catholics?This is the kind of nonsense you get from creationists. Teach the controversy, they say.
What controversy? Creationism is just plain wrong.
Stuart
Quote (princess @ Sep. 20 2011,13:25) 'That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes. ' Well said T8.
But what did he actually say?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2011,18:05) Why? It is bollocks. Should the pendulum fall evenly between geocentrists and heliocentrists? Should you be deficient if you do not allow yourself to be drawn into a central position with Catholics?
You missed the point Stu. Perhaps the pendulum was going to fast for you.It is often extremists that get their way. Look at the Anti-smacking bill. On one hand you had those who said a smack on the backside is a criminal offence meaning that most people's parents are criminals and on the other you had people giving death threats to the person who drafted the bill. IMO, both sides were wrong, but the better way was in the centre where probably most people were anyway.
Then you have the guys that brought down the Twin Towers and you had Bush's war in two countries as a result. Two sides of the pendulum, but did any of these extremities have a good result?
Or what about the Catholic Church's oppression and intolerance to other views then the rise of Atheistic oppression and intolerance to other views. IMO there is no difference here either. Just extremists going at it again.
I should also add the who race issue in New Zealand. New Zealand like any country has racism, and in the past it seems that being white meant greater privilege. Now it seems that being Maori gives you greater privilege and somehow some people are left wondering if it is actually possible for a society to enact equality across the spectrum. This also goes for the battle of the sexes. I bet that male oppression is actually no better or worse than Feminism that hates men. Just two sides of the pendulum trying to cancel each other out. Not many are smart enough to see that middle point where all have equal say and where we don't judge the person by the outward appearance as scripture says.
Even those who promote equality when given it, don't stop there. They just can't help themselves and try to be more equal.
I am sure you could construct a model that doesn't fit the pendulum of extreme views Stu, and quite frankly I don't really care that much because I know that I could tweak your model to cater for extremities of the view that you highlight.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2011,18:01) Einstein was subtle in what he said. Are you subtle enough to understand it? From the Holy Wikipedia:
“In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religious belief. A poor understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, “The individual feels […] the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature […] and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.” Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner of the third style. As he wrote later, “[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other” there are “strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies […] science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind […] a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.”
You are talking about the kind of religion that Einstein thought was demolished by science. He believed in Spinoza's god, which I think we have established is not what you believe.
Einstein would have just said “Religion is blind” as far as your religion is concerned.
Stuart
I will give you a subtle answer Stu.YOU ARE WRONG.
My faith is very much the third point he mentions.
I have a faith that is not based on fear, tradition, or indoctrination.
It is the result of a passion for truth and a deep search for what lies beyond.
As a result of my inquiring spirit, I have been privileged to see what lies beyond the veiled curtain.Einsteins search led him to great scientific discoveries and this in a way shows the focus of his passion and search.
Mine on the other hand has in some ways been less and in another way greater, because as I readily admit, I have not stumbled across any great scientific discovery as he, simply because my search and passion is not focused here and thus I do not deserve such a discovery. Rather, my search was about life itself and I have made some great discoveries and had great experience with the one who is the source of all life. The end result is I have a faith that is based on the testimony of personal experience and thus my search has given me a different but not contradictory revelation of truth.I respect Einstein because he was passionate and focused. However, it is obvious that he was not that focused on God or the source of all life and thus why he admits that he is not a believer in a personal God, but nor is he an Atheist. He is somewhere in between and realized that he was just a kid in a giant candy store and wasn't able to try out all the flavours.
So now I am left to comment about you. Well I may be wrong, but from what you have demonstrated in HN, it appears that you are of the first two points except rather than believing in God you do the opposite, but for the same reasons based on fear, tradition, or bias. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to detect a passionate search for truth and life in your words. Rather what I see is a love to just put down people who engage in such.
However, that said, when you argue against the first two points, believe it or not, I probably actually agree with you much of the time. In fact, I bet my distaste for traditional religion based on fear, tradition, or indoctrination is greater than yours. But rather than do the opposite and search with all your heart and mind, it appears that you do the very same thing, but for an opposite belief.
Can you now see that pendulum swinging from side to side now Stu and how you are on one end of it?
Stu, do you not think for one minute that you do not believe in God because of poor understanding of causality? Do you not fear the possibility of a God that judges and sees the hearts of men and thus prefer to believe that there is no God because it is more comfortable to do so.
What about your desire for support and to belong to a group who have a need to deny a supreme being? All these points are pertinent for you too are they not. You appear after all to have a sense of pride in your belief and show a sense of belonging or you relate to people like Darwin and Hawkins.
Stu, where is your passion for truth and life. Why do you deny that life is a miracle and live like nothing is a miracle? Is it any wonder that you have discovered nothing in your life, and are then left to criticize those who have discovered great things beyond your own experience. And is it not mediocre minds that persecute those who are extraordinary in their path of discovery.
All you can do is put down with your mediocre mind. But it is truth seekers and those passionate for the discovery of reality that deserve discovery and respect. There is no respect for those who bring down if they are unable to build. It is far harder and greater to build something than to destroy something.
And yes there is false religion just as there is false science. But there is also true religion just as there is true science. The former is lame and blind, the latter is powerful and life changing.
Sometimes you need to look at yourself Stu. It is easy to not do that because your line of sight is usually other people.
t8
Quote You missed the point Stu.
Flattering once again for you to ape my language. But then us apes do that.Quote It is often extremists that get their way. Look at the Anti-smacking bill. On one hand you had those who said a smack on the backside is a criminal offence meaning that most people's parents are criminals and on the other you had people giving death threats to the person who drafted the bill. IMO, both sides were wrong, but the better way was in the centre where probably most people were anyway.
So in other words the drafter of the bill should have just had a light flogging, and smacking should still be allowed to some degree. The worst of both worlds, found in the middle. I am for no death threats, no floggings and no smackings. I don’t see how any other half-way position is ethical.Quote Then you have the guys that brought down the Twin Towers and you had Bush's war in two countries as a result. Two sides of the pendulum, but did any of these extremities have a good result?
Flying planes into buildings by those with delusions of Imaginary Friends I agree had no good outcomes whatever. The only good outcomes were to be had on the “war” side of that pendulum swing, although its own premises were entirely immoral. Not sure how you can argue for there even being middle ground here.Quote Or what about the Catholic Church's oppression and intolerance to other views then the rise of Atheistic oppression and intolerance to other views. IMO there is no difference here either. Just extremists going at it again.
I am opposed to dogmatism. Any atheist who imposes his dogmatic views violently or in an oppressive way is as bad as any pope doing the nasty things that popes do. Of course your world view is dogmatic too, but thankfully you have failed to impose it with oppression on anyone else, and to your great credit you have retracted some of your more excessively dogmatic claims against science. Any christian who feels oppressed by any atheist these days I think should reflect on what he has allowed his religion to become for him. I don’t hear anything other than exhortations from atheists for the religious to try and think independently these days. In fact that is all atheists have really ever said. What would you say is oppressive about that? List those killed in the name of atheism: how many is it? Two was my last count. TWO. Now we don’t need to ask how many have been killed because of dogmatism, do we. It is not just insane, well maybe perfectly sane muslims flying planes into buildings. Christian dogmatism is as high on the list or murders as any other mindless ideology, like Stalinist communism or Nazism.Quote I should also add the who race issue in New Zealand. New Zealand like any country has racism, and in the past it seems that being white meant greater privilege. Now it seems that being Maori gives you greater privilege and somehow some people are left wondering if it is actually possible for a society to enact equality across the spectrum.
I don’t think anyone in his right mind could classify Maori as “privileged”, no matter what legislation favours Maori ambitions.Quote This also goes for the battle of the sexes. I bet that male oppression is actually no better or worse than Feminism that hates men. Just two sides of the pendulum trying to cancel each other out. Not many are smart enough to see that middle point where all have equal say and where we don't judge the person by the outward appearance as scripture says.
I don’t see that civil discourse has to have a middle point between misogyny and extreme feminism. Does averaging two wrongs make a right?Quote Even those who promote equality when given it, don't stop there. They just can't help themselves and try to be more equal.
No idea what you mean. Sounds like the middle of the pendulum is not good enough for you either!Quote I am sure you could construct a model that doesn't fit the pendulum of extreme views Stu, and quite frankly I don't really care that much because I know that I could tweak your model to cater for extremities of the view that you highlight.
I don’t think there is much value in your pendulum ideas t8. They certainly have nothing to do with what Einstein said about religion, you have misrepresented what he said.Maybe we could apply the pendulum to the political spectrum. Would that have us all voting for Peter Dunne? Let’s not forget that his loopy religious friends self-destructed politically, in one way or another. While they sat in the middle, actually it was their narrowly conservative religious views that made them the extremists.
I believe the next census will be held in 2013. By then the numbers claiming adherence to some form of christianity will have dipped below 50%. The kind of religion you practice, the kind that Einstein rejected, has made little headway in the past 30 years and I don’t see the pendulum swinging that way. Christianity is dying in New Zealand, and there is a chance it could be gone by 2050. Then what of the pendulum swing between the false extremes you proposed? Suddenly religion will not be one of the extremes anymore. Not sure where that will leave god genes. Maybe they will inspire belief in more worthy gods, like Bacchus.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 20 2011,22:11) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 20 2011,18:01) Einstein was subtle in what he said. Are you subtle enough to understand it? From the Holy Wikipedia:
“In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religious belief. A poor understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, “The individual feels […] the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature […] and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.” Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner of the third style. As he wrote later, “[E]ven though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other” there are “strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies […] science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind […] a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.”
You are talking about the kind of religion that Einstein thought was demolished by science. He believed in Spinoza's god, which I think we have established is not what you believe.
Einstein would have just said “Religion is blind” as far as your religion is concerned.
Stuart
I will give you a subtle answer Stu.YOU ARE WRONG.
My faith is very much the third point he mentions.
I have a faith that is not based on fear, tradition, or indoctrination.
It is the result of a passion for truth and a deep search for what lies beyond.
As a result of my inquiring spirit, I have been privileged to see what lies beyond the veiled curtain.Einsteins search led him to great scientific discoveries and this in a way shows the focus of his passion and search.
Mine on the other hand has in some ways been less and in another way greater, because as I readily admit, I have not stumbled across any great scientific discovery as he, simply because my search and passion is not focused here and thus I do not deserve such a discovery. Rather, my search was about life itself and I have made some great discoveries and had great experience with the one who is the source of all life. The end result is I have a faith that is based on the testimony of personal experience and thus my search has given me a different but not contradictory revelation of truth.I respect Einstein because he was passionate and focused. However, it is obvious that he was not that focused on God or the source of all life and thus why he admits that he is not a believer in a personal God, but nor is he an Atheist. He is somewhere in between and realized that he was just a kid in a giant candy store and wasn't able to try out all the flavours.
So now I am left to comment about you. Well I may be wrong, but from what you have demonstrated in HN, it appears that you are of the first two points except rather than believing in God you do the opposite, but for the same reasons based on fear, tradition, or bias. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to detect a passionate search for truth and life in your words. Rather what I see is a love to just put down people who engage in such.
However, that said, when you argue against the first two points, believe it or not, I probably actually agree with you much of the time. In fact, I bet my distaste for traditional religion based on fear, tradition, or indoctrination is greater than yours. But rather than do the opposite and search with all your heart and mind, it appears that you do the very same thing, but for an opposite belief.
Can you now see that pendulum swinging from side to side now Stu and how you are on one end of it?
So you never would write anything like this, t8?“I am a believer in God, Jesus Christ his Son, and believe that Jesus is the only way to our Father God, as God is too pure to look upon or fellowship with evil. But through his Son we can all be redeemed.”
I took that quote from a post of yours in the Trinity (Part 1) thread. This is the anthropomorphic concept of god that you proclaim, and it is exactly that which Einstein pokes fun at in the other quotes you listed, and elsewhere as in the “God does not play dice” kind of remark. This is not Spinoza's god you believe in, that Einstein did. As soon as you used the word “redeemed” you had fundamentally disagreed with Einstein.
As for your judgment of my passionate search for truth I don't think you even have the comprehension of what that entails.
Stuart
Of course the pendulum idea is not representitive of what Albert said. I never implied that.
I merely made an observation on how people see the extremes and miss the place where there is no extremity or bias and how history shows one group or view dominating, only to be replaced with an opposing but equally worse and extreme group or view.You might need to digest what I am saying before just rushing into refute mode with everything I say.
t8
Quote Stu, do you not think for one minute that you do not believe in God because of poor understanding of causality?
No, my disregard for your Imaginary Friend is based on the fact that you have never said in anything more than platitudes what it actually is that exists, and you have never made a serious claim for what it actually did. So I don’t think you really believe in it either. If you did I might have expected you to be more convincing. But you have no unambiguous evidence, so I assume you are either bluffing or deluded.Quote Do you not fear the possibility of a God that judges and sees the hearts of men and thus prefer to believe that there is no God because it is more comfortable to do so.
Is that what it does? How could you know? Do you hear voices? Do you read the words written by humans about this Imaginary Friend? Your belief is full of contradictions, isn’t it. On the one hand you are not to trust the knowledge of men, and on the other hand your only source of knowledge, above the voices in the head of that madman, is the knowledge written down by man. You have to accept the circular logic that this is divinely inspired, it is not valid logic of course. Is your god illogical? Why did it supposedly give you a logical brain then? Are you not made in its image?Quote What about your desire for support and to belong to a group who have a need to deny a supreme being?
You’ve got to be joking! Have you ever, EVER seen a group of organised atheists in your LIFE? Cat herders have it easy by comparison. The reason is simple: atheists have only one statement in common. It would be true that in the absence of all those meaningless statements about Imaginary Friends they have other views in common, but only because they are, on the whole, intelligent people who have not bought into immoral doctrines that would have them denying human rights or making others’ lives miserable for the sake of some untestable doctrine, but rather believe in concepts like social justice and equality.Quote All these points are pertinent for you too are they not. You appear after all to have a sense of pride in your belief and show a sense of belonging or you relate to people like Darwin and Hawkins.
No, I would happily get stuck into Darwin if his science was wrong, and he would have expected me to challenge any mistakes he made, were I able to. And actually it is widely acknowledge that Darwin did make some minor statements about the nature of heredity that were wrong. But this is not because he was asserting dogmas, rather he did not have the evidence we have today. So even before I would have had the chance to use my modern knowledge to negate him going back in time to 1859, he would have readily acknowledged and embraced my criticisms anyway. And no one would need to have been persecuted by anyone as a result.Who is Hawkins?
Quote Stu, where is your passion for truth and life. Why do you deny that life is a miracle and live like nothing is a miracle? Is it any wonder that you have discovered nothing in your life, and are then left to criticize those who have discovered great things beyond your own experience. And is it not mediocre minds that persecute those who are extraordinary in their path of discovery.
I am not a wide-eyed imbecile who credulously attributes every common human sensation to a fairly violent and generally fascist deity invented by ancient goat-herders and tent repairers. I replace the moronic term “miracle” with reactions like “well, that’s interesting”, which leads not to sycophancy in the face of Imaginary Sky Pixies but to genuine investigation, exercising through my brain the only means by which the universe can know itself, as far as we know. I think that rather trumps petty, vindictive and immoral notions of abdication of responsibility through a human sacrifice to a non-existent god that can only be imagined to be pleasing itself through its blaming of humans for its own inadequacies, don’t you think?Quote All you can do is put down with your mediocre mind.
So, given my mediocre mind, you don’t think I should have been expected to agree with you that these quotes of Einstein are worthy of recall?Quote But it is truth seekers and those passionate for the discovery of reality that deserve discovery and respect.
And since when did your conclusions regarding reality have any more merit than a Scientologist’s claim that he is an Operating Thetan?Quote There is no respect for those who bring down if they are unable to build. It is far harder and greater to build something than to destroy something.
What if you are building a tissue of lies, such as the nonsense you posted previously about biology?Quote And yes there is false religion just as there is false science. But there is also true religion just as there is true science. The former is lame and blind, the latter is powerful and life changing.
People who have been led by their reading of the bible to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old have certainly had their lives changed. They have been cast into a pit of abject intellectual poverty. The only change for good I can see coming from christianity is if someone moves from a position of entire self-descruction and endangerment of others to read Matthew 7:12. He should then, as quickly as possible move on from biblical christianity because it is an otherwise selfish and immoral doctrine based on human sacrifice. As he says bye bye to Matthew 7:12 on his way to a better way of living, he could reflect on the fact that Confucius had a better version of the golden rule, and others have much better versions still.Quote Sometimes you need to look at yourself Stu. It is easy to not do that because your line of sight is usually other people.
I don’t think you know me well enough to make that judgment. But at least you are taking yourself above the base demands of your scripture not t
o judge others.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 20 2011,23:07) Of course the pendulum idea is not representitive of what Albert said. I never implied that.
I merely made an observation on how people see the extremes and miss the place where there is no extremity or bias and how history shows one group or view dominating, only to be replaced with an opposing but equally worse and extreme group or view.You might need to digest what I am saying before just rushing into refute mode with everything I say.
You wrote this:Quote I strongly agree with this one. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Many blunders of science and religion can be boiled down to ignoring the other.
There are plenty of examples.
Ignoring belief in a creator for example leaves you with the foolish proposition that everything either came from nothing (impossible) or everything came from something eternal that has to have no awareness and no intelligence, all the while knowing that the most intelligent person could never create an atom, never mind a universe.
And
Religion that ignores science will put men like Galileo into prison.
Problem is, many people are just plain out of balance in their world view. In fact that has always been the problem with the world. One group or view takes dominance and then is overcome by another group or view and while the pendulum of opinion swings wildly from side to side, the truth is that quiet part in the middle that the pendulum speeds past so fast it is missed. That part is called balance and if the pendulum could sit there, it would be peaceful with no extremes.
Your context was unequivocally in the context of what you claim to be Einstein's observation on the mutual needs of science and religion, the true intent of which you entirely failed to see. So unless you can show that you did not mean there to be a balance between religion and science in that latter part where you clearly imply it, I shall stand by what I wrote in response.
And, by the way, doesn't your religious dogma have everything made from nothing?
Stuart
Stu, you spend half your life trying to pull down what I say and to be honest, I don't read most of it because of what I do read, it seems lame to me as it lacks any creativity and is really just a bunch of 'no no nos, my bias doesn't agree with that' comments.
Anyway, your activity appears to be symptomatic of Albert's following quote:
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”And yes, I might as well preempt what you are going to say next.
Stu says, “You are assuming that you are a great spirit of which you are not”.
And I say, “Is it not worse to spend half your life critiquing a person's quotes who is not great in spirit?”.
Then Stu says, “I don't beleive in a spirit anyway”.
Of which I say, “I don't really care about that, that is your problem is it not”.
Of which you then say, “Religious platitude”.Anyway, moving along. This quote of Albert's:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
places you firmly in the science without religion camp.
While I am in neither camp because I respect both science and religion.
I balance both, you reject one.So Albert's conclusion is that you are both mediocre and lame.
Just saying where Albert places you that is all.
See for yourself if you don't believe me.Also, I believe that everything is a miracle and you do not.
Further proof that Albert places you at the short end of the stick.Anyway, feel free to continue slicing and dicing my posts with your Albert Einstein quoted, mediocre, lame, and un-miraculous mind.
It is quite entertaining to know that I am that important in your life that you would dedicate so much time to hearing what I have to say in the first place.
If I wanted to, I could dictate how high you should jump because you are so predictable that I could manipulate your knee-jerk reactions by asking the right questions thereby leading you to jump as high as I want.
But really, I have better things to do with my time.Anyway, thanks for the laughs.
Please continue.PS, I could set up a calendar of my proposed times of when I will be posting in the future.
Would this be a helpful thing to help with your time management?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
