01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [711][712][713][714][715][716][717][718][719][720] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
711) Arminius, 14.05.2015, 21:54, 22:22 22:53 (2991-2993)
Yes. If there is absolutely homgenitity, then there is nothing perceptible. So absolutely homgenitity is like nothingness.You said (**):
According to RM:AO there is no pushing and pulling; but if so: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not migrate toward each other (**)?You said (**):
According to RM:AO Earth and Moon must migrate toward each other (**), because the concentration/density is greater between Earth and Moon than other surrounding areas. So again: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not migrate toward each other?
Zinnat wrote:
What exactly gave you the idea of this thread?And I am also waiting for your response in the other thread (**|**).
James S. Saint wrote:
What do you exactly mean by tangential momentum, and why can a tangential momentum cause an orbiting? |
712) Arminius, 15.05.2015, 15:23, 17:06, 17:58 (2994-2996)
Moreno wrote:
They invent, invent, and invent more and more stuff (mental illness is merely one of that nonsense stuff) in order to control more and more humans, at last 99% of all humans (before all humans will be replaced by machines? [**|**]).Moreno wrote:
Do you mean the thread called Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us? (**|**)?Moreno wrote:
Do you believe in that?
Humans can never be 100%-animals but merely 98%-animals, and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes but merely 98%-godwannabes.
Since Galilei, Kepler, and Newton the physicists have been explaining the cause of the orbiting by two forces. |
713) Arminius, 16.05.2015, 12:26, 14:14, 21:28 (2997-2999)
My point was the difference between the explanation of the mainstream physicists and your explanation.
Zinnat wrote:
Probably we have to wait until Zinnat will have learned that trick.Zinnat wrote:
What is it?Zinnat wrote:
So according to you the definitions are happening all around automatically, or what?Zinnat wrote:
No.Zinnat wrote:
There are more than two scales - for example 20 metric prefixes (SI prefixes). Excuse me, but I think you have no idea.Zinnat wrote:
No. You are telling nonsense. Nano is well defined and used as unit prefix meaning one billionth.Zinnat wrote:
Which things do you mean?Zinnat wrote:
That is again nonsense. There are six prefixes which mean less than nano (billionth), namely: pico (trillionth), femto (quadrillionth), atto (quintillionth), zepto (sextillionth), yocto (septillionth). For example: a proton has a diameter of about 1.6 to 1.7 femtometres.Zinnat wrote:
Most of the people do not understand many things anyway - that is unfortunately normal. So there is not another problem but the same old problem, Zinnat.Zinnat wrote:
Yes, but that does not change anything of the definitions. The definitions of (for example) observation, cognition, informnation, process can remain as constant as before.
James S. Saint wrote:
Are you sure?I asked you this:
And your answer was merely a kind of sidestepping:
I know the translation of tangential momentum and thus the meaning of it, at least in general, but I do not exactly know what you mean by it when it comes to cause an orbiting. |
714) Arminius, 17.05.2015, 01:09, 14:50, 15:15, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00 (3000-3003)
According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect (**).
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. Okay, thank you, James. But why is there a parallel vector of migration to the Earth's surface? **James S. Saint wrote:
But momentum and migratory acceleration are not the same as force of gravity. So why aka?James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, and according to RM:AO there are no forces in the sense of the mainstream physics, especially no pushing and pulling. Your two vector components of migratory motion have a different ontological basis or foundation than the two vector components of forces.
There is a high probability that the well defined theory of a non-corrupted human is more true than the theory of a corrupted human who is called scientist and depends on the money of other corrupted humans.
James S. Saint wrote:
Both how did it get started? and why is it still there?. |
715) Arminius, 18.05.2015, 20:57, 22:55, 23:24 23:59 (3004-3007)
It's hard to believe that just a member of a webforum called I Love Philosophy is saying: Thinking alone doesn't yield new information (**).
|
3005 |
Science alone can never tell if anything is true, only that it hasn't been proven false ... yet. **
3006 |
3007 |
And after Kant, Nietzsche .... **
716) Arminius, 19.05.2015, 02:21, 17:34, 23:16 (3008-3010)
x-coordinate <=> centuries (0 <=> the year 1800)
|
3009 |
3010 |
No matter how you cut it, the distance between 0 and 1 is infinite. Saying 0+1=1 doesn't actually solve that problem. **
717) Arminius, 20.05.2015, 15:19, 20:13, 20:59, 21:54 (3011-3014)
Zinnat wrote:
Zinnat, humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury, then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans poorer and poorer.The Brazilianisation of the world is a process of 3rd-world-isation which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly islands of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely populated, and very beautiful island of the 1% of all humans with a huge luxury.The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury. So, for example, you can eschew luxury, of course, but that merely makes the distribution (allocation) of the luxury unfairer and unfairer, so that you consequently must eschew luxury, whereas the 1% of all humans can get more and more luxury, because your eschewal of luxury does not mean all humans eschewal of luxury but the increase of other humans' luxury. At last 99% of all humans will have to eschew about 99% of all luxury (wealth), whereas 1% of all humans will have that 99% of all luxury (wealth).
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, at least most of them. And that ego thing is one of the main parts of the nihilism.
Ecmandu wrote:
I did not say that everyone is on an ego trip here, but I said most of them. Perhaps you did not read my whole post (**|**).....Most of them.Ecmandu wrote:
I was talking about most (about 80%) of the ILP members, thus not about ILP itself. Perhaps you did not read my whole post (**|**).....Most of them. I estimate: 80%.
Ecmandu, stop being arrogant and derailing this thread. You are obviously not even smart enough to realise that you are derailing this thread. |
718) Arminius, 21.05.2015, 02:17, 02:53, 19:22, 19:47 (3015-3018)
Orb wrote:
Oh, no. Not the Frankfurt School. That school is definitely out!
Jr Wells wrote:
Are you really sure in that case?
Don't forget that jobs have also to do with luxury (wealth). So if somemone wants to find a job, this one also needs some things which are usually luxuries and suddenly necessities in order to (get a job to) get more luxury (wealth). So luxuries, although usually not needed, can become necessities, and if they do, then merely in order to get other, thus more luxuries, not in any and every case but in order to reproduce and propagate luxury in general, regardless whether they are for anyone and everyone or not. So luxury can only find its end by disasters, catastrophes, cataclysms. Therefore I said:
|
3018 |
719) Arminius, 22.05.2015, 01:39, 20:09, 22:49, 23:48 (3019-3022)
Orb wrote:
They must be considered as one way containing two ways:1,1) Linguistics => objects => consciousness,
|
3020 |
Philosophy also has to be earned, besides learning. **
Let me take two different analogies here to explain the issue. In maths, we have positive and negative numbers. Right. Here, you can say that negative numbers are »apositive«. That would be true if maths would not have zero. But, as the maths also has the concept of zero, which is specifically designed to state such a position, which is different both from positive and negative, thus you cannot define zero as apositive. **
I'm the same way, in the real world, we have positive charged particles like photons and negative charged particles like electrons. **
Both of these are charged but opposite ones. **
And, we have neutrons also which are completely free from any charge. **
But, do we call neutrons as apositive, just because they lack positive charge? **
Or, consider electrons and neutrons the same? And, if not, how can you put all non-godbelivers into one basket? You have to differinciate between those who believe that there is no god and who do have belief of either side. **
This second anology fits perfectly on our issue in hand. Theism is like protons, positively charged and atheism is like electrons, negatively charged. But, agnosticm is different from both. It stands apart and presenting it as an opposite of positive only is unjustified. **
3021 |
3022 |
One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is alo impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says »God does not exist« or »I do not know that God does not exist«. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.
The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called »Indios« or »Indians« didn't even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God. ** **
The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not« / »non«, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme »anti« means »against« / »contra«. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s). ** **
Another example:
Are antifeminists called »afeminists«? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism .... ** **
There are many in the atheist community .... **
... who don't feel that newborn babies should be called atheists. **
720) Arminius, 23.05.2015, 14:32, 21:41, 22:54, 22:54, 23:33 (3023-3027)
Mutcer wrote:
The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.Arminius wrote:
Mutcer wrote:
Your statement is not true.Mutcer wrote:
That is not true. Why should god be logically impossible? Or are you the one who wants to be god? Are you (like the most antitheists) a godwannabe? You want to be the one who dictates (by using the word "posit") that god is impossible.Theists say that god is possible, atheists say that they do not know whether god is possible or not, and antitheists say that god is impossible (because theists say that god is possible and because, if the times are modern times, then being against theists is so hypocritically progressive and can lead to more appreciation, thus power, and that is the goal). You argue like an antitheist - not logically but dictatorially.Mutcer wrote:
No.Arminius wrote:
It does not matter how falsely and rhetorically these words are used in the English language. Almost everyone knows what is logically meant by a and anti, regardless how you or anyone else translate them. What I was saying has to do with both linguistics and logic, what you are saying has only to do with the use of an everyday language by an English speaker. Again: An Atheist does not know and says to not know whether (it is possible that) god exists or not, but an antitheist (like you) claims to know that god does not exist in order to say the oppsite of that what a theists says. Anti <=> against, contra.Mutcer wrote:
Do you think that it is not possible to know that god does exist? And if so: why?Mutcer wrote:
No. About 99% of all atheists are antitheists. Atheists are not interested in These themes we are talking about. Atheist are not interested in the theme "god", "theism", and so on (that is - by the way - the reason why atheists are so seldom and merely a few [about 1%]), but antitheists are interested in that, often more than theists.Mutcer wrote:
No. I am correct in all acounts, and you are incorrect in all accounts.If someone does not believe in god, then this one is a non-godbeliever but not necessarily an atheist or an antitheist. Theism, atheism, and antitheism require a modern society - amongst others the isms stand for this requirement -, so non-modern societies have nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism, regardless whether they believe in god, or not know whether they should believe in god, or do not believe in god. They have nothing to do with isms, and they believe what they believe without any thinking about it.Additionally: A newborn does not need to be a theist, an atheist, an antitheist in order to be.Is a newborn old? According to you: yes, at least with a
high probability; because the probability is high that a newborn will
become an old human.
|
3024 |
From http://www.dictionary.com
atheist
[ey-thee-ist]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. **That definition might be valid for English speaking humans, but it is not valid when it comes to philosophy, to science, especially to the original meaning of the word, because that is the only valid definition.
3025 |
Emm ..., since it is an English word, how can it be false English? **
3026 |
Arminius wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't change the fact that newborn babies are atheists. **
The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.« ** **
Unless a newborn baby holds a belief that a god exists, then it is by definition an atheist. **
Whether or not one knows what the word means isn't a requirement for one to be an atheist. **
However, if you can find a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what 'atheist' means to be an atheist, then I'll concede that you're right. **
If a logically impossible god is posited, one can know for sure that the existence of such god is impossible. **
One is free to posit a logically impossible god or a logically possible god. **
I'll posit one right now. A timeless, spaceless god named Dexter who periodically manifests himself in reality by appearing as a 19 foot tall 3 headed monster who breathes green bubbles. That's not a logically impossible god, as it can't be falsified. But if I were to posit a god which always loves Arminius and also always doesn't love Arminius, then such a god would be logically impossible - as one cannot always love something and also always not love that same something. **
Some atheists are gnostic in their knowledge - or are gnostic atheists. **
Atheism doesn't address the issue of whether or not it is possible that a god exists. It only addresses the issue of whether or not one holds the belief that a god exists. So to say to be an atheist, one must "not know and says to not know whether it is possible that gods exists or not" is not quite accurate. **
What is the difference between a »non-godbeliever« and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists? **
Think back to when the first person came up with the idea of a god. **
Were all people before this person something other than atheists? If they weren't atheists, then were they theists? **
3027 |
So what are you saying that the ancient Greek word actually meant? **
==>
|