We create that which we call God

[AnnaG]

At the present time, when there is greater and greater insecurity outwardly, there is obviously a yearning for inward security. Since we cannot find security outside, we seek it in an idea, in thought, and so we create that which we call God, and that concept becomes our security. Now, a mind that seeks security surely cannot find the real, the true. To understand that which is beyond time, the fabrications of thought must come to an end. Thought cannot exist without words, symbols, images, and only when the mind is quiet, free of its own creations, is there a possibility of finding out what is real. So merely to ask if there is or is not God is an immature response to the problem, is it not? And to formulate opinions about God is really childish.
Your point of view

There is more than one reason for people to resort to gods. You mentioned one. Another reason would be a father figure. Someone to reach out to for wisdom. Well, to me, my dad is better than any god as he actually pays attention to me, gives me little pearls of wisdom to figure out, and does not do things that would harm me.
Reality is something else. Everything that happens, that can be thought of, experienced, etc. is real in one way or another.
What problem? Asking whether there are gods or not is a matter of curiosity, IMO, not a quest for a solution to a problem.
People like to categorize things. Why we form opinions is to take what we see and categorize them so that we can better understand them according to our concept of the universe. Obviously we cannot conceive all that is real as individuals so we categorize things according to our own specific realities. It's all about concepts; real concepts of reality given in real, subjective views. Gods are past our abilities to describe completely.

 

[AnnaG]

"Progress" is necessary to improve things that are flawed or imperfect. It's a bit like admitting you don't know much, so you have to keep seeking the "right" or correct answers.

Some things, like a good bottle of wine, get better with age , if left undisturbed. Fiddling with them just screws up what is already OK - If you uncork the bottle prematurely, the wine can turn bad.

Exactly, progress is not making the same mistakes in different ways. Progress is fixing those made before.
But anyway, maybe humans invented gods, maybe not. We'll never know, IMO. There's no more evidence pointing to their existence than there is pointing to their non-existence, so discussing them is purely philosophical and only real in our minds as any other thought.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Progress" is necessary to improve things that are flawed or imperfect. It's a bit like admitting you don't know much, so you have to keep seeking the "right" or correct answers.

Some things, like a good bottle of wine, get better with age , if left undisturbed. Fiddling with them just screws up what is already OK - If you uncork the bottle prematurely, the wine can turn bad.

Indeed, let us take the example of wine. It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody comes up with a way of artificially aging wine. Then we won’t have to wait for years for the wine to mature, we can mature it in weeks or days. Maturing is simply a chemical or biochemical reaction.

I think probability is very high that nanotechnology will accomplish it. Now that would be progress.

 

[countryboy]

Indeed, let us take the example of wine. It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody comes up with a way of artificially aging wine. Then we won’t have to wait for years for the wine to mature, we can mature it in weeks or days. Maturing is simply a chemical or biochemical reaction.

I think probability is very high that nanotechnology will accomplish it. Now that would be progress.

Our food is screwed up because of scientists who think like that. I hope they keep their scientific noses out of the wine.

 

[MHz]

It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody comes up with a way of artificially aging wine.

It's called a still. lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Our food is screwed up because of scientists who think like that. I hope they keep their scientific noses out of the wine.

Surely you are not serious. Science has improved the agricultural productivity tremendously. Before the industrial revolution, all we had was subsistence farming, farmers barely used to eke out a living from the farms.

Along came tractors, new varieties of existing crops, new crops, better irrigation techniques, pesticides, fertilizers etc. and productivity jumped by several orders of magnitude. Whereas before industrial revolution a farmer could barely feed his family, these days an average farmer probably feeds more than 100 families.

Without science, there is no way we could have sustained a population of six billion on earth. So when you accuse scientists of screwing up the food, you know not what you are saying.

We have a lot to be thankful for, to science in the area of agriculture (as pretty much in almost any area).

As to wine, I think it is quite likely that nanotechnology will come up with a way to mature the wine in a couple of weeks at most. Then common person will be able to drink vintage wines, the rich and super rich can still get their wine matured the old fashioned way.

 

[countryboy]

Surely you are not serious. Science has improved the agricultural productivity tremendously. Before the industrial revolution, all we had was subsistence farming, farmers barely used to eke out a living from the farms.

Along came tractors, new varieties of existing crops, new crops, better irrigation techniques, pesticides, fertilizers etc. and productivity jumped by several orders of magnitude. Whereas before industrial revolution a farmer could barely feed his family, these days an average farmer probably feeds more than 100 families.

Without science, there is no way we could have sustained a population of six billion on earth. So when you accuse scientists of screwing up the food, you know not what you are saying.

We have a lot to be thankful for, to science in the area of agriculture (as pretty much in almost any area).

As to wine, I think it is quite likely that nanotechnology will come up with a way to mature the wine in a couple of weeks at most. Then common person will be able to drink vintage wines, the rich and super rich can still get their wine matured the old fashioned way.

I thought I might hear back from you on this.

Listen, Mr. SirJosephPorter - If talking about a tractor is the best you can do on this one, you know not what you are saying. (I borrowed that line from you - see above...almost sounds biblical to me. Are you admitting that you not only read the bible, but plagarize some of its content in your posts?)

Have you had a look at the food additives that have permeated our food lately? Have you dug into the scientific cattle feeds and what they do to the environment, the cows, and the people? Have you looked at how fruits and vegetables are grown and treated, and then looked at the consequences to the environment and the people? Have you considered the impact of the Monsanto mess in total? Have you...well, obviously you have not!

If you think increasing production and simply growing more stuff fixes all the food problems, I think you are coming from an extremely uninformed point of view.

Farmers in India are committing suicide because of your lofty scientific advances invading that country. Corporate farming is killing off small farmers who previously could feed their families. And their families will be forced to eat the vile crap produced by these wonderful new scientific ventures.

Thank goodness at least one European country has taken a stand against the GMO weirdness - Germany. Hopefully more will follow, so that this drunken rampage of "scientific advances" in food will be stopped before it kills us all.

Food is fuel for the physical body. When your scientific colleagues focus on one or two things (production, lower costs) they are overlooking - deliberately or possibly out of sheer ignorance - the reason for eating in the first place - nurturing the body. Our food supply is becoming quite the opposite - it's beginning to make the body sick. Because of scientific "advances.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is just simple math, countryboy, without the advances in Agricultural science, no way could we have sustained a population of six billion today. If we had subsistence farming and only advances in modern medicine, increasing the life expectancy and reducing infant mortality but keeping the same primitive methods of agriculture, the result would have been worldwide famine, 90% of earth’s population would have died due to starvation.

Advances in science have brought tremendous benefits. But as with any advance, there are always some minor problems to be sorted out. In my opinion, it is absurd to concentrate only on problems and then somehow claim that humankind was better off in the days of subsistence farming (or is that what you are claiming)?

We owe a great deal of gratitude to science, for modern agricultural techniques. I for one, wouldn’t want to go back to the days of subsistence farming, when a farmer had to toil all his life just to obtain barely enough to eat.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

(I borrowed that line from you - see above...almost sounds biblical to me. Are you admitting that you not only read the bible, but plagarize some of its content in your posts?)

Indeed I use Biblical phrases freely. For a nonsense book, Bible has some great stuff in it.

 

[lone wolf]

Indeed I use Biblical phrases freely. For a nonsense book, Bible has some great stuff in it.

Nonsense.... How appropriate

Have you ever seen the statistics re: growth hormones in Big Mac beef and precocious puberty?

 

[Mowich]

It is just simple math, countryboy, without the advances in Agricultural science, no way could we have sustained a population of six billion today. If we had subsistence farming and only advances in modern medicine, increasing the life expectancy and reducing infant mortality but keeping the same primitive methods of agriculture, the result would have been worldwide famine, 90% of earth’s population would have died due to starvation.

Advances in science have brought tremendous benefits. But as with any advance, there are always some minor problems to be sorted out. In my opinion, it is absurd to concentrate only on problems and then somehow claim that humankind was better off in the days of subsistence farming (or is that what you are claiming)?

We owe a great deal of gratitude to science, for modern agricultural techniques. I for one, wouldn’t want to go back to the days of subsistence farming, when a farmer had to toil all his life just to obtain barely enough to eat.

But as with any advance, there are always some minor problems to be sorted out.

Trade chaos looms from GM crops proliferate.

Trade Chaos Looms as GM Crops Proliferate - NYTimes.com

Problems with Monsanto’s omega-3 GM soybean

A wonder food to be taken with a pinch of salt | Charles Clover - Times Online

New research shows GM must be stopped.

Transgene from GM Corn Found in Soil-Dwelling Animals

American Antitrust Institute Says Competition in the Transgenic Seed Industry is Impaired by Monsanto

American Antitrust Institute

Illegal GM ‘Triffid’ seeds found in M&S Bread

Illegal GM 'Triffid' seeds found in Marks and Spencer bread | Mail Online

Confronting Monsanto over Agent Orange

Vietnam latest news - Thanh Nien Daily

Sure, SJP, just minor problems.

 

[countryboy]

It is just simple math, countryboy, without the advances in Agricultural science, no way could we have sustained a population of six billion today. If we had subsistence farming and only advances in modern medicine, increasing the life expectancy and reducing infant mortality but keeping the same primitive methods of agriculture, the result would have been worldwide famine, 90% of earth’s population would have died due to starvation.

Advances in science have brought tremendous benefits. But as with any advance, there are always some minor problems to be sorted out. In my opinion, it is absurd to concentrate only on problems and then somehow claim that humankind was better off in the days of subsistence farming (or is that what you are claiming)?

We owe a great deal of gratitude to science, for modern agricultural techniques. I for one, wouldn’t want to go back to the days of subsistence farming, when a farmer had to toil all his life just to obtain barely enough to eat.

Minor problems? I asked you some direct questions and you either don't have the answers or don't want to divulge them.

I think you also might have a problem in the "why are we here" department...You said "...it is absurd to concentrate only on problems..." Absurd? I don't know what field of endeavour you come from, but your superiors might have had a different take on things.

Anyway, we're off topic here - no point in continuing as you didn't answer my questions.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Minor problems? I asked you some direct questions and you either don't have the answers or don't want to divulge them.

I think you also might have a problem in the "why are we here" department...You said "...it is absurd to concentrate only on problems..." Absurd? I don't know what field of endeavour you come from, but your superiors might have had a different take on things.

Anyway, we're off topic here - no point in continuing as you didn't answer my questions.

There is nothing to answer, countryboy, what you are pointing out indeed are the minor problems. And I asked you a direct question; I don’t see you answering that. Would you rather go back to the subsistence farming, with horses and oxen in pre industrial revolution days?

I don’t have to answer to each and every problem of agricultural revolution. Sure there are problems, but the benefits far outweigh any problems that may arise. And again, would you rather give up all the progress and go back to the pre industrial revolution days, when most of the world population was subsistence farmers?

Well, maybe you want to go back to the glory days of subsistence farming, but I certainly don’t. And I suspect neither does most of the world population (with perhaps a few exceptions).

 

[Mowich]

SirJP:

Sure there are problems, but the benefits far outweigh any problems that may arise.

You think!!! I suggest you go on a google search and start listing the benefits as opposed to the problems, as you call them. You might just get an eye-opener. IMHO, the benefits are starting to be on the minus side of the equation.

 

[MHz]

There is nothing to answer, countryboy, what you are pointing out indeed are the minor problems. And I asked you a direct question; I don’t see you answering that. Would you rather go back to the subsistence farming, with horses and oxen in pre industrial revolution days?

I don’t have to answer to each and every problem of agricultural revolution. Sure there are problems, but the benefits far outweigh any problems that may arise. And again, would you rather give up all the progress and go back to the pre industrial revolution days, when most of the world population was subsistence farmers?

Well, maybe you want to go back to the glory days of subsistence farming, but I certainly don’t. And I suspect neither does most of the world population (with perhaps a few exceptions).

LOL SJP can't see my posts as he thinks I am a bad apple. Getting rid of chems does not mean losing all modern equipment used in food production. Hand selection of the best plants in any given area will over time result in a variety that is best for one particular area, natural selection given a boost. Some land that is not entirely landscaped to provide optimized growing conditions could be molded via many pieces of large earth-moving equipment , a one time deal as it would retain the new shape for hundreds of years. SJP is wrong, today a break in the planting steps is more likely simply because there are more links in the chain(fertilizer being unavailable till after the growing season has started, truckers strike, fuel delivery problem, etc, etc.) could spell disaster that would be worse than any natural drought. Organic leaves out many of types of links, in theory all the planting needs (seeds, fuel, maintained equipment, etc) should be on site when the farm is finished with the fields in the fall.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJP:

You think!!! I suggest you go on a google search and start listing the benefits as opposed to the problems, as you call them. You might just get an eye-opener. IMHO, the benefits are starting to be on the minus side of the equation.

That is a matter of perspective, Mowich. Scientific advances in agriculture have done an immense amount of good, it has kept tens of millions (or perhaps even hundreds of millions) from starvation.

If there are any problems, steps should be taken to try to solve the problems, blaming science for the agricultural advances is nonsense.

Anyway, counrtyboy seems unwilling (or unable) to answer the question, so let me ask you, would you rather go back to subsistence farming, if you think science is so bad for humankind?

 

[countryboy]

LOL SJP can't see my posts as he thinks I am a bad apple. Getting rid of chems does not mean losing all modern equipment used in food production. Hand selection of the best plants in any given area will over time result in a variety that is best for one particular area, natural selection given a boost. Some land that is not entirely landscaped to provide optimized growing conditions could be molded via many pieces of large earth-moving equipment , a one time deal as it would retain the new shape for hundreds of years. SJP is wrong, today a break in the planting steps is more likely simply because there are more links in the chain(fertilizer being unavailable till after the growing season has started, truckers strike, fuel delivery problem, etc, etc.) could spell disaster that would be worse than any natural drought. Organic leaves out many of types of links, in theory all the planting needs (seeds, fuel, maintained equipment, etc) should be on site when the farm is finished with the fields in the fall.

Your points make good sense to me, and I'm not a farmer. But I appreciate good food so I'm paying close attention to what you're saying in your post.

All your points are very good, and the one that strikes me as the proverbial "major event that changes a trend" could be the broken chain example. If some of the voting public out there had to go hungry for a few days, I suspect their local MPs would end up setting a higher priority on food. At this point, I suspect the majority of them are rolling along in "squeaky wheel" mode, and there isn't enough noise being made about food. Yet.

 

[countryboy]

Not progressed much in the past few thousand years??????? From what I can see we are getting worse by the decade, mostly attributable to greed.

Gawd, you talk good JLM! A question I've had on my mind is...what exactly do we mean by "progress?" Out in the country (where you can think about all kinds of thing with a clear head 'cause there's no traffic noise) we used to say "If things are getting better, we must be making progress."

Of course, we didn't have scientific measurements, stacks of itemized, categorized, and volumized data to analyze, verify, and tell us how we were doing. We just figured it out on our own.

Heck, we were so backwards that we even went to church most Sundays, just like a bunch of wheatfield hicks out there on the prairie. But, that was our choice and still is for many people today. It's a free choice for all and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Just makes me wonder if, as a society in Canada, we might be "gittin' a little too big fer our britches" as we get all tangled up in our version of "progress." By that, I mean are we getting so perfect that we no longer have to worry about getting any better? Hmm...I think that could lead to some real problems.

Note that my opening word was a half-*ssed attempt at staying on topic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[JLM]

"Of course, we didn't have scientific measurements, stacks of itemized, categorized, and volumized data to analyze, verify, and tell us how we were doing. We just figured it out on our own."- Yep, simple folk can figure these things out just using their eyes, ears and nose, while the learned have to pore through giant tomes and reams of data.

 

[talloola]

"Of course, we didn't have scientific measurements, stacks of itemized, categorized, and volumized data to analyze, verify, and tell us how we were doing. We just figured it out on our own."- Yep, simple folk can figure these things out just using their eyes, ears and nose, while the learned have to pore through giant tomes and reams of data.

now we're gittin somewhere.