s1eep

Can you not use a more professional-sounding word? It sounds very much like a swear-word; although I'd agree that I might be a bit crackpotty to think this. I'd like to add, I didn't come here to criticize scientists for being scientists, simply, that word makes me go 'passive-aggressive' or hot-headed or whatever it's called. Oh well, rest is good for the mind... Can we get it straight, does the word crackpot also (alongside the semantics you give it) imply that ones head is cracked or 'a crack'? This is not scientific. And then, this 'pain we go through' to learn or adapt, if I learn from 'crackpot' what do I learn? Is it your message "go learn from the state's academia"; or just simply "listen to my words in the future"?

That's fine... I understand that you use the word crackpot rationally, but other people don't know that. If you were a trustworthy person, you would converge to the level of a learning-mind. And in reality, it doesn't work how you think it works, it actually effects people negatively, the example you set by using 'crackpot' is often abused by those who think pro-academia is the way to go... You're far from 'grown up' or a 'good example', but, you have a nice community and a lot of you will find success through it.

I don't think the use of the word "Crackpot" is fair, because it is just the pro-state, pro-academia, pro-technology artistry; some people may have correct ideas on their own, people are able and with power over an environment and different natures, from the day they can move and survive properly You'll find that, although this is not how words are meant to be used, if you end up scanning the whole page as one piece of art (all the words together; an example, recollection of everything, judging what's good to say next after a conversation or topic comes to end) you'll only be able to smile so much, and sometimes, like the pain you suggest we can go through, there is also a route of good feeling, I like to call it harmony. A way to describe it artistically would be duality of a maleficent/choking/painful laugh, and then with imagery or nature there is an eternal "aaaaaaa" infinite laugh-potential. People can be intelligent and devise correct theories on their own, wisdom is achievable through observation of nature, and wisdom is testing of knowledge against the self and it's surroundings, we are wise-creatures, top of the food chain, we've evolved great genetics and a body that can withstand or avoid even the toughest worldly natures, we're not automatically dumb, some of us aren't reliant on other people, or their theories, or their word or wordless language, and know life well enough to come to our own conclusions. Why don't you reply with your (the states, your teachers) signature one-liners or signature 'crackpot' insult, or just rate me down and express your idea of of art to the people, don't like/do like? Some scientists would use "crackpot" to someone who didn't support space travel and has his own theories against it, probably, for simply not agreeing with space travel when past people have stated they do... I mean, we'll waste all this finite resource on Earth, send Earth-bound humanity into chaos as we destroy nature and construct technology, but it's okay because the humans claustrophobic in bunkers on Mars will still carry on? Well. At least I can say, I think you're not accurate enough with your definition of 'crackpot'. What is it you're saying by the way? My head is crack? What? I am half-pot? My head is cracked? Which? Then it's fair to say most of you are 'crackpots'

God is egotistical art; as you keep saying, it's something beautiful you believe in; but think about how much cowardice lies in becoming a God-believer, every time I get into debate, I hide behind God thinking that you will go to hell, after you have died; not actually doing anything, not causing any productive movement bar from spreading my, again, art, and having others treat it as what the art expresses, some invisible human-akin being in the and beyond, probably more accurately what's believed, the fabric of the universe.

I agree that you can believe someone is a sea gull! My own input: sometimes you need or would benefit from, disrespecting someone's projected imagination, cause it may harm you.

I am annoyed by nihilism Anyway, the other things I said? Provide me with a factual statement that is true.

I could respond with a lie and say that it's equal, in value, to truth, and thus void your statements (without insulting, truly) 'progression' toward the foundation to the point I brought up... I could respond with the fact that your true-statement is never actual truth it's personal truth; I could go deeper into your statement and take your emotions into consideration, and judge your character. There are many things I can respond with... You can't understand the semantics without stopping at each word, dividing between our two perspectives, and appealing with a third-party which supports that you check the definitions correlate with dictionary definitions; we have evolved a sense of the world. What, you think you're right? So you can just spread your confusion and weakness? You don't even attempt to progress. All this nihilism annoys me. Imagination may be in the head, but it came from that which was out of the head... From the big bang, everything has had imagination-potential (the potential to one day create or be with an imagination). This means imagination is within it all together, the universe is not completely void of imagination, it's an imagination-maker. Is imagination more like the universe or the word and definition for imagination? Well... I think I'm on to something here...

Do you believe that imagination encircles everything, and thus, anything that someone says, can be easily defeated with a bit of imagination? I guess to make it a bit clearer for you: anything you say has imagination surrounding it; this is also represented by the fact that the rest of the body which enforces your statements, is an accomplice of the statement, as well as other things like dictionaries or references; including things like sexual desires, emotions; beyond the words you say is always yourself and you may be judged more accurately; I could mention that you were educated or socially conditioned--I'm not saying this is a bad thing but it's an example of a judgement I can make that is conversation-breaking. It can be again represented by the fact my voice (i.e. the sound that it makes) is accepted by everything; I could refer to any moment with a simple grunt or howl. The many ways to represent imagination encircling things shows imagination in itself. Okay, so do you believe this? What are your thoughts on what I have asked you?

My theory on this is that God comes about through use of some word systems, and ours, has been lesser, and still is one of those systems; it's pretty advanced today and has an element of artistry to it; if we completely wiped out the mind of memories with some device (as in Men in Black), and removed all books, and then taught the language of today, the theory of God, if created, I think, wouldn't contend with other more advanced or artistic theories; people-power and the whole movement of religion is a huge thing; given a fair chance, it would just be another piece of art.

Religion is the opposite to rationality, it's close-minded; I would say that some academia is also close-minded. There are rare, often off the normal path of religion, cases where religion that concerns God could be beneficent; such as for the control of a population, or primal education for civilized society; maybe even unto like-God anomalies or natures. These are not truly unseen, I imagine many people have thought about this in the past, it's just pointless because of the state of God-belief in society. If we support anything about God we are often forced to think about or worship other aspects of God. I think rationality is the way forward, pure rational belief, as oppose to a belief in a God, or person, who defines rationality, rationality in the form of doctrine that cannot be replicated by the self through the observation of nature---you can only be in it's stupor because you succumb to whatever forces had play in it's application into your mind.

I think that I am correct in saying that if the world was wordless (free of words) there would be no religion in God. What exactly would you believe in if you had to describe it wordlessly? Nature, end of story.

I must disagree; if God was never created by man, then there would be no need to define ourselves as having lack of belief in, keyword, God. 1. Man creates God 2. Atheism is then created for people who, recognize God in society and lack belief in God. If Man doesn't create God, the topic never comes up throughout civilization, and then, there is no real 'lack of belief in God'. If Atheists did exist whilst Theists did not, they would be covertly advertising God. You will disagree.

So you are saying that if there was a world that was free from God belief, there would still be Atheists?

"Are Atheists born that way?" No, Atheism is a product of God-belief. If there was no God-belief, there would be no Atheism. This doesn't mean people were born Theists either...

This is just poetry, it's not a rational analysis of scientific advancement, in all it's kinds. Though you are right in thinking we are able to control it; what I'm saying is that this control is as oppose to science; as a child is as oppose to it's mother and father. Religion is a reflection of this control in conjunction with a word which restricts us to a singular perspective (there are plenty of forms of communication with far more complex meanings; far more advanced forms of words beyond words---imagine talking in pictures), and yes, religion is an abomination, it's not really the true representative of "what's opposed to science?", the control, the regulation, faith.

I think you can consider a subjective entity as opposite to science, there are lessons to learn from analysing both science and religion; I'm sure that we can learn from observing mistakes, and because these mistakes happen in nature they are effected by nature, they revolve around a particular meaning that is true (or real), but they don't correctly express it. Basically, as oppose to science we can put humans or multiple humans using a word/communicating; I think that what's "opposite" doesn't always have to be exactly opposite, or relevant in some way, but there are simplified opposites such as standing next to someone, and there can be different frequencies and levels of opposites.

It's not to say that there should be nothing opposed to science, because without some entity governing our scientific advancement we will destroy ourselves. However, I agree, the religion of today and those that include God can be rid of and harmony still pertain.

On my tumblr, I create strings of art that have particular meaning together, and it takes more pattern recognition than thinking in words, after a period of time you'll start to fall into a trance or euphoric state where everything seems perfect, you'll then be able to imagine psychosis, and ways it may come around, by example and not doctrine. An example of the types of things you'll be thinking: "waking up is like a Sunrise, at first your head is in the clouds, you feel groggy and argumentative, but then like the Sun you rise about the clouds into a new day, and all becomes clear". I will provide an example here (a string of art with meaning), if you study the pictures you'll eventually start creating beautiful stories in your mind. If you do decide to go further from the example, onto my tumblr, where there are far more complex ones, then I suggest before you start, scroll down until you see these pictures and start from there since the future pictures are highly influenced by the prior ones. http://sub-nomine.tumblr.com/

It's also the opposite. It's just one of the beautiful symmetries abound in the world. Cold and Hot may be centred around energy, but in essence they are opposite; they feel opposite, they act opposite, they have reactions with each other that oppose each other. In the sense of, you believing in God, you are without God, it's absence of, but in the case of you being Atheist, you are "as-oppose-to" Theist.

It's looks very real like, and it's no so far off the real thing; think of it as like telling a blind person about the colour red, of course this wouldn't escalate to the actual red being seen by the blind person, but just something close to it, that helps the blind person live with the essence of red.

Well. I thought it was clear, a serious interpretation of Genesis. Though I would argue that during the Adam and Eve part, they didn't show God saying "do not eat," for that would have been silly, and it would be less immersive. My initial thought was, What about Earth, not as God, but as Earth, is it worthy of worship (special/beneficent treatment)? And keeping on topic, is this possibly what Genesis was about (the clip)? My answer to my own question??? Who am I to claim worthiness?

Spoiler alert: taken from the Film Noah. Thoughts?

I'm unsure whether anyone has noticed the pattern that I have (well, actually, I'm sure people would recognize it if told, but they don't understand it as a pattern; but to me it's simple) where, if there are two objectives, there will be a good and evil side to both of them (this is the factors concerning the 2 particular outcomes of each objective; success/failure).

I can think of a few reasons why using a simple explanation such as good can be useful; for one, not every human is science-literate, some people are, inter alia, religious (in this specific case they already have terms for good and evil); for two, people tend to use the creative parts of the brain and neglect the logical side, and some still seem to function fine; this is what I would call a 'pointless illness' or a 'pointless pain', that has uses of it's own, such as leaving people the space to be imaginative---rather than having a strict definition for everything, which may lead to less waste-output because they have less interest in harmful-to-the-species technology or productivity in non-beneficent areas, simply because they don't know about this stuff, and if we're talking on a mass-scale, success here would definitely ensue.