To death death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 553

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by moinsdewatt » 06/09/21, 00:03

Who is this guy?
0 x

User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11828
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 3048

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 06/09/21, 00:07

moinsdewatt wrote:Who is this guy?

An idiot, but he's on the other side of the idiots you love. 8)
0 x
Obamot wrote: Apologize for all the wrong you've done! Apologize here right away — especially to Christophe — and try not to do it again. It's not a “gag”. It's your only chance. If you wait too long you will pay a very, very high price later, a price you don't even suspect.
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5334
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 962

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Macro » 06/09/21, 15:59

Christophe wrote:
Why do you think that an undertaker is called an undertaker? : Mrgreen:
Some have woken up :D



The story of the sick undertaker who could not move to bite the toe of the deceased and who sent his daughter to replace him… .And that the deceased's bottom was awakened and that since then we call it funeral pumps : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
1 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4822
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 450

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Exnihiloest » 06/09/21, 22:41

sen-no-sen wrote:
Ahmed wrote:The dissemination of information plays an important role in the "runaway" of the machine, but this is not conceivable outside of a change of religion: the positivism of the Enlightenment reflects only the passage to a new religion, the " progress".

...
This technological development is done in concert with the appearance of economism, the latter relegating other religions to the background.
...

This is not what we see. The biggest Christians are in the United States, where techno is flourishing and economism widely used.
Among the evangelists, money has been declared perfectly compatible with religion. The question is therefore not that of a change of religion.

Certainly progress is opposed to all classical religions. But it has nothing to do with a new religion: no sacred texts, no immutable rites, no supernatural beings, except twisted arguments.
This is because the concept of progress is exactly the opposite of religious thought. It came with the tremendous breakthrough in science since, say, Galileo Galileo, and the technology that came out of it. The concept of progress is the consequence of the Renaissance: it was at this time that in Europe man understood that he could act on the world without constantly referring to God, and that things had an explanation other than "the ways of god are impenetrable". As soon as man was able to gain confidence in himself rather than in god, progress was dazzling.

Little by little, some thought that science could bring happiness to humanity. These do not have a scientific mind. Of course not, it is a utopia. Science, on the contrary, weakens these drugs that were religions, and therefore people can no longer comfort themselves by thinking that "god will return them a hundredfold" or be satisfied with a miserable life by thinking that at the last judgment "them. first will be last "and vice versa. Apart from those very affected, after death, we know that it is over. It drastically changes the peace of mind of religious drugs. Moreover, progress is perpetual change, which can be destabilizing.

So do we want to live quietly without asking ourselves too many questions except those which already have the answers of religions, in which case we will perhaps be serene but ignorant, without control of our life, and reproducing the behaviors of our ancestors, or want- do we take the risk of supplementing our knowledge and using the power it gives us over ourselves and the world to shape it? It's up to everyone to see.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 17157
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2510

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Janic » 07/09/21, 17:24

Among the evangelists, money has been declared perfectly compatible with religion. The question is therefore not that of a change of religion.
And the fool of service who stuck to the images of Epinal.
Among the Protestants, whom the evangelists then recommend themselves, all punishment deserves pay, even in today's America, which is why in all societies and not just in the West, all work is paid, which poses no "religious" problem on the contrary!
Certainly progress is opposed to all classical religions. But it has nothing to do with a new religion: no sacred texts, no immutable rites, no supernatural beings, except twisted arguments.
Oh, the big naive who once again throws us images of Epinal. All "religions" are distinguished from others by external forms, but the fundamentals are the same: to establish links between the individual and his environment. So when materialism takes the place of spiritualism, it does not innovate anything, it only reproduces what exists in its own personal style. The god of other religions becomes the god of money and personal enrichment to the detriment of others, the rites are carried out in the temples of the stock market 440 and company, which at their will ruin societies, entire families in the name of the god profit, the supernatural becomes the air communication systems like the supernatural beings of before and where the prophets of all kinds made rain and shine, like TV and other pious images,
Other times, other means, other methods which only change in the detail, the appearance.
It is that the concept of progress is the exact opposite of religious thought. It came with the tremendous breakthrough in science since, say, Galileo Galileo, and the technology that came out of it. The concept of progress is the consequence of the Renaissance: it was at this time that in Europe man understood that he could act on the world without constantly referring to God, and that things had an explanation other than "the ways of god are impenetrable". As soon as man was able to gain confidence in himself rather than in god, progress was dazzling.
As stupid as before! How many images of Epinal… or pious images of the religion of materialism falsely called progress! (The non-spiritual religious systems in themselves, when there is money, honors, power of domination to be taken, there are always amateurs, classical religion or not) that is your Darwinian progress to crush the weakest , because there is no regulating god!
Little by little, some thought that science could bring happiness to humanity. These do not have a scientific mind. Of course not, it is a utopia. Science, on the contrary, weakens these drugs that were religions, and therefore people can no longer comfort themselves by thinking that "god will return them a hundredfold" or be satisfied with a miserable life by thinking that at the last judgment "them. first will be last "and vice versa.
Incredible, this negationist spirit, it is in its own way a flatterer of non-religion, with a few centuries behind reality. The science you recommend to yourself is far from what you say. Most of the scientists we still recommend were believers, linking cause and effect, but not naives like you who see the world through a distorting lens.
Apart from those very affected, after death, we know that it is over. It drastically changes the peace of mind of religious drugs. Moreover, progress is perpetual change, which can be destabilizing.
And let's go with an additional layer of Epinal images.
There is no real science, without spirituality going beyond the perceptible, but "obviously" for individuals limited intellectually and materially, the world stops at the provisional visible!
So do we want to live quietly without asking ourselves too many questions except those which already have the answers of religions, in which case we will perhaps be serene but ignorant, without control of our life,
Another illusion! What do you think you have mastery of your life, tomorrow you strangle yourself with a stop and your mastery falls into the water, or rather in the cemetery and your great fantasized mastery of life disappears mown in midair! vanity!
and reproducing the behaviors of our forefathers, or do we want to take the risk of supplementing our knowledge and using the power it allows us over ourselves and the world to shape it? It's up to everyone to see.
We can see where it is leading us now, a nice mess in perspective!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11190
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 1923

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Ahmed » 09/09/21, 10:04

Janic, the multiplicity of religious sects, mainly Protestant, in the USA results directly from their colonizing process, since originally fleeing persecution.
Finding themselves in competition with each other, they behave like other companies and are subject to the same needs for "cash". Therefore, it is not surprising that the American consumer finds in this abundant market a pack of beliefs adapted to his personal inclinations, very consoling and very consensual ... In this way, "spiritual" products come to support their supporting documents. the functioning of very earthly institutions and allow them to endure their vicissitudes without flinching: a fine example of complementarity!
All human societies lend themselves to fetishistic beliefs; the most recent aimed at the salvation of the soul, ours is no exception, but prefers to revere the market and the accumulation of capital; it has its temples and its officiants and does not hesitate to sacrifice its members to the new Moloch. Here even, it also has its thurifarians who defend tooth and nail its ideology ...
To come back to the subject of this thread, if the past salvation required a preliminary death (a fairly easy condition to fulfill!), The new one does not adapt with difficulty, since an accumulative process (wanting to be) infinite is placed in contradiction. with the limited duration of existence. This is also true more generally with respect to all the limits that would oppose it ...
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4822
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 450

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Exnihiloest » 09/09/21, 20:30

Janic wrote:
Among the evangelists, money has been declared perfectly compatible with religion. The question is therefore not that of a change of religion.
And the fool of service who stuck to the images of Epinal.
...


The fool is rather the one who butcher a text to answer it, a sign that he has understood nothing and is unable to express his own thought, if he has any, and who punctuates all his pseudo-insults. reasoning, believing that it will make them more relevant. This is to say the level.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11828
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 3048

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 09/09/21, 20:51

Exnihiloest wrote: This is to say the level.

You, you erect contempt to the rank of major art, filthy as you are in your gutter.
0 x
Obamot wrote: Apologize for all the wrong you've done! Apologize here right away — especially to Christophe — and try not to do it again. It's not a “gag”. It's your only chance. If you wait too long you will pay a very, very high price later, a price you don't even suspect.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4822
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 450

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Exnihiloest » 09/09/21, 20:57

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:You, you elevate contempt to the rank of major art ...


It is very flattering. But I only despise the despicable, those like you or Janic who are incapable of making the slightest remark without defaming or insulting them.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4822
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 450

Re: Death to death, immortality soon? (Laurent Alexandre)




by Exnihiloest » 09/09/21, 20:57

Ahmed wrote:...
All human societies lend themselves to fetishistic beliefs; the most recent aimed at the salvation of the soul, ours is no exception, but prefers to revere the market and the accumulation of capital; it has its temples and its officiants and does not hesitate to sacrifice its members to the new Moloch. Here even, it also has its thurifarians who defend tooth and nail its ideology ...

Nothing to do with a religion. All religions sclerotic society and lock people into an unchanging and definitive way of thinking, ideas and behavior.
On the contrary, liberal societies have upset ideas, from abortion to marriage for all. They are not set in stone. The differences between the 19th and the 20th century are huge, while in the Christian Middle Ages, between the 11th and the 12th century it was always the same.

In "liberal" there is "freedom". It is because of the exercise of this freedom that the system is dynamic. This is what annoys its detractors, because to bring down this system and force it, their only means will never be the strength of a dictatorship. That said, it can happen, and it can even happen democratically (Hitler came to power acclaimed).

To come back to the subject of this thread, if the past salvation required a preliminary death (a fairly easy condition to fulfill!), The new one does not adapt with difficulty, since an accumulative process (wanting to be) infinite is placed in contradiction. with the limited duration of existence. This is also true more generally with respect to all the limits that would oppose it ...


This contradiction can be lifted, let's make existence unlimited. Certainly it is not tomorrow the day before, but it will be done, since almost no one is satisfied to know that they are limited in time. Where, when and how, the distant future will tell.
0 x


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 81 guests