more of gemli's gems

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Lemmie »

Celebrating gemli:

DanielPeterson gemli
8 days ago

I love those scientific disproofs of eternal life.

Published in . . . now what technical journal was it, again?
3
Reply


Avatar
gemli DanielPeterson
8 days ago

I have a pet gnome who lives inside a Kosher salami. If you thought my claim was absurd, in which technical journal would you expect to see a cogent rebuttal?

:lol:

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Philo Sofee »

GREAT find Lemmie! Gemli has their number doesn't he?! :lol:
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Dr Moore »

Oh my, that truly is a gem. Salami gnomes. It must be too late because I'm laughing out loud repeating the phrase, "salami gnomes."

If you repeat it 10 times, real fast, it sounds like "Know-em Salami" and that, I believe, is the proper name of the most high god of salami gnomism, revealed and restored in the year 2019 by gemli.

The thing about atheism is that it is so stinking logical. I mean, what's a logical fallacy here or there among friends? We feel good, it's all good. Why ruin the party by pointing out question begging or affirming the consequent?

Those damn atheists ruin everything by forcing it all to be so coherent, justifiable, logical, and using precise language. Bah!

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Gadianton »

Dr Moore wrote:Oh my, that truly is a gem. Salami gnomes. It must be too late because I'm laughing out loud repeating the phrase, "salami gnomes."

If you repeat it 10 times, real fast, it sounds like "Know-em Salami" and that, I believe, is the proper name of the most high god of salami gnomism, revealed and restored in the year 2019 by gemli.

The thing about atheism is that it is so stinking logical. I mean, what's a logical fallacy here or there among friends? We feel good, it's all good. Why ruin the party by pointing out question begging or affirming the consequent?

Those damn atheists ruin everything by forcing it all to be so coherent, justifiable, logical, and using precise language. Bah!


Kind of an aside: The point they try to make to Gemli and to the many real Doctors who frequent the blog, is that theists are united in a common belief in God. Not so.

Here's a thought experiment. Right before you die, by some supernatural means you are given a choice: you can choose atheism to be right or choose theism to be true. If choose atheism, in the next two minutes, you will die, and lights out forever. If you chose theism, there is one stipulation, and that is, in the next two minutes, you will meet God, but you are told that the description of God you knew from your faith is wrong, and that the correct description of God comes from another faith. You don't know which one. Since most, or at least many other faiths have hell awaiting for those who don't subscribe to their particulars, there is a very good chance you will end up roasting in an eternal bbq. Given this choice, every last one of them will chose atheism.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Physics Guy »

It is a good point that just because many people use the same word "God" for something in which they believe does not mean that they are believing in the same thing. You could say for example that all humans like yummy food but in fact we don't all like the same kind of food because one person's yum is another one's yuck.

I think it would be hard to deny, however, that the concepts of God held by many believers have a lot in common. It is not the case that utterly unrelated ideas have all been given the same label to create an appearance of common ground among theists that is totally illusory.

To say that two people do not believe in the same thing unless they have exactly the same beliefs about all of its properties would make communication impossible. We would have to say that nobody is united by a common belief in coffee, because coffee tastes slightly different to everyone. Partial agreement has to count for something, especially when the agreement is on core features and the disagreement is on details.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Dr Moore »

Gadianton wrote:Kind of an aside: The point they try to make to Gemli and to the many real Doctors who frequent the blog, is that theists are united in a common belief in God. Not so.

Here's a thought experiment. Right before you die, by some supernatural means you are given a choice: you can choose atheism to be right or choose theism to be true. If choose atheism, in the next two minutes, you will die, and lights out forever. If you chose theism, there is one stipulation, and that is, in the next two minutes, you will meet God, but you are told that the description of God you knew from your faith is wrong, and that the correct description of God comes from another faith. You don't know which one. Since most, or at least many other faiths have hell awaiting for those who don't subscribe to their particulars, there is a very good chance you will end up roasting in an eternal bbq. Given this choice, every last one of them will chose atheism.


This is an interesting iteration of the two outcome game with positive expected value, but where one of the outcomes is zero or negative (ie, horrible).

For example, simple version goes like this
* Outcome 1: you win 4x your money (bet $1, receive $4 for winning)
* Outcome 2: you lose your bet (bet $1, receive $0 for losing)
* Probabilities are P(1) = P(2) = 50%
* You can play as many times as you like

Questions
(1) Do you play the game (yes/no)? A: yes, you play. Expected value is 2x your bet.
(2) If you have $100 to start, what is the optimal bet size to maximize your money over time? A: tricky solution, I actually forget but if I recall the math works out to play with a single digit percentage of your total money each game.

So in the game of eternal life / eternal damnation, we can use the same framework, adjusting the odds and payouts.

One version -- for fun -- could go like this...
* Outcome 1 (win): you choose theism and by some stroke of luck, the reward for your life, in another religious system, happens to be celestial. You win 1 trillion times your life's cumulative positive experiences as a reward.
* Outcome 2 (lose): you choose theism and, as expected, the reward for your poorly chosen adherence to the wrong religion is damnation, but the damnation more like suffering a thousand times your life's cumulative negative experiences as a punishment. After all, so few people win the reward, it must necessarily be vastly more positive than the absolute value of the damnation. The Creator God's plan may choose but a few winners, but the NPV of his game is, by definition, overwhelmingly positive for humanity!
* Probabilities are P(1) = 1 in 4,000 and P(2) = 3,999 in 4,000
* Every human gets to play, but each human can only play once

Now it gets interesting!
(1) Should the human race play the game?

A: Yes! The expected value for each game played is a massively positive number (1 * 1 trillion - 3,999 * 1,000)/4,000 = positive ~250 million. In other words, each game played has an expected reward to the player of 250 million of a life's cumulative positive experiences. The benevolent Creator God of the universe should, and will, encourage every human to pursue a theistic life and choose theism at the end of life, for the collective good for all of humanity in the after realms.
(2) Should an individual play the game?
A: NO! Not unless he/she is a lottery nut. A 3,999 in 4,000 chance (99.975%) of suffering a thousand cumulative life's horrors, or a 100% chance of ending it all right then and there, no more suffering guaranteed. Of COURSE each human chooses not to play.

Therefore, in this version of the game, Creator God wants ALL humans to pursue a theistic life and the unknown theistic outcome after death, BUT each human playing the game would ultimately realize they're better off choosing atheism at death.

Paradoxically, the rules of this game must be kept secret until the very end, at the last second before death. Because if humans knew the outcome while still alive, religion would disappear, and Creator God cannot have this. Religion does exist, therefore we know that the secret of the deathbed game show remains very much in tact.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Lemmie »

A fascinating exchange, wherein gemli as well as others seem to have had enough of midgley’s mean-spiritedness and his unethical if not illegal doxxing threats:

[in response to a comment by Jcwo about the content of the associated blog entry:]

Louise Midgley >> jcwo
a day ago

Why is it that no one seems to have even heard of jcwo?

[and]

Louis Midgley jcwo
21 hours ago

...if jcwo opines and no one cares, and we do not know who he is, then what?

Gemli’s had enough...

gemli >> Louis Midgley
21 hours ago edited

Why this need to find out personal details about the commenters here? What is said is far more important than who says it. I understand that's not the way it works in most religions, but it's how rational people interact with each other.

Midgley’s bizarre response, wherein he explains he needs to “know” who people are:

Midgley >> gemli
19 hours ago edited

If one finds that they have some form of cancer, would one not want to know their qualifications to practice medicine and also to treat cancer.

The fact is that the 17 volume collected works of Hugh Nibley were primarily based on my own collection of his writings. So I have read everything he published. With this in mind, jcwo makes some assertions about Hugh Nibley's scholarship. For example, "Nibley was famous for knocking over straw-men." Really, he was famous for straw-man fallacies? If one has glanced at the massive two volume Festschrift (essays honoring) Hugh Nibley, one will notice an 80 plus page annotated bibliography that I wrote. I can assure everyone that NIbley was not "famous for knocking over straw-men" arguments.

In that massive two volumes honoring Hugh Nibley, there were quite a few very bright and famous Jewish scholars who loved his scholarship.

So jcwo finds "Nibley's comments disingenuous at best." Wow!

Would it not be nice to know why one should take jcwo's assertions seriously?

A couple of very strong responses:

jcwo >> Louis Midgley
15 hours ago

While I find it interesting that you have so little (or so much) self awareness that you metaphorically find equivalency between your religious belief and cancer, I feel that I should point out that Hugh Nibley was not a scientist. So if you follow your logic through, you're basically saying (metaphorically) that he's not qualified to comment on issues regarding science. While I would agree with your assessment, I would agree for different reasons.

If you can comprehend my arguments, you needn't know who I am in order to determine whether they should be taken seriously or not. And I would advise that you address them directly as you do yourself a disservice by only offering inane comments littered with appeals to authority and references to rubbish and the like.

I've said this before, possibly to you, but I personally feel that anonymous commenters on blogs are more likely to be honest about their opinions than people who have a lot to lose if they stray from the status quo.

Dr. VelhoBurrinho >> Louis Midgley
5 hours ago

LM:”I was merely pointing out that one needs to have some knowledge of the subject matter about which one opines”

Then why are you continually wanting to know the background and if you could the identity of those you disagree with?

You have in the past threatened multiple posters to this board with doxing in some form or another, including myself.


Now back to your point yes it is helpful if having a conversation with someone that both have at least a basic understanding of the subject. Sometimes on past posts you have stated that you feel this needed to be some type of doctorate degree, which I disagree with. After all I did carry on a conversation about genetics with you for some time, even though our education levels on that subject are vastly different.

On Nibley, I did read a great deal of his FARMS stuff years ago in late high school and early college, it was very interesting and intellectually stimulating. As well as reinforcing my religious belief with "Science" facts. In later years I now see him as a big fish in a very small pond. And some of those science facts, really didn't apply, in the way that he thought. He does bring out some very good ideas, But when applied with the knowledge in the greater academic community he just becomes something average.

Midgley doesn’t get it.

Louis Midgley >> jcwo
15 hours ago

No! I was merely pointing out that one needs to have some knowledge of the subject matter about which one opines. If one has not read much of what Nibley wrote, one is like a fake oncologist, is he not? The answer just has to be YES! If one starts talking about what a clumsy, poor writer Shakespeare was, and has not read any Shakespeare but only watched briefly a high school drama class trying to do Timon of Athens, then they should realize that they are not qualified to express and opinion no matter how passionately they hold their opinions.

[and]

Avatar
Louis Midgley Dr. VelhoBurrinho
4 hours ago

VB (LOD): Louis Midgley "has in the past threatened multiple posters to this board with doxing in some form or another, including myself."

LCM: This is simply not true. VB can certainly see why someone who suddenly has a serious medical issue, would want to know the qualifications of those from whom she/he seeks assistance.And this is also true if one has a serious faith issue--that is, in what one should puts one's trust.

And VB was wrong about population genetics.

Those involved with FARMS and the MI, until 2012, were very much interested in history, and especially ancient history, and science only in the sense that it related to those kinds of concerns.FARMS stood for the Foundation for Ancient Research..., meaning primarily history,

That VB has not, years later, outgrown his faith is for me a tragedy. And this seems to explain why he now discounts what Hugh NIbley published most often on historical issues. And the fact that VB, now likely without his faith in tact, sees Nibley as merely sort of average is understandable and also also easily explained.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4628850015

:rolleyes:

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Gadianton »

Physics Guy wrote:It is a good point that just because many people use the same word "God" for something in which they believe does not mean that they are believing in the same thing. You could say for example that all humans like yummy food but in fact we don't all like the same kind of food because one person's yum is another one's yuck.

I think it would be hard to deny, however, that the concepts of God held by many believers have a lot in common. It is not the case that utterly unrelated ideas have all been given the same label to create an appearance of common ground among theists that is totally illusory.

To say that two people do not believe in the same thing unless they have exactly the same beliefs about all of its properties would make communication impossible. We would have to say that nobody is united by a common belief in coffee, because coffee tastes slightly different to everyone. Partial agreement has to count for something, especially when the agreement is on core features and the disagreement is on details.


The ideas are strikingly related, and near mirror images from one theistic faith system to the next. When you get down to it, pretty much all theists believe something similar to "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet" (if Muhammad isn't the prophet of x, then x isn't God). At a sociological level, yes, it's obvious that we can find commonality between belief systems, we can find a whole lot of commonality, in fact. But that doesn't translate well into the perspective of the religious believer. The devout, fevered servant of God, ties his or her particulars to the generals in such a way, that it is inconceivable to such persons that the generals would even be considered without the particulars firmly in place. Those who choose to continue the holy war through politics and understand diplomacy, may speak in certain circumstances from the sociological perspective, but in their private time, they know that observance of the generalities with the wrong set of particulars is blasphemy x 10, whereas just being atheist and denying the generality is blasphemy x 1.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Gadianton »

Now it gets interesting!
(1) Should the human race play the game?
A: Yes! The expected value for each game played is a massively positive number (1 * 1 trillion - 3,999 * 1,000)/4,000 = positive ~250 million. In other words, each game played has an expected reward to the player of 250 million of a life's cumulative positive experiences. The benevolent Creator God of the universe should, and will, encourage every human to pursue a theistic life and choose theism at the end of life, for the collective good for all of humanity in the after realms.
(2) Should an individual play the game?
A: NO! Not unless he/she is a lottery nut. A 3,999 in 4,000 chance (99.975%) of suffering a thousand cumulative life's horrors, or a 100% chance of ending it all right then and there, no more suffering guaranteed. Of COURSE each human chooses not to play.


Interesting, Doctor. It sounds to me you're saying the game is a prisoner's dilemma. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you are probably right.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Dr Moore »

It appears that way, but cooperation among participants doesn’t improve individual outcomes.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Lemmie »

Tell that to missionaries shaking the dust off their feet when they feel insulted. :cool:

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Lemmie »

Midgley interpreting gemli:
Louis Midgley Dr. Shades
38 minutes ago

Which science makes the claims that gemli does? I have asked him this question at least a hundred time and he has never identified the exact science that does what he claims. Is is economics, physics, botany?

His reply is that the idea of science rules out spooks and and other things that he identifies as non-existent, unreal imaginary beings.

Very good, midgley! I think you’ve finally got it. Finally.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Philo Sofee »

Whuuuuuuu.....? WAIT! Something clicked with Midgley? Great day in the morning man! This is a time for rejoicing throughout the hills on high! Has the Holy Ghost finally woke up and nudged Midgley in the belly button of his soul?
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Lemmie »

philo Sofee:

...in the belly button of his soul?

:lol: oh that’s going to stick with me for a very long, long time.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Philo Sofee »

Lemmie wrote:
philo Sofee:

...in the belly button of his soul?

:lol: oh that’s going to stick with me for a very long, long time.

I know, right? It just came to me as I was typing, so consider it my revelation contribution to apologetics. :lol:
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Gadianton »

Dr Moore wrote:It appears that way, but cooperation among participants doesn’t improve individual outcomes.

...right, of course, doctor, coordination isn't the issue here. Hmmm. It's a poor tax? is that closer?
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Dr Moore »

Gadianton wrote:
Dr Moore wrote:It appears that way, but cooperation among participants doesn’t improve individual outcomes.

...right, of course, doctor, coordination isn't the issue here. Hmmm. It's a poor tax? is that closer?

It's a hypothetical double bind, because no outcome is desirable for a thoughtful person. In this sense, I suppose poor tax sufficiently captures an analogy to the majority of lottery players.

The spirit world and Mormon doctrine of proxy ordinances suggest a terrific Monty Hall analogy.

I'm too busy at the moment to treat this with rigor, but preliminary calculations suggest a startling conclusion!! (Hint, at one extreme, Soul should always switch religions, and at the other extreme, Soul is better off choosing atheism)

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Physics Guy »

Gadianton wrote:The ideas [of God in different religions] are strikingly related, and near mirror images from one theistic faith system to the next. When you get down to it, pretty much all theists believe something similar to "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet" (if Muhammad isn't the prophet of x, then x isn't God).

I have no systematic evidence on this point but my own anecdotal experience disagrees with this strongly. I concede that many theists do indeed believe that nothing but exactly their own conception of God could count as God, but among my own acquaintances in a range of religions it is definitely not true that "pretty much all theists" are like that. On the contrary I would say that most theists with whom I have spoken, over several decades and in several countries, really do feel they all agree on a core set of principles and that although their differences are important they are not as important as the things on which they agree.

My set of theist acquaintances may not be a representative sample. A sample heavily weighted with Mormons is likely not representative either, however. Mormonism is a demanding religion that was carved out as a variant of Christianity within a predominantly Christian culture. It had to make a big deal over small differences. Faiths that really are more radically different from their surrounding cultures, or that are more secure within their culture, can afford to sweat the small stuff much less.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Dr Moore »

Physics Guy wrote:I have no systematic evidence on this point but my own anecdotal experience disagrees with this strongly. I concede that many theists do indeed believe that nothing but exactly their own conception of God could count as God, but among my own acquaintances in a range of religions it is definitely not true that "pretty much all theists" are like that. On the contrary I would say that most theists with whom I have spoken, over several decades and in several countries, really do feel they all agree on a core set of principles and that although their differences are important they are not as important as the things on which they agree.

I agree with this heuristic assessment, PG, likewise based on my circle of friends on acquaintances. But note that the Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam foremost), which comprise >57% of the world's population (by self-identity), contain very strong "one true path" elements in the core doctrines. Whether individual members believe the dogma is another matter.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Gadianton »

Yeah, I don't know, Physic's Guy. I know what you're saying and technically you are correct that not *every* theist believes as such, but Dr. Moore is thinking in the direction I am.

I have to wonder for those who believe as you do, what does theism give you that secularism without theism doesn't? I suppose some kind of hope is available, I can fathom that. But suppose you are right and I am wrong. What do you imagine my fate will be for not believing? What are you likely to obtain in the afterlife that I won't?

Feel free to be honest, I'm not going to take offense.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3164
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: more of gemli's gems

Post by Dr Exiled »

PG:

I'm interested on what you view as the core beliefs in which most religions believe. Also, how many of those core beliefs are based on perception and experience that all can have and how many of these core beliefs are based on some supernatural experience the religious leader supposedly received. What I'm driving at is beliefs such as the golden rule and living as best as one can and devoting time to family seem to be values atheists would find without religious leaders telling them what to do.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests