End Religion, and Be Done with Debate
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Because there isn't anything for him to give.
Dhomaila Wed, 06/01/2016 - 07:08 - "If you wait until I get off work this evening I’ll explain it to you; or go to any of the links and “read”."
I guess he must still be at work!
Maybe he ran out of graph paper trying to analyze all the dilemmas we presented him with.
He calculated presented dilemmas and it turns out that (to his surprise, only):
Soulastic Academy = B(u)L^2 + S(h)iT
heh, that was pretty good.
Sorry guys, I usually don’t get much free time to sit down at my computer; and engage in forum discussions. I’ve actually enjoyed the ass kicking, it helped me grow. Your comments, although sometimes juvenile, caused me to evolve. So, keep it coming. I’ve been working on 15 new courses for my “free” library to answer most of your common questions. Let’s for a moment assume I’m correct, would I really have the time to answer people individually? If I am even correct about 20% of what I claim, this would impact the entire globe. As far as my secrecy goes, it has been for good reason. People have died for less than what I’m attempting. Slowly reaching out to a group of atheist is safer for me.
When I suggested that religion could be ended, I was surprised to find out few of you agreed. It is shocking to think a collection of atheist have concluded religion is here to stay. History is full of religions that lost all support, then simply died. When was the last time we heard of breaking news at the temple of Zeus? If that can be replicated it is very possible to end religion worldwide. Theology is only a collection of bad ideas, and it is well within reason to work towards ending bad ideas; otherwise why be in this forum?
As far as us being at war, that is not for atheist to decide. When attacked, flight or fight is generally the rule. There are people working to dominate the world in the name of religion, this includes dominating free thinkers and atheist. War has been declared, whether you would accept that or not. A flat planet, racism, gender discrimination and a host of other ideas need to be destroyed; but these are only fruit of the religious tree. Not all war involves guns, and everyone here has already chosen the “side” of reason.
As far as the terms “theist” and “atheist” goes, I don’t put much stock into either of them. We either know and understand something or we don’t. Calling me a “puppet”, “theist”, or anything else is disturbingly similar to religious cries of “hieratic”. Who cares what you believe or don’t. I’m more concerned with people’s behaviors. I recognized words as only variables, that are easily exchanged for other words. What matters more is the definitions we supply for the terminology use.
I use the word "god" to represent the supreme source of math and logic. When I say "god is perfect" it shuts down 100% of religious attempts to convert me. Try it and you'll see what I mean. The moment a theist claims god is perfect; he loses the ability to campaign for his doctrine. Religions actually depend on imperfect divinity. I'm not welcome in most religious congregations. If that makes me an atheist, so be it; but I don't like to be defined by what I am "not". To me It just seems silly for me to be defined by my rejection of fantasy.
To address the question of my math skills, you are correct, I’m not very strong there; but neither were many other great thinkers. I claim to be a world class thinker…nothing more. I understand mathematical concepts very well, but I have a few disabilities which makes it harder for me. We all have strengths and weaknesses; and I feel no shame in recognizing my own. However, my original point still remains to be addressed. Why not use math in the war of ideas against religious inaccuracy?
I would prefer to gain friends instead of new enemies; because I have enough of those already. Can we at least agree, that if religions were forced to compete with a science explaining the same natural changes of life, it would lose? At the moment, they actually don’t compete with anyone; and they make up the rules as they go. Math would force them to commit to something that could not be altered out of convenience. Each faith has “created” its own world with exclusives rules; and they can always use “blind faith” to counteract any logical argument we may propose. That is, until you define faith as [the process of moving from point (a) to point (b); when (b) > (a)].
My work is centered around the idea there are “real” common denominators within all religions. Things like choice making, pains, problems, and of course morality. This may sound harmless to the people in this forum; but this is poison to theological doctrines. If I walked into a room of clergy and said, “Your God and beliefs suck!”, they’d only laugh and then use me as a recruiting tool. To the vast majority of religious people view atheist as neither competition nor customers.
However, if I were to address that same crowd with, “I figured out how to mathematically measure morality”, you could hear a pin drop in the back of the room. Religious people are very well prepared to hear, “you guys are wrong”; but none of them are ready for, “you guys were correct on these points, but here is something more accurate”. Atheism is as old as religion. Both the Bible and Koran mention this class of people multiple times. I've spent three decades being taught by both theist and atheist, and I'm uniquely qualified to recognize the similarities and differences between them.
I actually chose this forum as a crude form of peer review; and one can’t be expected to describe an entire field of science in a forum post. You’ll get your chances to critique and sample my work later this month. I only hope there’s at least one of you that gets it, and is also willing to help me on the math portions. I’ve learned skeptics tend to have a “subtraction” mentality; and they miss out on chances to add new things to the discussion. I hope this is not the case here.
Here in my country over the weekend, 50 people were massacred; and all around the world millions of women and children suffer under governments that are fueled by theological thinking. I would stop this type of senseless violence if I could, and I don’t apologize for it. You may think we are not at war, but I must disagree. The only way to kill an idea is with a better idea. Accurate "spiritual" math and science would force theology to compete; and improve the world at the same time. I honestly thought, more of you would welcome that.
Dhomaila: "If I am even correct about 20% of what I claim, this would impact the entire globe. As far as my secrecy goes, it has been for good reason. People have died for less than what I’m attempting."
One of the reasons that I am an atheist is because of this simple formula "Question Authority!" I rely on experts when seeking knowledge and reject claims by those whose only legitimacy is a claim to authority. The claim you have made here (quote above) is at least paranoid if not grandiose. You have revealed no level of expertise.
Dhomaila - "Can we at least agree, that if religions were forced to compete with a science explaining the same natural changes of life, it would lose?"
That is already happening, hence the major decline in the big 3 religions in the West.
---------------------------------
We are still waiting for some sample calculations using "dilemmic mathematics". Surely you must have something in your library you can just copy paste here in a few seconds...
Dilemmic math is the study of problems to answer life’s questions…what question would you like answered? In order for me to use notation or real examples I would have to explain about 20 concepts that religion didn’t properly teach the world. For the sake argument I’ll take the next 5 minutes to try.
Let’s start with the core expression, which is (n/r); or the “need” of the dilemma divided by the “resources”. By tracking changes in life’s problems, connections become easier to spot. As a matter of fact, the core concept of soulastic science is called “dilemmic connectivity”. There are 3 standard measurements coming out of the [dilemmic expression]; and each gives us a slightly different information. The first and most important dilemmic measurement is called “dilemmic value, for obvious reasons; and it is measures the magnitude and “severity” of the problem. Every problem of life requires some degree of needs and resources; and these dilemmas can come in one of three natural forms:
[N>R], [N=R], or [NR].
Let’s assume you have a money problem, and you needed $17 to make a purchase, but you only a $5 available. To “solve” the dilemma you must change the elements until they are equal, [N=R]. The dilemmic value of this problem is 3.4; and it will change as the real life circumstances change. A dilemmic value equal to (1) is considered the “satisfied” for, or [N=R]. This means any combination of changes equal to the difference between the elements is an “option” for the dilemma.
As the problem gets worse the dilemmic value increases, and as it improves the dilemmic value falls. A problem can be solved by manipulating both element, but the goal is always to reach a dilemmic value of (1). Dilemmic value is important, because this number is essential in defining the following: choices, experiences, and morality. [NOTE: the dilemmic value will always be greater than zero in living things].
Example: ($17/ $5 = 3.4) >>> ($17/$11 =1.5) >>> ($13/$11 = 1.1) >>> ($13/ $13 = 1)
In the example above we have numbers representing the changes in our sample problem over a period of time. Finding coupons and negotiating the price could reduce the “need” element; and borrowing money could possibly will increase available “resource” element.
Options & Choices: an option is defined as “any pair of dilemmic changes equal to the differences between the needs and resources”. This means the second basic dilemmic measurement is dilemmic difference; or (N – R = Dd). The abbreviation Dd stands for “dilemmic difference. The Dd of a problem provides us a list of possible directions related to the range of solutions. The “spiritual” idea of [freewill] is defined by Dd. When all of the options of a problem a placed into a single set, this is called the range of options. The set of “ranges” for any given period of time is equal to “freewill” for that same period.
Priority law: nature has its own rules on the sequence of problems, and it is based on dilemmic value. The problem with the greatest dilemmic value will be addressed first; and in the event of a tie between multiple dilemmas, “relative importance” takes over.
Life value: (concept)
Polar-Morality: (concept)
Dilemmic pressure & Evolution: (concept)
As you can see, religion has been inaccurately describing very real parts of our lives. Before I can just give you an example I would first have to undo a lifetime of bullshit; and bad instruction. If you will kindly wait until June 27, 2016 I will provide you with video and model based courses to answer these questions. I am promoting an idea, not myself; but the courses will be absolutely free to the public. I truly thank you for your interest.
Dhomaila - "N – R = Dd"
That seems to be problematic, from dimensional analysis alone. N - R = Dd means that all 3 variables must have the same dimensions/units.
For example 5 dogs - 3 dogs = 2 dogs. If we put anything other than dogs on the right hand side of the equation, we can be 100% sure it is wrong, even if we don't know what a dog is. This is what gives dimensional analysis such power; we don't have to even understand what we are working with to check it for internal consistency.
"Need" and "resources" having the same dimensions seems plausible, but that they should have the same dimensions as freewill sounds kind of odd. Consider your first example, 17$ - 5% = 12$. That 12 dollars should represent an example of freewill (or that freewill is expressible in dollars at all) is weird.
-------------------------------------------------
Dhomaila - "NOTE: the dilemmic value will always be greater than zero in living things"
If someone has no need for something, then the ratio of needs to resources (what you call dilemmic value) will likely be zero. For example: I have no need for a small brown lizard (N=0), but I do have access to one (R>0) -> N/R = 0. However you just told us that is not a possible result.
-------------------------------------------------
You will also notice, using my lizard example above, it leads to a freewill of perhaps -1 lizards, which again seems odd to say the least.
-------------------------------------------------
Worse still, what if you have a need but no access to resources? Person A needs a brain transplant (N=1 brain transplant), but has no brain-transplant resources, since they don't exist (R=0)--> 1/0 = ??? .
-------------------------------------------------
Note: I'm trying not to make personal attacks, or even dip too deep into your postulates. I'm just trying to examine the internal consistency of what you have posted, and it seems to have some problems.
Dhomaila: "Let’s assume you have a money problem, and you needed $17 to make a purchase, but you only a $5 available. To “solve” the dilemma you must change the elements until they are equal, [N=R]. The dilemmic value of this problem is 3.4; and it will change as the real life circumstances change. A dilemmic value equal to (1) is considered the “satisfied” for, or [N=R]. This means any combination of changes equal to the difference between the elements is an “option” for the dilemma."
Actually , my mathematical solution for that simple problem is $12. I need $12.
Simple is best.
e=mc2. That is simple. So simple I have difficulty wrapping my brain around it. Energy, mass , and the speed of light are all measurable units of this equation. Measurable to a high degree of precision. For Dhomaila's claim to be feasible then variables such as jealousy, desire for material goods, and human conflicts must be measurable. What number do you assign to jealousy between siblings? 3? Why not 7 or 13?
And that's were it falls through the bottom. You can't place a measurement system on jealousy. You can't place it on human emotion. Unless we are talking about a war, you can't place a measurement on human conflict.
I can however, measure the bullshittry that is this theory.
Stench:10
Form: 10
Deceptively ground colored brown quality: 20
Final verdict: To the unlearned and inexperienced viewer, this peice of shit seems to simply blend in with the ground, whereas a trained observer will note the numerous inconsistancies, and will notice the lack of a pile of other bs supporting the largest peice.......
Right. Given an equation we might not understand (like e=mc^2), we can still check it for dimensional consistency:
e -> energy: has dimensions of mass * length/time * length/time
m -> mass: has dimensions of just mass
c - > speed (of light) has dimensions of length/time
giving us:
mass * length/time * length/time = mass * length/time * length/time
It checks out! But sadly the OP's stuff does not.
Dhomaila : Example: ($17/ $5 = 3.4) >>> ($17/$11 =1.5) >>> ($13/$11 = 1.1) >>> ($13/ $13 = 1)
Ok ! The goal is to get $17 . I have $5 . I need to multiply my $5 x 3.4.
Ok , wait ! Now I have $11 ( $6 to go!). I need to multiply $11 by 1.5. Actually 1.54545454..but who is counting.
Now ...hey! My goal has suddenly become $13. Only $2 more to go. Must have paid down the national debt by a few trillion to account for that increase in the value of a dollar. So, I need to know that to get to $13 I must multiply $11 by 1.1 (actually 1.1818181818181819 but who is counting).
Now I have my adjusted goal of $13. I need to know that $13 x 1 = $13.
The future looks brighter. If Dilemmic Mathematics actually replaces religion I could make a living as a quick change artist. "Let me give you this $10 and these ones and you give me a $20"
Yes! Let's replace bigotry with con-artestry. At least no one gets offended or persecuted then.
In a world where Dilemmic Mathematics is the guiding light quick change artists will be the new televangelists. Bilking people out of their hard earned dollars while convincing them they now have more than they started with. The Dilemmic Prosperity Movement.
Here are examples of other mathematical approaches to human interactions and behavior :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_sociology
https://web.stanford.edu/~kdevlin/Papers/HPI_SocialSciences.pdf
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-03473-7_14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_psychology
Note: all of the above appear to be of equal or lesser value to the bargain basement value of the OP.
Disclaimer: PsudoScientificMathematics Co. is in no way responsible for lost wages, hope, and/or loss of right mindedness. Individual details may vary. See your nearest real estate agency for details.
@ Dhomaila - We are not atheists because we wish to end religion or change the world or any other nonsense that you so strongly believe.
We are atheists because WE DO NOT BELIEVE. Please get this fact straight. I really don't give a fuck (Kindly excuse my language as I have had to face a lot of similar discrimination) what you or anybody else believes. I just don't want you to impose your belief on me.
Similarly I will not impose my belief on you. If people realize that religion is all poppy cock and begin to disbelieve driving religion into non existence then so be it.
This forum is where people of a similar disposition (disbelievers) can find a coherence of thought on this shared opinion and discuss other related topics. We are not plotting to "de-religios-ize," the world.
Plus as the others have so aptly pointed out your math is full of holes. Maybe you need to rethink your math before you try to take over the world
Dhomaila - "this is free on the school site"
Dhomaila - "I’ve made my work free"
Dhomaila - "the courses will be absolutely free to the public"
VS.
Dhomaila's website - "In addition to competitively priced courses, we offer you even greater value with our monthly tuitions." (http://www.soulasticacademy.com/#!blank/ad7mk)
if your math was that good, you should be in las vagas right now no?
religion does not denie the fact, everything can be observed through a mathematical lens, but im sure your calculations cant contain all elements/odds, else wouldnt you be able to predict the stockmarkets??
He was illustrating the mathematical error of the original post. He was not challenging all religions. Although unless religion ANY religion can prove their god, there is no reason to challenge them because they are a lie.
Dhomaila: "As you can see, religion has been inaccurately describing very real parts of our lives. Before I can just give you an example I would first have to undo a lifetime of bullshit; and bad instruction. If you will kindly wait until June 27, 2016 I will provide you with video and model based courses to answer these questions. I am promoting an idea, not myself; but the courses will be absolutely free to the public. I truly thank you for your interest."
OK ! It is 06/29/16. Skip the courses. You let me worry about undoing a lifetime of bullshit and bad instructions. You are not my spirit guide. However , I would like an example or two. Come on , I can handle it.
Oh yeah chimp3, your recent post reminded me that the courses were supposed to be up today for this uhh 'subject'. Well I did find one, but it is just more fluff. Hard to believe, but I think this thread (as bad as it is) contains more info on "Soulastic Science" than it's entire website.
We had to drag it out of him.
Still nothing more than the one fluff course (probably cobbled together in 15 minutes, which is more of a white sheet than a class). I sure hope no one paid money to "Soulastic Academy The World Leader In Life Education". Well I guess it could be educational, in that it might teach you about being scammed.
Pages