Do you believe in God and why

[sigsauer]

It amazes me how some can believe in Martian's and not believe in Jesus. There is no evidence of Martian's. There is more eyewitness evidence of his miracles then any other historical event ever. 

 

How can someone look at this beautiful world or see a child born and believe there is no god

[thaibeachlovers]

57 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, everything is possible. 

I meant to say that it will be difficult for humans to prove anything,  if humans cease to exist.

Hmmmmm. Google says it's a 100 trillion years before the universe dies, so I'd imagine humans would have polluted themselves into extinction long before that, and that there would probably be several different dominant species on planet earth before our sun dies in 4.5 billion years.

 

Anyway, I don't believe that "we" cease to exist after death, and our life force will live on with God.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, I don't believe that "we" cease to exist after death, and our life force will live on with God.

Yes, i have a similar vision too, life is God and thus eternal; what is destruction is a new creation, never identical,  but similar,  as we can see in the material world.

 

[Tagged]

9 hours ago, upu2 said:

1 if he gave people free will then they should have stayed in t Garden of Eden. That was not the case which implies he messed up somwhere along the way.

2. If no one fears him then the phrase "God Fearing" is ridiculous. Probably mde by a poitician to control the people or those so called men of god the clergy.

3. If as you say we are all one then the combination of every person is god. Not much point in having places of worship if that is the case.

Brexit Registration.pdf 205.22 kB · 2 downloads

Well, Im not going to argue with you, since I do not know gods or the force will with life on this planet. Maybe we are his little zoo for enjoyment? Or lab to test out action and chain of reactions? 

 

If there was a god, should we fear him at all? What we should fear is our home is being destryed by other humans! Right ? We make our self destinct if we continue to use more resourches than our planet can provide. Simple math, so if god is one, the nature is our god, our home, then yes we should fear the god and take good care of our mother ???? 

 

as one means we are all in the same place, and when we die, we go back to where we came from. Ahses to ashes dust to dust and so on. Again simple, the conscinous continues in your genes you passed on to next generation in the dna memory. Again simple thinking

Edited February 22, 2021 by Tagged

[Tagged]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not sure what organism can take in all of reality and therefore go extinct, but I agree with this theory that we perceive only a small slice of reality. Think about the very narrow light and sound spectrum we can see and hear. We can also choose to shift and enlarge the spectrum by directly influencing our brain chemistry through psychedelic substances or meditation [the silencing of other signals to favour the emergence of a spiritual signal {credit to VincentRJ}].

A lot of what he's saying seems also strongly related to what the yogis have been saying for thousands of years. "The world is made of consciousness, and there are conscious agents within it (us)". 
I like when he says "It sounds like woo, but it's actually mathematical formulas". Well, I'm definitely glad the subject of consciousness is being explored more in depth by scientists. Eventually, they will realize that their new theories are nothing more than repackaged ancient wisdom. ???? 

Very interesting talk. ????

Interesting but I need time to absorb it, and to be earnest, way above my head

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Tagged said:

If there was a god, should we fear him at all?

Depends if one thinks that the being that created the universe cares about us as individuals. Millions have prayed to God to save them from harm and died anyway. If I believed in a personal God I might have a problem.

Edited February 22, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[bunnydrops]

I wouldn't know where to begin. So many layers to this question.

 

But something I read years ago has stuck in my mind.

 

"The universe is like a river flowing along. Once in a while it comes to a waterfall, and the river breaks up into many droplets, and as far as you can see and beyond the are the many aspects of the universe, separated out as you, me, the trees, the planets, the stars. Then we hit the bottom and all become one again until next time."

 

Another

 

"God, Shiva (the allusion of things), and you are walking down a path. God is in the front, followed by Shiva and then you. Most of the time you can only see Shiva, but once in a while there is a dip in the path and for a short moment you get a glimpse of God "

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course God exists outside the universe, so life of some kind will continue.

I think this needs some clarification.

Yes, "God" exists outside the material universe, but also within it. If God is the ultimate principle, the eternal consciousness...then logic would dictate that God is also present in every little cell, every photon, every quark particle, every plant, animal and human animal, in the stars, planets, galaxies etc etc....that the very fabric of the universe is God.

I agree with many of your post, but in one thing we think very differently. You believe God created the universe and then let it evolve on its own accord. We are therefore simply products of that first divine impulse and are left alone to fend for ourselves.
From what I've learnt and from my own experience, the divine consciousness can not just create something and then retract to another place as an observer. That's a dualistic way of thinking. If Cosmic Consciousness is the Ground-of-all-Being and creates and permeates everything there is, then this CC is right here, right now. "God is Love" seems an overused cliché, but is true nonetheless. Love is the underlying intention and the language CC uses to hold the world (the cosmic dream) together. 
That's why it is not so unimaginable to accept the fact that some people do find access to that language. God speaks to us in this language every moment of our lives. It is up to us to listen.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I think this needs some clarification.

Yes, "God" exists outside the material universe, but also within it. If God is the ultimate principle, the eternal consciousness...then logic would dictate that God is also present in every little cell, every photon, every quark particle, every plant, animal and human animal, in the stars, planets, galaxies etc etc....that the very fabric of the universe is God.

I agree with many of your post, but in one thing we think very differently. You believe God created the universe and then let it evolve on its own accord. We are therefore simply products of that first divine impulse and are left alone to fend for ourselves.
From what I've learnt and from my own experience, the divine consciousness can not just create something and then retract to another place as an observer. That's a dualistic way of thinking. If Cosmic Consciousness is the Ground-of-all-Being and creates and permeates everything there is, then this CC is right here, right now. "God is Love" seems an overused cliché, but is true nonetheless. Love is the underlying intention and the language CC uses to hold the world (the cosmic dream) together. 
That's why it is not so unimaginable to accept the fact that some people do find access to that language. God speaks to us in this language every moment of our lives. It is up to us to listen.

To be specific, I believe that God created the universe and then let it evolve on its own accord. We are therefore simply products of that first divine impulse and are left alone to fend for ourselves.

BUT, I also believe that God exists everywhere and in everything, and we can achieve Nirvana and join God if we do the work to gain Paradise.

[Tagged]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. Google says it's a 100 trillion years before the universe dies, so I'd imagine humans would have polluted themselves into extinction long before that, and that there would probably be several different dominant species on planet earth before our sun dies in 4.5 billion years.

 

Anyway, I don't believe that "we" cease to exist after death, and our life force will live on with God.

In  a near futur, there will not be possible for humans to live on big parts of the planet, and thats what we know from privious cycluses the earth have been trough, and how long it will take before the humans will be totally extinct? Thank god we do not know, but we know it will messy many times before that, and as well some places be a paradise before everything turns to hell for most people over and over again and again. Planet eart is hell and heaven, punishment for the innocent and those who sacrify everything they have, in the meanwhile those who is borned with a silverspoons in their mouth ride this planet to hell again and again. To be true, is it any fearness or justice on this planet for most people? Except those who ride along with those who lead the way and basically are the empire of the time being? 

 

Im sure I have been borned in the very best time this planet had for humans like me. An average Joe with average education and average life except I do think my life have been more special than 99% on this planet due to what I have experienced and what I have done! But most of us believe the same right? But not everybody is convinced they are borned in the best time of this planet? Why do they not want to believe so? 

 

So, just think of it, while I believe so, 6 billion people on this planet struggle with something from day to day, and maybe it is more than 6 billion who struggle day to day, or maybe it is less, but the fact is everyone do struggle in life no matter who they are, or where they come from, and I still believe it is up to us, not a god, not a bad or good boss, or your parents, to make a good life. 

 

And in the meantime we are wasting life by looking for a reason, a confirmation of our existence, when life is so short and precious. Why not focus on what is really important? The most important things is right in front of you, and that is the things you can do something about! 

 

Again and again Im thinking of the alchymist,  the little prince and Jonathan Livingstone Seagull! Obvious 3 simple books, but with the most important messages brought out to humans in a understandable language and story. 

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying that science can't deny the existence of God?

The answer is both 'yes' and 'no', depending on the definition of 'science'. According to my understanding (and I'm always willing to be corrected), 'science' is process of enquiry based upon observations and evidence, which result in explanations or hypotheses which have to be confirmed through a methodology of repeated experimentation and genuine attempts at falsification, using our imagination to create scenarios that could show the hypothesis is wrong, if it is in fact wrong.

 

If such repeated experimentation produces consistent results, and all attempts at falsification have failed, then the hypothesis progresses to a theory which is accepted as being at least provisionally true, until later experiments perhaps reveal a flaw.

 

Since 'science' is a process, as described above, it cannot deny the existence of anything. It can only reveal the existence of something. Only people can exercise denial. It's a human trait.
This is a huge problem in the Media. Scientists are human beings who share the biases, and needs to support their families, and the desires to have a successful career, and so on, just like the rest of us who might not be scientists.
Therefore, 'Scientists' can deny the existence of God, just as they can deny that the current warming of our climate is not unprecedented.

[Elad]

20 hours ago, Tagged said:

What do you think about this? 

 

https://web.facebook.com/ZDoggMD/videos/3239011792991723/?_rdc=1&_rdr

Now I know why I don't use Facebook. Absolute rubbish.

They always bring quantum mechanics into it, as though they know what they're talking about. Its true what Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics". 

In the video he said electrons and elementary particles don't exist, yeah right.

Just look at all the technology around us, that is proof that quantum mechanics is very well understood, and the fact that all this technology works is proof that electrons really do exist.   

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, Elad said:

Now I know why I don't use Facebook. Absolute rubbish.

They always bring quantum mechanics into it, as though they know what they're talking about. Its true what Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics". 

In the video he said electrons and elementary particles don't exist, yeah right.

Just look at all the technology around us, that is proof that quantum mechanics is very well understood, and the fact that all this technology works is proof that electrons really do exist.   

So, it is understood by those you agree with, but not understood by all others.

Right. ????

[Tagged]

36 minutes ago, Elad said:

Now I know why I don't use Facebook. Absolute rubbish.

They always bring quantum mechanics into it, as though they know what they're talking about. Its true what Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics". 

In the video he said electrons and elementary particles don't exist, yeah right.

Just look at all the technology around us, that is proof that quantum mechanics is very well understood, and the fact that all this technology works is proof that electrons really do exist.   

I believe he refered to questainable theories, not something he completely had understood himselves, or claimed was his work. It like watching a good movie for instance matrix, and then believe we are in the matrix as well? 

 

And its quite possible we are just a computer game or world, even controlled by an gamer? Sometimes you do the opposite you really thought you should have done, and it sometimes quite obvious you do something you had been thinking about was not an good idea? Im wrong or not? 

[yodsak]

On 2/19/2021 at 1:35 PM, mauGR1 said:

Well, I heard about psychics, the famous Edgar Cayce comes to mind, being able to see past and future events, but it's not totally uncommon for people to have unexplainable perceptions, which i would be cautious to dismiss as hallucinations.

 

In part two Shermer explains paranormal thinking and how one comes to believe in things without evidence. He uses Edgar Cayce as an example "Uneducated beyond the ninth grade, Cayce acquired his broad knowledge through voracious reading and from this he wove elaborate tales.”  "Cayce was fantasy-prone from his youth, often talking with angels and receiving visions of his dead grandfather." 

-- Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time —  Michael Shermer.

 

''Edgar Cayce was a fraud. His alleged psychic powers are bunk, products of hearsay, folksy wisdom and outright nonsense. His ridiculous beliefs include the existence of Atlantis, polygenism (the idea that five races were created separately at the same time at different places on Earth), “soul-entities” that bonded with animals to create 12-foot giants, giant solar crystals and a host of other absolute silliness.''

-- The Eagle Post:  Why do we celebrate lies, frauds?

article_17d2dda2-a89a-11e7-a21c-8f280b8a0047.html

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by yodsak

[yodsak]

Science writers and skeptics have pointed out that the evidence for Cayce's alleged psychic powers comes from sensationalised newspaper articles, affidavits, anecdotes, testimonials, and books rather than any empirical evidence that can be independently evaluated.

 

 “The matter of Edgar Cayce boils down to a vague mass of garbled data, interpreted by true believers who have a very heavy stake in the acceptance of the claims. Put to the test, Cayce was found to be bereft of real powers.  His reputation today rests on poor and deceptive reporting of the claims made by him and his followers, and such claims do not stand up to examination. Read the literature, with these comments in mind, and the conclusion is inescapable. It just ain’t so.''

 

— Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions — James [The Amazing] Randi 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, yodsak said:

Science writers and skeptics have pointed out that the evidence for Cayce's alleged psychic powers comes from sensationalised newspaper articles, affidavits, anecdotes, testimonials, and books rather than any empirical evidence that can be independently evaluated.

 

 “The matter of Edgar Cayce boils down to a vague mass of garbled data, interpreted by true believers who have a very heavy stake in the acceptance of the claims. Put to the test, Cayce was found to be bereft of real powers.  His reputation today rests on poor and deceptive reporting of the claims made by him and his followers, and such claims do not stand up to examination. Read the literature, with these comments in mind, and the conclusion is inescapable. It just ain’t so.''

 

— Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions — James [The Amazing] Randi 

It's an interesting part of getting older for my generation. As a kid in the 70's things like psychics, astrology, seances  and such seemed cool and interesting. You felt like you were going into some other world separate to the hoi polloi. Maybe some pretty girls were talking earnestly about such topics and it got you further interested. Maybe older people you admire are into it. I was never much into it but it was something I would think could have some merit.

At some point though in the late 80's I started working for a buck, the youthful handsomeness is starting to fade, you are not so young and idealistic,  - and you turn back and look at the stuff you took an interest in and realise it was fun but that there is little or no evidence for it. The Amazing Randi and others helped make the point. 

Meanwhile the new idealistic generation in the late 80's and early nineties turned to the new New Age with crystals, self help books and all the other stuff. You then feel separate from it and it all looks silly.

Astrology, Edgar Cayce, crystal power- you realise the belief and promotion of it is really within a small group of the population being the young, the eternal hippies, the eternally hopeful, those that want to feel a part of something,  the mentally fragile, and a range of charlatans. 

Some things help people get through the day and keep them connected so that's fine. But it can get nasty if you put reality to the side for too long - look at the modern new age - anti vaccine, anti 5G, turning into QANON and all sorts of total illogical nonsense in my opinion.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, yodsak said:

 

In part two Shermer explains paranormal thinking and how one comes to believe in things without evidence. He uses Edgar Cayce as an example "Uneducated beyond the ninth grade, Cayce acquired his broad knowledge through voracious reading and from this he wove elaborate tales.”  "Cayce was fantasy-prone from his youth, often talking with angels and receiving visions of his dead grandfather." 

-- Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time —  Michael Shermer.

 

''Edgar Cayce was a fraud. His alleged psychic powers are bunk, products of hearsay, folksy wisdom and outright nonsense. His ridiculous beliefs include the existence of Atlantis, polygenism (the idea that five races were created separately at the same time at different places on Earth), “soul-entities” that bonded with animals to create 12-foot giants, giant solar crystals and a host of other absolute silliness.''

-- The Eagle Post:  Why do we celebrate lies, frauds?

article_17d2dda2-a89a-11e7-a21c-8f280b8a0047.html

 

 

 

 

 

I am skeptical too about psychic powers, but you'll have to concede that the kind of evidence demanded by official science is unrealistic. 

.. So I'm quite skeptical about mr. Shermer's claims that mr. Cayce was a fraud.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

46 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I am skeptical too about psychic powers, but you'll have to concede that the kind of evidence demanded by official science is unrealistic. 

.. So I'm quite skeptical about mr. Shermer's claims that mr. Cayce was a fraud.

How so..if you are psychic why should you not be able to do better than average in a test of your psychic skills. You don't have to do perfectly.. just consistently better than someone who might be a charlatan

[mauGR1]

55 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

How so..if you are psychic why should you not be able to do better than average in a test of your psychic skills. You don't have to do perfectly.. just consistently better than someone who might be a charlatan

Psychic powers are not evidence of the existence of a supreme being, by the way, and I'm not defending charlatans, which undoubtedly exist.

To answer your question, I'm convinced that psychic powers, like having visions of past or future events, exist, but they cannot be forced at command, they simply happen without warning, as a gift from higher realms.

Personally,  just watching the order of the universe and its laws it's a miracle,  i can believe in intelligent design without any other evidence. 

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

How so..if you are psychic why should you not be able to do better than average in a test of your psychic skills. You don't have to do perfectly.. just consistently better than someone who might be a charlatan

Rupert Sheldrake - a bona fide real scientist with a very inquisitive mind, and one of my 'heroes' - has done several pure scientific experiments to determine whether there is 'something' re psychic powers.  And indeed his experiments DID show that some people (not all) do CONSISTENTLY score better than what chance would dictate.  And this not with just a few percentage points, but more in the area like 1 chance in more than a million that the results of the correct prediction for the experiments he did set up (e.g. predicting the next card that would come up in a stack of playing cards), were due to chance only.

When confronting 'Fraud-demasker' James Randi with his findings and providing him with all the data he collected (and of course the set-up of the experiments conducted, eliminating any possibility of fraud), Randi came up with all kind of excuses not to 'accept what he could not believe'.  When Sheldrake provided all additional 'proof' requested by Randi, Randi simply stopped responding. 

The correspondence between Sheldrake and Randi is a fascinating account of how some self-declared sceptics simply cannot allow that their Worldview might not be correct.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Tagged said:

Im sure I have been borned in the very best time this planet had for humans like me.

I know I was, as a white middle class person in a safe western country. Unfortunately, most of the world's population were not so unfortunate.

 

IMO, the late 50s were the best for western society- Korean war was over, society was prospering and the Vietnam war had not yet brought western society into the morass it was to become.

IMO since then we have been on a downward spiral into greed and worship of money and false idols ( celebrities ). IMO it is the beginning of the end for much of western civilization. Bread and circuses consume the population.

While many have abandoned religion per se, IMO they have also abandoned aspiration to the higher planes of intellect, which can only be to the detriment of our future.

 

As for the remainder of the world's population, IMO they never had it good to lose.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

27 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Rupert Sheldrake - a bona fide real scientist with a very inquisitive mind, and one of my 'heroes' - has done several pure scientific experiments to determine whether there is 'something' re psychic powers.  And indeed his experiments DID show that some people (not all) do CONSISTENTLY score better than what chance would dictate.  And this not with just a few percentage points, but more in the area like 1 chance in more than a million that the results of the correct prediction for the experiments he did set up (e.g. predicting the next card that would come up in a stack of playing cards), were due to chance only.

When confronting 'Fraud-demasker' James Randi with his findings and providing him with all the data he collected (and of course the set-up of the experiments conducted, eliminating any possibility of fraud), Randi came up with all kind of excuses not to 'accept what he could not believe'.  When Sheldrake provided all additional 'proof' requested by Randi, Randi simply stopped responding. 

The correspondence between Sheldrake and Randi is a fascinating account of how some self-declared sceptics simply cannot allow that their Worldview might not be correct.

Interesting - thanks - I realised I had seen his Ted talk that had been banned. My issue with him is that, for example,  he is critical of what he calls 10 scientific dogmas. In science though there is just the latest theory which may or may not be correct. For example he says scientists have a dogma that the mind is in the brain - is that a dogma or just the most likely available theory. Then he makes claims against medical dogma. What are doctors to do but to go what works the best most of the time. Doctors would be happy to use crystals if they worked.  

He portrays scientists as closed minded about these dogmas but then comes up with alternatives that are interesting but have not been tested so are just ideas. In that sense I would see him as an interesting story teller and ideas person but not a scientist. Hopefully you can see why scientists would be turned off by his approach.

 

 In terms of where he did attempt some science by testing my conclusions are:

1 Randi did seem to back off

2 there seems to be a consensus that he puts so many ifs and buts in his findings that it is hard to prove  scientifically without him putting forward an excuse if it fails - this may help explain 1

3 the objective research that had been done before and since Randi didn't seem to back his claims 

4 Surely if the example you give above is true it could have been reproduced in the last 20 years  to satisfy the scientists. I cannot believe there would not be many scientists and Sheldrake himself happy to set up a test both to promote his theories and become famous by proving such a theory correct.

They are interesting theories though. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

58 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The correspondence between Sheldrake and Randi is a fascinating account of how some self-declared sceptics simply cannot allow that their Worldview might not be correct.

When your entire belief in one's self is bound up in not believing in something it's a hard thing to accept one is wrong.

 

In my case I don't believe in much anyway, so am open to any scenario, and have been wrong about things my entire life. Unfortunately, I was wrong about romantic love, the love of a good woman, that the state would take care of me in old age, that Drs care, that people are innately good, and that people I know a long time will not try to steal from me.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Doctors would be happy to use crystals if they worked.  

Unfortunately Drs think a drug will cure most ills when in many cases they don't ie they will give antidepressants rather than deal with the underlying causes of depression, which could be as simple as loneliness, and no pill will cure that. I've had more bad Drs in my life than I can remember.

BTW, there isn't any money in it for drug companies if Drs use crystals. Need I say more?

 

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Hopefully you can see why scientists would be turned off by his approach.

I've met enough scientists to not believe they actually know as much as they claim to. Plenty I've met were incompetent oafs. I'm sure there are some good ones, but I'm also sure that there are good people out there, and I have not met many of those either.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately Drs think a drug will cure most ills when in many cases they don't ie they will give antidepressants rather than deal with the underlying causes of depression, which could be as simple as loneliness, and no pill will cure that. I've had more bad Drs in my life than I can remember.

BTW, there isn't any money in it for drug companies if Drs use crystals. Need I say more?

 

I've met enough scientists to not believe they actually know as much as they claim to. Plenty I've met were incompetent oafs. I'm sure there are some good ones, but I'm also sure that there are good people out there, and I have not met many of those either.

A friend had a semi serious illness and a chinese doctor got him having these horrible herbs in a tea and it worked. Probably are lots of similar potential cures out there still to be proven. 

I have often thought psychiatry is the weakest medical science and often has treatments like hitting a nut with a sledgehammer. I like to feel scientists are doing their best and will get there - they have come along way in the last 200 years. Yes there are shocking examples of profits before people but hopefully they are just a blip in progress in the longer term. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Yes there are shocking examples of profits before people but hopefully they are just a blip in progress in the longer term. 

A blip eh.. in my very personal point of view, profit rules the whole society worldwide,  and we haven't seen the worst yet. 

Religion was not a solution for healing the world's illness, but I can't see any improvement when money has become god. 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

look at the modern new age

Sure- greed, lust, avarice, bread and circuses, machine warfare, bad food full of chemicals, poverty and starvation for some while others grow obese etc etc etc. I see nothing to say the modern new age is better than before personal computers were invented, and a lot is far, far worse, IMO.

I'm not OK with 10% of the population owning 70% of the wealth- are you?

[mauGR1]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Sure- greed, lust, avarice, bread and circuses, machine warfare, bad food full of chemicals, poverty and starvation for some while others grow obese etc etc etc. I see nothing to say the modern new age is better than before personal computers were invented, and a lot is far, far worse, IMO.

I'm not OK with 10% of the population owning 70% of the wealth- are you?

From my point of view it will get worse before it gets better.

I have to confess that some day i see a giant asteroid as the less evil of solutions ????

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

From my point of view it will get worse before it gets better.

I have to confess that some day i see a giant asteroid as the less evil of solutions ????

From my point of view it will never get better. Everything in the world I live in has got worse, and given the way people live now it's not going to get better, only worse.

Perhaps a virus that mutates rapidly would solve the problem. Oh ...................................................