What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[Rob Monster]

why shouldn't there be a creator
something must have created it...

but the problem is the childish approach
of a father - human-like creator

that's sheer nonsense

and the biggest nonsense is the evil counterpart
of the god guy

and the uttermost nonsense is the evil that will come
because of you or me or they
are not following the rules of that human-like creator

if you can believe in a human kind of godfather
who needed not to be created as he has been there forever

I see no problem with believing in an
ever existing self recreating universe

that created itself - a perfect creator

Thanks Frank. I know you feel strongly about this topic. For me, growing up in an atheistic Dutch household with a Fulbright scholar Dad, I certainly did not approach this topic with a bias towards faith of any kind.

As I see it, once someone acknowledges that there must be a Creator, it would seem logical to me that they would try to figure out the identity of this Creator, and to figure out what it wants.

If the topic of the "meaning of life" does interest someone, I do hope that a relatively uncensored internet exists so that they have a reasonable chance of searching the truth without being propagandized.

We still live in countries where we are allowed to decide (1) what to believe, and (2) what questions to ask. Where it gets complicated is when we can no longer find satisfactory/conclusive answers.

 

[Slanted]

Typo there -- it is 1.3 million words. I did link the reference:

That makes more sense.

The point still stands

Agreed.

Newton was one of the smartest guys in the last 1000 years and was convinced of the existence of a Creator.

True.

Bit of trivia: Aside from his discoveries in physics, Newton invented a lot of mathematics – what is taught these days as "Calculus". As a matter of fact, the Calculus was discovered or invented simultaneously by 2 intellectuals: Newton (in England) and Leibniz (in Germany). Because of the ambiguity regarding who was really first, there was a fierce nationalistic rivalry between England and Germany. As head of the Royal Society, Newton oversaw the publication of articles "proving" that Newton got there first and that Leibniz was merely a copycat. But historians nowadays acknowledge that both men invented differential and integral calculus independently at the same time. The notation we use today for Calculus derives from Leibniz much more than from Newton.

Leibniz was also a philosopher and theologian. Like Newton and like virtually every other intellectual of his day, Leibniz believed in a Creator. In fact, Leibniz's major work – called the "Theodicy" – is an attempt to justify our World, with all of its imperfections, as the optimal World. In other words, out of all the hypothetical universes – in which pros and cons would have some net balance – Leibniz believed God designed this actual universe to maximize the pros versus the cons.

Voltaire, who was one of the earliest and most prominent atheists, satirized Leibniz's optimistic philosophy in his novel "Candide", which Leonard Bernstein turned into a musical.

Nonetheless, Voltaire was the exception among european intellectuals – most of whom were, if not traditional christians, at least Deists who believed in a Creator. Leibniz's philosophy is rooted in religious monotheism. It wrestles with the age-old christian "Problem of Pain" – that is, the paradox of reconciling an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator with an imperfect world of accident, sin, and suffering. Leibniz also dealt with the Mind / Body problem of Descartes by positing that consciousness and matter are fundamentally one thing, not two.

Indeed, Leibniz's major contribution to philosophy (other than his mathematics) was his "Monadology". Leibniz believed everything in the universe, including consciousness and God, was a manifestation of simple substances called "monads" – ultimately reducible to just one thing.

Anybody who is familiar with the development of chemistry and modern physics from the days of Newton and Leibniz (each born in the 1640s) to the 21st century will realize that there has been one overarching trend: Reducing the universe to simple components (molecules > atoms > quarks > etc.) and looking for a Unified Theory that will explain the entire universe as a manifestation of one fundamental entity or law.

For example, some physicists see the universe as one very complex vibration of "superstrings". And other physicists talk about multiple parallel universes. All of that derives from Leibniz. And Leibniz wanted to unify complex phenomena in simple Monads because he was a monotheist. In other words, modern physics and chemistry derives from Leibniz, whose revolutionary ideas were derived from Religion.

That doesn't mean God exists. But it does mean that the idea of a single God led to modern physics.

 

[Slanted]

Rob's first reaction:

- You are fired!

(realizes that can't do that anymore)

- Ok, typo and off just by 3 zeros here is the reference

Not true at all. I spent more than 2 years at Epik. And, as everyone here can tell, I'm an argumentative guy who disagrees vocally with the people around me. As Rob can attest, I disagreed with him on little things and big things every day. And never once did Rob fire me. Instead he tolerated my dissent and listened. Often I persuaded him. (And it's a rare boss that allows himself to be dissuaded.) Sometimes I didn't persuade him – as is inevitable with any human interaction, especially in an employer / employee interaction. And when I finally left Epik, even then Rob didn't fire me, in spite of pronounced disagreements; instead I resigned.

 

[Recons.Com]

Not true at all. I spent more than 2 years at Epik. And, as everyone here can tell, I'm an argumentative guy who disagrees vocally with the people around me. As Rob can attest, I disagreed with him on little things and big things every day. And never once did Rob fire me. Instead he tolerated my dissent and listened. Often I persuaded him. (And it's a rare boss that allows himself to be dissuaded.) Sometimes I didn't persuade him – as is inevitable with any human interaction, especially in an employer / employee interaction. And when I finally left Epik, even then Rob didn't fire me, in spite of pronounced disagreements; instead I resigned.

And to this I respond by quoting myself. You guys have definitely influenced each other over those 2 years ))))

It was 100% intended as joke )

Joseph is a great guy. I love when someone actually uses logic in his/her argumentation and he is a rare example of doing it regularly.

 

[Slanted]

That doesn't mean God exists. But it does mean that the idea of a single God led to modern physics.

P.S. You can see this in other ways also.

Even today, we habitually talk about the "Laws of Physics". But scientists / philosophers / theologians only LOOKED for "Laws" because they already believed in a Lawgiver. They only looked for Order in the universe because they already believed it was built according to a Creator's orderly blueprints.

Really there is no rational reason whatsoever to expect the universe to be orderly at all. And certainly the universe recognizes no "Laws". Who would give those "Laws"? As an atheist, I find the idea of "Laws of Physics" utterly absurd. But it is still the way the topic is taught. And it's still the way people (including atheists) talk about the universe. As if planets "obey" some "Law of Gravity"!

Rather than see order in the world, it's much more natural to see disorder, chaos, randomness, change, flux. That's what Heraclitus saw. Indeed, the old polytheistic societies portrayed a world that was governed by arbitrary, unpredictable rivalries of various petty gods. Hence the wife of Zeus could become jealous of a mortal woman and cause the Trojan War. From such a religious background, no theologian would have spoken about an orderly universe or the eternal, irrevocable "Laws of Physics".

Instead, investigations into the supposed "Laws of Physics" or "Laws of Chemistry" occurred in monotheistic societies – first among muslims in places like Iraq, Egypt, and Iran and then (roughly 500-800 years later) among europeans in places like England and Germany. These investigations required a pre-existing belief. Unless we already EXPECT there to be laws and order, we won't look for them. At a human scale – with unpredictable wars and weather – nothing appears orderly. And an orderly, law-abiding universe would not be intuitive or expected at all.

Polytheistic and pantheistic cultures did not have reason to believe in the UNITY of the universe. Quite the contrary. They saw it as fickle, fragmentary, multifarious, strange, chaotic, and unpredictable. But monotheism – which postulated 1 single Law Giver and 1 single deliberate Creator – expected, looked for, and found exactly the opposite. Order. Laws. Unity. Predictability.

Modern science would be impossible without those expectations, which would be very unlikely without widespread monotheism.

As an atheist, I see this phase of discovery as a lucky accident, in some sense. Enlightenment-era physicists really believed they had discovered the "Laws of the Universe". Real "laws" that had been designed or prescribed by a Creator. From my perspective they were WRONG to look for laws and order. There are no laws. But they did find Order. And if any atheist DOESN'T see that Order as a mystery, then they haven't thought about it long enough. Physicists today – atheists though they may be – regard that Order as utterly mysterious, to the point of mysticism.

Primitive man would have regarded the unpredictable, chaotic world as largely unknowable. And really there is no reason to expect that any species of animal should be able to comprehend the universe with its (fictional) Laws and its (very real) Orderliness. One of the primary motivating forces for muslim scientists and later european scientists of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment was a conviction – an irrational faith – that they (a dimwitted species of ape) could discover anything and everything about the universe. Why? Because they believed the universe had been created by God, and they believed mankind had been created by God in His own image – suggesting that humans could comprehend the ways of the Creator.

And so humanity – perversely, irrationally, and unjustifiably – sought to discover what makes the world work. Because they believed that a human-like God made the world work. Without that belief, they probably would not have dared peek under the hood.

 

[Slanted]

You guys have definitely influenced each other over those 2 years ))))

Doubtful. Rob hired me fully formed. And when I left Epik, Rob was the same Rob who hired me.

That's not to say I didn't learn plenty from working at a registrar. But in terms of worldview, Rob and I are so different that, during 2 years, we barely spoke about anything other than domains. We didn't discuss religion or philosophy. And politics only came up towards the end, beginning with the scandal surrounding Gab.com.

 

[Recons.Com]

Doubtful. Rob hired me fully formed. And when I left Epik, Rob was the same Rob who hired me.

That's not to say I didn't learn plenty from working at a registrar. But in terms of worldview, Rob and I are so different that, during 2 years, we barely spoke about anything other than domains. We didn't discuss religion or philosophy. And politics only came up towards the end, beginning with the scandal surrounding Gab.com.

That is how an AI would have responded to what I had written ) Does "fully formed" mean "fully coded" here? ))))

PS Reminded me of Data ) Ah, wish I had more time to rewatch Star Trek.

 

[Slanted]

That is how an AI would have responded to what I had written ) Does "fully formed" mean "fully coded" here? ))))

In my case, they're still troubleshooting glitches.

 

[strugar]

The conversation with @whenpillarsfall drags on and on because he keeps posting repetitious, irrelevant junk instead of RESPONDING to the evidence or arguments.

This actually proves that debating with you is a waste of time - you apriori claim that you have "arguments" and other party has "irrelevant junk". This says a lot about you.

 

[Recons.Com]

This actually proves that debating with you is a waste of time - you apriori claim that you have "arguments" and other party has "irrelevant junk". This says a lot about you.

No, by strictly applying logic, that does not prove anything without really seeing if really was arguments vs IJ or not.

 

[Slanted]

This actually proves that debating with you is a waste of time - you apriori claim that you have "arguments" and other party has "irrelevant junk". This says a lot about you.

On the contrary, once @whenpillarsfall began responding to what I said instead of posting new verbiage that did not address what I said – in other words, once he engaged with me – you can see that the 2 of us began making progress through polite debate. That's evident from the past few exchanges between him and me.

He broke out of the loop:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-70#post-7254258

 

[NameLlama]

Humans can see patterns, consistently occurring, and describe them, whether they have the monotheistic mindset or not. Dont need to declare that there is one creator with order and laws in order to observe consistent things in the world.
Even if they believe in multiple gods or spirits, they could still experiment with affecting those. If they are dealing with a certain disease, they could test all kinds of remedies. They don't just have to throw up their hands and say 'the world is chaotic, this is from the whims of a spirit, it is hopeless'. They might try to find a cause to bring about the effect of curing the person, because they know that there is consistent cause and effect in other parts of their lives. It doesn't have to mean that they think everything is orderly. Maybe they can't do anything about weather patterns, so they pray that the capricious storm god will bring them rain. But that also doesn't mean they always say, 'let's not bother trying to figure out how the world works, because it might just be chaos'
Nobody in an ancient time would have ever bothered to write much of how they thought things worked, if they didn't think there was some persistent order to life. Look, there is a pattern to the stars. A pattern to how certain materials interact.
So, as for 'laws of physics', failure to dream up a singular god creator doesn't prevent you from trying to describe the way objects move, for example. Clearly, they don't all just float around chaotically but can be observed to do the same things repeatedly.

 

[Slanted]

Humans can see patterns, consistently occurring, and describe them, whether they have the monotheistic mindset or not. Dont need to declare that there is one creator with order and laws in order to observe consistent things in the world.
Even if they believe in multiple gods or spirits, they could still experiment with affecting those. If they are dealing with a certain disease, they could test all kinds of remedies. They don't just have to throw up their hands and say 'the world is chaotic, this is from the whims of a spirit, it is hopeless'. They might try to find a cause to bring about the effect of curing the person, because they know that there is consistent cause and effect in other parts of their lives. It doesn't have to mean that they think everything is orderly. Maybe they can't do anything about weather patterns, so they pray that the capricious storm god will bring them rain. But that also doesn't mean they always say, 'let's not bother trying to figure out how the world works, because it might just be chaos'
Nobody in an ancient time would have ever bothered to write much of how they thought things worked, if they didn't think there was some persistent order to life. Look, there is a pattern to the stars. A pattern to how certain materials interact.
So, as for 'laws of physics', failure to dream up a singular god creator doesn't prevent you from trying to describe the way objects move, for example. Clearly, they don't all just float around chaotically but can be observed to do the same things repeatedly.

People "could have", you say. Yet people didn't. A world full of people to do it. And 200,000 years to do it in. Yet nobody did it.

Historically speaking, discovering the "Laws" of physics waited until monotheism, which suggested to people – first muslims, then christians – that there ought to be Laws to look for.

So we have the historical facts. And we have your theory, which is not supported by historical evidence.

But I'm sure you have unshakeable faith in your theory.

 

[frank-germany]

Thanks Frank. I know you feel strongly about this topic. For me, growing up in an atheistic Dutch household with a Fulbright scholar Dad, I certainly did not approach this topic with a bias towards faith of any kind.

As I see it, once someone acknowledges that there must be a Creator, it would seem logical to me that they would try to figure out the identity of this Creator, and to figure out what it wants.

If the topic of the "meaning of life" does interest someone, I do hope that a relatively uncensored internet exists so that they have a reasonable chance of searching the truth without being propagandized.

We still live in countries where we are allowed to decide (1) what to believe, and (2) what questions to ask. Where it gets complicated is when we can no longer find satisfactory/conclusive answers.

agreed

I feel strong about this topic

because I take it personal
that I have been told so many phantasies
in my life
by authorities
straight out: lies

so I feel the urge to stop people
who continue doing same to others

 

[frank-germany]

Thanks Frank. I know you feel strongly about this topic. For me, growing up in an atheistic Dutch household with a Fulbright scholar Dad, I certainly did not approach this topic with a bias towards faith of any kind.

As I see it, once someone acknowledges that there must be a Creator, it would seem logical to me that they would try to figure out the identity of this Creator, and to figure out what it wants.

If the topic of the "meaning of life" does interest someone, I do hope that a relatively uncensored internet exists so that they have a reasonable chance of searching the truth without being propagandized.

We still live in countries where we are allowed to decide (1) what to believe, and (2) what questions to ask. Where it gets complicated is when we can no longer find satisfactory/conclusive answers.

and let me add this:

to me its no proof of a fact
when there is an old script quoting a story

somebody may have been bored
and just wrote a story to entertain his children

or manipulated the masses
or both

 

[frank-germany]

If the topic of the "meaning of life" does interest someone, I do hope that a relatively uncensored internet exists so that they have a reasonable chance of searching the truth without being propagandized.

We still live in countries where we are allowed to decide (1) what to believe, and (2) what questions to ask. Where it gets complicated is when we can no longer find satisfactory/conclusive answers.

somehow you manage to promote epik services in every post

which I personally find disgusting

 

[Slanted]

somehow you manage to promote epik services in every post

which I personally find disgusting

Says the guy who promotes NameCheap in his signature with 3 posts in a row.

 

[Rob Monster]

Says the guy who promotes NameCheap in his signature with 3 posts in a row.

Right. It is just a NamePros signature. I rarely update it. There is no way to turn it off for every post.

I doubt the SEO value of NamePros is all that high.

As for this thread, it is mostly an echo-chamber with a fairly small group of followers.

As for my replies to Frank, I am actually trying to be helpful. He seems to have this strongly held view that people who believe that consider the possibility of a divine authority are mentally challenged.

Anyway, my mind is fine and I would be open to speaking with anyone via phone or video who still thinks there is something amiss with my mind.

 

[frank-germany]

Right. It is just a NamePros signature. I rarely update it. There is no way to turn it off for every post.

I doubt the SEO value of NamePros is all that high.

As for this thread, it is mostly an echo-chamber with a fairly small group of followers.

As for my replies to Frank, I am actually trying to be helpful. He seems to have this strongly held view that people who believe that consider the possibility of a divine authority are mentally challenged.

Anyway, my mind is fine and I would be open to speaking with anyone via phone or video who still thinks there is something amiss with my mind.

I wasn't referring to your sig

 

[Paul]

Right. It is just a NamePros signature. I rarely update it. There is no way to turn it off for every post.

I doubt the SEO value of NamePros is all that high.

This might be beside the point, but just to clarify, signatures are hidden for logged-out visitors, including search engines, so they have no SEO value--this is deliberate.

 

[NameLlama]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
The cosmos (UK: /ˈkɒzmɒs/, US: /-moʊs/) is the universe. Using the word cosmos rather than the word universe implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity; the opposite of chaos.[1] The cosmos, and our understanding of the reasons for its existence and significance, are studied in cosmology.


https://www.iep.utm.edu/presocra/
Presocratics
Presocratic philosophers are the Western thinkers preceding Socrates (c. 469-c. 399 B.C.E.) but including some thinkers who were roughly contemporary with Socrates, such as Protagoras (c. 490-c. 420 B.C.E.). The application of the term “philosophy” to the Presocratics is somewhat anachronistic, but is certainly different from how many people currently think of philosophy. The Presocratics were interested in a wide variety of topics, especially in what we now think of as natural science rather than philosophy. These early thinkers often sought naturalistic explanations and causes for physical phenomena.


Such an emphasis on physical explanations marked a break with more traditional ways of thinking that indicated the gods as primary causes. The Presocratics, in most cases, did not entirely abandon theistic or religious notions, but they characteristically posed challenges to traditional ways of thinking.

The Milesians
While it might be inaccurate to call them a school of thinkers, the Milesian philosophers do have connections that are not merely geographical. Hailing from Miletus in Ionia (modern day Turkey), Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes each broke with the poetic and mythological tradition handed down by Hesiod and Homer. With what little we know about the Milesians, we do not consider them philosophers in the same way that we consider Plato, Aristotle, and their successors philosophers. Much of what we know about them suggests that they were protoscientists, concerned with cosmogony, which was the generation of the cosmos; and cosmology, the study of or inquiry into the nature of the cosmos. Their cosmogonies and cosmologies are oriented primarily by naturalistic explanations, descriptions, and conjectures, rather than traditional mythology.




Aristotle tried to find "principles and causes"
Aristotelian physics is a form of natural science described in the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE). In his work Physics, Aristotle intended to establish general principles of change that govern all natural bodies, both living and inanimate, celestial and terrestrial – including all motion (change with respect to place), quantitative change (change with respect to size or number), qualitative change, and substantial change ("coming to be" (coming into existence, "generation") or "passing away" (no longer existing, "corruption")).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle)
..a collection of treatises or lessons that deal with the most general (philosophical) principles of natural or moving things, both living and non-living, rather than physical theories (in the modern sense) or investigations of the particular contents of the universe. The chief purpose of the work is to discover the principles and causes of (and not merely to describe) change, or movement, or motion (κίνησις kinesis), especially that of natural wholes (mostly living things, but also inanimate wholes like the cosmos).

Doesn't mean he had a great method or was coming to correct conclusions, but he was trying to write how the world works



Seems all these people were able to conceptualize an ordered world, cosmos, and a natural origin of it.... and seek principles of how it functions.... without a monotheistic religion

 

[Slanted]

I wasn't referring to your sig

Should Rob not talk about Epik, even though the subject of this thread is "What's going on with EPIK and Rob Monster? That would be odd.

Or should Rob talk about Epik only in a disparaging way, saying how terrible it is? He is, after all, the CEO of the company with a duty to make Epik a good company for the sake of shareholders, employees, partners, and customers. But if he talks about the ways in which Epik is good, you will criticize him for promoting Epik.

In fact, you call it "disgusting".

somehow you manage to promote epik services in every post

which I personally find disgusting

When Rob talks about Epik, people criticize him for promoting Epik. And when he talks about topics unrelated to Epik the domain registrar – such as his personal beliefs – people criticize him for injecting those personal beliefs into the discussion.

Either way, he will get criticized. And often in both directions from the same people.

That doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize. But I personally prefer criticism that's fair and targeted. It's more effective than criticism that treats good and bad things as equally deserving of censure.

 

[Slanted]

Doesn't mean he had a great method or was coming to correct conclusions, but he was trying to write how the world works

Seems all these people were able to conceptualize an ordered world, cosmos, and a natural origin of it.... and seek principles of how it functions.... without a monotheistic religion

Without a doubt, ancient Greek philosophy was progress. But you can already see the beginnings of later monotheism in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, even though they weren't quite monotheists at that stage. They left far behind the chaos of the gods from the Homeric epics or the daily life of their time.

Xenophanes famously declared that if lions, horeses, and cattle could paint, they would paint gods in the form of lions, horses, and cattle. He was ridiculing the anthropomorphic polytheism of his day. Xenophanes was a skeptic. But he stressed that he believe in

"one God, greatest among gods and humans, like mortals neither in form nor in thought"

Socrates (as recorded by Plato) often refers to "God" in the singular. And when he refers to plural gods, Socrates is implying that there is something above them:

"is something holy because the gods like it, or do the gods like it because it's holy?"

Aristotle spent a lifetime categorizing a diverse world. Definitely, he wanted Order. This came from his religious concepts, in which the gods are "unmoved movers". Aristotle's penchant for classification and verbal subdivisions ended up with 4 kinds of Cause. He conjectured about the relationship between Substance and Form, Actuality and Potential. That implies an orderly, categorized world.

Aristotle still believed in various gods. But the concept of a "prime mover" comes from Aristotle. And that, in and of itself, is a step toward later monotheism.

There's a reason why Aristotle and Plato were absorbed so easily in Plotinus and by the gnostics and later by muslims and the christian scholastics during the middle ages. They are on a continuum of evolution from ancient polytheism toward later monotheism.

 

[Rob Monster]

Seems all these people were able to conceptualize an ordered world, cosmos, and a natural origin of it.... and seek principles of how it functions.... without a monotheistic religion

For sure, there is a long and storied history of highly intelligent people who were able to develop theories and constructs to explain away the existence of natural laws, fulfillment of prophecy, and supernatural miracles. Einstein's theory of Relativity and Darwin's theory of Evolution are both examples. This is "science". That is also the reason why the Bible, in both the old and new Testament, differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. A person can can definitely have the one and not the other.

Here is is one example:

Incidentally, Nikola Tesla, who roundly debunked Einstein, was raised an Orthodox Christian. His writing on faith demonstrate someone who was enlightened and tolerant. Tesla was absolutely a genius but he also gave credit to where credit was due.

It appears that Nikola Tesla had extreme amounts of knowledge and wisdom. The irony is that now most people think "Tesla" is a car company led by Elon Musk, and more kids are likely to write biographies about Elon Musk (no comment) versus Nikola Tesla (a true genius). And that is how propaganda works.

 

[Slanted]

highly intelligent people who were able to develop theories and constructs to explain away the existence of natural laws, fulfillment of prophecy, and supernatural miracles. Einstein's theory of Relativity and Darwin's theory of Evolution are both examples. This is "science".

Incidentally, Nikola Tesla, who roundly debunked Einstein

Out of curiosity, what portions of Einstein's Theory of Relativity do you consider to be false?

I'm accustomed to conservative christians rejecting Evolution. But this – like rejecting a spherical earth – is new to me.

As you know, Rob, I supervised nuclear power plants for years. None of that splitting atom stuff works without E = mc^2.

Was it a hoax? If so, how did my submarine produce electricity and avoid sinking for months on end? We all spent years studying the nuclear power plant and the physics involved down to the tiniest – joke intended – detail. Maybe we were all deceived. But in that case, who was hidden in the boat making it all work by some other method? And behind what curtain was this Wizard of Oz hiding?