ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … I did not look through “Names for Kids” and pick my own. Whether or not my name is imaginative is so far off topic as to be completely foolish to even bring up. But, then again, you would have understood the folly of your comment had you had the imagination to wonder where most names come from. I stand validated in my assertion. “YOU HAVE NO IMAGINATION.”
I just changed my name in June.
Albeit, that you can’t find this occurrence on google, does not signify that it isn’t drawing attention.
I had seen that story of a man named God in USA some years ago.
Where did I supposedly ignore that asthma in its archaic form was falsified by science?
Even the quote you cited of me, indicates this update. (Highlighted in “[” “]” above).
The text which you didn’t bother to read also mentions this:
What exaggeration is that?
As long mentioned by myself, even as far back as 2016, especially means there is some belief that utilizes evidence, but as I mentioned in 2016, still a system which mostly or especially permits ignorance of evidence is contrary to scientific thinking, and something I seek to avoid.
No. Do you finally see how this works?
To put it simply, regardless of anyone’s belief, the world is demonstrably not flat.
It looks like you subscribe to an odd idea that equations suddenly start to work if scientists pour faith and passion into them. They work regardless of that.
Consider the words of astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson: " Science is true whether or not you believe in it"
What gave you that odd idea?
In my country, I seek to spread the use of artificial intelligence for example, as the more people do artificial intelligence, reasonably, the more we aim towards a point where I can seek to verify a hypothesis of mine:
Why is the purpose of human life to create Artificial General Intelligence?
In other cases, I am trying to get Ai integrated into government /high cabinet as seen in this local newspaper article of mine or other channels/similar goals:
Definition (2) also concerns faith.
I also mentioned cognitive papers that substantiate the common dictionary definitions.
I stated
Sadly, despite your self-proclaimed big brain, you are deep in to the land of dishonest debate. Please, discard the bullshit and get honest. If not, you are not worth my time.
2 Likes
Reading even log(n) of the resources I presented, one may find that I mentioned several times, that belief/faith may concern proof, but critically, belief/faith still primarily permits ignorance of evidence.
That is the case whether I am alive to highlight such.
You’ve committed a fallacious activity here; you accused me of supposedly omitting proof from belief, and I had never done that. See Wikipedia/Strawman.
Link the evidence it is drawing any significant attention, then evidence that attention is, or is at any point likely to, have a paradigm altering effect in any theists or theism. Fuck me this like herding cats…[quote=“GodBennett, post:82, topic:180”]
I had seen that story of a man named God in USA some years ago.
[/quote]
And yet the fact that in that time theism and theists remain unaffected, caused no rational conclusion to be inferred by you, about the ludicrous notion calling oneself god, being not just ludicrous, but utterly pointless.
1 Like
You said abandon all beliefs, you claimed this would convert theist to atheist in short fashion.
We need beliefs to interact with reality, and as you now admit, scientific and objective facts are accepted by **believing ** they are valid.
The man had been named God, based on his father’s name. God in that case did not concern deities, unless I am mistaken. For eg, God means “ring” in Bosnian language.
Albeit, even if his name pertained to some deity, this does not signify that his situation mirrors mine. There are several situations where pairs of people with similarly supposedly alarming names, experience different outcomes.
Where did I supposedly claim this? It looks like Strawman is a common argument style by members here.
Where did I supposedly admit that? My entire website and sayings here have pointed to the contrary. For eg, we can do scientific thinking absent need for belief.
As I have repeated several times, science is true regardless of belief.
Like thousands of other scientists, I did not await any peer review process during the pandemic.
Perhaps if you had aimed to contribute some academic work earlier on during this pandemic, you maybe would have also opted to not await peer review process.
Over 30,000 covid19 research papers were released since January, many not peer reviewed.
Oh god!!! LOL 
just reread this and the
Quote of it with Sheldon’s post -
This type of attention ranks up there with this…
He’s the greatest! The greatest I tell you!!! The PRESIDENT- the greatest president ever!!! grabbing bible and running to my local church
It would be nice if Trump was an atheist/scientist who did machine learning.
Data shows that countries lead by scientists faired well amidst Covid19.