Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

21 views
Promotions > Read Genesis and help the government determine right and wrong

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments I just wanna say, if you want a prove that devil doesn't exist, I am the prove. Because I have no connection whatsoever with the devil and I have never seen one make contact with me let alone say 'good job'. Yes you may say that 'the devil's greatest trick is making us believe that he doesn't exist'. I don't have the energy to argue with this, let alone to argue with the statement in the bible which conveniently accuses 'the devil' of being the mother of all liars and says that 'eating' knowledge is the mother of all sins. Let's be stupid and kill one another in the name of religion's teachings, shall we?

And here I stand and I'd want to accuse religion as the mother of all foolishness, and therefore, stupid stubborn f***. I have to say 'I'd want' to prevent a lawsuit but again they can't sue me because this is my opinion and I have the rights to do far worse things than accusing them. Why? Because I have prove and my prove is justice backed up by science and what do they have? They have billions of bloods on their hands.

Final question: why do you think I named the virus that ended the world Shy-9999?

Not the answer (or is it?): maybe religion and its afterlife concept is a set of rationale our selfish selves made to justify the dying of other people and prevent population boost, while physics has told us that no particle cares about good or evil, only us humans and God has never talked to us directly (it's always 'through' different persons and these persons spoke different things).

I also want to say that I'm a very fearful man. The first time the book was published I didn't write down the beginning part of the blurb which says "there is no good or evil…". You can ask #### because he's among the first ones to review it. Why? First: I'm very considerate of our community. And you can see that I'm quite a good man. I do social works. I have a hard time asking for compensations for my medical service, I can present a lot of people who will testify to this. Second: I fear for my life. There are a lot of people who won't like the book (1. the stupid riches, because according to my book, wasting resources is wrong, and 2. the religious). They can kill me if they don't find what's inside my head to be valuable.

I WON'T PROMOTE MY BOOK ANY FURTHER. November 28, 2015 is the last time it'll be free to download. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013CFGQBG I've done my part changing the world with my writings. It's up to community, they want it, keep it, they don't want it, burn it. Now it's time I do the science part. And you have to know that my judgment is very well-pondered and I will cooperate as long as the government doesn't kill anybody anymore. I know that population boost isn't something we look forward to so we can keep the memories in certain 'files' until we are ready with a new earth.

Pls support the research for the sake of justice on earth and our survival as a whole, as intelligent beings and not stupid f***ing dinosaurs:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...


message 2: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments I'm sorry for my tone. I see people die, and nothing prevents them from experiencing every consequences that are due to the law of physics and biology and chemistry except medicine and of course love.

Science does a better job than the old scriptures do. Look at our world. It's full of corruption and people's killing each other. Religion doesn't work. This is because old literatures are just that: old. And it fails us, except for the extremely few miracles, which physics can explain why it happens: there's a non-zero albeit infinitesimal chance a speeding asteroid can miss its trajectory from hitting an object, or cancer cells can disappear. Einstein hated this side of quantum physics. There is no law in it. He couldn't predict it to a point of certainty. It is so random. There's no formula that can predict to a point of certainty the properties of any particle. Einstein hated it, he said "God doesn't play dice with the world". And sound influences reality so prayers work.

There is no pattern. We see pattern and we tend to make up one when we don't see any (e.g. the concept of purposeful design) because we love something and hate the other thing. The truth is: it's all chaos and there is no divine intervention. We see a beautiful landscape and say that it was created by God, it's because we love it. What we don't see is the fact that we are surrounded by water that kills us if we drink it. We see that there is the sun and the moon and the earth is placed in the perfect distance from them so that an atmosphere and water could form. What we don't see is that this configuration of planet and solar system is only one in billions of possibilities and there is no other earth as far as the eyes can see. And this is consistent with the law of quantum physics: there is a possibility that life can form, and that possibility is infinitesimal.

Physics did it. God didn't do anything. If God had done it, he would have made two earths at least, or an alien, thus confirming that He is there and there is a divine intervention that defies the law of physics.

Physics can explain everything including abiogenesis (this is discussed in the Life on The Edge book where quantum physics is proposed to be the breath behind biomolecular activities). Don't we agree that the cell in the lab which is the result of culturing is the same cell from the "original" cell (e.g. the HeLa cells that have been used extensively, are the same cells as their mother cells which were taken from a cancer victim named Henrietta Lacks). They are the same, otherwise we won't be able to use them for research, and furthermore, this cell replication also happens inside the body, otherwise we won't grow, so the child-cell is just as alive as the parent-cell.
But then we take it to the next level: we say that the cells that are part of a whole (our body) have a soul that will go to either heaven or hell, but a cell individually doesn't have a soul (a woman's egg cell got killed every month). Who are we to say that God has the shape and characteristics of a human and loves human? Where is the fairness in that? Why isn't God the shape of an alien who hates us? To make things up is stupidity, isn't it?

Aren't humanbeings so proud of themselves that they call their small existence the only thing that matters in the entire universe? And that this universe was created for them? It wouldn't be fair to the dolphins at least.

And shouldn't we laugh at the fact that God has never spoken to us. If he's an intelligent being, why didn't he ever tell the truth to all of us directly. It's always through different persons and these persons spoke different things.

Human is alone. There's no divine intervention. Tell me one act of God that shows that he exists. In the old days, we say that lightning is God's wrath, now we know that it is electricity. I beg the world to please evolve, and make this world a better place. Science is the answer, as it has answered our lightning question. Did god answer our lightning question? No. Did god change anything by dying on the cross? No. Science does. Science will give us food, shelters, even the true forgiveness, e.g.: when my patient suffers a stroke from high blood pressure, science forgives her by not letting her get worse, or is it god?

My grandparents are devoted Catholics and my mother is a christian pastor, still. I was raised in a christian family and I used to serve the church and I almost never skipped church.

What we know in the past has failed us. The holy scriptures are also science somehow, because it shows us what we know in the past. But it doesn't work. People don't understand what matters. They mystify the concept of soul, they say that gayness is against the will of god. Are we to say that gay people should be cast to hell? My book certainly disagrees, but the holy scriptures say so. The definition of right and wrong I give is beautiful, it's simple, it's scientific, and it's helpful. And it's certainly better than what the old scriptures give. And it works in building a better world.


message 3: by Andrew (new)

Andrew Pavli | 24 comments I'm sure you mean well Andreas but this is not the right forum for this kind of harangue. If I can give you some advice, as an old man I think I have the right, If you want to persuade anyone keep it short and sweet, don't lecture or patronize, and treat others with respect. I am not religious but most religious people are genuine believers, peaceful and caring. I don't think you have persuaded anyone to read your book. Sorry.


message 4: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments Thank you, sir. I sincerely apologize.

I'd like to post something from my blog, if I may.

This may sound philosophical but being a medical doctor, I'm more of a scientist than a philosopher.


I have to say that I'd like to take us one step further. And with this step, I say there is no god or satan.

I'd like to convey why this is important.


So far, we know nothing of God except from religions.
One concept speaks of God's being the good one.
Another concept speaks of God's being The Creator. (This has trouble if we see it through the eye of science. You may read my answers here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...)


Both concepts present us with a problem:
"Proclaiming the presence of divine intervention"
1. In the past and present, in the form of stating that the forces in existence are good and evil, which will result in our:
A. not bearing the responsibilities for our deeds (blaming God and Satan even blaming Adam for our mishaps).
B. justification to end anything we condemn as evil including those who take our limited resources (time and matters), without knowing that good and evil only exist in the mind of the condemners.
2. In the future, where we create the possibility of an afterlife and the concept of a greater good (saying it is OK to kill).


If we get rid of the concept of good and evil, and instead adhere to a new scientific, absolute definition of right and wrong, which is "Wrong is when it causes death or dearth":
1. We can achieve the highest possible form of morality.
2. People including the government can make decisions easily.
3. People will stop smoking.
4. Scientific researches will have clear purposes. Genetic researches will be expanded to create better humans, who will never be a threat to any existence.
5. Corruption and rich people who are not productive will be no more.
6. Death penalty will stop.
7. Future intergalactic war will never happen. And current wars will end. Finally, the Middle East can be in peace.
8. Rich people will care about poverty and stop using sports cars.
9. Capitalism and socialism will halt and people will work together as what I propose in the book.
10. Socio economic gap will be reduced to minimum and criminality will go down to 0.


And many more.


It will be all peace, forever.


message 5: by Brian (new)

Brian Dingle | 18 comments I have to agree with Andrew. I think we need a moderator to intervene and let us know if this is the right place for this kind of discussion or whether it should be sequestered to some place that people who don't like it may avoid it.


message 6: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments I think I agree with you. But I'll hand it to the moderator. Please forgive my language.

But the content of the post is important..


message 7: by Brian (new)

Brian Dingle | 18 comments Andreas wrote: I WON'T PROMOTE MY BOOK ANY FURTHER. November 28, 2015 is the last time it'll be free to download. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013CFGQBG I've done my part changing the world with my writings. It's up to community, they want it, keep it, they don't want it, burn it. Now it's time I do the science part. And you have to know that my judgment is very well-pondered and I will cooperate as long as the government doesn't kill anybody anymore.

Well, it's not free now!


message 8: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments November 28. It's been free on several weekends. Amazon only permits 5 free days. After this I'll have to set up the price to 2.99.

There's no debate in the book. It's a story.

Pls mind the structure of chapter 2 because I made it very hard to read to prevent some from reading further ("hot headed" people who may misinterpret the blurb. They might think that wrong things are justified...).


message 9: by Richard (new)

Richard | 490 comments Mod
Having read right through this thread (my ears are still ringing a bit) the only line I object to is "To make things up is stupidity, isn't it?" Making things up is, I think, pretty much what we're all about here.
As to the rest, the guidelines for Moderators (under the heading "Moderating Discussion") says this:

"...Moderators have the power to delete any discussion post in the group, so keep the group clean. We suggest leaving all member comments except for the following: spam, porn, extremely offensive material (eg Pro-Nazi, etc), or direct personal attacks on other members. Arguing is often part of discussing, but personal attacks are not necessary. When you do delete a comment that members may miss, note you have done so and why, so members know what happened. Note that members can also edit or delete their own comments..."

This may be an unusual way to promote your writing, but it's more eccentric than "extremely offensive" I reckon.


message 10: by Brian (new)

Brian Dingle | 18 comments My fault. I didn't think this thread was an appropriate place to discuss the merits. Or lack thereof, of religion. The title raised my ire.
All the more curious, since I am a militant atheist ( meaning I think religion is dangerous, not that I want to physically do anything about it) as I guess the author is. I just felt the whole presentation unnecessarily inflammatory and the world needs much less of that. And now I have added to it, so I shall bow out.


message 11: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling | 229 comments It would have been simpler to say it was a book blurb that needed a lot of editing.


message 12: by Richard (new)

Richard | 490 comments Mod
No problem Brian. In fact, considering the amount of attention his posts have had, maybe Andreas has invented a quirky new way of promoting your stuff and we should all copy it!


message 13: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling | 229 comments Richard---
You are thinking that instead of putting a blurb with a link to the web site with the full "advertisement", a person could put the bulk of the advertisement on as many sites as possible to increase the visibility of one's book to search engines, or are you saying that engaging people positively or negatively might generate more publicity than just a blurb?

It's very difficult to incorporate real time religion or politics into a story without stepping on someone's toes. It seems like when a fictional story has real time religion and politics in it, the fictional content may not be enough to stop the story from being labeled as propaganda.

If the bulk of a science fiction story is based on simple genetic manipulation techniques that can be done on people today but isn't, and the outcome is happily ever after, can that be considered an advertisement for the genetic modification industry?


message 14: by Andreas (last edited Nov 30, 2015 05:24PM) (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments Richard wrote: "No problem Brian. In fact, considering the amount of attention his posts have had, maybe Andreas has invented a quirky new way of promoting your stuff and we should all copy it!"

I can't believe you understand it. That was what I said to a few friends from other groups... I can show you.

Robert wrote: "You are thinking that instead of putting a blurb with a link to the web site with the full "advertisement", a person could put the bulk of the advertisement on as many sites as possible to increase the visibility of one's book to search engines, or are you saying that engaging people positively or negatively might generate more publicity than just a blurb?"
I think I never mentioned Genesis in the posts above. I just realized this; this is bad from an advertising point of view. I don't know whether putting the Amazon's link will cause the search engine thing.
And I've never had any plan to pursue any genetic researches. My goal is to defeat death:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

Is it easier to do the genetic research? It certainly is of lesser importance in my opinion. Why would I build something and my family and friends die afterwards? Research will have clear purposes: first, they'll defeat death or dearth. We should've started a long time ago. The genetic thing is the side result because after that nobody will be afraid anymore..


message 15: by Andreas (new)

Andreas Laurencius (andreaslaurencius) | 19 comments I decided I'd just write a blog post and let the discussion take place there.
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

So people who aren't willing to dig further won't be exposed to it.


back to top