Here’s an excellent video presentation explaining some of the basic ideas behind the theory of evolution, and addressing some of the most common misconceptions promoted by creationists, with a well-written script and artistic graphics.
1 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:11:51pm |
First meltdown prediction for today: Fairly late as the traffic is to crowded.
| 2 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:12:33pm |
Charles hates Turtlests!
/thought I'd get the melt down over with early.
| 5 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:13:05pm |
re: #1 callahan23
First meltdown prediction for today: Fairly late as the traffic is not too crowded.
Sorry, self corrected.
| 8 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:20:25pm |
Evolition is simply a recognition of reality
I like it
| 9 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:20:59pm |
Keep shining the light on these guys, Charles.
| 10 |
kingkenrod Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:21:11pm |
This sounds like it was narrated by the guy who does the "Zero Punctuation" game reviews. Or I may be tone deaf when it comes to well-spoken Brits. The animation style is similar too.
| 13 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:26:46pm |
Some very fine piece of logical debunking of irrationality and falsehood.
Thank you Charles for posting it here.
| 16 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:30:40pm |
"Let's get ready tooooo melllllllllllllllllllltdooooooooowwwwwn!"
Charles, wait until I get my beer...
| 17 |
axegrinder Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:31:12pm |
Never understood why creationist feel the need to prove God's existence through science. It's all about faith, isn't it? Why couldn't an omniscient being make everything just the way it is, evolution and all? Simple; just the way i like it.
| 18 |
wrenchwench Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:32:18pm |
The people who need this information do not always form their opinions based on information.
| 19 |
Wishing Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:33:14pm |
re: #18 wrenchwench
The people who need this information do not always form their opinions based on information.
Well, they do, it is just mis-information, by and large.
| 20 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:33:16pm |
re: #10 kingkenrod
This sounds like it was narrated by the guy who does the "Zero Punctuation" game reviews. Or I may be tone deaf when it comes to well-spoken Brits. The animation style is similar too.
Have a look at his other video. I didn't see "Zero Punctuation" game reviews, though.
| 21 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:33:18pm |
For topic of heredity, wish he'd chosen a different illustration, as it might have helped the general argument. Henry Fonda was a decorated war hero. His daughter, Hanoi Jane was quite the opposite.
| 22 |
wrenchwench Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:34:36pm |
| 24 |
KingKenrod Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:34:57pm |
Very interesting. I liked the part about the yellow banana, I wasn't aware it is the result of a modern mutation.
| 25 |
Wishing Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:35:31pm |
re: #24 KingKenrod
Very interesting. I liked the part about the yellow banana, I wasn't aware it is the result of a modern mutation.
I didn't know that either, and people are always saying how the banana is God's perfect food! LOL
| 26 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:35:33pm |
re: #14 Sharmuta
Gah! Fondas!
But apart from those, this video was an excellent piece of information. Imho.
| 27 |
axegrinder Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:36:00pm |
re: #21 abolitionist
For topic of heredity, wish he'd chosen a different illustration, as it might have helped the general argument. Henry Fonda was a decorated war hero. His daughter, Hanoi Jane was quite the opposite.
Yeah, but they're both photogenic as hell.
| 28 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:36:30pm |
"Reproductive Success"
/But there's no success like failure.
| 29 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:37:36pm |
| 31 |
Cathypop Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:38:25pm |
| 32 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:39:06pm |
re: #26 callahan23
But apart from those, this video was an excellent piece of information. Imho.
Absolutely. Very well done.
| 33 |
opnion Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:39:37pm |
re: #21 abolitionist
For topic of heredity, wish he'd chosen a different illustration, as it might have helped the general argument. Henry Fonda was a decorated war hero. His daughter, Hanoi Jane was quite the opposite.
Jane Fonda & her brother Peter had a very long adolecent rebellion against their father.
I always thought that Janes anti Americanism was to hurt her father.
| 34 |
tarheelzoomie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:40:19pm |
Good video. Saw nithing in it that makes me doubt God, His Son, or the Word. Is iy just me or am I missing something?
| 35 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:40:38pm |
re: #33 opnion
Jane Fonda & her brother Peter had a very long adolecent rebellion against their father.
I always thought that Janes anti Americanism was to hurt her father.
Likewise.
| 36 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:42:17pm |
re: #31 Cathypop
"We don't need no stinkin Fondas"
"A hippie is someone who walks like Tarzan,
looks like Jane and smells like Cheetah."
Ronald Reagan
Just sayin' ;-)
| 37 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:42:56pm |
Good video. Addresses a number of the common bogus arguments brought up by creationists.
| 38 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:42:58pm |
I read a great quote today which I feel fit into this discussion:
The first thing a man will do for hiss ideals is lie.
-J. A. Schumpeter
| 39 |
wrenchwench Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:43:08pm |
re: #34 tarheelzoomie
Welcome, tarheelzoomie. I don't think you're missing anything.
| 40 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:43:39pm |
If evolution and extinctions are natural, why the fuss over the spotted owl etc? Why is "man" the big fat enemy ( in the view of the global warmists)?
Does not compute.
| 41 |
Aviator Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:43:42pm |
re: #35 abolitionist
Henry Fonda was a lefty, I don't think he was anti-American though.
| 42 |
opnion Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:44:07pm |
re: #36 callahan23
Just sayin' ;-)
The Gipper also said, 'They say make love not war, but they don't look like they could do either."
| 43 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:44:15pm |
re: #34 tarheelzoomie
Good video. Saw nithing in it that makes me doubt God, His Son, or the Word. Is iy just me or am I missing something?
No- that's pretty much it. Those who say there is a conflict between God and accepting evolution are not being honest.
| 44 |
opnion Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:45:49pm |
re: #41 Aviator
Henry Fonda was a lefty, I don't think he was anti-American though.
He was a Liberal, but a patriot. Jane Fond resented that her father was absent so much, & I think really wanted to punish him.
| 45 |
horse Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:47:28pm |
Definitely saving that wonderfully done video. However, it does have one potential flaw, it contains so much evenly delivered rational content it will likely make the heads of deniers explode if they were to consider it with an open mind. Kind of like the body's reaction to gorging on food and drink after starving for weeks.
| 46 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:47:51pm |
re: #34 tarheelzoomie
Good video. Saw nithing in it that makes me doubt God, His Son, or the Word. Is iy just me or am I missing something?
That's simple because evolution does not seek to prove or disprove god's existence. Creationists simply want the literal words of the bible to be true and fine evolution a threat to that.
| 47 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:48:00pm |
re: #40 paint-right
If evolution and extinctions are natural, why the fuss over the spotted owl etc? Why is "man" the big fat enemy ( in the view of the global warmists)?
Does not compute.
Man is the enemy because water vapor and the Sun don't have a currency that the scam artists can fleece them for.
| 48 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:48:03pm |
re: #34 tarheelzoomie
Good video. Saw nithing in it that makes me doubt God, His Son, or the Word.
Were you expecting to?
| 49 |
irongrampa Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:49:50pm |
Heh. After the start of this weekend a good evolution thread sounds like catharsis.
Got the popcorn, let 'er rip.
| 51 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:50:09pm |
re: #17 axegrinder
Never understood why creationist feel the need to prove God's existence through science. It's all about faith, isn't it? Why couldn't an omniscient being make everything just the way it is, evolution and all? Simple; just the way i like it.
I think that philosophy is called teleology. It says that a creator created the world with light already on it's way from distant starts and the ground seeded with fossils of extinct species for us to discover, etc. I put it in the same category as the "Matrix" kind of fiction (we live in a computer world with our senses and actions virtualized and indistinguishable from the reality we think we are experiencing).
| 52 |
nyc redneck Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:50:57pm |
wow that was great.
very well done.
anyone can understand evolution from that simple explanation.
if they want to .
| 53 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:51:28pm |
Did Crockoduck every win any Idiotarian award? It should have been nominated for something or other.
| 54 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:51:40pm |
re: #34 tarheelzoomie
Good video. Saw nithing in it that makes me doubt God, His Son, or the Word. Is iy just me or am I missing something?
Nope. Evolution (and science in general) doesn't disprove god, it just makes him unnecessary. For those with a personal, tolerant faith, it makes no difference - it's only fanatics who seek to convert others that seem to get upset by it.
| 55 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:52:35pm |
| 56 |
UncleRancher Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:52:51pm |
re: #51 MJBrutus
I think that philosophy is called teleology. It says that a creator created the world with light already on it's way from distant starts and the ground seeded with fossils of extinct species for us to discover, etc. I put it in the same category as the "Matrix" kind of fiction (we live in a computer world with our senses and actions virtualized and indistinguishable from the reality we think we are experiencing).
Hey, I visited the prop department at a major studio last year. They make some very believable stuff.
| 57 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:53:04pm |
| 58 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:53:10pm |
re: #52 nyc redneck
wow that was great.
very well done.
anyone can understand evolution from that simple explanation.
if they want to .
I really liked it too, but I wish that they could have fit in a debunking of the "transitional" fossil canard. A short bit, for example, about how there is no law of nature guaranteeing that all species that ever lived left fossilized evidence for us to discover.
| 59 |
opnion Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:53:17pm |
THe Final Four about to start. I have been wrong so far, so what the heck.
Michigan State & Villanova win today & Nova wins it all Monday night.
See ya, I'm going to miss the meltdown.
| 60 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:53:34pm |
re: #34 tarheelzoomie
Good video. Saw nithing in it that makes me doubt God, His Son, or the Word. Is iy just me or am I missing something?
And what does one have to do with the other?
Is it a binary solution set? God or Evolution?
| 61 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:53:44pm |
re: #54 c6gunner
I don't think science makes God unnecessary.
| 62 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:54:16pm |
re: #42 opnion
The Gipper also said, 'They say make love not war, but they don't look like they could do either."
Here's another of my favs of the great communicator: "How do you tell a Communist?
Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti- Communist?
It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
| 63 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:54:40pm |
re: #55 Killgore Trout
OMG, that's too cute. Or, about as cute as an owl can be. Momma was getting his spot for sure.
| 64 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:54:50pm |
re: #53 BigPapa
Did Crockoduck every win any Idiotarian award? It should have been nominated for something or other.
What's a crockoduck? Is that some kind of crappy Dungeons and Dragons monster like the Owlbear?
| 66 |
nyc redneck Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:55:20pm |
re: #58 MJBrutus
I really liked it too, but I wish that they could have fit in a debunking of the "transitional" fossil canard. A short bit, for example, about how there is no law of nature guaranteeing that all species that ever lived left fossilized evidence for us to discover.
that's in the next segment.
| 67 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:55:42pm |
re: #64 ConservatismNow!
What's a crockoduck? Is that some kind of crappy Dungeons and Dragons monster like the Owlbear?
Yep. It's a relative of Manbearpig which is responsible for global warming :-)
| 68 |
Jim D Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:56:05pm |
re: #40 paint-right
Evolution is primarily under attack from those on the right. Why are you using this post to criticize (what you perceive to be) the left?
| 69 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:56:30pm |
re: #47 ConservatismNow!
Man is the enemy because water vapor and the Sun don't have a currency that the scam artists can fleece them for.
wait til the iRs figures out a way for us to be dunned for our sunshine consumption
but maybe the politicians will also be charged for hot air
| 70 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:57:10pm |
re: #65 Lynn B.
Personally, science helps me understand the marvel of His creation better, but that's just me.
| 71 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:57:31pm |
re: #63 BigPapa
That bird is so strange I thought it might be cgi or one of those videos that sucks you in and the morphs into a screaming face or something.
| 72 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:57:52pm |
re: #54 c6gunner
Science only makes God unnecessary from the perspective that religion is the opiate of the masses or that one has some kind of flaw to believe in a higher power. It seems you don't respect people who believe in God.
| 73 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:58:20pm |
re: #68 Jim D
Evolution is primarily under attack from those on the right. Why are you using this post to criticize (what you perceive to be) the left?
I was wondering that as well.
| 74 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:58:33pm |
re: #61 Sharmuta
I don't think science makes God unnecessary.
As an explanation for anything, it does. Not that "god did it" was ever really an explanation ... but having REAL explanations certainly makes gods, angels and demons about as necessary as leprechauns and unicorns.
If you find it necessary to have faith, that's a different thing entirely - I was specifically talking about the necessity of having gods as an explanation for observed phenomena.
| 75 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:59:16pm |
Here’s an excellent video presentation explaining some of the basic ideas behind the theory of evolution
Technically speaking, what we're dealing with here is the theory of evolution through natural selection.
"Evolution" itself is a fact, observed in the fossil record, the laboratory and in DNA.
The "theory of evolution" is a proposed mechanism for how this observed phenomenon happens. The currently dominant theory is natural selection, or "descent with modification," as Darwin called it. This theory has been confirmed countless times. The evidence against it is minimal to nonexistent. The evidence for it is overwhelming.
| 76 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:59:30pm |
re: #71 Killgore Trout
Looks like an owl/hawk hybrid. Probably pretty tough, that beak could take off your pinkie. But damn if you don't get the big "Awwwww" when you see him cackle with a good head scratching.
| 77 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 2:59:33pm |
re: #68 Jim D
Evolution is primarily under attack from those on the right. Why are you using this post to criticize (what you perceive to be) the left?
I guess you're new here. Charles and most of us lizards care about the truth more than GOP loyalty. Furthermore, I believe that most of us feel that the cause of political conservatism is much better served by discrediting and distancing itself from the religious fringe who we feel (as do most of those on the left) are a danger to our liberty when they attempt to impose their religion through government on others.
| 78 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:01:24pm |
re: #76 BigPapa
The chick lady is speaking Portuguese and the jungle setting makes me guess it's some sort of Brazilian tropical owl.
| 79 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:01:32pm |
re: #77 MJBrutus
Jim D isn't new. He's a follower of these threads.
| 81 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:02:49pm |
re: #78 Killgore Trout
The
chicklady is speaking Portuguese ...
Duly noted. Pun intended? Fruedian slip? Hmm.....
| 82 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:03:28pm |
Excellent video. Heh, Rhinopus.
| 83 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:04:09pm |
re: #72 BigPapa
Science only makes God unnecessary from the perspective that religion is the opiate of the masses or that one has some kind of flaw to believe in a higher power. It seems you don't respect people who believe in God.
You do realize, don't you, that Marx never used the phrase "opiate of the masses"?
I don't think you need to be flawed to believe in gods - I think it's the natural condition of man. But whether it's natural is irrelevant to the question of whether it's based on reality.
| 84 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:04:31pm |
OT: Rejecting Aid, One Governor Irks His Own
As much as Mr. Sanford’s stance has increased his national stature and stoked speculation that he will be a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, it has earned him the fury of many people at home.
The leaders of the South Carolina General Assembly, fellow Republicans, are counting the days until his term ends in January 2011. The state’s most conservative newspapers have sharply criticized him. The superintendent of education, the president of the public university system and the director of the State Law Enforcement Division — a member of the governor’s cabinet — have all protested his stance.
If the economy recovers quickly (AKA Obama success) Sanford and Palin might be spared. If the economy continues to flounder they're in big trouble. Palin might do better with her gamble but I doubt it. We'll see.
| 85 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:04:40pm |
Watching the video now. Already gets a thumbs up from me for subsuming "sexual selection" within the overarching category of "natural selection," which is the correct way to do it. Many creationists try to make hay out of the purported difference between natural selection and sexual selection, when in fact they are not mutually contradictory -- one is a subset of the other.
Will continue watching now.
| 86 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:05:00pm |
re: #78 Killgore Trout
The
chicklady is speaking Portuguese and the jungle setting makes me guess it's some sort of Brazilian tropical owl.
It looks a bit like this one:
[Link: www.flickr.com...]
| 87 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:05:21pm |
re: #79 Sharmuta
Jim D isn't new. He's a follower of these threads.
Thanks S,
I guess that means either that he should have known better or that he's a troll :-)
| 89 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:05:44pm |
re: #80 BigPapa
Behold Crockoduck! Bow to his greatness:
[Video]
Wow. I didn't think evolutionists actually thought transitional fossils meant they expected things like crockaducks. I was giving them way too much credit and assuming too much sanity!
| 91 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:06:33pm |
re: #74 c6gunner
As an explanation for anything, it does. Not that "god did it" was ever really an explanation ... but having REAL explanations certainly makes gods, angels and demons about as necessary as leprechauns and unicorns.
If you find it necessary to have faith, that's a different thing entirely - I was specifically talking about the necessity of having gods as an explanation for observed phenomena.
For the most part, it's people who have no faith who tend to think of God as an explanation for observed (or unobserved) phenomena. People who do have faith (or at least respect those who do) generally tend to have a much more complex view of the matter.
| 93 |
Lincolntf Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:06:39pm |
Natural Selection Special on CBS tonight, tip off in about 5 minutes.
| 94 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:06:50pm |
| 95 |
So? Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:07:39pm |
re: #93 Lincolntf
Natural Selection Special on CBS tonight, tip off in about 5 minutes.
What is a minute in the quantum soup of the universe?
| 97 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:09:11pm |
re: #90 Sharmuta
Or that you took his comment wrong....?
or that he took mine wrong..or whatever
I didn't think that commenting about the illogic of excessive worrying about species extinction is outside the boundaries of this type of discussion.
| 98 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:09:17pm |
re: #91 Lynn B.
For the most part, it's people who have no faith who tend to think of God as an explanation for observed (or unobserved) phenomena. People who do have faith (or at least respect those who do) generally tend to have a much more complex view of the matter.
I don't know, I'd say the ancient Greeks and Norsemen had quite a strong faith, but that didn't stop them from attributing thunder and lightning to the gods.
If you're only talking about modern religions ... then what you're telling me is that you think Evangelists all have very little faith. Let's just say I'm rather skeptical of that claim.
| 99 |
Jim D Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:09:19pm |
re: #77 MJBrutus
I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing paint-right's comment which seems like an attempt to steer conversation away from evolution and towards an attack on the enviromentalists.
| 100 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:10:04pm |
Speaking of Natural Selection
I picked all 4 teams in the final four
| 101 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:10:17pm |
re: #99 Jim D
I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing paint-right's comment which seems like an attempt to steer conversation away from evolution and towards an attack on the enviromentalists.
no
| 102 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:10:20pm |
re: #95 So?
What is a minute in the quantum soup of the universe?
/depends on your plan... I get free nights & weekends :)
| 103 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:10:25pm |
re: #95 So?
What is a minute in the quantum soup of the universe?
60 seconds. 1/60th of an hour. 1/1440th of a day. One hell of a long time when you are getting beat up. Something that goes way too fast when you are having fun.
| 104 |
So? Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:10:26pm |
Why do we think?
Does that fall under the purview of Evolution or some other branch of science?
| 105 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:10:32pm |
re: #99 Jim D
I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing paint-right's comment which seems like an attempt to steer conversation away from evolution and towards an attack on the enviromentalists.
That's how I understood it as well.
| 108 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:11:53pm |
re: #100 Shug
Speaking of Natural Selection
I picked all 4 teams in the final four
whoa...from the original 64?
| 109 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:11:54pm |
re: #99 Jim D
I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing paint-right's comment which seems like an attempt to steer conversation away from evolution and towards an attack on the enviromentalists.
also - not an attack.. just thinking of illogicality
| 110 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:12:16pm |
| 112 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:12:44pm |
re: #83 c6gunner
You do realize, don't you, that Marx never used the phrase "opiate of the masses"?
I don't think you need to be flawed to believe in gods - I think it's the natural condition of man. But whether it's natural is irrelevant to the question of whether it's based on reality.
Fair enough about Marx, that's not the point.
What's ironic is that it seems that you're saying, if I am reading you correctly, that it's man's condition to be flawed: in this case, believing in God. How ironic that this concept is also a Christian tenet. But that's not the point either.
The point is that you seem to hold people that believe in God as flawed, or that they aren't being based in reality. Am I mistaken?
If so, I take issue with that even though I'm an atheist. I don't hold somebody who believes in God as being mistaken, or flawed, or not being based in reality. Having said that, there's lot of believers that are flawed and who's faith may be based on some flaws (YEC's LOL), but belief in God is not in and of itself a flaw or worthy of my judgment. They believe and have faith in God, and I respect that without thinking they are mistaken or not basing themselves in reality.
| 113 |
Lincolntf Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:12:54pm |
re: #100 Shug
I picked one. Who I have losing today. I'm screwed in my brackets so I've gotta root for UConn, though I'm not normally a fan. (If they win, it'll be the classic "boy from Dar-es Salaam does good" story.) Besides, I want whoever wins to beat UNC, so Obama doesn't win his bracket. ...I'm a petty little man like that.
| 114 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:14:11pm |
re: #110 Shug
yep.
sometimes you get lucky
extremely lucky in this case and smart...very few people could do that...big money would have made you a millionaire amigo....way to go
| 115 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:14:24pm |
re: #98 c6gunner
I don't know, I'd say the ancient Greeks and Norsemen had quite a strong faith, but that didn't stop them from attributing thunder and lightning to the gods.
If you're only talking about modern religions ... then what you're telling me is that you think Evangelists all have very little faith. Let's just say I'm rather skeptical of that claim.
Uh ... no. I'm not saying that at all.
You confuse your obviously skeptical and utilitarian interpretation of why these people believe what they believe with what they do believe.
| 116 |
MJBrutus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:14:25pm |
re: #99 Jim D
I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing paint-right's comment which seems like an attempt to steer conversation away from evolution and towards an attack on the enviromentalists.
I see that now. Sorry about that. In fact I do agree with you that environmentalism is certainly a separate issue. I also think that conservatism and intelligent environmentalism are perfectly compatible.
paint-right:
I feel strongly that preservation of species should be a consideration in our society. While the left has certainly gone to illogical extremes, we shouldn't deny that we harm our environment and thus our futures when we cause extinctions or other ecological damage through short-sighted or irresponsible behavior.
| 118 |
So? Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:14:52pm |
I am serious about my #104. I really haven't been following the evolution threads, so I'm wondering if that ever came up or if it in fits into the theory of evolution. Anybody?
| 119 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:15:03pm |
re: #107 Killgore Trout
This Striped Owl has the black eyes, though. Maybe it's a baby.
[Link: www.scienceray.com...]
| 120 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:15:28pm |
re: #116 MJBrutus
I see that now. Sorry about that. In fact I do agree with you that environmentalism is certainly a separate issue. I also think that conservatism and intelligent environmentalism are perfectly compatible.
paint-right:
I feel strongly that preservation of species should be a consideration in our society. While the left has certainly gone to illogical extremes, we shouldn't deny that we harm our environment and thus our futures when we cause extinctions or other ecological damage through short-sighted or irresponsible behavior.
agreed
| 121 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:16:02pm |
re: #64 ConservatismNow!
What's a crockoduck? Is that some kind of crappy Dungeons and Dragons monster like the Owlbear?
Here you go:
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS:
CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF VERY STUPID MONSTERS
| 122 |
jantjepietje Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:16:52pm |
re: #40 paint-right
If evolution and extinctions are natural, why the fuss over the spotted owl etc? Why is "man" the big fat enemy ( in the view of the global warmists)?
Does not compute.
Yes it does compute
1) That fact that it is natural doesn't mean it is a good thing. As said in the video recognizing evolution does not mean accepting Nazism
2) Yes eventually extinct species will get replaced by new ones and eventually nature will adjust itself to climate change. The thing is it takes a couple hundred thousand years and I for one do not live for such a time span nor do my children or grandchildren. What is important in my view is that we do not ask what is good for the earth or for nature because the earth doesn't care I am interested in humans and yes I think preserving nature is in human interest.
| 123 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:17:12pm |
re: #54 c6gunner
Nope. Evolution (and science in general) doesn't disprove god, it just makes him unnecessary.
How so?
| 125 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:18:25pm |
re: #112 BigPapa
Fair enough about Marx, that's not the point.
The point is that you seem to hold people that believe in God as flawed, or that they aren't being based in reality. Am I mistaken?
No to the first question, yes to the second. Actually, depending on how you're defining "based in reality". it might be a "no" for the second question too, but I'm going to assume that you're only referring to their religious beliefs.
If so, I take issue with that even though I'm an atheist.
How wonderful for you. That's the great thing about atheism - we don't have any tenets, or anyone to tell us what to beleive, so we can disagree with each other on pretty much anything and everything.
They believe and have faith in God, and I respect that without thinking they are mistaken or not basing themselves in reality.
Cool. What do you think of the Raelians? The Scientologists? Do you afford them the same level of respect and understanding?re: #115 Lynn B.
Uh ... no. I'm not saying that at all.
You confuse your obviously skeptical and utilitarian interpretation of why these people believe what they believe with what they do believe.
| 127 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:19:13pm |
re: #118 So?
I am serious about my #104. I really haven't been following the evolution threads, so I'm wondering if that ever came up or if it in fits into the theory of evolution. Anybody?
That's a good question. I can tell you why humans take so long to reach maturity. It's because of our brains. Most animals are up and walking around within minutes or hours of being born, so why is it that human babies take so long to mature? Because our biggest asset is our mind. We have a LOT to learn as babies. How did we get to that point? Beats me. I just work here.
| 128 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:19:26pm |
re: #97 paint-right
or that he took mine wrong..or whatever
I didn't think that commenting about the illogic of excessive worrying about species extinction is outside the boundaries of this type of discussion.
So how much worrying about species extinction is "excessive?" Is it ok to be a little bit worried or to be deeply worried so long as you don't, you know, go committing criminal acts in defense of what you perceive to be the defense of these species? Or are you saying that you think no one should care if bald eagles or ivory billed woodpeckers or spotted owls cease to exist?
| 129 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:20:14pm |
re: #127 ConservatismNow!
That's a good question. I can tell you why humans take so long to reach maturity. It's because of our brains. Most animals are up and walking around within minutes or hours of being born, so why is it that human babies take so long to mature? Because our biggest asset is our mind. We have a LOT to learn as babies. How did we get to that point? Beats me. I just work here.
that explains why I was walking at 2mo
| 130 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:20:24pm |
re: #118 So?
I am serious about my #104. I really haven't been following the evolution threads, so I'm wondering if that ever came up or if it in fits into the theory of evolution. Anybody?
Your question was what--how does our ability to think come from evolution? Clearly the ability to use logic and reasoning helps with solving problems and allows us to be more adaptable to various climates.
| 131 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:20:33pm |
re: #126 zombie
Everything sounds better with an English accent.
English accents are good, but Morgan Freeman is better.
Freemanic Paracusia
| 132 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:20:41pm |
re: #115 Lynn B.
Uh ... no. I'm not saying that at all.
Well it's certainly what you implied. You said that people who have no faith use god as an explanation. And since Evangelists almost universally reject evolution in favor of creationism, you're implying that they have no faith. If I'm mistaken, please show me where my logic went wrong.
| 133 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:20:49pm |
| 134 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:23:04pm |
re: #119 jaunte
What a bunch of silly looking critters.
| 135 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:23:08pm |
re: #122 jantjepietje
Yes it does compute
1) That fact that it is natural doesn't mean it is a good thing. As said in the video recognizing evolution does not mean accepting Nazism2) Yes eventually extinct species will get replaced by new ones and eventually nature will adjust itself to climate change. The thing is it takes a couple hundred thousand years and I for one do not live for such a time span nor do my children or grandchildren. What is important in my view is that we do not ask what is good for the earth or for nature because the earth doesn't care I am interested in humans and yes I think preserving nature is in human interest.
to your 1) , of course not
to your 2) weighing what is favored when balancing human and natural interests is sometimes a dilemma, is it not? Not always easy to choose. A rare bird vs a power plant which will generate electricity to hospitals etc.
| 136 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:24:05pm |
Here’s an excellent video presentation explaining some of the basic ideas behind the theory of evolution, and addressing some of the most common misconceptions promoted by creationists, with a well-written script and artistic graphics.
It was pretty good, but so much was left out and not discussed. Though, in a ten-minute video, it's pretty much impossible to cover everything. What was most notably left out was any simple explanation of the basic mechanism of natural selection -- e.g. how minor variations in population groups get favored over other minor variations, and these accumulate over countless generations. Also lacking was an explanation of how the different clades branched off from each other long long ago, so that radically different body types emerges on different tracks.
| 137 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:25:47pm |
re: #134 Killgore Trout
That Phillipine Eagle Owl looks a little like Ben Stein.
[Link: www.scienceray.com...]
| 138 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:25:55pm |
The thing to really ponder isn't so much how thinking evolved, I'll leave that to the biologists and anthropologists, but rather how thinking will affect our future evolution.
Through science and reason we are now at a very important point. We've had the ability to affect our evolution a long time through the power of our reason (think how different we might be if we hadn't figured out warm clothes for cold climes as just one for instance) but now we have the power not only to affect our evolution, but also to roughly direct our evolution. It's scary but extremely exciting at the same time.
| 139 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:27:10pm |
re: #128 Lynn B.
So how much worrying about species extinction is "excessive?" Is it ok to be a little bit worried or to be deeply worried so long as you don't, you know, go committing criminal acts in defense of what you perceive to be the defense of these species? Or are you saying that you think no one should care if bald eagles or ivory billed woodpeckers or spotted owls cease to exist?
see my 135
why do you put words in my mouth?
| 140 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:27:13pm |
Reading A Conflict of Visions, I understand now that creationists are of the unconstrained vision, which is fundamentally at odds with secular conservative principles, which is constrained. The creationists are not a good fit for the republican party, and should really reconsider what political party they really belong to. We don't need two parties to represent the unconstrained vision.
I realize this comment might not be properly understood without having read A Conflict of Visions, but this video might help:
| 141 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:01pm |
re: #138 Thanos
What, like telekinesis? I'm so down with that, unless I get a gigantic head to go along with that brain power. My hats won't fit anymore.
| 142 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:10pm |
What gets me is that creationists claim that God is eternal, that He has always existed and always will. They also claim that Creation is only 10,000 (give or take a week) years old.
My question is: What was God up to for the billions/trillions/gazzillions of years prior to Him saying: "Let there be light."?
Three possible answers spring to mind.
"It's none of your business."
"You wouldn't understand."
"You don't want to know."
| 143 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:14pm |
Great video. Nicely flushes the "creationist banana" down the toilet.
| 144 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:15pm |
re: #138 Thanos
The thing to really ponder isn't so much how thinking evolved, I'll leave that to the biologists and anthropologists, but rather how thinking will affect our future evolution.
Through science and reason we are now at a very important point. We've had the ability to affect our evolution a long time through the power of our reason (think how different we might be if we hadn't figured out warm clothes for cold climes as just one for instance) but now we have the power not only to affect our evolution, but also to roughly direct our evolution. It's scary but extremely exciting at the same time.
What I also find amazing is how much we've advanced in just the past couple hundred years. What finally "clicked" to make our current society work so well compared to just a couple hundred years ago.
| 145 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:17pm |
And until this video, I'd never even heard of a "crocoduck."
"Crock of dreck" is more like it.
| 146 |
So? Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:28pm |
re: #130 BryanS
Your question was what--how does our ability to think come from evolution? Clearly the ability to use logic and reasoning helps with solving problems and allows us to be more adaptable to various climates.
That wasn't my question at all. You just turned it around and answered your own question. Not mine.
My question was " Why do we think?
The second part of my question was: Does the above question fall under the purview of Evolution or under some other scientific form of study?
| 147 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:28:52pm |
re: #137 jaunte
That Phillipine Eagle Owl looks a little like Ben Stein.
[Link: www.scienceray.com...]
yes it does.
a pair of Bird brains, both of them
| 149 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:30:06pm |
re: #125 c6gunner
Cool. What do you think of the Raelians? The Scientologists? Do you afford them the same level of respect and understanding?
No, of course not. Like I just said, whether or not you believe in God in an of itself is separate of how and why you came to that conclusion of belief. I have a much deeper respect for many popular pundits who have a strong belief system based in faith (of which I specifically respect), but I wouldn't give that same level of respect to a Raelian. But any Raelian can try any time that they wish :)
Surely, you would not compare Dennis Prager to a common Raelian, or Tom Cruise? I hope that's not what you're suggesting.
| 150 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:30:50pm |
re: #142 USBeast
"Watching all three LOTR movies in a row"
| 151 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:31:20pm |
re: #132 c6gunner
Well it's certainly what you implied. You said that people who have no faith use god as an explanation. And since Evangelists almost universally reject evolution in favor of creationism, you're implying that they have no faith. If I'm mistaken, please show me where my logic went wrong.
Ok, I'll bite. One more time. Though you seem to be bending over backwards to misinterpret what I'm saying.
People who have no faith and lack respect for those who do (i.e., you) tend to denigrate other people's faith by assigning it a straw man facile basis, i.e., the need for an explanation of things they don't understand.
This is not, however, how people of faith tend to think of God, i.e., as a crutch or an explanation. This may or may not be news to you.
/that's my best shot ... take it or leave it.
| 152 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:32:17pm |
re: #146 So?
That wasn't my question at all. You just turned it around and answered your own question. Not mine.
My question was " Why do we think?
The second part of my question was: Does the above question fall under the purview of Evolution or under some other scientific form of study?
Well, clearly I was saying I thought the process of thinking fell under evolution. I didn't understand what your question was in part because I wasn't sure if your question was a leading one--suggesting evolution does not explain why we think.
In direct answer, we think because of evolution--which was what I said in the first place anyway.
| 153 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:32:54pm |
re: #139 paint-right
see my 135
why do you put words in my mouth?
I did see it, and you pretty much answered my question. I fell behind and didn't see it until after I'd posted it. Not putting words in your mouth, just curious. And, again, you've made yourself clear now. Thanks.
| 154 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:33:16pm |
re: #144 BryanS
What I also find amazing is how much we've advanced in just the past couple hundred years. What finally "clicked" to make our current society work so well compared to just a couple hundred years ago.
Well, I like to think it was the creation of a nation that allows for the growth of individuals... just sayin.
| 155 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:33:57pm |
re: #141 ConservatismNow!
What, like telekinesis? I'm so down with that, unless I get a gigantic head to go along with that brain power. My hats won't fit anymore.
Well that's not exactly what I meant, but let's roll with one of the other "psychic" powers, Telepathy. At some point we will augment I/O for computers with neural implants, or other means of direct mental input to computers. Since most computers are also on the web, and since most people want the easy way to work their computer, most people will get implants or whatever, and at some point most people's minds will be on the web, and isn't that but a step away from telepathy?
| 156 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:35:06pm |
re: #150 ConservatismNow!
"Watching all three LOTR movies in a row"
That would be a neat trick, but, then He is God.
| 157 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:35:22pm |
re: #154 brookly red
Well, I like to think it was the creation of a nation that allows for the growth of individuals... just sayin.
And furthermore, the more recent advances in political and economic freedoms really were revolutionary and should be defended and protected. New theories for organizing the government and the economy such as socialism and the like have a high hurdle to prove they are right.
| 158 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:35:45pm |
re: #156 USBeast
That would be a neat trick, but, then He is God.
Could God make a movie so long even God would need a bathroom break?
| 159 |
jantjepietje Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:35:47pm |
re: #135 paint-right
weighing what is favored when balancing human and natural interests is sometimes a dilemma, is it not? Not always easy to choose. A rare bird vs a power plant which will generate electricity to hospitals etc.
Well it is often a false dilemma I say in most cases (long term) human interests coincide with preserving nature. For example air pollution kills more people than traffic.
It is in along term interest for the fishing industry not to kill all the fish etc.
In most cases I see only a long term vs short term problem.
| 160 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:36:07pm |
re: #149 BigPapa
No, of course not. Like I just said, whether or not you believe in God in an of itself is separate of how and why you came to that conclusion of belief.
Ok, I can agree with that. But the fact of the matter is that most religious people today came to their beliefs through simple indoctrination as children. Why should we have any respect for that?
Surely, you would not compare Dennis Prager to a common Raelian, or Tom Cruise? I hope that's not what you're suggesting.
No, of course not. However, it doesn't matter how nicely you dress up your religion, or how educated you may sound while talking about it - the fact of the matter is that there is just as much evidence and logic behind Scientology as there is behind the Abrahamic faiths. The main reason we think Scientology is exceptionally nutty is because it's a recent invention - if it had been invented 2,000 years ago, it would enjoy the same level of respect as other religions.
| 161 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:36:36pm |
re: #155 Thanos
Wow. You're actually right. I mean it's not natural telepathy, but it's like how Professor X uses Cerebro to amplify his powers. I can see that happening. I'm a little afraid of jacking into the internet, but downloading kung fu into my brain would be awesome.
| 162 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:36:42pm |
After Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, I think the next most important book those of us serious about taking back the party need to read is A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.
/just sayin'
| 163 |
So? Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:37:03pm |
re: #155 Thanos
Well that's not exactly what I meant, but let's roll with one of the other "psychic" powers, Telepathy. At some point we will augment I/O for computers with neural implants, or other means of direct mental input to computers. Since most computers are also on the web, and since most people want the easy way to work their computer, most people will get implants or whatever, and at some point most people's minds will be on the web, and isn't that but a step away from telepathy?
My computer knows when I'm about to turn it on.
| 164 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:37:23pm |
| 165 |
paint-right Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:37:25pm |
re: #153 Lynn B.
I did see it, and you pretty much answered my question. I fell behind and didn't see it until after I'd posted it. Not putting words in your mouth, just curious. And, again, you've made yourself clear now. Thanks.
cool..thanks
| 166 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:37:47pm |
re: #17 axegrinder
Never understood why creationist feel the need to prove God's existence through science. It's all about faith, isn't it? Why couldn't an omniscient being make everything just the way it is, evolution and all? Simple; just the way i like it.
Many (but not all) scientists and mathematicians of the Renaisance era and later have indicated in their writings their expectation that such endevors would bring them (and others) closer to an understanding of G*d, his universe and his plan for us. Isaac Newton, for example.
Many are horrified that science seems not to be revealing any such obvious plan --at least not of a sort that is both simple and within our general understanding. It's the plan part, as described in the Bible, that many are loath to let go of.
| 167 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:37:49pm |
| 168 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:38:03pm |
re: #155 Thanos
Well that's not exactly what I meant, but let's roll with one of the other "psychic" powers, Telepathy. At some point we will augment I/O for computers with neural implants, or other means of direct mental input to computers. Since most computers are also on the web, and since most people want the easy way to work their computer, most people will get implants or whatever, and at some point most people's minds will be on the web, and isn't that but a step away from telepathy?
Anyone with a lick of sense would want to "step away from telepathy". Imagine what kind of hell telepathic marketers would be.
| 169 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:38:57pm |
re: #158 JCM
Could God make a movie so long even God would need a bathroom break?
"With God, all things are possible."
| 170 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:38:58pm |
re: #160 c6gunner
No, of course not. However, it doesn't matter how nicely you dress up your religion, or how educated you may sound while talking about it - the fact of the matter is that there is just as much evidence and logic behind Scientology as there is behind the Abrahamic faiths. The main reason we think Scientology is exceptionally nutty is because it's a recent invention - if it had been invented 2,000 years ago, it would enjoy the same level of respect as other religions.
Faith is not about logic and reason. It's faith exists in a separate realm from logic, reason and facts. Logic and reason are the wrong tools.
| 172 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:40:21pm |
re: #144 BryanS
What I also find amazing is how much we've advanced in just the past couple hundred years. What finally "clicked" to make our current society work so well compared to just a couple hundred years ago.
I really think it was the age of reason/ rennaissance that created the current spurt of advancement, however if you step back and look at the whole of history with non-political unjaundiced eye for just the major long term trends, you see that Humanity tends towards the good over time, and that steady progression is our hallmark. Certainly there are dives like the dark ages, but on average GDP and inflation worldwide average +3 percent, on average we increase the power and wealth all individual humans have potential to wield, and on average knowledge increases, lifepans increase, and the pace of that increase is....increasing. I've got a lot of confidence in our future barring accidental destruction of the planet.
| 173 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:40:54pm |
re: #163 So?
My computer knows when I'm about to turn it on.
that's not your computer, that's google
| 174 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:41:16pm |
| 175 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:41:37pm |
| 176 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:41:44pm |
re: #151 Lynn B.
People who have no faith and lack respect for those who do (i.e., you) tend to denigrate other people's faith by assigning it a straw man facile basis, i.e., the need for an explanation of things they don't understand.
This is not, however, how people of faith tend to think of God, i.e., as a crutch or an explanation. This may or may not be news to you.
/that's my best shot ... take it or leave it.
That's much better, mainly because it's completely different from your original statement. The two don't even resemble eachother.
Anyway, it's still wrong. Plenty of people DO use god as a crutch. If you don't realize this, you haven't spoken to any creationists. Or any Fundamentalist Muslims. Or Orthodox Jews. Or Native Americans. Or Africans. In point of fact, you'd have to be completely ignorant of numerous forms of mythology in order to make such claims. Read some Greek Legends some time. Or, hell, read the Bible! People have been using God as an explanation for natural phenomenon since they were first able to fathom the idea of a supernatural being - and we continue to do it today. How can you possibly deny such a self-evident fact?
| 177 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:42:30pm |
re: #172 Thanos
I really think it was the age of reason/ rennaissance that created the current spurt of advancement, however if you step back and look at the whole of history with non-political unjaundiced eye for just the major long term trends, you see that Humanity tends towards the good over time, and that steady progression is our hallmark. Certainly there are dives like the dark ages, but on average GDP and inflation worldwide average +3 percent, on average we increase the power and wealth all individual humans have potential to wield, and on average knowledge increases, lifepans increase, and the pace of that increase is....increasing. I've got a lot of confidence in our future barring accidental destruction of the planet.
Agreed. And just think how much and for how long religion held us back.
| 178 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:43:09pm |
re: #168 USBeast
Anyone with a lick of sense would want to "step away from telepathy". Imagine what kind of hell telepathic marketers would be.
Yes, that's one of the things we need to worry about... think about the Sham Wow guy having telpathic access if you really want a nightmare :)
| 179 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:43:59pm |
re: #142 USBeast
Getting drunk with his college buddies and cruising the bars for hawt chicks.
//
| 180 |
jantjepietje Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:44:15pm |
re: #160 c6gunner
the fact of the matter is that there is just as much evidence and logic behind Scientology as there is behind the Abrahamic faiths.
I think we can distinguish craziness levels between faiths to quote Sam Harris "Is Mormonism crazier than Christianity? Yes because Mormonism is Christianity + some crazy ideas"
| 181 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:45:18pm |
| 182 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:45:23pm |
re: #180 jantjepietje
Beautiful. I wish I could give more updings.
| 183 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:45:25pm |
re: #170 JCM
Faith is not about logic and reason.
Agreed. Faith is the equivalent of saying "I have no evidence for my beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway". That's what makes it so dangerous. It cuts out logic and reason, and creates an insurmountable barrier to communication.
| 184 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:46:11pm |
re: #177 BryanS
Agreed. And just think how much and for how long religion held us back.
I look at religion as an overall good, even though I'm atheist. There are many great things we would not have without it. It's also possible that Religion, through providing hope to many who else would fall to madness or nihilism, is a positive force on our evolution. There are even papers on it.
| 185 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:46:51pm |
| 186 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:48:05pm |
re: #181 brookly red
from what?
Religion caused people to accept the answer "because god did it" and to resist the progress of science. New ideas are rejected out of hand and for centuries by religious dogma. That kind of unthinking rejection of progress I believe is a big reason humanity has been held back in its history.
| 188 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:48:25pm |
re: #160 c6gunner
...it doesn't matter how nicely you dress up your religion, or how educated you may sound while talking about it - the fact of the matter is that there is just as much evidence and logic behind Scientology as there is behind the Abrahamic faiths.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll see if Scientology is still around in 2,000 years. But then again, have you studied both to be able to come to that conclusion? I'm not trying to invalidate you but to point out that some people study theology very deeply, and the differences/similarities between them. And maybe they started with a pretext then spent much time on facts and evidence only supporting their premise. But I have a hard time giving the Scientologists the same level of respect as the Old Faiths, for obvious reasons. However, I respect the Scientologist's in their belief system, but still take issue with what seems that you're equivocating Scientology with 2,000 year old religions.
But faith is based on.... faith.
I was raised Catholic. Did all steps of catechism. I changed my mind, so not everybody is truly indoctrinated, though it can be influenced. Just as such, I wouldn't want anybody to be indoctrinated into atheism, who has it's own zealots.
| 189 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:48:40pm |
re: #184 Thanos
I look at religion as an overall good, even though I'm atheist. There are many great things we would not have without it.
Like .... ?
I can think of plenty of BAD things that we wouldn't have without it. Can't think of a single good one, at the moment.
| 190 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:49:38pm |
re: #185 ConservatismNow!
Cultural and scientific advancement.
OK, cultural is in the eye of the beholder... what scientific advancement are we talking about?
| 191 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:49:40pm |
Does this mean that woman's boobs are going to get bigger and bigger?
| 193 |
hazzyday Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:50:01pm |
Angelina Jolie = Reproductive success
Jennier Aniston = TBD
Laura Kroft look a likes in the future. Less Rachel Gellers.
| 194 |
irongrampa Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:50:20pm |
Pleasant surprise. I was looking for a war, and all I see is sane, rational debate.
For some reason, this is really lifting my spirits. Keep it up.
| 195 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:51:25pm |
re: #184 Thanos
I look at religion as an overall good, even though I'm atheist. There are many great things we would not have without it. It's also possible that Religion, through providing hope to many who else would fall to madness or nihilism, is a positive force on our evolution. There are even papers on it.
I respect people's rights to have their beliefs, but I do not think much good comes from religion. Religion causes madness--what else could motivate otherwise good people to blow themselves up in the name of god? Religion distorts morality by causing people to hold on to beliefs without ever questioning whether they are good beliefs to begin with.
| 196 |
Bloodnok Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:52:55pm |
re: #158 JCM
Could God make a movie so long even God would need a bathroom break?
This too shall pass....
| 197 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:53:08pm |
re: #189 c6gunner
Like .... ?
I can think of plenty of BAD things that we wouldn't have without it. Can't think of a single good one, at the moment.
Art. The church was one of the largest backers of the arts during the 15th century.
Music. Most of the great musicians before modern times were backed by religious patrons.
Charity. Religious groups today are some of the largest contributors to humanitarian work.
BEER! Beer was brewed by monks. Chimay anyone?
Literacy. If it was not for monastaries, literacy would have all but died out.
| 198 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:53:11pm |
re: #190 brookly red
OK, cultural is in the eye of the beholder... what scientific advancement are we talking about?
Took a long time for scientists to be brave enough to agree that the earth revolves around the sun long after it was already discovered. That was thanx to the catholic church.
| 199 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:53:17pm |
My piece on Obama and Acorn is generating a Johnsonian degree of hate mail. Which leaves me to believe that the Obamamaniacs have devolved.
[Link: deathby1000papercuts.com...]
| 200 |
hazzyday Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:53:36pm |
re: #183 c6gunner
Agreed. Faith is the equivalent of saying "I have no evidence for my beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway". That's what makes it so dangerous. It cuts out logic and reason, and creates an insurmountable barrier to communication.
| 201 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:53:56pm |
| 202 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:54:05pm |
re: #188 BigPapa
But then again, have you studied both to be able to come to that conclusion?
Yes.
I'm not trying to invalidate you but to point out that some people study theology very deeply, and the differences/similarities between them.
That's true, but it's also irrelevant. If I spend 50 years researching Bigfoot, does that mean that bigfoot is real? Does it mean you need to respect my bigfoot beliefs?
Being polite to people is good, because it facilitates communication. Having respect for them as individuals is all fine and good, too. But actually having respect for their beliefs? No! How can you possibly respect a ridiculous belief, regardless of how much time the person may have wasted on it?
But I have a hard time giving the Scientologists the same level of respect as the Old Faiths, for obvious reasons.
The obvious reason is less obvious than you may think. You're obviously suggesting that your differentation between the two is based on their tennets. In reality, if you were an impartial observer who had never before heard of those two faiths, you would find nothing in them to recommend one over the other.
| 203 |
jantjepietje Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:54:37pm |
| 204 |
hazzyday Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:54:46pm |
re: #195 BryanS
That's human nature. That will happen whether religion is involved or not.
| 205 |
Dar ul Harbarian Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:54:47pm |
re: #189 c6gunner
Like .... ?
I can think of plenty of BAD things that we wouldn't have without it. Can't think of a single good one, at the moment.
Justice.
For example the dictum "and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a religious edict that came about in an age when people would take a life for an eye or rape a village for a tooth.
The foundations of Western justice can be traced back to the Ten Commandments and, were it not for this, there would be no moderating influence on powers of the state or wronged individuals. That is why they have traditionally been placed in courthouses.
You may all flame away to your heart's content...I'm going to eat sushi.
| 206 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:55:04pm |
re: #189 c6gunner
Like .... ?
I can think of plenty of BAD things that we wouldn't have without it. Can't think of a single good one, at the moment.
Quote completely and you'll have one answer:
re: #184 Thanos
I look at religion as an overall good, even though I'm atheist. There are many great things we would not have without it. It's also possible that Religion, through providing hope to many who else would fall to madness or nihilism, is a positive force on our evolution. There are even papers on it.
And don't get me wrong I am an Atheist, yet I understand Thanos' point.
| 207 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:56:17pm |
re: #189 c6gunner
Like .... ?
I can think of plenty of BAD things that we wouldn't have without it. Can't think of a single good one, at the moment.
I was gonna post an "I'm Out" post, but saw this. So NO RELIGION has any saving grace, according to you? BBBBEEEEEPPPPP, wrong answer! Most religions teach MORALITY and PERSONAL Responsibility, IMHO! I won't name any religions, as good or bad, but consider your comment inflammatory and ill concieved...that's just me. I will leave it for others t0 respond to, because I'm out. I need to call a GRAVELY ILL relative and his wife (my sister)....I leave it to others to approve or disprove....
Pietr
| 208 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:57:00pm |
re: #204 hazzyday
That's human nature. That will happen whether religion is involved or not.
I would disagree. Humans naturally value their own lives. What other than religion can make the argument that their enemies are weak because "they value life more than anything, we value death".
| 209 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:57:13pm |
re: #183 c6gunner
Agreed. Faith is the equivalent of saying "I have no evidence for my beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway". That's what makes it so dangerous. It cuts out logic and reason, and creates an insurmountable barrier to communication.
I agree, to some extent, but what some people call "communication" involves ramming their prejudices down other peoples' throats. Faith in something does not preclude logic and reason, as evidenced by the stance on evolution by the Catholic Church. Hide-bound dogma is the enemy, not faith.
| 210 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:57:14pm |
re: #197 ConservatismNow!
Art. The church was one of the largest backers of the arts during the 15th century.
Music. Most of the great musicians before modern times were backed by religious patrons.
Charity. Religious groups today are some of the largest contributors to humanitarian work.
So you're saying we'd have no art, no music, and no charity without religion?
Please. Don't be silly.
BEER! Beer was brewed by monks.
Ok, I'll give you that one :) But we'd still be drinking wine, mead, and all sorts of hard-alcohol.
Literacy. If it was not for monastaries, literacy would have all but died out.
Also nonsense. The Greeks and Romans had a good start on that, until Christians destroyed Alexandria and turned the Roman empire into an oppressive theocracy. Ok, so they turned it back around a thousand years later. Yippee. Your point is still wrong.
| 211 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:57:15pm |
re: #189 c6gunner
For every bad you name coming from Religion, I can name a thousand goods. Let's start with modern hospitals as just the first example. Most modern hospitals in the US were started by churches. Millions of lives saved.
| 212 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:57:53pm |
re: #198 BryanS
Took a long time for scientists to be brave enough to agree that the earth revolves around the sun long after it was already discovered. That was thanx to the catholic church.
/Winston? is that you?
| 213 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:59:08pm |
re: #160 c6gunner
Ok, I can agree with that. But the fact of the matter is that most religious people today came to their beliefs through simple indoctrination as children. Why should we have any respect for that?
It is also a fact that many people go through a period of questioning of their faith, then return either to their original faith or a different one.
. . .
However, it doesn't matter how nicely you dress up your religion, or how educated you may sound while talking about it - the fact of the matter is that there is just as much evidence and logic behind Scientology as there is behind the Abrahamic faiths. The main reason we think Scientology is exceptionally nutty is because it's a recent invention - if it had been invented 2,000 years ago, it would enjoy the same level of respect as other religions.
re: #176 c6gunner
That's much better, mainly because it's completely different from your original statement. The two don't even resemble eachother.
Anyway, it's still wrong. Plenty of people DO use god as a crutch
.
And plenty of people don't. What is your point?
If you don't realize this, you haven't spoken to any creationists. Or any Fundamentalist Muslims. Or Orthodox Jews. Or Native Americans. Or Africans. In point of fact, you'd have to be completely ignorant of numerous forms of mythology in order to make such claims. Read some Greek Legends some time. Or, hell, read the Bible! People have been using God as an explanation for natural phenomenon since they were first able to fathom the idea of a supernatural being - and we continue to do it today. How can you possibly deny such a self-evident fact?
You use the word "fact" very often, in almost everything you say.
What information to you have, other than your own observations (perhaps biased, perhaps not), to prove these "facts"?
| 214 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 3:59:43pm |
re: #183 c6gunner
Agreed. Faith is the equivalent of saying "I have no evidence for my beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway". That's what makes it so dangerous. It cuts out logic and reason, and creates an insurmountable barrier to communication.
Not necessarily. Faith my not be logic based, but it's output and interface with the physical world should be.
eg. My faith is arrived at by own choice, while I may st hare my faith I should allow you to make your own choice.
I works both ways, logic and reason don't over rule faith. Similarly faith shouldn't over rule logic and reason.
Both have their place.
The existence of God and his action is outside the realm of science. On the threads subject evolution says nothing about God. At the same time, evidence combine with logic and reason arrives at certain conclusion about the earth and life on earth.
It is necessary to be very discriminating in which tool to use, and when.
| 215 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:00:20pm |
re: #162 Sharmuta
After Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, I think the next most important book those of us serious about taking back the party need to read is A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.
/just sayin'
I would suggest that The Road To Serfdom by Frederick A. Hayek should be in there somewhere.
Btw: the Marx quote is:
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
| 216 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:00:20pm |
re: #142 USBeast
What gets me is that creationists claim that God is eternal, that He has always existed and always will. They also claim that Creation is only 10,000 (give or take a week) years old.
My question is: What was God up to for the billions/trillions/gazzillions of years prior to Him saying: "Let there be light."?
Three possible answers spring to mind.
"It's none of your business."
"You wouldn't understand."
"You don't want to know."
Playing several multi-aeonic games of CosmicChess with Lucifer. Most of our current troubles are because God is beating Lucifer 12,453 to 138
| 217 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:00:22pm |
re: #176 c6gunner
Plenty of people DO use god as a crutch.
I thought that's what you were getting at. As Chrisitianity implies, we are all imperfect. :)
Is it necessary to validate your atheism by pointing out the flaws in believers? Because if so, why do worry about others who challenge your faith in atheism?
| 218 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:00:29pm |
re: #205 Dar ul Harbarian
You would have to take all the "judicial" edicts from the bible to claim justice is advanced by religion. How about sanctioning slavery in the christian bible? Or maybe punishing women who are rape victims as the mulsim faith inspires?
| 219 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:01:01pm |
re: #191 pat
Ya know, that's what this thread is really about.
| 221 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:01:22pm |
re: #213 reine.de.tout
You use the word "fact" very often, in almost everything you say.
What information to you have, other than your own observations (perhaps biased, perhaps not), to prove these "facts"?
/ well everybody knows... sheesh
| 222 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:01:56pm |
re: #211 Thanos
For every bad you name coming from Religion, I can name a thousand goods. Let's start with modern hospitals as just the first example. Most modern hospitals in the US were started by churches. Millions of lives saved.
Horrible example to start with. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Whether hospitals were started in the US by churches is irrelevant - hospitals existed prior to that point, and would have existed regardless of Church involvement. Far from listing thousands of good things which would not exist without religion, I sincerely doubt that you could list even one. I welcome you to try - just please, put a little more thought into it than you did with your first "example".
| 224 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:02:36pm |
re: #216 Shay4l
Playing several multi-aeonic games of CosmicChess with Lucifer. Most of our current troubles are because God is beating Lucifer 12,453 to 138
"Sigh". Look around the world and check your score card.
| 225 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:03:17pm |
re: #221 brookly red
/ well everybody knows... sheesh
heh.
Stating something that is your own personal observation or is your own opinion is one thing.
This person keeps stating things that appear to be his opinion, based on perhaps his own observation, as fact. I'm just wondering where he/she got those facts.
Or is he/she trying to "convert" us?
| 226 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:03:45pm |
re: #172 Thanos
I really think it was the age of reason/ rennaissance that created the current spurt of advancement, however if you step back and look at the whole of history with non-political unjaundiced eye for just the major long term trends, you see that Humanity tends towards the good over time, and that steady progression is our hallmark. Certainly there are dives like the dark ages, but on average GDP and inflation worldwide average +3 percent, on average we increase the power and wealth all individual humans have potential to wield, and on average knowledge increases, lifepans increase, and the pace of that increase is....increasing. I've got a lot of confidence in our future barring accidental destruction of the planet.
I think that the invention of the Gutenberg printing press, allowing the mass production of copies of humanity's knowledge, so it could be learned and improved upon by the many rather than the few, had a lot to do with it.
| 227 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:04:01pm |
re: #199 pat
My piece on Obama and Acorn is generating a Johnsonian degree of hate mail. Which leaves me to believe that the Obamamaniacs have devolved.
[Link: deathby1000papercuts.com...]
This line from the Birmingham News story you link is pretty creepy:
“Those who gathered at Kelly Ingram Park in downtown Birmingham were urged to enlist others who share Obama’s vision and to stay away from trying to convert naysayers.“We’re looking for supporters,” said DeHaven of Hoover, one of the event’s organizers. “We’re not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army.”
| 228 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:04:05pm |
re: #213 reine.de.tout
I'm sorry, judging by your response you're clearly not looking for (or not capable of having) a real discussion. Since I'm being swamped here by better lines of attack, I'll bow out. Thanks.
| 229 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:04:16pm |
re: #225 reine.de.tout
heh.
Stating something that is your own personal observation or is your own opinion is one thing.This person keeps stating things that appear to be his opinion, based on perhaps his own observation, as fact. I'm just wondering where he/she got those facts.
Or is he/she trying to "convert" us?
It's turtles all the way down, and that's a fact!
;-P
| 230 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:05:56pm |
re: #225 reine.de.tout
heh.
Stating something that is your own personal observation or is your own opinion is one thing.This person keeps stating things that appear to be his opinion, based on perhaps his own observation, as fact. I'm just wondering where he/she got those facts.
Or is he/she trying to "convert" us?
yeah, i got that hence the sarc tag...
| 231 |
BignJames Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:06:09pm |
re: #222 c6gunner
Horrible example to start with. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Whether hospitals were started in the US by churches is irrelevant - hospitals existed prior to that point, and would have existed regardless of Church involvement. Far from listing thousands of good things which would not exist without religion, I sincerely doubt that you could list even one. I welcome you to try - just please, put a little more thought into it than you did with your first "example".
mmmm.....church choirs?.....are they alright?
| 232 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:06:38pm |
re: #222 c6gunner
Horrible example to start with. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Whether hospitals were started in the US by churches is irrelevant - hospitals existed prior to that point, and would have existed regardless of Church involvement. Far from listing thousands of good things which would not exist without religion, I sincerely doubt that you could list even one. I welcome you to try - just please, put a little more thought into it than you did with your first "example".
Actually if you study history you will find that almost all hospitals started with religious organizations, you find it horrible because it totally destroys the "religion is teh bad" discussion that you wish to have.
| 233 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:07:05pm |
re: #222 c6gunner
Horrible example to start with. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Whether hospitals were started in the US by churches is irrelevant - hospitals existed prior to that point, and would have existed regardless of Church involvement. Far from listing thousands of good things which would not exist without religion, I sincerely doubt that you could list even one. I welcome you to try - just please, put a little more thought into it than you did with your first "example".
Hmmm... I didn't leave yet, and notice you chose to ignore my #207 whil replying to Thanos 211? Guess you could'n't argue that as well, maybe? It seems you get to pick and choose, but so do I-I choose to GAZE-besides, I really must leave, for very personal reasons. But I'd still choose to GAZE.....Later, Lizard Nation-I really need to make a call.
| 234 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:07:23pm |
re: #229 JCM
It's turtles all the way down, and that's a fact!
;-P
OOPS!
Asking for back-up to his/her 'factual' assertions apparently means I am not capable of a real discussion.
re: #228 c6gunner
I'm sorry, judging by your response you're clearly not looking for (or not capable of having) a real discussion. Since I'm being swamped here by better lines of attack, I'll bow out. Thanks.
I don't care what your personal opinions are.
But if you base something on your own observations, say so.
If say something "is a fact", please show us where you obtained those facts.
You are correct; I am not capable of conversation with someone who believes his/her own opinions are "facts" that should be accepted by everyone.
| 235 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:08:11pm |
re: #214 JCM
Not necessarily. Faith my not be logic based, but it's output and interface with the physical world should be.
No, because if they were observable, then you would have evidence and would not require faith.
I works both ways, logic and reason don't over rule faith.
You're right, for most people they don't. But they should.
Both have their place.
I see no place for faith. It adds nothing to our knowledge, and only opens us up to exploitation by frauds and charletains. I believe we should question everything, and take nothing for granted. Only in that way can we reach our true potential as a species.
The existence of God and his action is outside the realm of science.
Only if your god doesn't interfere in the real world. Which is why modern religions generally have gods which don't do much. That way it's harder for science to prove the wrong. Turns out that modern religions did learn a thing or two from the past :)
| 236 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:08:20pm |
One good thing that might not exist without religion is art that transcends the self.
| 237 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:08:58pm |
re: #233 Pietr
Take care of your loved ones and best wishes. See you around.
| 238 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:09:41pm |
| 239 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:10:16pm |
re: #228 c6gunner
I'm sorry, judging by your response you're clearly not looking for (or not capable of having) a real discussion. Since I'm being swamped here by better lines of attack, I'll bow out. Thanks.
No, you are just being swamped period. That happens when you make ridiculous assertions.
| 240 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:10:25pm |
I have a used but rebuilt fact generator....a Factoid 101...doesn't leak any drivel and is fine for a moderate speed thread such as this one...this baby has been good to me and I'll let it go for a fair price...call me and we'll talk
| 241 |
BignJames Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:10:33pm |
| 242 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:11:13pm |
re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth
Here you go:
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS:
CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF VERY STUPID MONSTERS
What's really weird is I remember a lot of those monsters (the ones in B&W) from back when I was a gamer.
| 243 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:11:20pm |
re: #210 c6gunner
....Also nonsense. The Greeks and Romans had a good start on that, until Christians destroyed Alexandria and turned the Roman empire into an oppressive theocracy. Ok, so they turned it back around a thousand years later. Yippee. Your point is still wrong.
Christians burned the Great Library of Alexandria? Not sure there's a consensus on that.
Library of Alexandria
Q: Who burned down the Library of Alexandria?
A: This is not known, but there are generally three people that are blamed for it:
* Julius Caesar
* Theophilus
* Caliph Omar
[snip]
| 244 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:11:38pm |
re: #232 Thanos
Actually if you study history you will find that almost all hospitals started with religious organizations, you find it horrible because it totally destroys the "religion is teh bad" discussion that you wish to have.
No, I find it horrible because it really is a horrible example. I've explained the reason to you - if you refuse to acknowledge it, that's your failing.
| 245 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:11:46pm |
re: #237 callahan23
Take care of your loved ones and best wishes. See you around.
{Callahan23} Thank you, I'll do my best....
| 246 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:12:11pm |
re: #222 c6gunner
Horrible example to start with. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Whether hospitals were started in the US by churches is irrelevant - hospitals existed prior to that point, and would have existed regardless of Church involvement. Far from listing thousands of good things which would not exist without religion, I sincerely doubt that you could list even one. I welcome you to try - just please, put a little more thought into it than you did with your first "example".
You're assuming then that society would have evolved into this modern state without the need for religion on many levels. For the most part society evolved around religion so to venture into a "what if" scenario would have limited results. Religion played an important role in the cultural evolution of man over thousands of years. This is not say that its role was always positive. Regardless, whether good or bad that's the cultural record.
| 247 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:12:37pm |
re: #202 c6gunner
That's true, but it's also irrelevant. If I spend 50 years researching Bigfoot, does that mean that bigfoot is real? Does it mean you need to respect my bigfoot beliefs?
It is relevant. Person spends 50 years researching and believing something does not make it true.
However, if they spend 50 years researching something and compile a strong body of evidence, that has to be respected. I'd have to respect the evidence apart from the person.
But now we're talking about science (and using a mythological creature to discuss it, which is a little funny). Religion is based on faith. It's when you try to use science to prove it you get into trouble, or, seemingly in your case, try to disprove it.
Again, I have a problem in equivocating Judaism, Christianity, Scientology, Raelianism, and bigfoot belief as all in the same. It's much more complex than that.
| 248 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:12:59pm |
re: #233 Pietr
Hmmm... I didn't leave yet, and notice you chose to ignore my #207 whil replying to Thanos 211? Guess you could'n't argue that as well, maybe?
No, your comment was just too long, rambling, and nonsensical to bother with. Sorry. You can try again if you want, but put some effort into organizing your thoughts and making a logical argument.
| 249 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:13:54pm |
re: #244 c6gunner
No, I find it horrible because it really is a horrible example. I've explained the reason to you - if you refuse to acknowledge it, that's your failing.
I can clearly show you millions of lives saved by Religion created hospitals, you have shown me nothing. Saying it's horrible doesn't make it so, please do try again.
| 250 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:14:32pm |
re: #246 Gus 802
Religion played an important role in the cultural evolution of man over thousands of years. This is not say that its role was always positive. Regardless, whether good or bad that's the cultural record.
That's true enough, religion did guide our cultural development. I never suggested otherwise. I'm simply rejecting the idea that religion had a positive role which could not have been filled in a secular world.
| 251 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:15:35pm |
re: #250 c6gunner
Because you reject it does not make it true, anymore than creationists rejecting evolution makes their view of the world true. Try again
| 252 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:16:32pm |
re: #243 abolitionist
I never mentioned the library. Christian influence at the time was responsible for some much worse atrocities. The flaying of Hypatia is, of course, the most famous example.
| 253 |
hazzyday Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:16:52pm |
Logic and Reason are intermediate tools working on their way to the zenith of their effect. From my viewpoint they are religious activities. Their purpose might be just to make sure things are clean.
| 254 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:17:22pm |
re: #248 c6gunner
No, your comment was just too long, rambling, and nonsensical to bother with. Sorry. You can try again if you want, but put some effort into organizing your thoughts and making a logical argument.
Sorry, too long....illogical...I MUST leave, but you now have my GAZE....
re: #207 Pietr
I was gonna post an "I'm Out" post, but saw this. So NO RELIGION has any saving grace, according to you? BBBBEEEEEPPPPP, wrong answer! Most religions teach MORALITY and PERSONAL Responsibility, IMHO! I won't name any religions, as good or bad, but consider your comment inflammatory and ill concieved...that's just me. I will leave it for others t0 respond to, because I'm out. I need to call a GRAVELY ILL relative and his wife (my sister)....I leave it to others to approve or disprove....
Pietr
| 255 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:17:57pm |
re: #247 BigPapa
But now we're talking about science (and using a mythological creature to discuss it, which is a little funny). Religion is based on faith.
Ok, and why should I respect blind faith? Do I have to respect the faith of the 9/11 hijackers too? Where exactly do you draw the line?
Again, I have a problem in equivocating Judaism, Christianity, Scientology, Raelianism, and bigfoot belief as all in the same. It's much more complex than that.
How so?
| 256 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:18:54pm |
re: #244 c6gunner
No, I find it horrible because it really is a horrible example. I've explained the reason to you - if you refuse to acknowledge it, that's your failing.
The Reformation, Enlightenment, and both scientific and social advance of the last 500 years are inextricable, and complexly linked.
Merely dismissing the influence of religion is very short sided. It's not that simple.
| 257 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:20:46pm |
re: #250 c6gunner
That's true enough, religion did guide our cultural development. I never suggested otherwise. I'm simply rejecting the idea that religion had a positive role which could not have been filled in a secular world.
My response would be that it could have been filled by a secular culture. However, since it hasn't that really cannot be determined at this point. Religion could be seen as a process that led to secularism most particularly if you look at it from a cultural perspective. Would there have been secularism without religions? Did early creationist ideas evolve into a greater curiosity for the sciences and later evolution?
| 258 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:22:42pm |
Ok another example, Religion flayed hypatia during the dark recesses of history. While that was happening religions founded schools of philosophy, which eventually led to modern science. Lots of good there.
The library of Alexandria *might* have been burned by Christians, I can point to thousands of books transcribed by monks, philosophies extended by Christian scholars, and research done by religious scholars. Now do you have some more?
| 259 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:23:23pm |
WOW no meltdown yet, and we are at #257 and more.
| 260 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:24:38pm |
re: #252 c6gunner
I never mentioned the library. Christian influence at the time was responsible for some much worse atrocities. The flaying of Hypatia is, of course, the most famous example.
I thought the burning of Joan D'Arc and Bruno were more famous. Didn't learn of Hypatia until I read some histories of science and mathematics some years after college.
/being argumentative
| 262 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:25:05pm |
Billions fed all due to a Christian named Norman Borlaug who was an agricultural scientist. Billions.
Got more examples?
| 263 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:25:08pm |
The view that God moves history with an "invisible Hand" is empirically unfounded; otherwise, the hand would have to be visible to the theorizer, and this is self-contradictory. However, no one can reasonably deny that the idea of God in the minds of human agents has had a profound effect upon the evolutionary direction of events.
Literalist belief systems ultimately fail because of both their absolutist dogmatism and the inherent inability of animistic-mystical belief systems to keep pace with demythologizing explanations proffered by the dialectic of scientific progress and technical advances.
Animistic world hypotheses fail due to inadequate precision (common-sense fails). They tend to anthropomorphize magical presence into authoritarian spirit, which is crystallized into infallible, but, alas, all-too-fallible, authority. This authority breaks down under successively more central, supportable and precise criticism. Also, mystical world hypotheses fail due to a lack of scope. Their view originates with the acceptance of a "central fact". The entire universe is interpreted, whether it fits or not, as absorbed within this "fact". Where this absorption is implausible, the offending contradictory observations are denounced as unreal. The adherents of such "facts" are emotional and reductionistic. They believe themselves to be the vessels through which the "true fact" must be promulgated according to a dogma of certainty.
Both "certainty" and "infallibility" are illusions produced by inadequate world-views. What opposes them is useful truth. The pragmatists argue that the a priori of truth is utility and the existentialists argue that the a priori of utility is truth. The precedence chosen depends upon the referential frame of the chooser, and we tend to view truth and utility as co-primordial, symbiotic and mutually grounding. However, when useful truth unmasks, by counterexample of the world hypotheses' conclusions, the fallibility and uncertainty of their premises, these premises inevitably crumble. Our beliefs have, for better or worse, chosen us long enough; it is now time to reasonably choose our beliefs to avoid such contradiction. Culture has never matured before in world history; we can end all hope of its maturation in the future or ourselves be the first culture that successfully matures.
| 264 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:25:31pm |
| 265 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:26:12pm |
re: #262 Thanos
Billions fed all due to a Christian named Norman Borlaug who was an agricultural scientist. Billions.
Got more examples?
DING, DING, DING. Excellent!
| 266 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:26:16pm |
re: #261 Elcid
I'll take "Food", for one thousand, Alex.
Spice made from the dried stigmas a purple flower.
| 267 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:26:29pm |
re: #257 Gus 802
My response would be that it could have been filled by a secular culture. However, since it hasn't that really cannot be determined at this point.
Right, but it's at least plausible, which is the point. You don't actually NEED religion in order for all these positive things to occur. Ergo their argument is flawed.
Would there have been secularism without religions?
Well, yes, but the concept would have no meaning. It's like saying "would darkness exist without light". Of course it would - but nobody would even have a name for it. Similarly, we wouldn't have the word "atheism" if we had never come up with theism, but people would still be atheists.
I hope that response makes sense ...
Did early creationist ideas evolve into a greater curiosity for the sciences and later evolution?
Yes, they did, but I'm not sure I understand your point. You're essentially asking "did ignorant people learn stuff". Well, yeah, they did. So what?
| 268 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:26:51pm |
re: #264 debutaunt
What is what goes with beer or wine?
Forget that, just give me the distilled stuff.
| 269 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:27:00pm |
re: #255 c6gunner
Ok, and why should I respect blind faith? Do I have to respect the faith of the 9/11 hijackers too? Where exactly do you draw the line?
You shouldn't respect 'blind faith.' I never said you had to respect 9/11 hijackers either. It seems that I understand the difference between blind faith and not, and you can't reconcile the two. If that's so, we can't move to discussing the deeper issues between Christ, Judaism, Scientology, Raelians, and bigfoot.
| 270 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:27:41pm |
| 271 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:27:50pm |
re: #261 Elcid
I'll take "Food", for one thousand, Alex.
If it takes a chicken and a half a day and a half to lay an egg and a half, it take this long to build a straw house out of pancakes.
| 272 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:28:15pm |
| 273 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:28:18pm |
There are three schemas for the human creation of Deity as an idea in the mind. This is not to assert either that such a deity does or does not in fact exist; it is simply to show that such a Deity's existence is not an a priori for the presence of a God-concept in the human mind. God's existence or nonexistence is independent of the presence or absence of these beliefs. These three schemas are (1) psychological projection, (2) confusion of apprehension with imposition, and (3) social ground for elevated communication.
Psychological projection - The self-conscious individual projects this self-consciousness directly into the world as an anthropomorphization. This is a projection into immanent perception (animism) that is later transcendentalized. The necessary and sufficient conditions for this to occur are a world to be perceived and a self-referential perceiver.
Confusion of apprehension with perception - this is the belief that order is apprehended within a designed universe rather than imposed categorically by the ordering mind of the believer. The assumed Deific imposition of such an order leads the believer to further assume a self-conscious Deity; this is an unwarranted anthromorphic limitation of the concept.
Social ground for elevated communication - this schema requires the presence of an other. Heidegger states that objects are related to each other through the subject (as tools); reverse this and it may be seen that subjects may be related through objects in their shared perceptual field (as imposers/apprehenders of meaning). The subject is also object, however (mind manifests by means of body), and humans seem to equate their bodies with objects as the "lower" part of their presence in the world. Thus, communication occurs mediated by a "lower" ground (and a subjectively inadequate-seeming one). A pure subjectivity is therefore intersubjectively postulated to satisfy the desire to communicate on a "higher" ground. The moment such abilities and attributes are ascribed to Deity, however, that deity also becomes an object.
The basic misconception is that of an anthropomorphic God. We both observe and are participatory parts of the universe - it is not subsumed in us. The whole is not a reflection of the part; it is vice- versa.
| 274 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:28:28pm |
He's ignoring me now because I've so thoroughly refuted his silly and pernicious argument.
| 275 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:28:42pm |
re: #271 USBeast
If it takes a chicken and a half a day and a half to lay an egg and a half, it take this long to build a straw house out of pancakes.
Netflix!
| 276 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:28:55pm |
re: #264 debutaunt
What is what goes with beer or wine?
I find that beer goes nicely with beer. As a matter of fact I am sonducting research as we speak.......*hic*........
:)
| 277 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:29:13pm |
| 278 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:30:13pm |
re: #269 BigPapa
You shouldn't respect 'blind faith.' I never said you had to respect 9/11 hijackers either. It seems that I understand the difference between blind faith and not, and you can't reconcile the two. If that's so, we can't move to discussing the deeper issues between Christ, Judaism, Scientology, Raelians, and bigfoot.
We have Bigfoot down in the basement.. As long as we throw a goat down there once a week he seems pretty happy.
Half time is over..Back to the final 4
| 279 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:30:57pm |
Just for the record:
I'd rather live in a secular society rife with Christians and Jews, instead of run by atheists or worse, ROPers.
I don't know a lot of sound and balanced atheists, even are tho I is one. A lot of em seem to have a chip on their shoulder :)
| 280 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:31:03pm |
re: #260 abolitionist
I thought the burning of Joan D'Arc and Bruno were more famous. Didn't learn of Hypatia until I read some histories of science and mathematics some years after college.
/being argumentative
But Jean was a religious zealot too, so it doesn't really count :p Hypatia was a scientist and a scholar, and an extremely influential woman.
You're right, she's not well known, but her death was the precursor of the dark times which followed. She's sort of the embodiment of the fall of Rome, at least to me. The world would be a much different place today if that particular sect of Christianity hadn't managed to infect the empire.
| 281 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:31:10pm |
re: #277 albusteve
WHAT?...it got me this far
Ending the name of a food with o-roni, negates its definition.
| 282 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:32:03pm |
re: #278 HoosierHoops
We have Bigfoot down in the basement.. As long as we throw a goat down there once a week he seems pretty happy.
Half time is over..Back to the final 4
Is the goat for food or entertainment?
| 283 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:32:13pm |
re: #281 debutaunt
Ending the name of a food with o-roni, negates its definition.
right...I'll go back and read the can...I'm crushed
| 284 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:32:14pm |
re: #275 JCM
Netflix!
No. The correct question is: What is "Christmas trees don't have wheels." This is all I remember from algebra class.
| 285 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:32:48pm |
re: #284 USBeast
No. The correct question is: What is "Christmas trees don't have wheels." This is all I remember from algebra class.
LOL!
| 286 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:32:55pm |
| 287 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:32:56pm |
re: #281 debutaunt
Ending the name of a food with o-roni, negates its definition.
That's what you say Mac.....aroni......
/ :)
| 288 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:33:13pm |
re: #262 Thanos
Billions fed all due to a Christian named Norman Borlaug who was an agricultural scientist. Billions.
Got more examples?
Sorry, but that example just shows that you really don't understand the question.
| 289 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:33:14pm |
re: #267 c6gunner
I'm being a realist. We have religions in our history and for many in their lives today. Religions played a preeminent role in human development and no amount of philosophizing will change that.
| 291 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:33:45pm |
re: #284 USBeast
No. The correct question is: What is "Christmas trees don't have wheels." This is all I remember from algebra class.
HAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAA
| 292 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:33:57pm |
There is now speculation within science that a certain amount of desire to seek hope through the supernatural might be "built in" by evolution. Something to give any atheist pause to ponder.
Going way back to the long threaded hammer and tongs discussions where we were defending evolution in the face of seeming hordes of creationist trolls one of the assertions they made was that science leads to killing people. It was a ridiculous assertion, but it's equally ridiculous to assert that religion itself is an evil that causes all the ill in the world.
Indeed, according to many of the trolls at the time there can't be morals without religion, and if that is what some believe then I do wish them to worship.
| 293 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:34:46pm |
re: #288 c6gunner
No, it shows you have nothing.
| 294 |
Elcid Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:34:47pm |
re: #271 USBeast
If it takes a chicken and a half a day and a half to lay an egg and a half, it take this long to build a straw house out of pancakes.
OOOOOO, so sorry. You forgot to answer in the form of a question.
(takes out billy club and beats Alex senseless. Looking down at Alex)
Question? You want a question, Alex?
How you like me now, Alex?
There's your God damn question, Alex.
| 295 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:34:48pm |
re: #284 USBeast
No. The correct question is: What is "Christmas trees don't have wheels." This is all I remember from algebra class.
Yo, that's like, um, deep, man.
| 296 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:34:59pm |
re: #269 BigPapa
You shouldn't respect 'blind faith.' I never said you had to respect 9/11 hijackers either. It seems that I understand the difference between blind faith and not, and you can't reconcile the two. If that's so, we can't move to discussing the deeper issues between Christ, Judaism, Scientology, Raelians, and bigfoot.
Faith without evidence is blind. People here have repeatedly explained that faith is independent from evidence and reason. Ergo religious faith is blind. Are you really going to try and prove otherwise?
| 297 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:35:03pm |
re: #287 LGoPs
That's what you say Mac.....aroni......
/ :)
A-roni is perfectly acceptable and quite tasty.
| 299 |
USBeast Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:36:16pm |
re: #295 FurryOldGuyJeans
Yo, that's like, um, deep, man.
Yeah, it's deep. Hope your boots were high enough.
| 300 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:36:18pm |
re: #297 debutaunt
A-roni is perfectly acceptable and quite tasty.
Bet you wouldn't say the same about B-loni.
| 301 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:36:48pm |
re: #298 ArmyWife
Good evening, honcos. What's going on?
Good evening..Watching Mich. state vs. UConn.
| 302 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:36:50pm |
| 303 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:37:01pm |
re: #298 ArmyWife
Good evening, honcos. What's going on?
We are having a "religion doesn't == teh bad" discussion with a moby, troll, or something.
| 305 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:38:17pm |
I'm still waiting for you to actually join the discussion, Thanos :) Have you thought of an actual example yet?
| 306 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:38:24pm |
re: #298 ArmyWife
Good evening, honcos. What's going on?
Trying to undo a wedgie, thanks for asking. ;)
| 307 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:38:44pm |
re: #300 FurryOldGuyJeans
Bet you wouldn't say the same about B-loni.
Only if it has a first and second name,
| 308 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:38:56pm |
re: #303 ThanosThe moby, troll, or something's name nic is:
c6gunner
Registered since: Mar 13, 2009 at 2:29 pm
| 310 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:39:15pm |
re: #296 c6gunner
Faith without evidence is blind. People here have repeatedly explained that faith is independent from evidence and reason. Ergo religious faith is blind. Are you really going to try and prove otherwise?
I always thought faith was tempered by reason and logic. Reason being the use of the rational, empirical mind not influenced by emotion, and logic being that tool that explores whether and argument is valid or not. Perhaps faith, reason and logic balance one another. I think there is a difference between faith: the assurance of those things one hopes for, and blind faith: an unquestioning devotion to dogma or doctrine. Maybe I'm just stupid ...
| 311 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:39:27pm |
re: #304 USBeast
Never mind. Don't forget to wipe your feet.
Whoa, that is like wisdom of the ages, man. Where do you come of with it all? ;)
| 312 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:40:25pm |
| 314 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:40:49pm |
Here's C6's original assertion:
I can think of plenty of BAD things that we wouldn't have without it. Can't think of a single good one, at the moment.
I've since given him thousands of good things, millions of good things, billions of good things and his original assertion is not only thoroughly refuted, it's smashed like a bug on a windshield zooming up I-5 well above the speed limit.
| 315 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:40:56pm |
I'm checking my arteries tomorrow...I may have arterial clogitis
| 316 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:40:56pm |
| 318 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:41:15pm |
re: #310 Gang of One
I always thought faith was tempered by reason and logic. Reason being the use of the rational, empirical mind not influenced by emotion, and logic being that tool that explores whether and argument is valid or not. Perhaps faith, reason and logic balance one another. I think there is a difference between faith: the assurance of those things one hopes for, and blind faith: an unquestioning devotion to dogma or doctrine. Maybe I'm just stupid ...
Yeah, that's it, run around and make sense!
That'll show 'em!
;-)
| 319 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:41:15pm |
re: #296 c6gunner
Faith without evidence is blind. People here have repeatedly explained that faith is independent from evidence and reason. Ergo religious faith is blind. Are you really going to try and prove otherwise?
Blindness is not a monopoly of religions. Humankind has shown faith to their detriment in many other ventures (including secular beliefs) within the realm of politics, economics, etc. Many people had their faith in Hitler or Stalin.
| 320 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:42:12pm |
re: #315 albusteve
I'm checking my arteries tomorrow...I may have arterial clogitis
Better than Cranial Rectumitis.
| 321 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:42:29pm |
re: #310 Gang of One
I always thought faith was tempered by reason and logic. Reason being the use of the rational, empirical mind not influenced by emotion, and logic being that tool that explores whether and argument is valid or not. Perhaps faith, reason and logic balance one another. I think there is a difference between faith: the assurance of those things one hopes for, and blind faith: an unquestioning devotion to dogma or doctrine. Maybe I'm just stupid ...
Wow. Well, you're the exception! And while I would LOVE to have a discussion with you on that topic, I think this comments section probably isn't the place. Much too limiting.
Anyway, I have a lot more respect for your position than any of the others which I've heard so far. I just don't think that faith (religious faith in particular) CAN be supported by reason and evidence.
| 322 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:42:44pm |
| 323 |
ArmyWife Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:42:48pm |
re: #306 FurryOldGuyJeans
Trying to undo a wedgie, thanks for asking. ;)
I'd offer to help, but, you know, I am...really....ummm..busy!
| 324 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:42:58pm |
re: #320 FurryOldGuyJeans
Better than Cranial Rectumitis.
I had that once...was a stinker to deal with
| 325 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:42:59pm |
| 326 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:43:10pm |
re: #318 JCM
Yeah, that's it, run around and make sense!
That'll show 'em!;-)
Sorry. Don't know what got into me. I need a drink.
| 327 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:43:45pm |
| 328 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:43:47pm |
| 329 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:44:13pm |
re: #314 Thanos
Here's C6's original assertion:
I've since given him thousands of good things, millions of good things, billions of good things and his original assertion is not only thoroughly refuted, it's smashed like a bug on a windshield zooming up I-5 well above the speed limit.
LOL
when has anyone gone over the speed limit on I-5?
/Ok there is the grapevine but other than that...
C6..Shut the hell up...stupid friggin assertion
| 330 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:44:36pm |
re: #319 Gus 802
Blindness is not a monopoly of religions. Humankind has shown faith to their detriment in many other ventures (including secular beliefs) within the realm of politics, economics, etc. Many people had their faith in Hitler or Stalin.
Absolutely. So what? Are you trying to suggest that I'm a fan of Hitler and Stalin?
I'm opposed to ALL forms of blind faith. Religion happens to be the most pervasive, but it's hardly the only one.
| 331 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:44:54pm |
re: #318 JCM
Yeah, that's it, run around and make sense!
That'll show 'em!;-)
*PHWEET* Penalty on that play, 20 yards, offense making sense.
| 332 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:44:58pm |
re: #329 HoosierHoops
LOL
when has anyone gone over the speed limit on I-5?
/Ok there is the grapevine but other than that...
C6..Shut the hell up...stupid friggin assertion
Down the grapevine?
| 333 |
mspfacs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:45:02pm |
The best discussion and explanation I have witnessed. Single nuclear polymorphisms (evolution on the molecular level) are involved in health and disease eg. why if you give flaxseed oil to one person his ldl decreases while another time in another person you can have a poor result. The reason is one person has evolved on the molecular level to the point his liver has an enzyme to convert this to dha or a component of fishoil, while the other has not. We would not understand this if not for molecular evolution.
| 335 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:45:52pm |
re: #321 c6gunner
Wow. Well, you're the exception! And while I would LOVE to have a discussion with you on that topic, I think this comments section probably isn't the place. Much too limiting.
Anyway, I have a lot more respect for your position than any of the others which I've heard so far. I just don't think that faith (religious faith in particular) CAN be supported by reason and evidence.
Thank you, you are kind. Perhaps faith can't be supported by logic and reason, but they are not mutually exclusive, IMHO. Faith is truly an experiential thing ... you either have it or you don't. It is a conviction of things unseen but felt, unproven but known. Kinda hard to explain ...
| 336 |
Lynn B. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:45:54pm |
re: #176 c6gunner
Yeah, I knew I was wasting my time.
You're a rather rude little troll and your karma's already in the toilet. If you plan to stick around here, I'd suggest you find some manners somewhere. Until then, you're on
GAZE.
| 337 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:45:57pm |
re: #334 jaunte
The argument has grown legs and is moving its own goalposts.
I'm doing my sack dance
| 338 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:46:06pm |
re: #329 HoosierHoops
LOL
when has anyone gone over the speed limit on I-5?
/Ok there is the grapevine but other than that...
C6..Shut the hell up...stupid friggin assertion
There are stretches of I-5 outside of major population centers where one could go over the speed limit, not that anyone EVER speeds. ;)
| 339 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:47:05pm |
re: #334 jaunte
The argument has grown legs and is moving its own goalposts.
*THWACK* Die, argument! Die!
*THWACK* *THWACK*
| 340 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:47:36pm |
re: #339 FurryOldGuyJeans
"If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes."
| 341 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:47:39pm |
re: #330 c6gunner
Absolutely. So what? Are you trying to suggest that I'm a fan of Hitler and Stalin?
I'm opposed to ALL forms of blind faith. Religion happens to be the most pervasive, but it's hardly the only one.
okay...we have it...faith by it's very definition is blind in your terms even tho reason and evidence may be subjective to the faithful...so what of it?....are you somehow superior to people of faith because you reject the blind aspect of it?....wtf is your point?...
| 342 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:47:44pm |
re: #330 c6gunner
Absolutely. So what? Are you trying to suggest that I'm a fan of Hitler and Stalin?
I'm opposed to ALL forms of blind faith. Religion happens to be the most pervasive, but it's hardly the only one.
I am not suggesting you are a fan of Hitler or Stalin. You complete missed the point on that end. I focused on some examples because you seem to be overtly focused on one particular brand of faith and that's religious faith. Don't be so paranoid.
So, now that we understand that you believe there are other forms of blind faith perhaps you can share your great knowledge with the group. I have to say this, you seem to have a lot of faith in your own self which has yet to be justified.
| 343 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:47:46pm |
re: #336 Lynn B.
Yeah, I knew I was wasting my time.
Yes, with arguments like that, you certainly are. In the future, put more thought into what you're saying, and you'll avoid waisting both of our time.
| 344 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:48:33pm |
re: #210 c6gunner
So you're saying we'd have no art, no music, and no charity without religion? Please. Don't be silly.
Clearly you're the one being silly. Take your strawman arguments elsewhere. As I stated, the Church was one of the largest backers of the Arts in the 15th century. 2 of the greatest musicians in the 17th century, Bach and Handel, left large bodies of sacred music, and Vivaldi another great, was backed by the Church.
Also nonsense. The Greeks and Romans had a good start on that, until Christians destroyed Alexandria and turned the Roman empire into an oppressive theocracy. Ok, so they turned it back around a thousand years later. Yippee. Your point is still wrong.
My point is only wrong because you want it to be wrong. You did not even address what I said. What happened to Greeks and the Romans? Invaded by barbarians. The majority of people who could still read were members of the church. What was the first thing printed by Gutenberg? A Bible. It was the one book that everybody knew.
I also forgot architecture. The Church funded many architects in creating some of the most beautiful buildings in the world.
| 345 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:48:35pm |
re: #338 FurryOldGuyJeans
There are stretches of I-5 outside of major population centers where one could go over the speed limit, not that anyone EVER speeds. ;)
I hate I-5 down by San Diego...All it needs is 50 more lanes..
| 346 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:48:39pm |
re: #340 jaunte
"If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes."
Is abuse any cheaper?
| 347 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:48:56pm |
| 348 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:48:56pm |
re: #341 albusteve
okay...we have it...faith by it's very definition is blind in your terms even tho reason and evidence may be subjective to the faithful...so what of it?....are you somehow superior to people of faith because you reject the blind aspect of it?....wtf is your point?...
He just combs his hair a certain way so no one can notice the point.
| 350 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:49:32pm |
re: #344 ConservatismNow!
It's mind is severely limited, don't try logic with it.
| 351 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:49:57pm |
re: #343 c6gunner
Yes, with arguments like that, you certainly are. In the future, put more thought into what you're saying, and you'll avoid waisting both of our time.
you are a condescending asshole...
| 352 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:50:15pm |
| 353 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:50:32pm |
re: #351 albusteve
I think it's IQ is 167
| 354 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:50:53pm |
re: #349 callahan23
Yeah, gotcha.
Who'd have thunk it? I didn't know we were playing a gotcha game but I guess he does. :)
| 355 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:50:57pm |
re: #345 HoosierHoops
I hate I-5 down by San Diego...All it needs is 50 more lanes..
All 50 in one direction, with 75 in the other.
Back in the early 90's one day I happened to have been THE cause of the morning rush hour back up. Totally shut down the Coronado Bridge going to the island, and 5 miles either way on I-5.
| 356 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:51:17pm |
| 357 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:51:19pm |
| 358 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:51:25pm |
Does any one besides me have no doubt that phone sex number released by State was not so much an accident as an inadvertent release of a number on someones phone memory?
| 359 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:51:32pm |
re: #342 Gus 802
I focused on some examples because you seem to be overtly focused on one particular brand of faith and that's religious faith. Don't be so paranoid.
In other words, you decided to change the subject.
I'm "overly-focused" on one type of faith because that's what we were discussing. We weren't talking about stalin or hitler, we were talking about religion. Do you ave a problem with me trying to stay on one line of discussion, instead of involving all sorts of irrelevant sidelines?
I have to say this, you seem to have a lot of faith in your own self which has yet to be justified.
That doesn't really deserve a response.
| 360 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:52:34pm |
re: #343 c6gunner
Gee, an asshole AND a condescending prick, all rolled into one. An economical package you are.
| 362 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:53:05pm |
re: #359 c6gunner
That doesn't really deserve a response.
If you are going to discuss religion and the evil done in the name of religion isn't a valid point of comparison the evil done by the a-religious in the name of that belief system?
| 363 |
debutaunt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:53:06pm |
re: #360 FurryOldGuyJeans
Gee, an asshole AND a condescending prick, all rolled into one. An economical package you are.
Ta-dah!
| 364 |
brookly red Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:53:12pm |
gone fishing...re: #343 c6gunner
Yes, with arguments like that, you certainly are. In the future, put more thought into what you're saying, and you'll avoid waisting both of our time.
And speaking of waisting time C6, it is Saturday night in NYC & my plan is to tap some ass, not to argue with one... nothing personal. Adieu.
| 365 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:53:18pm |
| 367 |
Spar Kling Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:53:40pm |
Hmmm. Actually, the "crocaduck" described in the video is a distorted form of the "hopeful monster" branch of the theory of evolution, somewhat related to punctuated equilibrium since that explanation requires relatively rapid change in contrast to classic Darwinism.
I searched for some references to the banana story, but wasn't able to confirm it from any other source. According to [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] , "The vivid yellow color normally associated with supermarket bananas is in fact a side-effect of the artificial ripening process." Perhaps the author of the video meant that artificial ripening is also a form of evolution.
Here's what I found from different source:
Pisang Berangan (AAA) is a popular dessert banana, having good fruit quality, flavour, colour, pulp texture, size and shelf life.
However, it is relatively tall and very susceptible to Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporium f.sp cubense) and freckle disease caused by Cladosporium musae. Consequently, a mutation breeding program was initiated using gamma irradiation to induce genetic variation so that plants could be selected with one or more of the following characteristics: (a) tolerance to Panama disease; (b) short plant stature; and (c) early fruiting and high bunch weight. The present review aims to present the current status of the research, problems encountered, and research strategies.
It will be interesting to see whether this effort is successful--and it might be if the mutation is analogous to those described by Dr. Behe regarding malaria.
-sk
| 368 |
ArmyWife Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:53:57pm |
re: #364 brookly red
Oh my - you aren't secretly my husband, are you? That's a term he uses - the romantic one that he is.
| 369 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:54:00pm |
There's a bottle of Tesoro de Don Felipe Reposado calling my name:
"Pandilla de Uno, Pandilla de Uno, Pandilla de Uno ... "
/lime
//salt
| 372 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:55:25pm |
re: #362 JCM
If you are going to discuss religion and the evil done in the name of religion isn't a valid point of comparison the evil done by the a-religious in the name of that belief system?
No. First off, that's not what he was saying. More importantly, though, atheism isn't a belief system. Being a-religious isn't a belief system. It's just a rejection of religion. It's the answer to one specific question, not a series of answers, tenets, and doctrines.
| 373 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:55:33pm |
re: #359 c6gunner
That doesn't really deserve a response.
You've fast descended into ad hominem attack with everyone. At this point I would say the only thing irrelevant in this moment of space and time is yourself.
| 374 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:55:46pm |
re: #359 c6gunner
That doesn't really deserve a response.
you have made your point about faith, blind or otherwise....man up and admit you feel superior to those people of faith....quit all the fucking blab and say it...no guts no glory...make your rep right here right now big shot....you ARE superior? correct?
| 375 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:56:20pm |
re: #367 Spar Kling
And with you we get a THREEFER. You really are an economical troll.
| 376 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:57:04pm |
re: #367 Spar Kling
Holy cow. Are you attempting to catch up with Space Jesus?
| 377 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:57:12pm |
re: #367 Spar Kling
There goes 'Spar Kling' again. Michael Behe is such a pathetic fraud and embarrassment that his own university posted a notice explicitly distancing themselves from his wacky Discovery Institute hooey: Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
This is unprecedented. But in true creationist manner, Behe just keeps on spewing the hooey, because it sells books.
Who do you think you're fooling with your creationist apologetics, 'Spar Kling'? We're still waiting for that list of peer-reviewed ID papers you swore existed (it doesn't), and for you to tell us in which field of science you have a "scientific degree" (you don't).
| 378 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:57:13pm |
re: #373 Gus 802
You've fast descended into ad hominem attack with everyone. At this point I would say the only thing irrelevant in this moment of space and time is yourself.
I haven't made any ad-hom attacks, as far as I recall. I'd appreciate it if you'd point some out for me.
| 379 |
tjexcite Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:58:17pm |
Now this is evolution or something
Two vista computers that do not do the same thing when adding Winamp to both. One likes it and one still wants to default to WMP. One I can change mp3 icons one can not. One would think any difference in Hardware would not affect the GUI with the same version of vista but as with this topic some things created to be a dead ends.
| 380 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:58:57pm |
re: #367 Spar Kling
| 381 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 4:59:28pm |
| 382 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:00:08pm |
re: #376 ConservatismNow!
Holy cow. Are you attempting to catch up with Space Jesus?
A race to the bottom, ewwwwwww.
| 383 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:00:46pm |
re: #379 tjexcite
Now this is evolution or something
Two vista computers that do not do the same thing when adding Winamp to both. One likes it and one still wants to default to WMP. One I can change mp3 icons one can not. One would think any difference in Hardware would not affect the GUI with the same version of vista but as with this topic some things created to be a dead ends.
what version of Winamp on Vista? The calls might be to an older DLL.
| 384 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:00:52pm |
re: #372 c6gunner
No. First off, that's not what he was saying. More importantly, though, atheism isn't a belief system. Being a-religious isn't a belief system. It's just a rejection of religion. It's the answer to one specific question, not a series of answers, tenets, and doctrines.
IOW, void of substance?
| 385 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:00:55pm |
re: #379 tjexcite
Now this is evolution or something
Two vista computers that do not do the same thing when adding Winamp to both. One likes it and one still wants to default to WMP. One I can change mp3 icons one can not. One would think any difference in Hardware would not affect the GUI with the same version of vista but as with this topic some things created to be a dead ends.
It's flipping Microsoft, 'nuff said.
| 387 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:02:39pm |
re: #280 c6gunner
There are some influences beyond religion that easily account for the Dark Ages of Europe. There is hard scientific evidence of catastrophic natural events about 532 and 540 AD which had worldwide effects. There appear to have been some years without summer that were literally rather dark. Famine, migrations and pestilence sort of stuff followed. Then Mohammadism arose a few decades later, and spread very far within a century, from Spain to India.
I'm not buying your meme that Christianity is the great evil of the world.
| 388 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:03:09pm |
re: #384 solomonpanting
IOW, void of substance?
Eh?
If you ask me what 2+2 is, and I answer "4", is that answer void of substance?
| 389 |
MittDoesNotCompute Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:04:23pm |
re: #235 c6gunner
Damn, you're an insufferable prick, aren't you?
/my "assertion"...not enough info to make it a "fact"
| 390 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:05:16pm |
re: #387 abolitionist
And the fall of Rome, but that's a given.
| 392 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:06:01pm |
re: #388 c6gunner
Eh?
If you ask me what 2+2 is, and I answer "4", is that answer void of substance?
Smug, arrogant, and highly condescending. You keep becoming an even better value of troll the more you continue.
| 393 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:06:20pm |
re: #387 abolitionist
There are some influences beyond religion that easily account for the Dark Ages of Europe.
Sure, just as with any other historical occurrence, there are numerous causes. Some just happen to be more important than others.
I'm not buying your meme that Christianity is the great evil of the world.
Good, because I'm not buying your meme that Obama is the reincarnation of Jesus, here to bring about the rapture.
And before you respond with "I never said that" .... think about it.
| 394 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:07:17pm |
| 395 |
BryanS Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:07:19pm |
| 396 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:07:20pm |
It's either a simplex or duplicitious intelligence by its own statement. It can't think of a single good from religion.
So it's either vastly Ignorant or simplex, or it's vastly Lying, and duplicitous.
I'm voting for the second, even though there is strong evidence of the first.
| 397 |
Kosh's Shadow Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:07:31pm |
re: #379 tjexcite
Now this is evolution or something
Two vista computers that do not do the same thing when adding Winamp to both. One likes it and one still wants to default to WMP. One I can change mp3 icons one can not. One would think any difference in Hardware would not affect the GUI with the same version of vista but as with this topic some things created to be a dead ends.
Are they the same version of Vista (home, business, media center, ultimate; there are also 3 other flavors)?
If they're the same, there might be some setting that is different. I think WMP can be set to automatically reclaim file associations, so if you run it, it will take over. And that could just mean having it start in a web page.
| 398 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:08:01pm |
re: #393 c6gunner
I have to add delusional and unable to comprehend plain English to the list. Keep this up, you are becoming a better and better valued troll.
| 399 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:08:26pm |
re: #343 c6gunner
Wow, what a way to win friends and influence people.
I find it ironic that you have to prove that religion, or faith, if you will, is evil or unwarranted, or detrimental: that to prove that, you will have to challenge your own. The discussion seems to travel over two issues: whether or not there's a diety, and if religion has had an impact net positive on the human species.
Don't use one to prove the other, that's a losing proposition.
Back to the original issue: I don't believe in God, but respect others who do. Marginalizing the debate into respecting any/all is pure folly. If I respect the Jew, therefore, I have to respect the Raealian and bigfoot believer. You're smart enough to know that's fallacy.
However, the key issue is you can't see the difference. Though you know I am atheist, you are forcing me to choose a position of all/none defense of beliefs or religions by pointing to the most absurd examples and making me defend all of them. That is not the issue, at least for me, but it is for you.
Just get to the point: you don't respect and look down upon believers. You have absolute blind faith that there is no god and are doing everything you can to convert us to your religion of atheism. Just admit it :)
| 401 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:09:52pm |
re: #399 BigPapa
Wow, what a way to win friends and influence people.
If I didn't know any better I would say that Madalyn Murray O'Hair has been reincarnated.
//
| 402 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:09:58pm |
re: #374 albusteve
you have made your point about faith, blind or otherwise....man up and admit you feel superior to those people of faith....quit all the fucking blab and say it...no guts no glory...make your rep right here right now big shot....you ARE superior? correct?
that appears to be a fact
/ / / /
| 403 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:10:03pm |
re: #398 FurryOldGuyJeans
I have to add delusional and unable to comprehend plain English to the list. Keep this up, you are becoming a better and better valued troll.
these people, these intellectual superioroids really turn me off...he has made his point but resists proclaiming it's value....chicken shit with big words
| 406 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:13:20pm |
Btw, the vid I posted in 380 made me guffaw a few times...
| 409 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:15:10pm |
re: #393 c6gunner
Good, because I'm not buying your meme that Obama is the reincarnation of Jesus, here to bring about the rapture.
And before you respond with "I never said that" .... think about it.
Thought already. Can you point to evidence of that meme about Obama, Jesus and rapture that you attribute to me?
| 411 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:15:21pm |
| 414 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:15:39pm |
| 415 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:15:45pm |
Goddamn! Stinky is very quick on the trigger today! Sweet!
| 416 |
JammieWearingFool Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:15:47pm |
Is it just me or is UConn not getting any calls in this game?
I'm not a fan of theirs in the least, BTW. Just seems like they haven't gotten a call all game.
| 417 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:15:50pm |
re: #215 Salamantis
I would suggest that The Road To Serfdom by Frederick A. Hayek should be in there somewhere.
Let's see if we can even get one of the two books I mentioned to be read.
| 418 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:16:23pm |
re: #408 pingjockey
Go piss up a rope.
I say #407 deleted before I saw your reply. Stinky is quick at bat tonight.
| 420 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:16:59pm |
re: #409 abolitionist
Thought already. Can you point to evidence of that meme about Obama, Jesus and rapture that you attribute to me?
If he states it, it is fact.
Haven't you been following?
/ / / /
| 421 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:17:17pm |
re: #367 Spar Kling
You could read about bananas in, you know, a real science book. Try Jerry Coyne.
| 422 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:17:28pm |
re: #419 pingjockey
Somebody casting aspersions.
Better than we cast aspersions than cast magic missiles. Yeah. Two D&D references in one thread. I fully admit my geekdom.
| 424 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:17:33pm |
re: #417 Sharmuta
Let's see if we can even get one of the two books I mentioned to be read.
Got a first edition of Conscience of a Conservative from the local library yesterday, added to my reading queue.
| 425 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:17:36pm |
re: #416 JammieWearingFool
Is it just me or is UConn not getting any calls in this game?
I'm not a fan of theirs in the least, BTW. Just seems like they haven't gotten a call all game.
I don't know about calls..But at 2:22 Mich State is kicking the shit out of UConn. Alot of fans up north need a brown paper bag right now..Wow!
| 426 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:17:51pm |
re: #418 FurryOldGuyJeans
Just got back from my parents house with my yard work crew( the two teenagers) log on and viola' an asshat statement right there!
| 427 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:17:59pm |
re: #419 pingjockey
Somebody casting aspersions.
OK, thanks. Was wondering from which "side" it was coming from -- no telling these days. Probably best left as history.
| 428 |
Occasional Reader Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:18:09pm |
re: #416 JammieWearingFool
Is it just me or is UConn not getting any calls in this game?
I don't even know why Yukon is there at all. What are the damn Canadians doing in our national tournament?
| 429 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:18:18pm |
re: #409 abolitionist
Thought already. Can you point to evidence of that meme about Obama, Jesus and rapture that you attribute to me?
He said it, so that makes it true, haven't you been following?
| 430 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:18:51pm |
re: #425 HoosierHoops
I don't know about calls..But at 2:22 Mich State is kicking the shit out of UConn. Alot of fans up north need a brown paper bag right now..Wow!
no shit...they are in overdrive right now....Michigander here
| 432 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:19:11pm |
re: #399 BigPapa
Wow, what a way to win friends and influence people.
Thanks :) There are a couple ... "interesting" people here. I don't know why Charles puts up with such mindless trolling.
I find it ironic that you have to prove that religion, or faith, if you will, is evil or unwarranted, or detrimental
I'm not trying to prove anything of the kind, although I'd certainly agree with that statement. I simply asked for an example of something good which could not have been brought about without religion. Next thing I know I'm surrounded by little yapping dogs, trying to bite off my ankles.
The discussion seems to travel over two issues: whether or not there's a diety, and if religion has had an impact net positive on the human species. Don't use one to prove the other, that's a losing proposition.
Absolutely: they're separate issues. Being true and being beneficial aren't necessarily the same thing.
If I respect the Jew, therefore, I have to respect the Raealian and bigfoot believer. You're smart enough to know that's fallacy. However, the key issue is you can't see the difference.
You're right - I don't see the difference. To me, it's like people who go around making fun of spoon-benders, and then go home and plan their week based on a horoscope. It's silly.
Though you know I am atheist, you are forcing me to choose a position of all/none defense of beliefs or religions by pointing to the most absurd examples and making me defend all of them.
I'm not forcing you to do anything - I'm asking you to explain how you make the destinction, because I'm just not seeing it. If you can help me see it your way, that'd be great!
Just get to the point: you don't respect and look down upon believers. You have absolute blind faith that there is no god and are doing everything you can to convert us to your religion of atheism. Just admit it :)
Yes, I do look down on them, and no, I don't have blind faith that there is no god. Happy?
| 433 |
SDC Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:19:14pm |
re: #180 jantjepietje
I think we can distinguish craziness levels between faiths to quote Sam Harris "Is Mormonism crazier than Christianity? Yes because Mormonism is Christianity + some crazy ideas"
Would that not make Christianity just "Judaism + some crazy ideas"? The vast majority of Christian theology (actually, ALL theology) has been borrowed, stolen, ripped off, WHY, from EARLIER religions, primarily to make it easier for believers in those religions to convert to the flavour of the day.
| 434 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:19:15pm |
re: #428 Occasional Reader
I don't even know why Yukon is there at all. What are the damn Canadians doing in our national tournament?
don't make me come over there! LOL
that was funny
| 436 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:19:17pm |
re: #428 Occasional Reader
I don't even know why Yukon is there at all. What are the damn Canadians doing in our national tournament?
Yeah! They brought sticks too!
| 438 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:19:49pm |
re: #428 Occasional Reader
I don't even know why Yukon is there at all. What are the damn Canadians doing in our national tournament?
Same reason them Canucks let us into the NHL.
| 439 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:19:52pm |
| 440 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:20:15pm |
re: #409 abolitionist
Thought already. Can you point to evidence of that meme about Obama, Jesus and rapture that you attribute to me?
Am I not speaking English or something?
No, you didn't say that. Just like I didn't say what you were suggesting I had.
| 441 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:20:16pm |
i grow bananas. Yellow bananas are yellow. Brown brown, Purple purple, Green green (yes there are green bananas that are such when ready. The yellow varieties, there are literally hundred, are usually sweeter. The others starchier and for cooking. Plantains.
| 442 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:20:21pm |
re: #399 BigPapa
BigPapa, You Know/Realize that this troll has made Atheism a RELIGION-and is proselatyzing it to the best of his ability. He can't see beyond the end of his BELIEF in "Atheism-The Religion".....or realize how assinine his circular logic is....
I'm still trying to make my call....met some roadblocks....:>((
| 444 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:20:39pm |
| 445 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:01pm |
re: #428 Occasional Reader
I don't even know why Yukon is there at all. What are the damn Canadians doing in our national tournament?
I nuit. Somebody else would point this out too.......
/
| 447 |
SpaceJesus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:05pm |
re: #441 pat
i grow bananas. Yellow bananas are yellow. Brown brown, Purple purple, Green green (yes there are green bananas that are such when ready. The yellow varieties, there are literally hundred, are usually sweeter. The others starchier and for cooking. Plantains.
please give me one of your purple bananas
| 448 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:24pm |
re: #441 pat
i grow bananas. Yellow bananas are yellow. Brown brown, Purple purple, Green green (yes there are green bananas that are such when ready. The yellow varieties, there are literally hundred, are usually sweeter. The others starchier and for cooking. Plantains.
All 30,000 lbs.....
| 449 |
JammieWearingFool Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:31pm |
re: #425 HoosierHoops
I don't know about calls..But at 2:22 Mich State is kicking the shit out of UConn. Alot of fans up north need a brown paper bag right now..Wow!
Agreed. State is rolling them. As a Syracuse fan, I'm shedding zero tears. Although as an somewhat impartial observer, seems to me they've been getting hosed.
| 450 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:35pm |
re: #440 c6gunner
Am I not speaking English or something?
No, you didn't say that. Just like I didn't say what you were suggesting I had.
are you superior in your humanity to people of faith?
| 451 |
SpaceJesus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:38pm |
| 453 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:21:47pm |
re: #440 c6gunner
You need to move the goalposts a maximum of 5 yards each time, not 1,000.
| 454 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:22:41pm |
re: #431 spacejesus
I want a purple banana
*sigh* Dammit spacejesus. Can't you at least try to not make the setup so easy?
| 455 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:22:52pm |
I want a purple crayon
| 456 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:22:53pm |
re: #447 SpaceJesus
lol. I don't grow purple, but if you know how to cook them they are good. We used to have cooked bananas, usually fried then finished off with raw sugar, every Friday for dinner.Along with poi and beef stew. lol
| 458 |
Occasional Reader Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:23:11pm |
re: #445 LGoPs
I nuit. Somebody else would point this out too.......
/
As to this Canadian intrusion into our national pasttime... we should accept nunavut!
| 459 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:23:14pm |
UConn is baked....hahahaha! wooooeeeee!...those east coast boys got some learnin to do
| 460 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:23:25pm |
| 461 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:23:36pm |
re: #454 ConservatismNow!
I really, really had to throttle myself not to say what popped into my head!
| 462 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:24:08pm |
When I say grow, I do not mean orchard. I mean like garden. BTW, they take no care at all.
| 463 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:24:15pm |
re: #461 pingjockey
I really, really had to throttle myself not to say what popped into my head!
I heard the choking sound clear over here.
| 464 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:24:26pm |
re: #388 c6gunner
Eh?
If you ask me what 2+2 is, and I answer "4", is that answer void of substance?
A No. But so what?
B I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the rigid link of arithmatic and secularism.
C No, just the poster.
D All of the above
:)
:O
:D
:K
:P
:Q
| 465 |
EZ Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:24:31pm |
Beware, Charles thinks you're to stupid to understand science. It will be force fed you from now on. Hence the primer on Evolution. You must like it. , science will replace politics. And the sooner the better.
| 466 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:24:36pm |
re: #450 albusteve
are you superior in your humanity to people of faith?
I don't even know what that question means. What definition of "humanity" are you using in order to turn it into a personal trait?
| 467 |
SpaceJesus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:24:53pm |
re: #456 pat
lol. I don't grow purple, but if you know how to cook them they are good. We used to have cooked bananas, usually fried then finished off with raw sugar, every Friday for dinner.Along with poi and beef stew. lol
that sounds amazing.
I'm going to go find some purple bananas
| 469 |
Occasional Reader Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:25:20pm |
re: #459 albusteve
UConn is baked....hahahaha! wooooeeeee!...those east coast boys got some learnin to do
Hey, admit it; we east coast boys are hip, you really dig those styles we wear.
| 470 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:25:43pm |
re: #465 EZ
And with that stupid comment, I bid you adieu.
| 471 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:25:49pm |
re: #456 pat
lol. I don't grow purple, but if you know how to cook them they are good. We used to have cooked bananas, usually fried then finished off with raw sugar, every Friday for dinner.Along with poi and beef stew. lol
plantains fry up nice....regular bananas not so good
| 473 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:25:59pm |
re: #465 EZ
You are acting stupid here..put the frigging beer down.
| 475 |
MandyManners Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:26:07pm |
re: #465 EZ
Will you pee on Charles' dining room table now that you've told him that his furniture sucks?
| 476 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:26:10pm |
| 478 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:26:39pm |
re: #469 Occasional Reader
You mean like my teenagers? Pants down around their ass, look like they've crapped their pants.
| 479 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:26:59pm |
re: #464 solomonpanting
A No. But so what?
B I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the rigid link of arithmatic and secularism.
C No, just the poster.
D All of the aboveI'll take A :) You've managed to define atheism pretty much perfectly.
| 480 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:00pm |
| 481 |
JammieWearingFool Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:02pm |
Well, UConn sure got a call there.
Just made a dumb foul, though.
| 482 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:04pm |
| 483 |
SpaceJesus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:04pm |
re: #465 EZ
Beware, Charles thinks you're to stupid to understand science. It will be force fed you from now on. Hence the primer on Evolution. You must like it. , science will replace politics. And the sooner the better.
I'm going to give you a purple banana if you dont get off my internet
| 484 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:05pm |
re: #474 Sharmuta
I'm going to refrain......
I was thinking he could put a rubber band at the base...
| 485 |
So? Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:05pm |
O/T
This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper
one Sunday. The
Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would
You Fix the Economy?"
This guy nailed it!
Dear President Obama,
Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work
force.
Pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations:
1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings -
Unemployment fixed.
2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered -
Auto Industry
fixed..
3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed.
They could call this instant relief program the
"Fifties Asset Relief
Tender"...... or F.A.R.T. ....
| 486 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:26pm |
re: #465 EZ
Beware, Charles thinks you're to stupid to understand science. It will be force fed you from now on. Hence the primer on Evolution. You must like it. , science will replace politics. And the sooner the better.
Sentence by sentence:
- speculation
- assumes no free will
- speculation
- attributed motive
- wild speculation
- cliche
| 488 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:35pm |
re: #475 MandyManners
Will you pee on Charles' dining room table now that you've told him that his furniture sucks?
Well that Barcalounger in the corner does have a busted spring, not that I'm complaining or anything.
| 489 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:27:37pm |
re: #466 c6gunner
I don't even know what that question means. What definition of "humanity" are you using in order to turn it into a personal trait?
of course you don't...everything is an exercise in wordsmanship...I really don't care anymore, you have exposed yourself for what you are...
| 491 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:03pm |
re: #468 pingjockey
Because it's Saturday night. We all know Saturday night's alright for fighting.
| 492 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:26pm |
| 493 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:32pm |
re: #470 Charles
And with that stupid comment, I bid you adieu.
Did you block him for using to instead of too? if you did, I heartily approve. I hate people who use to instead of too.....
/ *just kidding*........
| 494 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:32pm |
re: #432 c6gunner
Yes, I do look down on them, and no, I don't have blind faith that there is no god. Happy?
What a shame, my friend. I have [a sometimes shaky] faith, have no ill toward you, but my faith puts me beneath your contempt. What have I done, besides harbor a soul that yearns for truth, that you should think you are my superior? I truly am curious.
| 495 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:47pm |
re: #483 SpaceJesus
I'm going to give you a purple banana if you dont get off my internet
You see THAT'S how you get approval and up-dings.
| 496 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:52pm |
re: #488 JCM
Well that Barcalounger in the corner does have a busted spring, not that I'm complaining or anything.
That's it, in Cookbook 2 you're on the busted Barcalounger.
| 497 |
Occasional Reader Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:55pm |
re: #470 Charles
And with that stupid comment, I bid you adieu.
Reminds me of an interview I heard once on the radio with an experienced homicide detective, who said (quoting from memory): "You'd be surprised how many peoples' last words were something along the lines of, 'go ahead and shoot! You ain't got the guts!'".
| 498 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:28:56pm |
re: #491 ConservatismNow!
I like trolls, as long as they can bring it. That fool was a rookie.
| 499 |
MittDoesNotCompute Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:29:09pm |
re: #321 c6gunner
re: #343 c6gunner
Yes, with arguments like that, you certainly are. In the future, put more thought into what you're saying, and you'll avoid waisting both of our time.
Like I said before, you're a prick...with a capital P.
/Up your nose with a rubber hose! [Welcome Back, Kotter mode off]
| 500 |
pat Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:29:15pm |
February was the snowiest month since records (albeit unreliable) have been kept. I am sure you all read that in your paper.
| 501 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:29:28pm |
re: #210 c6gunner
Also nonsense. The Greeks and Romans had a good start on that, until Christians destroyed Alexandria and turned the Roman empire into an oppressive theocracy. Ok, so they turned it back around a thousand years later. Yippee. Your point is still wrong.
CHRISTIANS destroyed Alexandria?
Wikipedia
"The destruction of the library is attributed by some historians to a period of civil war in the late 3rd century AD -- but we know that the Museum, which was adjacent to the library, survived until the 4th century. There are also allegations dating to medieval times that claim that Caliph Omar, during an invasion in the 7th century, ordered the Library to be destroyed, but these claims are generally regarded as a Christian attack on Muslims, and include many indications of fabrication, such as the claim that the contents of the Library took six months to burn in Alexandria's public baths. The legend of Caliph Omar's destruction of the library provides the classical example of a dilemma: Omar is reported to have said that if the books of the library did not contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were useless and should be destroyed; if the books did contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were superfluous and should be destroyed."
| 502 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:29:34pm |
re: #489 albusteve
of course you don't...everything is an exercise in wordsmanship...I really don't care anymore, you have exposed yourself for what you are...
If you don't care about the answer, then why ask the question?
Are you trying to be a troll?
| 503 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:29:54pm |
re: #496 jaunte
That's it, in Cookbook 2 you're on the busted Barcalounger.
Speaking of which I need to get a few recipes in for Vol. 2.
| 505 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:30:06pm |
re: #479 c6gunner
I have no faith in people that have no faith in people that have faith.
| 506 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:30:40pm |
re: #485 So?
40 Million times 1 Million+40 Trillion......I missed that when I first got it.....
| 507 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:30:45pm |
re: #470 Charles
And with that stupid comment, I bid you adieu.
Too bad we can't ding-down deleted comments, the trolls would be so deserving. ;)
| 509 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:31:58pm |
re: #507 FurryOldGuyJeans
Ah, that'd be like feeding baby ducks to alligators.
| 510 |
Bloodnok Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:32:09pm |
re: #505 Gus 802
I have no faith in people that have no faith in people that have faith.
I'll take that comment in good faith.
| 512 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:33:04pm |
re: #501 Shay4l
The other theory in the entry is Julius Caesar, before Jesus' birth, for those eager to jump on the part about Christian vs muslim propaganda.
| 513 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:33:37pm |
re: #503 JCM
Speaking of which I need to get a few recipes in for Vol. 2.
SUBMIT RECIPES OR I WILL YELL MORE!
| 515 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:33:48pm |
re: #505 Gus 802
I have no faith in people that have no faith in people that have faith.
Oh, yea of little faith!
Faith don't operate the quote button apparently.
| 518 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:34:05pm |
re: #502 c6gunner
It's April 1st when making an ass of yourself is acceptable, so why are you still doing it?
| 519 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:34:27pm |
re: #503 JCM
Speaking of which I need to get a few recipes in for Vol. 2.
Yes, or Sharmuta will yell at you.
| 520 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:34:32pm |
re: #512 Shay4l
Yep that's the ticket! I saw it in a movie. Rex Harrison did it! Really pissed Liz Taylor off.
| 521 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:34:42pm |
| 522 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:34:47pm |
re: #518 FurryOldGuyJeans
He's not religious about the calendar.
| 523 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:34:52pm |
| 525 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:35:16pm |
Winter storm warning for Detroit Monday.
Fortunately, if Michigan State wins the national championship there will be lots of overturned burning cars to melt the snow
| 526 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:35:40pm |
re: #515 JCM
Oh, yea of little faith!
Faith don't operate the quote button apparently.
Gotta have faith that you will navigate the quote button properly. :)
| 527 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:35:42pm |
re: #494 Gang of One
What a shame, my friend. I have [a sometimes shaky] faith, have no ill toward you, but my faith puts me beneath your contempt. What have I done, besides harbor a soul that yearns for truth, that you should think you are my superior? I truly am curious.
Maybe "look down on" isn't the right phrase ... I don't know. But it's the same way I'd look at some African villager who still thinks the witch-doctor can cure him by shaking a rattle. I wouldn't hate or dislike the poor bastard, but I certainly wouldn't consider him to be on equal footing with me when it comes to our understanding of the world around us.
Really, if I didn't have some empathy and understanding of you, I wouldn't bother having these discussions. So no, I don't have contempt for you. I bear you no ill will. I simply wish that you could either give me a reason to believe the things that you do, or, failing that, that you would see things from a more rational perspective.
I'm not sure how to convey the idea any better.
| 528 |
Occasional Reader Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:35:56pm |
Off to have drinks with some naive lefties. Wish me luck.
| 529 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:36:13pm |
re: #479 c6gunner
re: #464 solomonpantingA No. But so what?
B I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the rigid link of arithmatic and secularism.
C No, just the poster.
D All of the above
I'll take A :) You've managed to define atheism pretty much perfectly.
So, then:
2 + 2 = 4
is a tenet of secularism?
| 530 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:36:21pm |
re: #526 Gus 802
Gotta have faith that you will navigate the quote button properly. :)
My faith is lacking.
*hangs head in shame*
| 531 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:36:34pm |
Kudo's to Mich State!
They manned up and beat the crap out of UConn..
What friggin studs!
| 532 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:37:01pm |
| 534 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:37:10pm |
re: #528 Occasional Reader
Best of luck dealing with the delusional. Do they get more coherent after getting drunk?
| 535 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:37:19pm |
re: #528 Occasional Reader
Off to have drinks with some naive lefties. Wish me luck.
Good luck, BWAHAHAA.
| 537 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:37:54pm |
re: #432 c6gunner
Let's see if we can agree that some religions/faiths have a stronger argument/more evidence and much better salesmen than others. Having said that, there's not much scientific evidence for any of them, but the anecdotal is much stronger for Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, more so than Bigfoot and Raelians. The long ranging philisophical base and study is much more compelling and reasoned than L Ron Hubbard paperbacks. That doesn't prove the religion exists, or that all those people are right.
But 2,000 years of study, evolution, change, scripture, theology, and the fact that many people who are reasoned and highly intelligent make reasoned and highly intelligent statements regarding their faith to me, is a much more compelling argument. Not enough to convert me to a believer, but to at least respect the belief. Not just because they believe it, or the vigor with which they believe, but why.
It's all of that, not one or the other or to the exclusion of the other. It's your choice to make it all or none, or, some balance of all of the above.
After that, you can deal with how much good religion has done for humanity. Most of the things humans have done and reasons for them seem to be human conditions, even though they seem based in faith. I think the record shows that religion has had a net positive on humanity, though not from the negative of being 'the opiate of the masses.'
Scientology, Raliens, and bigfoot believers don't have that. Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism do. Islam has a shorter history and a few problems right how, so it may be some time before it goes the way of the noble religions or the cranks.
| 538 |
JammieWearingFool Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:38:01pm |
re: #514 Shug
UGONN
I'll shed no tears. Although when they got within three with a minute left they fell asleep. Just get back and play defense and who knows what happens?
Well, as a Big East-er, 'Nova is the last line of defense.
| 539 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:38:03pm |
in tribute to gunner
Blind Faith
| 540 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:38:17pm |
| 541 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:38:51pm |
| 542 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:39:16pm |
| 543 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:39:16pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
I simply wish that you could either give me a reason to believe the things that you do, or, failing that, that you would see things from a more rational perspective.
Wishing that circumstances are other than they actually are is irrational.
| 544 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:39:25pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
That is one hell of a way to talk to someone. Usually the poor person in the village isn't educated. I would say everyone here is educated to some extent in the modern world. Free will is up to each person.
| 545 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:39:28pm |
re: #538 JammieWearingFool
I'll shed no tears. Although when they got within three with a minute left they fell asleep. Just get back and play defense and who knows what happens?
Well, as a Big East-er, 'Nova is the last line of defense.
I want Nova to win just because of Jay Wright..
What a great coach..I really like him
| 546 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:40:01pm |
re: #540 Gus 802
Only if you rotate the plus sign by 45 degrees. //
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
;-P
| 547 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:40:02pm |
re: #529 solomonpanting
So, then:
2 + 2 = 4
is a tenet of secularism?
What's secularism got to do with anything?
| 548 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:40:04pm |
re: #442 Pietr
I know Pietr. I was trying to lead C6 there without beating him/her in the head with it so early.
| 549 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:41:15pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
Pull out your lighter and really freak us out.
| 550 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:42:04pm |
re: #536 JCM
But does 10+10=100?
There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary - those who do and those who don't.
| 551 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:42:07pm |
The Patriot(?) with Mel Gibson is on. Can't remember the exact title.
| 553 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:42:58pm |
re: #547 c6gunner
What's secularism got to do with anything?
My mistake.
Let me try again:
So, then:
2 + 2 = 4
is a tenet of atheism?
| 554 |
Bloodnok Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:43:05pm |
| 555 |
Racer X Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:43:34pm |
| 558 |
Emerald Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:43:50pm |
re: #126 zombie
Everything sounds better with an English accent.
I now have a mental image of Eliza Doolittle doing the narration, before Higgins' tutoring. It's very amusing, actually. Not all English accents lend the same air of credibility. :D
| 560 |
MittDoesNotCompute Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:43:59pm |
re: #432 c6gunner
Just get to the point: you don't respect and look down upon believers. You have absolute blind faith that there is no god and are doing everything you can to convert us to your religion of atheism. Just admit it :)Yes, I do look down on them, and no, I don't have blind faith that there is no god. Happy?
At least you're being somewhat truthful...at least we can be aware that you don't respect anyone who believes in any god.
/I'm intolerent of those who are intolerent...
| 562 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:44:41pm |
| 563 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:44:59pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
So you and your way of seeing things are the only RATIONAL way?!? Talk about an utterly blatant ad-hominem attack on ANYONE who believes even one micron differently than you.
Troll, you have just outed yourself.
| 565 |
MittDoesNotCompute Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:45:26pm |
| 566 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:46:54pm |
re: #537 BigPapa
I'm out of time, but I had considered responding anyway ... until I saw your response to Peter. Now I'm not so sure we have anything to discuss. Still, if you wish to continue this, copy that message and e-mail it to me at:
ducimus
at the gmail domain.
Oh, and that invitation also goes out to "Gang of One". Feel free to e-mail any time, I'm sure we can have some productive discussions.
Cheers!
| 567 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:46:58pm |
what day is it?....I feel like a mass or some spiritual endeavor...just to shore up my vibe you know
| 568 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:47:04pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
Maybe "look down on" isn't the right phrase ... I don't know. But it's the same way I'd look at some African villager who still thinks the witch-doctor can cure him by shaking a rattle. I wouldn't hate or dislike the poor bastard, but I certainly wouldn't consider him to be on equal footing with me when it comes to our understanding of the world around us.
Really, if I didn't have some empathy and understanding of you, I wouldn't bother having these discussions. So no, I don't have contempt for you. I bear you no ill will. I simply wish that you could either give me a reason to believe the things that you do, or, failing that, that you would see things from a more rational perspective.
I'm not sure how to convey the idea any better.
That "poor bastard" may not understand the world in the same way you do, through our scientific method, I suppose, but that same person may know things you do not or cannot -- esoteric, metaphysical, call it what you will, but knowledge spans more than just the empirical and replicable. You might say that same "poor bastard" without the scientific axioms sees you in the same harsh light because you cannot or will not see what he sees with his non-organic eye.
You say you have empathy and understanding of me, yet you can't fathom my choice to have faith much less the faith itself. Does this not sound like a contradiction to you? I will be honest enough to tell you that there is little rational thought in faith except that whatever reason in faith keeps it from becoming the blind faith I mentioned earlier. I see this world quite rationally, thankyouverymuch, but it is that part of me -- the faithful part of me -- that part of me that believes I am an extension of a greater, divine reality. That you do not see this makes me wonder, but instead of looking down on you, I look to you in the hope that you might someday see what I see without the need of instruments of measurement, without the limit of the finite realm.
| 569 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:47:19pm |
| 570 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:47:21pm |
22-10 on fast break points! UConn got run out of the Gym tonight.
| 571 |
c6gunner Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:47:33pm |
re: #553 solomonpanting
My mistake.
Let me try again:
So, then:
2 + 2 = 4
is a tenet of atheism?
last response: no, atheism has no tenets.
goodnight.
| 573 |
Racer X Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:48:17pm |
| 574 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:48:19pm |
re: #470 Charles
Oh man. He sho got you Charles, like reel good.
| 575 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:48:43pm |
Sure. As soon as I get here, everyone makes a run for the door.
| 577 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:49:17pm |
re: #571 c6gunner
last response: no, atheism has no tenets.
goodnight.
Sure it does.
There is no g-d.
| 578 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:49:21pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
Maybe "look down on" isn't the right phrase ... I don't know. But it's the same way I'd look at some African villager who still thinks the witch-doctor can cure him by shaking a rattle. I wouldn't hate or dislike the poor bastard, but I certainly wouldn't consider him to be on equal footing with me when it comes to our understanding of the world around us..
Good grief.
Is anyone else as thankful and oh so gratified as I am that c6gunner has lowered itself to grace us with its presence?
/
| 579 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:49:22pm |
re: #568 Gang of One
That was very nice, Gang of One.
| 580 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:49:43pm |
re: #575 Killer Tomato
Sure. As soon as I get here, everyone makes a run for the door.
Well, yeah. Who isn't afraid of an attack of the Killer Tomato?
| 581 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:49:48pm |
re: #575 Killer Tomato
Sure. As soon as I get here, everyone makes a run for the door.
So NOW we know what that wretched stench is from!
/ ducks ;)
| 582 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:49:49pm |
re: #575 Killer Tomato
Sure. As soon as I get here, everyone makes a run for the door.
I am still here, El Guapo!
| 583 |
Pietr Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:50:32pm |
re: #575 Killer Tomato
Bathroom time, nuthin' personal.....LOL.
| 585 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:51:22pm |
re: #578 reine.de.tout
Good grief.
Is anyone else as thankful and oh so gratified as I am that c6gunner has lowered itself to grace us with its presence?
/
I feel about as blessed as having Obama as POTUS.
*VOMIT*
| 586 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:51:39pm |
re: #578 reine.de.tout
Good grief.
Is anyone else as thankful and oh so gratified as I am that c6gunner has lowered itself to grace us with its presence?
/
So easy even a caveman can do it..
/Hi reine!
| 587 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:51:39pm |
re: #575 Killer Tomato
Some of are still here, but the trolls have gotten thinned out.
| 588 |
Honorary Yooper Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:51:40pm |
re: #570 HoosierHoops
22-10 on fast break points! UConn got run out of the Gym tonight.
YEAH! Great second half. I only have one thing to say about it...
| 589 |
JammieWearingFool Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:51:52pm |
re: #545 HoosierHoops
I want Nova to win just because of Jay Wright..
What a great coach..I really like him
Wright's seems like a good guy. My cousin's kid used to attend his camp when he was coaching at Hofstra. From all I've heard he's a really nice guy who really looks out for his players.
| 590 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:51:53pm |
re: #576 DEZes
I hope not. I've made Stinky pause before, which is one of my greatest thrills.
| 592 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:52:24pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
Maybe "look down on" isn't the right phrase ... I don't know. But it's the same way I'd look at some African villager who still thinks the witch-doctor can cure him by shaking a rattle. I wouldn't hate or dislike the poor bastard, but I certainly wouldn't consider him to be on equal footing with me when it comes to our understanding of the world around us.
Really, if I didn't have some empathy and understanding of you, I wouldn't bother having these discussions. So no, I don't have contempt for you. I bear you no ill will. I simply wish that you could either give me a reason to believe the things that you do, or, failing that, that you would see things from a more rational perspective.
I'm not sure how to convey the idea any better.
No, but there might very well be a lot of other things you could learn from that villager or Witch Doctor that you never considered. Just because someone does not agree with a certain set of your belief systems doesn't make him a "poor bastard" either. If you indeed prop up your ego by comparing yourself with poor villagers, by all means, go for it -- you should have no problems in thinking highly of yourself.
| 593 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:53:25pm |
re: #578 reine.de.tout
Good grief.
Is anyone else as thankful and oh so gratified as I am that c6gunner has lowered itself to grace us with its presence?
/
What ever its other traits, humility is not one of them.
| 594 |
Dustyvet Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:54:05pm |
BIBLE SALES
A pastor concluded that his church was getting into very serious financial troubles. While checking the church storeroom, he discovered several cartons of new bibles that had never been opened and
distributed.
So at his Sunday sermon, he asked for three volunteers from the congregation who would be willing to sell the bibles door-to-door for $10 each to raise the desperately needed money for the church.
Jack, Paul and Louie all raised their hands to volunteer for the task.
The minister knew that Jack and Paul earned their living as salesmen and were likely capable of selling some bibles. But he had serious doubts about Louie who was a local farmer, who had always kept
to himself because he was embarrassed by his speech impediment. Poor Louis stuttered badly. But, not wanting to discourage Louis, the minister decided to let him try anyway.
He sent the three of them away with the back seat of their cars stacked with bibles. He asked them to meet with him and report the results of their door-to-door selling efforts the following Sunday.
Anxious to find out how successful they were, the minister immediately asked Jack, "Well, Jack, how did you make out selling our bibles last week?"
Proudly handing the reverend an envelope, Jack replied, "Using my sales prowess, I was able to sell 20 bibles, and here's the $200 I collected on behalf of the church."
"Fine job, Jack!" The minister said, vigorously shaking his hand. "You are indeed a fine salesman and the Church is indebted to you."
Turning to Paul, "And Paul, how many bibles did you sell for the Church last week?"
Paul, smiling and sticking out his chest, confidently replied, "I am a professional salesman. I sold 28 bibles on behalf of the church, and here's $280 I collected."
The minister responded, "That's absolutely splendid, Paul. You are truly a professional salesman and the church is indebted to you."
Apprehensively, the minister turned to Louie and said, "And Louie, did you manage to sell any bibles last week?" Louie silently offered the minister a large envelope.
The minister opened it and counted the contents. "What is this?
"The minister exclaimed. "Louie, there's $3200 in here! Are you suggesting that you sold 320 bibles for the church, door to door, in just one week?"
Louie just nodded. "That's impossible!" both Jack and Paul said in unison. "We are professional salesmen, yet you claim to have sold 10 times as many bibles as we could."
"Yes, this does seem unlikely," the minister! agreed. "I think you'd better explain how you managed to accomplish this, Louie."
Louie shrugged. "I-I-I re-re-really do-do-don't kn-kn-know ff-f-for sh-sh-sh-sure," he stammered.
Impatiently, Peter interrupted. "For crying out loud, Louie, just tell us what you said to them when they answered the door!"
"A-a-a-all I-I-I s-s-said wa-wa-was," Louis replied, "W-w-w-w-would y-y-y-you l-l-l-l-l-like t-t-to b-b-b-buy th-th-th-this b-b-b-b-bible f-f-for t-t-ten b-b-b-bucks ---o-o-o-or--- wo-wo-wou ld yo-you j-j-j-just l-like m-m -me t-t-to st-st-stand h-h-here and r-r-r-r-r-read it t-to y-y-you?"
| 595 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:54:12pm |
re: #593 LGoPs
What ever its other traits, humility is not one of them.
Jaunte has a suspicion it's a young 'un.
The lack of humility points in that direction.
| 596 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:54:14pm |
re: #593 LGoPs
What ever its other traits, humility is not one of them.
He would argue, quite vehemently at that, he is the most humble person that ever lived.
| 597 |
snowcrash Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:54:14pm |
re: #575 Killer Tomato
Do you like a blog love story? Check this one out.
| 600 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:55:29pm |
re: #596 FurryOldGuyJeans
He would argue, quite vehemently at that, he is the most humble person that ever lived.
While simultaneously telling us that he views people who have faith in:
. . . the same way I'd look at some African villager who still thinks the witch-doctor can cure him by shaking a rattle. I wouldn't hate or dislike the poor bastard, but I certainly wouldn't consider him to be on equal footing with me when it comes to our understanding of the world around us..
| 601 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:55:48pm |
re: #596 FurryOldGuyJeans
He would argue, quite vehemently at that, he is the most humble person that ever lived.
And he can prove it too. With facts
| 602 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:55:50pm |
Beware of the person of one book.
By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments.
Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
| 603 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:55:54pm |
re: #595 reine.de.tout
Jaunte has a suspicion it's a young 'un.
The lack of humility points in that direction.
Yes. I think he's 27 years old.
| 605 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:56:18pm |
| 606 |
JammieWearingFool Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:56:20pm |
re: #588 Honorary Yooper
YEAH! Great second half. I only have one thing to say about it...
That's a great scene there. I've been to Final Fours in domes before, but never a setup like that.
| 607 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:56:35pm |
I once got into a contentious discussion with a math PhD about rudimentary arithmetic. I said, only half-joking, that my real problem was the "identity equation," i.e. 1 = 1 . It is the corollary upon which most higher math rests. But, I argued, how can you really know that 1 is in fact 1? I mean, there is no physical analog to the theoretical concept of 1. He challenged me and used as an example a carrot (we were in a kitchen at a party) -- if you have a carrot, it is one carrot.
But, I countered, picking up the carrot and sniffing it, the carrot faintly smells of carrot. And since smell is composed of molecules, not radiation or waves like light or sound, that when I smell the carrot, I am absorbing some subset of that carrot. Which means that the apparently solid unitary-ness of the carrot is an illusion: there is in reality a faint cloud of carrot-osity surrounding the carrot, which our noses can detect in the form of smell. Which means there is no distinct boundary between carrot and not-carrot. At what point to we declare carrotness to end, at what density of carrot molecules? Whatver we decide, it will be arbitrary.
And the same concept applies to every"thing."
In order for him to prove his point that "1" was a reality-based concept, I demanded that he give me an irrefutable example of one-ness in the real world. Before long, we had gotten down to the quantum level, him claiming that quanta are indivisible, hence a single quantum is an example of 1. But then i broched the subject of Heisenberg, and then strings (i.e. that quanta are just bundled up energy bits in compacted dimensions), and the argument began all over again.
He was unable to convince me of anything. Though I was half-joking when I started, I became serious, and I came away with the inescapable conclusion that arithmatic was just as theoretical as algebra, and that "1" was no more real than "x."
| 609 |
Basho Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:56:42pm |
| 610 |
Racer X Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:56:42pm |
re: #159 jantjepietje
For example air pollution kills more people than traffic.
For reals?
Because a Lancet study said so?
I have my doubts.
| 611 |
LGoPs Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:56:55pm |
re: #601 ConservatismNow!
And he can prove it too. With facts
It'd be lost on me cause, sigh, I'm just one of those poor bastards..........
/
| 612 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:57:04pm |
re: #595 reine.de.tout
Jaunte has a suspicion it's a young 'un.
The lack of humility points in that direction.
Yes it is a hatchling: c6gunner
Registered since: Mar 13, 2009
| 613 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:57:16pm |
re: #603 Gus 802
Yes. I think he's 27 years old.
I remember when I was 27. I was never that much of a sneering, smug condescending prick.
| 615 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:58:07pm |
| 616 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:58:16pm |
re: #610 Racer X
The Lancet has been huffing on a tailpipe.
| 617 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:58:16pm |
re: #604 pingjockey
I will bet its eyes are brown.
I never had time (and plain forgot, duh) to ask c6 if brown is his natural eye color or not.
| 618 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:58:19pm |
The Nova- UNC game is getting ready to start..
The Hoopster thinks guard play will win this game.. Is there a faster guard in College right now than Lawson?
| 619 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:58:33pm |
re: #528 Occasional Reader
Off to have drinks with some naive lefties. Wish me luck.
Drunk is the only way to do it!
| 620 |
Basho Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:58:36pm |
re: #607 zombie
(we were in a kitchen at a party)
Whoa... you guys must have been completely wasted. LOL
| 621 |
Gus Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:59:22pm |
re: #613 FurryOldGuyJeans
I remember when I was 27. I was never that much of a sneering, smug condescending prick.
True, same here. Humility is a virtue but apparently he didn't learn that. Condescending is a perfect word to describe him. In the end there really wasn't even much of value to what he had to say.
| 622 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:59:24pm |
re: #612 callahan23
Yes it is a hatchling: c6gunner
Registered since: Mar 13, 2009
Hm.
Well, one thing he/she has faith in, it's his/her own rightness.
| 623 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:59:29pm |
re: #617 FurryOldGuyJeans
We must remember to inquire next time.
| 624 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 5:59:50pm |
re: #620 Basho
Whoa... you guys must have been completely wasted. LOL
No -- different kind of party. One of those hoity-toity intellectual soiree type affairs. But downmarket. Red wine, not cocktails.
| 625 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:00:23pm |
re: #607 zombie
I once got into a contentious discussion with a math PhD about rudimentary arithmetic. I said, only half-joking, that my real problem was the "identity equation," i.e. 1 = 1 . It is the corollary upon which most higher math rests. But, I argued, how can you really know that 1 is in fact 1? I mean, there is no physical analog to the theoretical concept of 1. He challenged me and used as an example a carrot (we were in a kitchen at a party) -- if you have a carrot, it is one carrot.
But, I countered, picking up the carrot and sniffing it, the carrot faintly smells of carrot. And since smell is composed of molecules, not radiation or waves like light or sound, that when I smell the carrot, I am absorbing some subset of that carrot. Which means that the apparently solid unitary-ness of the carrot is an illusion: there is in reality a faint cloud of carrot-osity surrounding the carrot, which our noses can detect in the form of smell. Which means there is no distinct boundary between carrot and not-carrot. At what point to we declare carrotness to end, at what density of carrot molecules? Whatver we decide, it will be arbitrary.
And the same concept applies to every"thing."
In order for him to prove his point that "1" was a reality-based concept, I demanded that he give me an irrefutable example of one-ness in the real world. Before long, we had gotten down to the quantum level, him claiming that quanta are indivisible, hence a single quantum is an example of 1. But then i broched the subject of Heisenberg, and then strings (i.e. that quanta are just bundled up energy bits in compacted dimensions), and the argument began all over again.
He was unable to convince me of anything. Though I was half-joking when I started, I became serious, and I came away with the inescapable conclusion that arithmatic was just as theoretical as algebra, and that "1" was no more real than "x."
I hope you don't do that at all your parties!
| 626 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:00:35pm |
re: #604 pingjockey
I will bet its eyes are brown.
Hey, now!
My eyes are brown!
whatchoo saying, there?
| 627 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:01:18pm |
re: #624 zombie
No -- different kind of party. One of those hoity-toity intellectual soiree type affairs. But downmarket. Red wine, not cocktails.
You've got to stop going to parties on Van Ness.. :)
| 628 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:01:55pm |
re: #607 zombie
A long time ago (All I'll say is at least 20 years) I remember reading a little factoid about a 20 volume set outlining all of mathematics, with the first 3 and 1/2 volumes being taken up just to explain the concept of 1.
| 629 |
Neo Con since 9-11 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:02:02pm |
| 630 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:02:25pm |
re: #578 reine.de.tout
Good grief.
Is anyone else as thankful and oh so gratified as I am that c6gunner has lowered itself to grace us with its presence?
/
We are not worthy!
| 631 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:02:41pm |
I turn 27 next month. I'm already an arrogant bastard. I hope I don't turn into a condescending prick though.
| 632 |
pingjockey Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:02:43pm |
re: #626 reine.de.tout
I'm saying I think the C6whatsitsname is full of shit! You on the other hand are a very discerning person with the same eye color as me!
| 633 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:02:53pm |
re: #607 zombie
, I demanded that he give me an irrefutable example of one-ness in the real world.
If he'd only had Obama.
| 634 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:03:08pm |
re: #623 pingjockey
We must remember to inquire next time.
I used to ask it of all the trolls. Would cause a momentary continuum flux as they tried to figure out what I was getting at by repeatedly asking the question.
| 635 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:03:18pm |
Irish Rose is my favorite red wine...I shoot it with vodka and my sophisticat elbow rubbers think I'm related to Keith Richards...I love the attention
| 636 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:03:20pm |
"Palestinian groups, including Hamas’ armed wing Ezzeddine Al-Qassam Brigades, are keeping Shalit captive since the summer of 2006. The groups are demanding Israel to free 1,450 prisoners in its jails, including 450 prisoners, who serve life imprisonment for killing Israelis, in order to release Shalit."
They got a really low opinion of the worth of their own.
| 637 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:04:12pm |
re: #636 Shay4l
"Palestinian groups, including Hamas’ armed wing Ezzeddine Al-Qassam Brigades, are keeping Shalit captive since the summer of 2006. The groups are demanding Israel to free 1,450 prisoners in its jails, including 450 prisoners, who serve life imprisonment for killing Israelis, in order to release Shalit."
They got a really low opinion of the worth of their own.
Is there an unarmed wing of Hamas?
| 638 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:04:13pm |
| 639 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:04:25pm |
re: #625 Shay4l
I hope you don't do that at all your parties!
Oh, I'm much worse most of the time. I especially like arguing with people about topics to which they've devoted their whole lives.
| 640 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:04:33pm |
re: #633 Shug
re: #607 zombie
, I demanded that he give me an irrefutable example of one-ness in the real world.
If he'd only had Obama.
Uh, zombie said "one-ness", not zero.
| 641 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:04:37pm |
re: #626 reine.de.tout
Hey, now!
My eyes are brown!
whatchoo saying, there?
Your eyes are brown naturally.
/ all I'm gonna say, *ducks*
| 642 |
Basho Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:04:40pm |
re: #624 zombie
Hehehe. Well, in seriousness, 1=1 is true because we say it is. Numbers are a human invention. That they work pretty well in the real world is a bonus. The history of zero becoming a number is pretty crazy, you should find a good book at amazon.com if you care about that sort of thing.
| 643 |
abolitionist Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:05:00pm |
re: #561 pingjockey
What about octal and hexadecimal?
I'm not fond of Octal. Altho hex is valuable when working intimately with computers, I find base G (golden ratio) and base 2pi rather interesting.
In base 2pi, the "prime numbers" are completely regular, and you can represent complex numbers without resorting to the ordered-pair crutch. It is necessary to use 2 radix marks instead of one, however. A disadvantage is that most integers cannot be represented exactly (ie, they are irrational) and simple addition and subtraction are not so simple.
| 644 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:05:21pm |
| 645 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:05:23pm |
re: #597 snowcrash
awwww
If I was in a better frame of mind, I'd probably have liked it even more. As it is, right now I'm pondering the existence of a male jerk gene.
| 647 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:06:13pm |
re: #639 zombie
Oh, I'm much worse most of the time. I especially like arguing with people about topics to which they've devoted their whole lives.
I'd have to argue with you over how fun it is to eat, drink and be merry with good people?
| 648 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:08:04pm |
re: #596 FurryOldGuyJeans
I humbly look down upon you all, but regret all the damage religion has done to all you stupid humans. If there was no religion, you'd all be as 'enlightened' as I. But I say this with all due respect.
Uh.. yeah.
| 649 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:08:06pm |
re: #645 Killer Tomato
awwww
If I was in a better frame of mind, I'd probably have liked it even more. As it is, right now I'm pondering the existence of a male jerk gene.
I have to confess I do have one of them.
| 651 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:10:09pm |
re: #648 BigPapa
I humbly look down upon you all, but regret all the damage religion has done to all you stupid humans. If there was no religion, you'd all be as 'enlightened' as I. But I say this with all due respect.
Uh.. yeah.
The Vulcans from Star Trek: Enterprise weren't even close to being as condescending and sneering as said troll has been.
| 652 |
reine.de.tout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:10:14pm |
re: #632 pingjockey
I'm saying I think the C6whatsitsname is full of shit! You on the other hand are a very discerning person with the same eye color as me!
:-)
that's what I thought.
| 653 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:10:28pm |
| 655 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:11:04pm |
re: #647 Shay4l
I'd have to argue with you over how fun it is to eat, drink and be merry with good people?
It is not fun! So there!
| 656 |
snowcrash Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:11:18pm |
re: #645 Killer Tomato
All evidence is anecdotal, but I'd bet that gene exists in large portions of the population. Bummer that you are contemplating its existence tonight.
| 657 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:11:19pm |
re: #651 FurryOldGuyJeans
The Vulcans from Star Trek: Enterprise weren't even close to being as condescending and sneering as said troll has been.
"Having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. It's illogical but often true."
| 659 |
zombie Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:11:57pm |
re: #654 taxfreekiller
zombie
say I stick 110 volts to you 1 time
at that point you would believe one real good
and hate it that 1 and 1 or two as I put the 110 volts to you the second timelike that makes it real
Yeah, that would have been a convincing argument, I admit.
| 660 |
Sharmuta Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:13:44pm |
The most dangerous state in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them.
-Friedrich Hayek
| 661 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:14:29pm |
| 663 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:15:13pm |
re: #656 snowcrash
All evidence is anecdotal, but I'd bet that gene exists in large portions of the population. Bummer that you are contemplating its existence tonight.
Thanks.
| 664 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:16:14pm |
re: #660 Sharmuta
Wonderful quote. Thanks for posting, a million updings to you.
| 665 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:17:40pm |
re: #662 Sharmuta
Note to self- do not argue about 1 with tfk......
Or with Zombie, for that matter.
| 666 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:17:43pm |
How come Gus Johnson isn't calling the UNC- Nova Game?
It really should be the law..He should call every important game in College Hoops..
Mark my words..Someday Gus will get so excited calling a game that he'll have some kind of panic attack..Somebody will be calling 911..
HE JUST JUST JUMPED OVER HIM AND JAMMED IT HOME..OH MY! At the top of his screamng voice.. I love Gus..
But some day the medics will be driving him to the Hospital in the middle of a game.. He'll still be calling it in ER.
DID YOU SEE THAT SHOT?!
Sir we need to take your blood pressure..
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Sir: could you sit down for us?
| 667 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:17:51pm |
re: #660 Sharmuta
"Don't immanentize the eschaton."
--Wm. F. Buckley
| 668 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:17:55pm |
re: #664 Kenneth
Wonderful quote. Thanks for posting, a million updings to you.
Only a milliion? That comment deserves a bailout proportions of Dings!
;-P
| 670 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:18:16pm |
re: #654 taxfreekiller
it aint the voltage, it's the current what makes it sting.
| 672 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:18:32pm |
re: #660 Sharmuta
Thanks for that great quote!
| 673 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:19:16pm |
re: #667 jaunte
"Don't immanentize the eschaton."
--Wm. F. Buckley
Sign in Clarence Thomas' office:
"Please do not emanate into the penumbra."
| 674 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:19:36pm |
| 675 |
Shay4l Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:19:37pm |
OK let me see if I got the gist, so far...>
a. Smile and nod when Zombie starts looking passionate about something, and make a graceful exit.
2. Never argue with TFK about the meaning of 1.
c. Don't bother debating theology with c6gunner.
OK I'm off to provide the canine his evening exercise/disposal opportunity.
| 676 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:20:02pm |
re: #660 Sharmuta
Wow Sharm, nicely timed. Email c6gunner@rabidatheists.com.
| 677 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:20:29pm |
In systems of belief, the basic premise must lie outside the purview of knowledge. This means that it may neither be undeniably demonstrable by example, nor unequivocally denied by counterexample. Furthermore, induction proceeds from empirical data to statistically probable conclusions. The presence of a single measurable and repeatable supporting datum would place the premise within the realm of probability, which is not belief, but statistical knowledge, while the presence of a single measurable and repeatable contradicting datum would render the premise untrue. Belief systems must therefore be grounded upon absolute and not relative premises. This entails that the basic premise may not be statistically probable, in other words, it may neither be empirically verifiable nor empirically falsifiable. This of course means that belief systems may not proceed from induction.
This is true of both theism (basic premise: God is) and atheism (basic premise: God is not). Our sciences, which proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and energy is that they are sense-perceivable phenomena. These immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-upon standards of measurement that are themselves physical. These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them, our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this task. We cannot prove that God is anywhere, and neither can we prove that there is anywhere that God is not.
Induction is useless with respect to either theism or atheism; the basic premise must be believed in, rather than known, and in either case, conclusions must follow by means of deduction from the basic premise, not induction from empirically obtained data. This explains why both belief systems accept the principle of noncontradiction as apodictically (self-evidently) true. They both proceed by means of deduction from assumed a priori postulates. And adherents of either system cannot KNOW them to be true, for they lack the empirical evidence necessary to either claim such knowledge, or to falsify the opposite position (absence of any evidence for presence is not equivalent to the presence of evidence for absence). In either case, the systems can only be either BELIEVED IN, or not. And therefore theism and atheism are both systems of belief (if, that is, one is believing in the absence of God, rather than simply not having a belief in God’s presence, which is not at all the same thing). Which means that neither of them can claim to be naturalistic, scientific, or empirical, because both of them are also making supernatural, extra-empirical claims concerning deific existence or nonexistence.
One can, however, lack a belief in God's presence without having to believe in God's absence. In fact, several religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, utterly lack God-concepts. Adherents of these faiths are not so much atheistic as they are nontheistic, and many nonreligious secularists could be counted as nontheistic (rather than atheistic) as well.
| 678 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:20:34pm |
re: #670 Kenneth
it aint the voltage, it's the current what makes it sting.
That would be the amperage?
| 679 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:20:58pm |
| 680 |
Basho Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:21:22pm |
| 682 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:21:55pm |
when I first registered I used to sit up way late at night and post with tfk....just me and him sometimes...he is an awsome individual...I was never intimidated by his cryptic style like some people are, newbies I guess...tfk is the real deal and once in a while he will just talk...I feel very fortunate that I got that chance...he is a beast
| 683 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:22:15pm |
| 684 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:23:06pm |
| 686 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:23:22pm |
| 687 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:23:22pm |
| 688 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:23:25pm |
| 689 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:23:44pm |
re: #677 Salamantis
Long, involved, but very well reasoned, and with no fallacies. I give it an A and an upding.
| 690 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:23:54pm |
| 692 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:05pm |
re: #687 Gang of One
Resistance is futile.
I'm not sure I have the capacitors to understand all of this.
| 693 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:09pm |
re: #682 albusteve
when I first registered I used to sit up way late at night and post with tfk....just me and him sometimes...he is an awsome individual...I was never intimidated by his cryptic style like some people are, newbies I guess...tfk is the real deal and once in a while he will just talk...I feel very fortunate that I got that chance...he is a beast
TFK is good people...I read his stuff but I have never got a chance to talk with him personally...
| 694 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:11pm |
re: #682 albusteve
when I first registered I used to sit up way late at night and post with tfk....just me and him sometimes...he is an awsome individual...I was never intimidated by his cryptic style like some people are, newbies I guess...tfk is the real deal and once in a while he will just talk...I feel very fortunate that I got that chance...he is a beast
He's only cryptic to those who are unenlightened. ;)
| 695 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:12pm |
| 697 |
Elcid Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:27pm |
re: #674 Kenneth
Misty eyed for my award....
'I want to thank my dearly departed parents.......................................................'
| 698 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:38pm |
| 700 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:24:56pm |
re: #678 Gang of One
Yes. The amperage, or current, is the amount of electricity flowing through a conductor. The voltage is the force or pressure of that current. You can touch a very high voltage with no problem, if the current is low. That's what happens when you walk across a carpet and touch something and get a spark. On the other hand, a low voltage can still kill you if the current is high enough.
| 701 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:25:13pm |
| 703 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:25:30pm |
Are we being LED around the block with all these puns?
| 705 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:25:53pm |
re: #699 jaunte
Time to switch to another circuitous argument.
I can run my arguments in paralell and in series
| 706 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:25:58pm |
| 707 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:26:04pm |
re: #703 EmmmieG
Are we being LED around the block with all these puns?
I'm not sure. I'm a little dim.
| 708 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:26:41pm |
re: #700 Kenneth
Yes. The amperage, or current, is the amount of electricity flowing through a conductor. The voltage is the force or pressure of that current. You can touch a very high voltage with no problem, if the current is low. That's what happens when you walk across a carpet and touch something and get a spark. On the other hand, a low voltage can still kill you if the current is high enough.
When both are high?
Act like a bird on a wire.
| 709 |
ConservatismNow! Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:26:49pm |
| 710 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:27:14pm |
re: #702 JCM
You certainly have potential.
There is zero point in expending all this energy in puns.
| 712 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:27:34pm |
re: #703 EmmmieG
Are we being LED around the block with all these puns?
Nope, I'm rolling on the fluorescent, laughing.
| 713 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:27:50pm |
What prompted the TFK party? Did something happen or is this just a spontaneous event?
| 714 |
Archimedes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:27:50pm |
Charles, that was a great video! Okay, I knew most of it, but the point about the banana was new to me. I'll have to remember that one. It has real appeal. I hope I don't slip on it. :-)
| 715 |
MittDoesNotCompute Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:27:51pm |
| 716 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:01pm |
| 717 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:12pm |
I'm approaching a milestone. a 100% Karma rating.
Karma: 16,003
No. of comments posted: 16,043
man, that's a lot of comments
| 718 |
MarineMomSue Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:20pm |
| 719 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:31pm |
| 720 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:34pm |
| 721 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:36pm |
| 723 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:49pm |
I'm not in a capacitance to rectify or transduce the VAgaries of your theoretical module. Compile?
| 724 |
Dustyvet Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:28:56pm |
re: #415 pingjockey
Goddamn! Stinky is very quick on the trigger today! Sweet!
Fastest draw in the West...:)
| 725 |
Randall Gross Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:29:08pm |
| 727 |
itellu3times Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:29:24pm |
re: #607 zombie
I once got into a contentious discussion with a math PhD about rudimentary arithmetic. I said, only half-joking, that my real problem was the "identity equation," i.e. 1 = 1 . It is the corollary upon which most higher math rests. But, I argued, how can you really know that 1 is in fact 1? I mean, there is no physical analog to the theoretical concept of 1. He challenged me and used as an example a carrot (we were in a kitchen at a party) -- if you have a carrot, it is one carrot.
But, I countered, picking up the carrot and sniffing it, the carrot faintly smells of carrot. And since smell is composed of molecules, not radiation or waves like light or sound, that when I smell the carrot, I am absorbing some subset of that carrot. Which means that the apparently solid unitary-ness of the carrot is an illusion: there is in reality a faint cloud of carrot-osity surrounding the carrot, which our noses can detect in the form of smell. Which means there is no distinct boundary between carrot and not-carrot. At what point to we declare carrotness to end, at what density of carrot molecules? Whatver we decide, it will be arbitrary.
And the same concept applies to every"thing."
In order for him to prove his point that "1" was a reality-based concept, I demanded that he give me an irrefutable example of one-ness in the real world. Before long, we had gotten down to the quantum level, him claiming that quanta are indivisible, hence a single quantum is an example of 1. But then i broched the subject of Heisenberg, and then strings (i.e. that quanta are just bundled up energy bits in compacted dimensions), and the argument began all over again.
He was unable to convince me of anything. Though I was half-joking when I started, I became serious, and I came away with the inescapable conclusion that arithmatic was just as theoretical as algebra, and that "1" was no more real than "x."
The perfection of the number system does not depend on the imperfections of the real world. Plato knew that. Too bad your PhD did not.
I'm no expert on this, but a logician or number theorist could recite this stuff. The symbol for 1 is a perfect one - because we say it is! If we say we have one carrot, then that's what we say. But then, we lie a lot, and are mistaken more often, it sometimes seems it's almost luck when we get something right.
The number one plays its role in various algebraic or logical systems.
In Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, I believe they spend a lot of time on establishing these things. What the status of their writing is today, I'm not sure. I think something like my arguments above, insofar as I got it at all right, are newer.
| 728 |
Gang of One Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:29:27pm |
| 729 |
jaunte Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:29:36pm |
re: #713 Killgore Trout
What prompted the TFK party? Did something happen or is this just a spontaneous event?
He was explaining a teaching technique to Zombie upthread.
| 730 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:29:49pm |
re: #717 Shug
I'm approaching a milestone. a 100% Karma rating.
Karma: 16,003
No. of comments posted: 16,043man, that's a lot of comments
Those are Hall of Fame numbers Shrug!
| 732 |
albusteve Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:30:01pm |
re: #694 FurryOldGuyJeans
He's only cryptic to those who are unenlightened. ;)
I have enormous respect for that guy...he works his ass off to do what he thinks is right...I am totally humbled
| 733 |
Kronocide Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:30:23pm |
re: #717 Shug
Maybe some day, little BigPapa can aspire to Karma Equilibrium. Until then, tis but a dream....
| 734 |
MittDoesNotCompute Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:30:36pm |
re: #724 Dustyvet
Fastest draw in the West...:)
EZ's comment corpse hadn't hit the floor yet before we knew it was gone...
| 735 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:30:58pm |
re: #733 BigPapa
Maybe some day, little BigPapa can aspire to Karma Equilibrium. Until then, tis but a dream....
You all your Karma are belong to Sharmuta.
| 736 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:31:25pm |
re: #708 JCM
And he does this why? Stamp collecting is a safer hobby.
| 737 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:31:51pm |
re: #734 talon_262
EZ's comment corpse hadn't hit the floor yet before we knew it was gone...
CSI:The EZ episode
| 738 |
Dustyvet Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:32:29pm |
re: #688 Killer Tomato
Well currently it is.
A tomato and a lettuce had a race. The lettuce was a head, and the tomato had to ketchup.
| 739 |
Killer Tomato Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:32:32pm |
re: #734 talon_262
EZ's comment corpse hadn't hit the floor yet before we knew it was gone...
There was nothing left but a chalk outline.
| 740 |
solomonpanting Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:33:22pm |
| 742 |
Dustyvet Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:34:17pm |
Q: Why did the rivers of Ancient Greece dry up after the nine-headed monster was killed?
A: Because it was de-hydrated.
| 743 |
DEZes Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:34:31pm |
re: #717 Shug
I'm approaching a milestone. a 100% Karma rating.
Karma: 16,003
No. of comments posted: 16,043man, that's a lot of comments
So, we're both inhuman?
| 744 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:35:45pm |
re: #739 Killer Tomato
There was nothing left but a chalk outline.
Yeah, its sad. I wasn't able to properly grill him. His Gamey Buttocks got eaten raw.
| 745 |
callahan23 Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:35:48pm |
I am fallin' asleep. It is 3:35am here. Good luck 'n good night Lizards.
| 746 |
Racer X Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:35:51pm |
There is only one language common to all humans:
Math.
| 747 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:36:13pm |
re: #736 Kenneth
And he does this why? Stamp collecting is a safer hobby.
Heh, I just to run into burning buildings and think it was fun..... you are asking the wrong person.
| 748 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:36:46pm |
| 750 |
Dustyvet Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:37:48pm |
| 751 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:38:52pm |
re: #747 JCM
Fire fighter or just a strange death wish?
My brother is a fire fighter. I have huge respect your kind.
| 752 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:42:54pm |
Stupid ungrammatical headline of the day...
Israelis shoot dead armed woman
Why would the Israelis bother to shoot her if she was dead already?
Oh, her arm was dead? So why shoot her?
And exactly how many Israelis shot her? All of them? One?
| 753 |
Digital Display Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:44:11pm |
re: #752 Kenneth
Stupid ungrammatical headline of the day...
Israelis shoot dead armed woman
Why would the Israelis bother to shoot her if she was dead already?
Oh, her arm was dead? So why shoot her?
And exactly how many Israelis shot her? All of them? One?
You can't buy a good editor
| 754 |
JCM Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:46:13pm |
re: #751 Kenneth
Fire fighter or just a strange death wish?
My brother is a fire fighter. I have huge respect your kind.
Spent my first career doing that.
| 755 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:46:17pm |
re: #727 itellu3times
The perfection of the number system does not depend on the imperfections of the real world. Plato knew that. Too bad your PhD did not.
I'm no expert on this, but a logician or number theorist could recite this stuff. The symbol for 1 is a perfect one - because we say it is! If we say we have one carrot, then that's what we say. But then, we lie a lot, and are mistaken more often, it sometimes seems it's almost luck when we get something right.
The number one plays its role in various algebraic or logical systems.
In Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, I believe they spend a lot of time on establishing these things. What the status of their writing is today, I'm not sure. I think something like my arguments above, insofar as I got it at all right, are newer.
Principia Mathematica has been falsified by Kurt Godel, who proved that any logical system complex enpugh to permit self-referential statements must contain undecideable propositions, and therefore must be either incorrect (contain untruths) or incomplete (exclude truths).
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is breathtakingly simple. First we postulate Axiomatic system A, and state that every true statement, and only true statements, are contained within it. Then we create Statement B, a statement that possesses an interesting quality - self-reference; it talks about itself. And what it says is "B is not an axiom of A." What has happened here?
If we include Statement B within Axiomatic System A, then A now contains the false statement that B is not an axiom of A, but if we exclude Statement B from Axiomatic System A, then the true statement that B is not an axiom of A lies outside of A, and A therefore does not contain all true statements. B either belongs NEITHER inside NOR outside of A, or it belongs BOTH inside AND outside A (both impossible alternatives, involving the (neither X nor not-X) and the (both X and not-X) logical contradictions, respectively), and the contradiction is not resolveable within Axiomatic System A. The bottom falls out; mathematics is revealed to be fundamentally a Zen koan.
| 756 |
MarineMomSue Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:48:15pm |
re: #527 c6gunner
Maybe "look down on" isn't the right phrase ... I don't know. But it's the same way I'd look at some African villager who still thinks the witch-doctor can cure him by shaking a rattle. I wouldn't hate or dislike the poor bastard, but I certainly wouldn't consider him to be on equal footing with me when it comes to our understanding of the world around us.
Really, if I didn't have some empathy and understanding of you, I wouldn't bother having these discussions. So no, I don't have contempt for you. I bear you no ill will. I simply wish that you could either give me a reason to believe the things that you do, or, failing that, that you would see things from a more rational perspective.
I'm not sure how to convey the idea any better.
Thank G_d, you finally explained. It was nice of you to use small words, too! When I have finished looking them up, maybe I'll have a more rational perspective. Until then, I think I'll just sit here and...
GAZE
| 757 |
Kenneth Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:52:26pm |
#527 c6gunner
Really, if I didn't have some empathy and understanding of you, I wouldn't bother having these discussions. So no, I don't have contempt for you. I bear you no ill will. I simply wish that you could either give me a reason to believe the things that you do, or, failing that, that you would see things from a more rational perspective.
I feel so lucky to have you in my life!
I'm not sure how to convey the idea any better.
Oh, I don;t think you could inprove on that. It was perfect.
| 758 |
itellu3times Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:54:54pm |
re: #755 Salamantis
Principia Mathematica has been falsified by Kurt Godel, who proved that any logical system complex enpugh to permit self-referential statements must contain undecideable propositions, and therefore must be either incorrect (contain untruths) or incomplete (exclude truths).
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is breathtakingly simple. First we postulate Axiomatic system A, and state that every true statement, and only true statements, are contained within it. Then we create Statement B, a statement that possesses an interesting quality - self-reference; it talks about itself. And what it says is "B is not an axiom of A." What has happened here?
If we include Statement B within Axiomatic System A, then A now contains the false statement that B is not an axiom of A, but if we exclude Statement B from Axiomatic System A, then the true statement that B is not an axiom of A lies outside of A, and A therefore does not contain all true statements. B either belongs NEITHER inside NOR outside of A, or it belongs BOTH inside AND outside A (both impossible alternatives, involving the (neither X nor not-X) and the (both X and not-X) logical contradictions, respectively), and the contradiction is not resolveable within Axiomatic System A. The bottom falls out; mathematics is revealed to be fundamentally a Zen koan.
Salamantis, are you a mathematician? (I most certainly am not)
I believe the overall goal of PM was to establish foundations for mathematics, completeness was another (if somewhat overlapping) issue. I'm familiar with Godel, and Turing's version, and Church, and Post. Along with Wittgenstein, I am skeptical about the significance of these. Per W (and me) they're not wrong, just perhaps not significant (or relevant) to a constructive mathematical system. Of course, W was savaged for saying so, but few seem to know what it was he really said, or why.
If you want to see Godelian theory elaborated at great length in a more or less accessible form there's always Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind", which perhaps you have read.
| 759 |
jorline Sat, Apr 4, 2009 6:58:45pm |
re: #483 SpaceJesus
I'm going to give you a purple banana if you dont get off my internet
SJ...you're working on that good karma tonight I see...add another ding.
| 760 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:05:04pm |
Most mathematicians would beg to disagree with you; Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has been widely lauded as the most important theorem in mathematics. It has been considered to be such becauise it places an uppoer limit on the complexity of axiomatic systems claiming to be both correct and complete. Once an axiomatic system, be it logical or mathematical, breaches the Godelian threshhold and become complex enough to permit self-referential statements, it cannot, in rigorously proven principle, be both correct and complete.
And yes, I was a mathematics major before I switched to philosophy. After taking a logic course, abstract mathematics seemed to sterile to me, and I switched to a discipline that I perceived could be more readily pplied to real-world situations. I was wrong in that perception, but never regretted my decision to change majors, for I found philosophy to be a rich vein from which I could mine profound understandings.
| 761 |
Ateam Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:05:47pm |
re: #727 itellu3times
The perfection of the number system does not depend on the imperfections of the real world. Plato knew that. Too bad your PhD did not.
I'm no expert on this, but a logician or number theorist could recite this stuff. The symbol for 1 is a perfect one - because we say it is! If we say we have one carrot, then that's what we say. But then, we lie a lot, and are mistaken more often, it sometimes seems it's almost luck when we get something right.
The number one plays its role in various algebraic or logical systems.
In Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, I believe they spend a lot of time on establishing these things. What the status of their writing is today, I'm not sure. I think something like my arguments above, insofar as I got it at all right, are newer.
We are talking about abstract symbols. If X=1 it doesn't matter to imagine X as x, or 1 as I. The concept is important. Measuring things in reality by absolute numbers is not a necessity to show a proving theory.
/23/6985845">#23 Wishing
| 762 |
Shug Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:13:35pm |
Cooder was ranked number 8 on Rolling Stone's "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time".
I feel stupid. I've never even heard of him.
| 763 |
itellu3times Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:21:06pm |
re: #760 Salamantis
Most mathematicians would beg to disagree with you; Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has been widely lauded as the most important theorem in mathematics. It has been considered to be such becauise it places an uppoer limit on the complexity of axiomatic systems claiming to be both correct and complete. Once an axiomatic system, be it logical or mathematical, breaches the Godelian threshhold and become complex enough to permit self-referential statements, it cannot, in rigorously proven principle, be both correct and complete.
And yes, I was a mathematics major before I switched to philosophy. After taking a logic course, abstract mathematics seemed to sterile to me, and I switched to a discipline that I perceived could be more readily pplied to real-world situations. I was wrong in that perception, but never regretted my decision to change majors, for I found philosophy to be a rich vein from which I could mine profound understandings.
Sure, but who ever said mathematics should be both correct and complete? And who said this extends to claims about infinite sets? Any finite set can be tested to completion in principle, and if it is too large, then why should even its failures be relevant? In any case, however important you take Godel to be, there are other topics that it does not address.
I'm some kind of bush-philosopher at this point, in an area I'm making up as I go, which comes to something like philosophy of computation, where the topic of NP-completeness and TM halting and such is old hat. I haven't found much use for it, using a constructive approach instead. I have yet to publish anything but a few noisy messages on this or that Internet forum, but hope springs eternal.
| 764 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:25:24pm |
For instance, since we are self-consciously aware, we are ourselves recursive, and are thus B statements in the Axiomatic System A called the Universe. We are neither seamlessly and unconsciously blended with the Universe in which we find ourselves, like a rock is, nor are we completely separated from that Universe, for we perceive it, and conceive of it based upon those perceptions. And perception is perception of something that is other than the perceiver (perceiver and perceived are not identical), but also something that cannot be nonrelational to the perceiver (perceptual perspective is itself an interrelation of perceiver and perceived).
The Buddhists express this condition by saying that the self is neti, neti (not this, not that); in Christian thought, this idea is reflected in the maxim that we are IN the world, yet nevertheless not OF it.
We also, as self-consciously aware human beings, possess present yet imperfect self-awareness. We are thus neither Gods, who would perfectly self-coincide, nor things lacking all self-awareness whatsoever. We lack the unchanging being of either of these - either the perfectly knowing being of Gods or the utterly insensible being of things; we become; that is, we grow and change in understanding within our individual personal histories and the courses of our lives.
The snake of self-conscious awareness must recursively bite its own tail, but cannot swallow its own jaws, and the flashlight of perception cannot shine a light upon its own conceptual batteries.
| 765 |
Mencius Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:28:09pm |
My son has been complaining about the increasing number of guys he runs into who have turned into pompus a88holes after reading The God Delusion. Evidently C6 is a good example of the type. The arguments are all lifted from there.
| 766 |
itellu3times Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:36:36pm |
re: #764 Salamantis
I have no argument with any of that!
I suppose I even agree "we are recursive", but I don't much worry about it, I'm willing to constrain my theory entirely into a single system A and try to understand what we can do with it.
If you've ever read any Daniel Dennett, that probably comes as close as anyone in print, to the kind of thing I'm trying to do. Also been a big fan of Jerry Fodor for many years. And, oh, about twenty others, with a lot of focus on Quine and Wittgenstein, mostly in agreement.
| 767 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:37:07pm |
re: #763 itellu3times
Sure, but who ever said mathematics should be both correct and complete? And who said this extends to claims about infinite sets? Any finite set can be tested to completion in principle, and if it is too large, then why should even its failures be relevant? In any case, however important you take Godel to be, there are other topics that it does not address.
I'm some kind of bush-philosopher at this point, in an area I'm making up as I go, which comes to something like philosophy of computation, where the topic of NP-completeness and TM halting and such is old hat. I haven't found much use for it, using a constructive approach instead. I have yet to publish anything but a few noisy messages on this or that Internet forum, but hope springs eternal.
It's like the barber paradox; in a town was a barber who shaved all the people in the village who did not shave themselves. So who shaved the barber?
All such recursive paradoxes are examples of Godelian Incompleteness rending the fabric of logic - just like the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. There are many candidate members, but they cannot in principle be formed into a set without violating the set's definition.
I never claimed that Godelian Incompleteness addressed everything, but what it DOES address hs proven to be central and fundamental to the understanding of the mathematical enterprise itself, and well beyond it. For the theorem's philosophical and cognitive implications, I recommend I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter, the guy who wrote Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, and for its wider mathematical implications, I recommend Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline.
| 768 |
Euler Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:41:05pm |
re: #367 Spar Kling
I searched for some references to the banana story, but wasn't able to confirm it from any other source.
Everything you ever wanted to know about bananas*. Also some very juicy information on mangoes, guavas, kiwifruit, and more!
*but were afraid to ask.
| 769 |
itellu3times Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:54:51pm |
re: #767 Salamantis
It's like the barber paradox; in a town was a barber who shaved all the people in the village who did not shave themselves. So who shaved the barber?
All such recursive paradoxes are examples of Godelian Incompleteness rending the fabric of logic - just like the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. There are many candidate members, but they cannot in principle be formed into a set without violating the set's definition.
I never claimed that Godelian Incompleteness addressed everything, but what it DOES address hs proven to be central and fundamental to the understanding of the mathematical enterprise itself, and well beyond it. For the theorem's philosophical and cognitive implications, I recommend I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter, the guy who wrote Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, and for its wider mathematical implications, I recommend Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline.
But you see, all of this assumes a Cartesian certainty is possible, or desirable, or even useful, relevant.
Ask your zen friends about certainty, about worldly things.
It's only in some kind of Platonistic fervor for transcendental truth, that the questions even arise. I'm more interested in understanding whether the cat is on the mat. Different game entirely.
| 770 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:56:12pm |
re: #765 Mencius
My son has been complaining about the increasing number of guys he runs into who have turned into pompus a88holes after reading The God Delusion. Evidently C6 is a good example of the type. The arguments are all lifted from there.
There have been many such books written recently. Here is an (incomplete) list:
Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker
The End Of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer
God - The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist by Victor R. Stenger
Would you, if you had the power, mandate that all these books and their authors be burned? I don't think that any believers secure in their faith would agree.
| 771 |
ZoomieMSgt Sat, Apr 4, 2009 7:56:26pm |
re: #48 Charles
Of course he was expecting it Chuckie. You dedicate your life to evolution and denigrate any other opinion.
| 772 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:01:24pm |
| 773 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:05:08pm |
re: #769 itellu3times
But you see, all of this assumes a Cartesian certainty is possible, or desirable, or even useful, relevant.
Ask your zen friends about certainty, about worldly things.
It's only in some kind of Platonistic fervor for transcendental truth, that the questions even arise. I'm more interested in understanding whether the cat is on the mat. Different game entirely.
I'm interested in the scope and parameters of attainable truth, and Godel's Incompleteness theorem delineates just such a boundary. I would neither assert that the truth of everything can be known, nor would I claim that no truth can be known. Some statements can be known to be true, and other statements are undecideable as to their truth or falsity yet are nevertheless meaningful propositions, and still other propositions are false because they are self-contradictory, and still others are false because they do not correspond to observable reality, and still others are meaningless. I like knowing which are which, or at least having methods by means of which it may be ascertainable which are which.
| 774 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:10:28pm |
re: #771 ZoomieMSgt
Of course he was expecting it Chuckie. You dedicate your life to evolution and denigrate any other opinion.
People are entitled to their own opinions; what they are NOT entitled to is to teach their own set of 'facts' in public high school science class - especially when those so-called facts have been empirically falsified.
And there are much worse things one could do than to accept empirically demonstrable facts. What the Disco Institute is doing, for example.
| 775 |
lostlakehiker Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:43:17pm |
re: #607 zombie
I once got into a contentious discussion with a math PhD about rudimentary arithmetic. I said, only half-joking, that my real problem was the "identity equation," i.e. 1 = 1 . It is the corollary upon which most higher math rests. But, I argued, how can you really know that 1 is in fact 1? I mean, there is no physical analog to the theoretical concept of 1. He challenged me and used as an example a carrot (we were in a kitchen at a party) -- if you have a carrot, it is one carrot.
But, I countered, picking up the carrot and sniffing it, the carrot faintly smells of carrot. And since smell is composed of molecules, not radiation or waves like light or sound, that when I smell the carrot, I am absorbing some subset of that carrot. Which means that the apparently solid unitary-ness of the carrot is an illusion: there is in reality a faint cloud of carrot-osity surrounding the carrot, which our noses can detect in the form of smell. Which means there is no distinct boundary between carrot and not-carrot. At what point to we declare carrotness to end, at what density of carrot molecules? Whatver we decide, it will be arbitrary.
And the same concept applies to every"thing."
In order for him to prove his point that "1" was a reality-based concept, I demanded that he give me an irrefutable example of one-ness in the real world. Before long, we had gotten down to the quantum level, him claiming that quanta are indivisible, hence a single quantum is an example of 1. But then i broched the subject of Heisenberg, and then strings (i.e. that quanta are just bundled up energy bits in compacted dimensions), and the argument began all over again.
He was unable to convince me of anything. Though I was half-joking when I started, I became serious, and I came away with the inescapable conclusion that arithmatic was just as theoretical as algebra, and that "1" was no more real than "x."
1 is not part of physics reality. It is indeed purely theoretical. Mathematics as a whole has an "unreasonable effectiveness" when it comes to physics, though. We have no right to expect physics to do what mathematics says it should. But again and again, it does. Not always, but there's your "reality" of math.
| 776 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:59:24pm |
re: #775 lostlakehiker
1 is not part of physics reality. It is indeed purely theoretical. Mathematics as a whole has an "unreasonable effectiveness" when it comes to physics, though. We have no right to expect physics to do what mathematics says it should. But again and again, it does. Not always, but there's your "reality" of math.
This is because the mathematical laws that are used to describe physical reality have not been cavalierly imposed upon that reality, but have been abstracted from our investigations and interrogations of it. This class of mathematical laws are specifically designed - some more successfully than others - to accurately model physical reality, and the successful mathematical re-presentations of what reality experimentally presents to us are retained. We don't see the square peg in the round hole effect, because we mathematically whittle the equation pegs to fit. Mathematics can just as easily - in fact much more easily - be written that does NOT accurately represent reality, but what would be the point of that?
| 777 |
lostlakehiker Sat, Apr 4, 2009 9:08:34pm |
re: #755 Salamantis
Principia Mathematica has been falsified by Kurt Godel, who proved that any logical system complex enpugh to permit self-referential statements must contain undecideable propositions, and therefore must be either incorrect (contain untruths) or incomplete (exclude truths).
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is breathtakingly simple. First we postulate Axiomatic system A, and state that every true statement, and only true statements, are contained within it. Then we create Statement B, a statement that possesses an interesting quality - self-reference; it talks about itself. And what it says is "B is not an axiom of A." What has happened here?
If we include Statement B within Axiomatic System A, then A now contains the false statement that B is not an axiom of A, but if we exclude Statement B from Axiomatic System A, then the true statement that B is not an axiom of A lies outside of A, and A therefore does not contain all true statements. B either belongs NEITHER inside NOR outside of A, or it belongs BOTH inside AND outside A (both impossible alternatives, involving the (neither X nor not-X) and the (both X and not-X) logical contradictions, respectively), and the contradiction is not resolveable within Axiomatic System A. The bottom falls out; mathematics is revealed to be fundamentally a Zen koan.
The bottom does not fall out. Mathematics is the art and science of knowing something about what logically follows from what. What Goedel observed is that mathematics is not powerful enough to let us know EVERYTHING that is mathematically true. There will be some things that are true even though we cannot prove them.
That's par for the course. There are physics observations we cannot make. Chemistry experiments we cannot conduct. And the reach of human folly and majesty, we aren't going to understand either, because that too is self referential. If we were bright enough to understand each other, we'd be too bright to be understood by each other.
| 778 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:02:17pm |
re: #777 lostlakehiker
The bottom does not fall out. Mathematics is the art and science of knowing something about what logically follows from what. What Goedel observed is that mathematics is not powerful enough to let us know EVERYTHING that is mathematically true. There will be some things that are true even though we cannot prove them.
That's par for the course. There are physics observations we cannot make. Chemistry experiments we cannot conduct. And the reach of human folly and majesty, we aren't going to understand either, because that too is self referential. If we were bright enough to understand each other, we'd be too bright to be understood by each other.
The difference between Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, besides their area of application, is that Heisenbergian Uncertainty is a pragmatic and physical constraint dictated by the limitations of the means of measurement available to us (light waves of various frequencies and energy levels and their unavoidable effects upon very small objects), while Godelian Incompleteness is a theoretical constraint built into the very fabric of self-referential systems.
| 779 |
Jim D Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:08:10pm |
re: #778 Salamantis
The difference between Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, besides their area of application, is that Heisenbergian Uncertainty is a pragmatic and physical constraint dictated by the limitations of the means of measurement available to us (light waves of various frequencies and energy levels and their unavoidable effects upon very small objects), while Godelian Incompleteness is a theoretical constraint built into the very fabric of self-referential systems.
Actually you're wrong here. The uncertainty principle is indeed a theoretical constraint.
| 780 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:08:32pm |
We cannot even completely understand ourselves. And yet we all posses some degree of self-understanding. Our self-conceptions are narratives that we construct about ourselves; narratives that can never completely circumscribe the selves they purport to describe, missing elements that are subliminal and beneath conscious self-awareness, yet that nevertheless relate to those selves, because it is the selves themselves that are doing the describing.
| 781 |
Salamantis Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:16:49pm |
re: #779 Jim D
Actually you're wrong here. The uncertainty principle is indeed a theoretical constraint.
Lower frequency light is at a lower energy level, and therefore affects momentum less than light of higher frequencies, but since the waves are wider, it produces a fuzzir picture of position, while higher frequency light possesses narrower waves that can give us a finer grained picture of position, but also possesses a higher energy level, that affects momentum more.
I say that the constraint is physical rather than theoretical, because if light had different physical properties, such that it did not impart momentum-disrupting energy to its object of measurement, we could simultaneously measure both position and momentum to an arbitrarily precise degree, simply by employing light of an arbitrarily high wavelength.
It is hard to imagine an analogous alteration of the structure of self-reference that would do away with Godelian decidability limits.
| 782 |
Jim D Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:29:21pm |
re: #781 Salamantis
There is no way in even in principle to make absolutely precise simultaneous observations of position and momentum of a particle.
It follows from the mathematics of quantum mechanics without even defining the nature of the observation.
| 783 |
Aye Pod Sat, Apr 4, 2009 10:46:52pm |
Sneaky drive-by workplace post.
Although a bit cheeky, and sometimes a tad condescending, I think c6gunner is basically right. There is no strong reason to believe that benevolent acts, hospitals, art sponsorship etc would only have been provided in societies in the way that they were by religions and people of faith. I think that the desire to do good and to promote creativity etc would have been expressed in a non religious society as well, because that comes from human nature itself. Religion lays claim to these things, and orders them according to their own ideological structures, but doesn't own them and didn't invent them.
Does anyone really think that a future predominantly atheist society won't bother with hospitals, art, kind acts? Surely the benefits of these things are as tangible to non believers as they are to believers? And so it would have been in the past had religion never been a part of our history.
| 784 |
Aye Pod Sat, Apr 4, 2009 11:01:06pm |
re: #764 Salamantis
We also, as self-consciously aware human beings, possess present yet imperfect self-awareness. We are thus neither Gods, who would perfectly self-coincide, nor things lacking all self-awareness whatsoever. We lack the unchanging being of either of these - either the perfectly knowing being of Gods or the utterly insensible being of things; we become; that is, we grow and change in understanding within our individual personal histories and the courses of our lives.
A question that occurs to me - given that we understand conscoiusness to be a 'becoming' or a process of revealing thought/experience, is it possible for an omniscient being to be conscious? If you already simultaneously know everything, there's 'nowhere left to go', there could be no process.
| 785 |
Brigman Sun, Apr 5, 2009 1:01:40am |
Fasted 10 minutes ever. And I learned something!
Thanks LGF!
| 786 |
Mr Secul Sun, Apr 5, 2009 6:05:25am |
re: #10 kingkenrod
Its definitely not Yahtzee.
Did you see his halo Wars review? Excellent rant about the timed mission. :)
| 787 |
Mr Secul Sun, Apr 5, 2009 6:22:09am |
re: #51 MJBrutus
I think that philosophy is called teleology. It says that a creator created the world with light already on it's way from distant starts and the ground seeded with fossils of extinct species for us to discover, etc. I put it in the same category as the "Matrix" kind of fiction (we live in a computer world with our senses and actions virtualized and indistinguishable from the reality we think we are experiencing).
You are thinking of this.
| 788 |
Mr Secul Sun, Apr 5, 2009 6:27:17am |
re: #768 Euler
Everything you ever wanted to know about bananas*. Also some very juicy information on mangoes, guavas, kiwifruit, and more!
*but were afraid to ask.
Thanks for the link.
I wanted one but was too afraid to ask. :-)
| 789 |
shane Sun, Apr 5, 2009 7:18:35am |
I think an interesting study in evolution is the study of machines and computers today. They are continually being mutated by man and the successful ones are reproduced. Look at airplanes. They have been mutated by man since 1907 and now we have airplanes that can fly for thousands of miles. It may seem a stretch, but we are natural just like other environmental varibles. And we have been acting on the airplane. Kind of a cool way to look at it.
| 790 |
Salamantis Sun, Apr 5, 2009 3:37:14pm |
re: #789 shane
I think an interesting study in evolution is the study of machines and computers today. They are continually being mutated by man and the successful ones are reproduced. Look at airplanes. They have been mutated by man since 1907 and now we have airplanes that can fly for thousands of miles. It may seem a stretch, but we are natural just like other environmental varibles. And we have been acting on the airplane. Kind of a cool way to look at it.
Two books you might find interesting are The Evolution of Useful Things by Henry Petroski and The Evolution of Technology by George Basalla.
| 791 |
Salamantis Sun, Apr 5, 2009 3:42:41pm |
re: #782 Jim D
There is no way in even in principle to make absolutely precise simultaneous observations of position and momentum of a particle.
It follows from the mathematics of quantum mechanics without even defining the nature of the observation.
If my proposed physical change was made so that light did not impart energy to its object, one could measure to an arbitrarily high degree of precision by using arbitrarily high frequency light as one's measuring device. However, one could not measure one's object with absolute precision, for that would require the existence of light possessing an an infinitely high frequency, and the existence of such light is of course a physical impossibility.
| 792 |
Jim D Mon, Apr 6, 2009 8:50:41am |
re: #791 Salamantis
even if light had such properties, you couldn't make measurements that violate the uncertainty principle. it is a fact of quantum mechanics that is not tied to a particular method of measurement. The uncertainty relations are mathematical statements about Hermetian operators in Hilbert space. They are derived without any reference to the properties of light. Any method of observation, involving light or not, is constrained by these relations.
| 793 |
Jim D Mon, Apr 6, 2009 9:02:22am |
re: #791 Salamantis
also, assuming quantum mechanics is correct, your proposed modification of the properties of light would be impossible BECAUSE it would violate the uncertainty relations.
If you happen to know some linear algebra, I suggest picking up any elemetary text on QM and working through the derivation of the uncertainty relations for position and momentum. Perhaps then this will become clear to you.
| 794 |
Mencius Mon, Apr 6, 2009 1:39:18pm |
re: #770 Salamantis
Sorry to take so long to reply--I've been off line and/or working since you posted.
I guess I'm pretty much dumbfounded by your question--what in the world leads you to believe I would advocate burning any books? The implication however is clear: if anyone criticizes the above list, then they must be a book burner?
I haven't read all the books on your list, but I can guess they would all contain some things I would agree with and some things I wouldn't. My criticizm is aimed at the use of rather tired arguments to "discredit" the notion of God in general. The question isn't provable one way or another.
Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...
LGF Master Spy
LGF Articles Feed LGF Pages FeedThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title and text already filled in.
Last updated: 2013-05-23 5:05 pm PDT
Shiplord Kirel
Skip Intro
William Barnett-Lewis
MichaelJHeywood Jabloeme
Bubblehead II
Political Atheist Skip Intro
chadu
FemNaziBitch
KragarHeywood Jabloeme Political Atheist Skip Intro
Vicious Babushka
Bob Dillon chadu FemNaziBitch
thecommodorekristina37
Frank says:You think our music- the Monkees music is banal and insipid?" -- Frank replying to Mike Nesmith on an episode of "The Monkees" on which Frank and Mike pretended to be each other for several minutes before the opening theme.
