I’m glad to see QualiaSoup back in business at YouTube; his videos are some of the most creative presentations of logical and scientific concepts I’ve seen. This one takes a close look at the meaning of “faith.”
(Hat tip: Thanos.)
3 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 2:57:49pm |
I am sure some will take umbrage at this, but all he is saying is that you can't logically prove your God is as you say he is, and therefor you shouldn't force your views on others who might believe differently, or not believe at all.
| 4 |
Shiplord Kirel Sun, Sep 27, 2009 2:58:28pm |
It occurred to me that a lot of pseudoscience is really about rationalizing folk prejudice; that is, making it respectable enough to meet marketing requirements. Thus, witch-doctor cures become "alternate medicine," creation myths become "creation science," and garden variety tribalism becomes the "race science" of de Gobineau and Himmler.
| 5 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 2:59:30pm |
Sounds good so far. I'm betting on a Russel's Tea Pot analogy somewhere.
| 6 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:01:21pm |
Oh dear. He did it. Going to get the popcorn.
| 7 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:05:04pm |
That was a great video. It does not disprove or reject God but will be assumed as such. Too bad.
| 8 |
researchok Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:05:04pm |
Excellent. excellent video.
Well done- and reinforces that real faith is personal faith.
| 9 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:06:18pm |
Speaking of faith ... time to have some food and then start fasting for Yom Kippur. To my fellow Judeo-Lizards, all good wishes for an easy fast and a happy year. And to all other Lizards, especially the great Charles Johnson ... thanks for being great friends and great human beings!
| 10 |
researchok Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:07:32pm |
re: #3 Thanos
I am sure some will take umbrage at this, but all he is saying is that you can't logically prove your God is as you say he is, and therefor you shouldn't force your views on others who might believe differently, or not believe at all.
Faith in God precludes having to prove His existence.
If believers were to go through life reinforcing their own faith (as is the point of a personal faith), they would be better people.
Great catch Thanos.
| 11 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:07:34pm |
One of the reasons I posted this video is contained in its conclusion -- because I've been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of hatred for my position against creationism. I've been told directly that I'm doomed to burn forever in hell more than once by people sent into a rage because they assumed I was a creationist like them.
| 12 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:08:20pm |
I thought I heard heads explode while I watched this.
Seriously, though, while it's a good explanation, I found his tone at the end to resemble that of a person talking to a room full of children he thought were a little bit slow in the uptake. If I thought the way he's saying not to think, it would probably just really piss me off instead of persuading me.
| 13 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:08:21pm |
re: #9 _RememberTonyC
Speaking of faith ... time to have some food and then start fasting for Yom Kippur. To my fellow Judeo-Lizards, all good wishes for an easy fast and a happy year. And to all other Lizards, especially the great Charles Johnson ... thanks for being great friends and great human beings!
Thank you for the nice words!
| 14 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:09:43pm |
The "Fred Phelpses" kept running through my mind while watching this video.
Is that bad? What does that say about ME?
Eek.
| 15 |
researchok Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:09:52pm |
re: #11 Charles
One of the reasons I posted this video is contained in its conclusion -- because I've been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of hatred for my position against creationism. I've been told directly that I'm doomed to burn forever in hell more than once by people sent into a rage because they assumed I was a creationist like them.
Stupidity is a commodity given out by God in great abundance.
Don't let 'em get you down, Charles.
| 16 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:10:25pm |
re: #11 Charles
One of the reasons I posted this video is contained in its conclusion -- because I've been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of hatred for my position against creationism. I've been told directly that I'm doomed to burn forever in hell more than once by people sent into a rage because they assumed I was a creationist like them.
Yep, I knew you at least would get the "Join our religion of love and peace or burn in hell!" bubble.
| 17 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:11:00pm |
re: #10 researchok
Faith in God precludes having to prove His existence.
And therein lies the rub. It goes both ways: for my fellow zealous atheists, faith in non-God precludes having to prove his non-existence.
| 18 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:12:18pm |
re: #15 researchok
Stupidity is a commodity given out by God in great abundance.
Don't let 'em get you down, Charles.
I think most people have pretty good brains to start with; they just don't use them.
It's so much easier just to sit on the couch and watch soap operas.
| 19 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:14:01pm |
Many flouncers and bullies came to mind while watching that video.
| 20 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:15:18pm |
This very morning I was sitting in a big easy chair at my favorite Starbucks, drinking coffee and reading the paper. I had shorts and a tee-shirt on and was minding my business. At some point a family (father, mother, and a 3 or 4 year old girl) were standing near my chair, waiting for their order to be made. They were clearly dressed for church. The little girl was looking at me puzzled and pulls on her Dad's sleeve and points at me and says, "why isn't that man dressed for church?" The father looks down and says loudly; "some people are bad and don't go to church." I was stunned and thought briefly about telling him to go to hell but didn't because of the little girl there. But I did slam the paper down and glare at him which caused him to shuffle off to one side nervously.
| 21 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:15:41pm |
I like how this was put together. It flowed smoothly. hmmm Working on a presentation for my job, what can I pilfer, steal, take, rob, be inspired by...
| 22 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:17:07pm |
re: #21 Crimsonfisted
Thievery is the highest form of flattery.
| 23 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:18:19pm |
Very good video. Really put the finger on the ability of religion to jump between the vague and specific, and the problems with both.
It seems like the basic premise is that Catholic Christianity and Scientology are on equally unsupported ground, given that the belief systems are both built on the unprovable. However, there's a lot of testable things in most religions. Take the claim by mormons that Joseph Smith found and translated an old papyrus (despite having no knowledge of Egyptian, he was supposedly given this ability by the divine), one that was later found, translated and that had nothing to do with what he'd claimed.
The only religion I've ever really emphatized with is the Deist one. "The unmoved mover was a divine entity. The end." ;)
| 24 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:20:06pm |
The video does a great job of complementing and illustrating the spoken text. It's almost like a presentation for students.
| 25 |
Ben G. Hazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:22:21pm |
re: #20 Big Steve
This very morning I was sitting in a big easy chair at my favorite Starbucks, drinking coffee and reading the paper. I had shorts and a tee-shirt on and was minding my business. At some point a family (father, mother, and a 3 or 4 year old girl) were standing near my chair, waiting for their order to be made. They were clearly dressed for church. The little girl was looking at me puzzled and pulls on her Dad's sleeve and points at me and says, "why isn't that man dressed for church?" The father looks down and says loudly; "some people are bad and don't go to church." I was stunned and thought briefly about telling him to go to hell but didn't because of the little girl there. But I did slam the paper down and glare at him which caused him to shuffle off to one side nervously.
Don't you just love some people's idea of tolerance and understanding?
| 26 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:23:38pm |
I thought that was an excellent video, and the aspect I thought was best was the emotional manipulation. I think that's the tactic most people use when dealing with others concerning faith- especially when it comes to family. When that doesn't work- they can get downright hostile, abusive and cruel which goes to show that what they're pushing isn't really so Godly.
| 27 |
tokyobk Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:24:07pm |
Thinking also from an earlier thread about LGF/Kos, this video about the danger of asserting the unprovable onto others shows why --at this moment in history-- (because at other times is was other religions) there must be rigorous public critique of the Sharia that is strongly prefaced with equal scorn for the denigration of the people who simply inherit that source of their belief system as a starting point, or simply come from an Islamic country. The second, along with gratuitously denigrating color, dress, diet, language etc... would indeed be what people call "Islamophobia," but the first is a right and perhaps duty of anyone who believes in equal rights for woman, gays, religious minorities and atheists/agnostics to simply not believe.
A few years ago, (I thought) I saw that kind of discussion across many sites, but obviously not now where there is an unfortunate blurring of the above.
Sometimes, I think that Islam is the last religion, meaning the last one that makes a genuine assertion for supremacy over the modern world. Though I know many people believe fundie Xianity is making a serious effort to reassert itself.
| 28 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:24:44pm |
EVERYONE WHO WATCHES THIS BLASPHEMOUS VIDEO IS GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
| 29 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:25:42pm |
I knew you couldn't resist posting this video, Charles. In fact, I said as much last night. It's just too relevant to what's been happening these days.
Damn glad ya did. Evidence, truth, reason, logic and rationality should not have to hide their faces, avert their eyes, or bow on their knees before anyone, any political system, or any faith.
| 30 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:25:48pm |
re: #20 Big Steve
My stock answer to that scenario is to explain that I stay away from church because I noticed they have a guy hung up in the wall there, I'm afraid I could be next if I went in.
| 32 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:26:40pm |
For those interested there is a significant part of modern Philosophy devoted to belief in the basis of knowledge. Some of the philosophers who explored this were Carnap, and Wittgenstein and later Chisholm. About the best that ever came of it was that one could state that belief statements are only meaningful to describe sentences and not the world. For example if you said that "Big Steve believes in unicorns"...what you can only really know is that there is a sentence "Q" which translates "P" and Big Steve is disposed to give an affirmative response to the question "Q". Sadly this is how philosophers actually think and talk.
| 33 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:27:00pm |
A good presentation. Pretty much sums up the reasons I became an atheist; not out of some hostility to religion, but because the concept of God/gods always winds up wandering outside the realm of the logically possible.
| 34 |
SixDegrees Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:27:02pm |
re: #20 Big Steve
This very morning I was sitting in a big easy chair at my favorite Starbucks, drinking coffee and reading the paper. I had shorts and a tee-shirt on and was minding my business. At some point a family (father, mother, and a 3 or 4 year old girl) were standing near my chair, waiting for their order to be made. They were clearly dressed for church. The little girl was looking at me puzzled and pulls on her Dad's sleeve and points at me and says, "why isn't that man dressed for church?" The father looks down and says loudly; "some people are bad and don't go to church." I was stunned and thought briefly about telling him to go to hell but didn't because of the little girl there. But I did slam the paper down and glare at him which caused him to shuffle off to one side nervously.
It's events like this which make me seriously question the near-universal prohibition against urinating on people in public.
| 36 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:27:32pm |
re: #24 Ray in TX
The video does a great job of complementing and illustrating the spoken text. It's almost like a presentation for students.
It's a great lesson in logic.
| 37 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:27:48pm |
re: #28 Occasional Reader
EVERYONE WHO WATCHES THIS BLASPHEMOUS VIDEO IS GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
meet ya there!
| 38 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:27:56pm |
re: #22 BigPapa
Thievery is the highest form of flattery.
"Cheating is the gift one gives to one's self."
-Montgomery Burns (my role model)
| 40 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:28:54pm |
re: #28 Occasional Reader
EVERYONE WHO WATCHES THIS BLASPHEMOUS VIDEO IS GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Its OK. I brought a case o' Heineken.
| 41 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:29:26pm |
Somebody's going to have to translate the Britishism about "shouting the odds" for me. Never heard that one.
| 42 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:30:28pm |
re: #40 poteen
Its OK. I brought a case o' Heineken.
Heineken?! They get Dogfish Head in heaven.
REPENT!
| 43 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:30:41pm |
re: #41 Occasional Reader
Somebody's going to have to translate the Britishism about "shouting the odds" for me. Never heard that one.
It means to shut down an argument by yelling and screaming.
| 44 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:30:46pm |
I also find it rather interesting that you would post it immediately after an open registration period.
Perhaps using it as Drano to clean the LGF pipes of new trolls?
| 45 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:31:19pm |
re: #36 Sharmuta
It's a great lesson in logic.
Needed to be repeated. And I would like to learn to think more like that, to reason arguments on logic and fact better than I do. I cannot argue with Mr Fisted. Ever. I lose everytime. It SUCKS.
FYI, my faith remains in tact, my devotion to God, unchanged. Hmm, I wonder why that is? I don't get into people's faces like they described in the video, not ever.
| 46 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:32:43pm |
And this atheist is also quick to add that, per the observation about being judged by behavior that comes at the end of the video, it's equally important that an atheist reciprocate with respect and decency to those people who have religious beliefs, but who don't try to bully or browbeat.
| 47 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:33:06pm |
re: #32 Big Steve
Just another case of applied investigation trampling all over what seems to be obvious.
Turns out that the obviousness of "the sky is blue" isn't true at all, the sky getting its colour from the interaction of light through gas(es), translated through our eyes and visual cortex.
Turns out that there seems to be a lack of life in the universe, even though my garden is crawling with it.
If this holds up, it should turn out women are remarkably easy to understand..
/?
| 48 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:33:23pm |
re: #33 Occasional Reader
A good presentation. Pretty much sums up the reasons I became an atheist; not out of some hostility to religion, but because the concept of God/gods always winds up wandering outside the realm of the logically possible.
But no religious person will likely disagree with you on that. As I see it, the video is countering the efforts of some who attempt to contradict themselves by proving the impossible. You and I need to prove nothing, nor offend anyone by doing so.
| 49 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:33:31pm |
re: #43 Charles
It means to shut down an argument by yelling and screaming.
Huh. Thanks. I thought my British was pretty fluent, but that's a new one.
| 50 |
austin_blue Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:34:29pm |
re: #23 cenotaphium
Very good video. Really put the finger on the ability of religion to jump between the vague and specific, and the problems with both.
It seems like the basic premise is that Catholic Christianity and Scientology are on equally unsupported ground, given that the belief systems are both built on the unprovable. However, there's a lot of testable things in most religions. Take the claim by mormons that Joseph Smith found and translated an old papyrus (despite having no knowledge of Egyptian, he was supposedly given this ability by the divine), one that was later found, translated and that had nothing to do with what he'd claimed.
The only religion I've ever really emphatized with is the Deist one. "The unmoved mover was a divine entity. The end." ;)
Yo!
(waves and shows the Newbie the Secret Deist Handshake of Tolerance).
| 52 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:35:12pm |
re: #47 cenotaphium
If this holds up, it should turn out women are remarkably easy to understand./?
sarc tag or not me thinks you might be hearing from Mandy soon!!
| 53 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:35:40pm |
| 54 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:36:16pm |
re: #42 Occasional Reader
I want Dogfish Head IPAs in heaven, and Hair of the Dog heavy ales. Only I don't really believe in heaven, I'm more of a Ben Franklin deist type. Everything gets recycled!
"Take courage mortal, death cannot banish you from the universe."
-Ben Franklin
| 55 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:36:41pm |
re: #51 BigPapa
Logic: the New Witchcraft.
I want to be the High Priestess!
(Got a long way to go.)
What the heck are you grilling in your nic image? Meatballs?
| 56 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:36:55pm |
I both believe unquestioningly (deep down) and fail to believe. Most days, this doesn't bother me at all.
music
art
poetry
humor
pandas
the fact that my heart soars at useless things like sunlight on autumn leaves which actually signal hard times coming
These aren't proof, but I find them suggestive.
| 57 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:37:10pm |
re: #46 Occasional Reader
Or proselytize ones' ear off, right? Good afternon from the long missing Pietr, Fellow Lizards.
| 58 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:37:51pm |
re: #46 Occasional Reader
... it's equally important that an atheist reciprocate with respect and decency to those people who have religious beliefs, but who don't try to bully or browbeat.
A point never lost on me when I try to tweak my atheist friends about their, ahem, zealous atheism. They get it every time.
| 59 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:38:06pm |
re: #57 Pietr
Or proselytize ones' ear off, right? Good afternon from the long missing Pietr, Fellow Lizards.
I've got a certain amount of tolerance for proselytizing. It can, of course, be taken to excess, though.
| 60 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:38:40pm |
re: #42 Occasional Reader
Heineken?! They get Dogfish Head in heaven.
REPENT!
The only Irishmen in heaven are the kitchen help.
| 61 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:38:49pm |
re: #45 Crimsonfisted
Needed to be repeated. And I would like to learn to think more like that, to reason arguments on logic and fact better than I do. I cannot argue with Mr Fisted. Ever. I lose everytime. It SUCKS.
FYI, my faith remains in tact, my devotion to God, unchanged. Hmm, I wonder why that is? I don't get into people's faces like they described in the video, not ever.
I've never been the sort to demand anyone agree with my ideas on faith. It's one of the reasons I oppose theocracy in any form- islamic, Christian. etc. And I think it's relevant as to why some of us oppose radical fundamentalism like the taliban, versus why other people oppose it. Of course- those people revealed themselves by aligning with ethnic nationalists, when for the rest of us it's an issue of Freedom of Conscience.
| 62 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:38:49pm |
re: #27 tokyobk
Thinking also from an earlier thread about LGF/Kos, this video about the danger of asserting the unprovable onto others shows why --at this moment in history-- (because at other times is was other religions) there must be rigorous public critique of the Sharia that is strongly prefaced with equal scorn for the denigration of the people who simply inherit that source of their belief system as a starting point, or simply come from an Islamic country. The second, along with gratuitously denigrating color, dress, diet, language etc... would indeed be what people call "Islamophobia," but the first is a right and perhaps duty of anyone who believes in equal rights for woman, gays, religious minorities and atheists/agnostics to simply not believe.
A few years ago, (I thought) I saw that kind of discussion across many sites, but obviously not now where there is an unfortunate blurring of the above.
Sometimes, I think that Islam is the last religion, meaning the last one that makes a genuine assertion for supremacy over the modern world. Though I know many people believe fundie Xianity is making a serious effort to reassert itself.
Well it's interesting that you point that out. There are certain lobbies that work both the left and right, and they are foreign. They are tied tightly to the conservatives through the legacy Weyrich networks, and to the left through several groups. One of them is the Serbian lobby, who calls themselves the "fifth most influential " in the US. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama, but several of their operatives are definitely tied to the Paleocons in our party. Why on earth they are following foreign lobbies lead on Islam is beyond me. The main argument on the conservative side equates to a watered Paraphrase of the old west bigoted statement: "the only good indian is a dead indian".
Hence most of the pundits from the foreign lobbies with vested interests tell conservatives here that there isn't a such thing as a "moderate muslim".
| 63 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:40:05pm |
re: #55 Crimsonfisted
What the heck are you grilling in your nic image? Meatballs?
Those are Manilla clams just before they start opening up on a traditional paella. Next time somebody sez 'rice? on a bbq?' you just point em my way.
| 64 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:40:25pm |
re: #54 WindUpBird
I want Dogfish Head IPAs in heaven
If you lead a truly exemplary life, in heaven you shall sit at the right hand of the Almighty, and enjoy a delicious (and infinite) 120-Minute IPA.
| 65 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:40:31pm |
The Flouncometer® is strangely quiet on this thread, but its settings for mean reversion indicate a pending data point.
5 karma points on < 110
| 66 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:40:39pm |
re: #46 Occasional Reader
And this atheist is also quick to add that, per the observation about being judged by behavior that comes at the end of the video, it's equally important that an atheist reciprocate with respect and decency to those people who have religious beliefs, but who don't try to bully or browbeat.
Hang on a second. I have always been a big believer in judging by behavior.
But if someone initiates a conversation about jelly-coated spaceships from the 12th dimension, I am under no obligation to show any respect to those beliefs. In fact, I am obligated to point out the logical inconsistency of those beliefs as long as they choose to discuss them with me.
As a skeptic, I don't walk up and start talking to someone about their irrational belief system. If they want to believe in three-headed parrots with carrot-shaped feet, that's their business.
Exactly how the 12-dimensional parrots can open jars of jelly with the carrot feet... now THAT'S a discussion I would probably enjoy.
| 68 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:42:17pm |
re: #61 Sharmuta
I've never been the sort to demand anyone agree with my ideas on faith. It's one of the reasons I oppose theocracy in any form- islamic, Christian. etc. And I think it's relevant as to why some of us oppose radical fundamentalism like the taliban, versus why other people oppose it. Of course- those people revealed themselves by aligning with ethnic nationalists, when for the rest of us it's an issue of Freedom of Conscience.
Freedom of Conscience. i like that. And very true.
| 69 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:42:27pm |
re: #58 BigPapa
I'm not a fan of the smug-bastard style of atheism. Perfectly fine with respectful atheism, but once it starts becoming a battlement to choose sides, perch atop, and lob rocks at people who believe in God, I'm done. It's why I have a hard time with Pen Gillette. Great illusionist! But I'm tired of his haughty athiest schtick.
| 71 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:42:57pm |
I'm thinking Sunday afternoon...I think the flouncers will be coming out on this one after we are a couple of threads down the road.
| 72 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:43:07pm |
re: #66 Ray in TX
I am under no obligation to show any respect to those beliefs
But you should presume showing respect to the person.
Yes, I am also quite happy to discuss my reasons for lack of religion with anyone who broaches the subject from a believer's point of view. But there are good ways and bad ways of doing that.
| 73 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:44:29pm |
I have to go to the supermarket. And... I'm hungry... which is a dangerous state in which to go to the supermarket.
Pray for me. Or, uh, something.
Later.
| 74 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:44:36pm |
re: #63 BigPapa
Those are Manilla clams just before they start opening up on a traditional paella. Next time somebody sez 'rice? on a bbq?' you just point em my way.
Very cool. I think everything is better on the grill. Even fruit.
| 75 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:44:37pm |
re: #50 austin_blue
Yay! I'm in a secret occult club now.
re: #52 Big Steve
Uh-oh. Is she some kind of mother hen figure?
re: #53 Occasional Reader
Hey, I said I *empathized* with getting an answer to the unmoved mover problem, not that I actually bought it. Maybe it could work through some sort of "operate under the assumption of..", but then again - what'd separate that from "no satisfactory answer yet"?
Some of the comments here remind me that I almost fell out of my chair the first time I met a real live Swedish believer my own age. I can't really say I've been pestered by believers other than online (which, on the other hand is often).
| 76 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:44:49pm |
re: #67 lurking faith
Thanks, but just finished a full helping of mushroom soup. Will need to digest it before indulging in popcorn, lol.
| 77 |
Bloodnok Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:44:50pm |
re: #66 Ray in TX
Hang on a second. I have always been a big believer in judging by behavior.
But if someone initiates a conversation about jelly-coated spaceships from the 12th dimension, I am under no obligation to show any respect to those beliefs. In fact, I am obligated to point out the logical inconsistency of those beliefs as long as they choose to discuss them with me.
As a skeptic, I don't walk up and start talking to someone about their irrational belief system. If they want to believe in three-headed parrots with carrot-shaped feet, that's their business.
Exactly how the 12-dimensional parrots can open jars of jelly with the carrot feet... now THAT'S a discussion I would probably enjoy.
It's not a question of where he grips it. It's a simple question of weight ratios.
| 78 |
Shiplord Kirel Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:44:56pm |
Yikes! The Fever Swampies are going back to OKC bombing conspiracy theories.
Attorney: Oklahoma City bombing tapes appear edited
| 79 |
FrogMarch Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:45:10pm |
OT: This is interesting. The "Young and Invincible" prove we don't need a government take-over of health care. Let the free market work.
| 80 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:45:11pm |
re: #69 WindUpBird
I'm not a fan of the smug-bastard style of atheism. Perfectly fine with respectful atheism, but once it starts becoming a battlement to choose sides, perch atop, and lob rocks at people who believe in God, I'm done. It's why I have a hard time with Pen Gillette. Great illusionist! But I'm tired of his haughty athiest schtick.
But the part about organized religion building huge buildings and having people dress in robes some with ridiculous hats doesn't equally bother you as "haughty or schtick?"
| 81 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:45:13pm |
re: #70 lurking faith
Simple. Opposable carrots.
If you can prove opposable carrots, then the rest of the belief system logically follows.
| 82 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:45:28pm |
re: #68 Crimsonfisted
Freedom of Conscience. i like that. And very true.
Well- I can't take credit for it- it's an Enlightenment principle.
| 83 |
Shiplord Kirel Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:45:59pm |
re: #78 Shiplord Kirel
I should say, they are moderate conspira-crazies, the "Muslims-did-it" rather than "Reno and BATF did it."
| 85 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:47:21pm |
"Now you've gone and done it! Surrendered to the Dark Side, you have! Revealed your True Colors, you have! Possessed by the Father of Lies, you are! Who masquerades as an Angel of Light, he does! Irretrieveably Doomed, you are!
And on a Sunday, of all days! The Blasphemy! The Heresy! The Apostasy! The Horror!
You may not be afraid for your immortal soul NOW, young Webwalker, but when you must stand and face your Lord and Savior and provide an accounting of all that you've thought, said and done in your heathen life, you WILL be...YOU WILL BE! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaa!
/ranting Yodaspeak troll mode off
| 86 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:47:43pm |
re: #82 Sharmuta
Well- I can't take credit for it- it's an Enlightenment principle.
I need to bump up my book reading and learning. It is enough just to do my job and help take care of the family for now.
I have GOT to stop re-reading the last Harry Potter book and feed my brain with better stuff. (I REALLY enjoyed the last book.)
Did I mention I really liked the last HP book?
| 87 |
Big Steve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:47:50pm |
| 88 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:48:18pm |
| 89 |
jimmy Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:48:42pm |
I would agree with whoever it was who said the ending of this video seems to be a little condescending to those people who have a religious faith. It seems to be a red herring in itself that religious people (as depicted in this video) are shrill hypocritical shouters. It is a common charactature in "enlightened" society, and wrong. I disagree with this charactature and find it, frankly, diappointing that so many of you feel this way.
Charles, I am very sorry that you are taking heat from so many ignorant creationists. It a price for taking a (correct) prinicipled stand on a popular subject. Big Steve, it was rude, wrong and uncharitable for a man to treat you like that in public. Such people exist in large numbers, unfortunately. But please don't get caught up in condemning all religions or people of faith as if we are all frothing at the mouth fundamentalists. I stand on your side in this debate, but if this video states how you feel about religious people, you do not stand on mine.
| 90 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:49:04pm |
re: #69 WindUpBird
I'm not a fan of the smug-bastard style of atheism. Perfectly fine with respectful atheism, but once it starts becoming a battlement to choose sides, perch atop, and lob rocks at people who believe in God, I'm done. It's why I have a hard time with Pen Gillette. Great illusionist! But I'm tired of his haughty athiest schtick.
This vid's for you then, warning NSFW:
| 91 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:49:11pm |
re: #69 WindUpBird
That's Penn Jillette, I believe. I kind of like him. When he's not advocating something of the libertarian crazy flavour anyway.
| 92 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:49:30pm |
| 93 |
FrogMarch Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:49:46pm |
re: #73 Occasional Reader
I have to go to the supermarket. And... I'm hungry... which is a dangerous state in which to go to the supermarket.
Pray for me. Or, uh, something.
Later.
Best of luck. I have the opposite problem. I must go to the grocery store while hungry-- Or else I'm not inspired to buy anything.
| 94 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:50:10pm |
re: #87 Big Steve
Lizards...how would we describe Mandy Manners to the newbie.
Some things defy description and are unknowable to mere mortals.
/prove I'm wrong
| 95 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:50:22pm |
re: #86 Crimsonfisted
The last Potter book was my favorite of them all. So wonderful. I like to pick up a favorite book to re-read as a break from the more weighty stuff I usually read.
| 97 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:50:46pm |
re: #87 Big Steve
Lizards...how would we describe Mandy Manners to the newbie.
That they should speak softly and respectfully, or face her big stick? That would do for item 1. Any sggestions for item 2?
| 98 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:50:51pm |
re: #80 Big Steve
Man, I don't want to touch that one :D What I'm saying is, belief or lack-thereof isn't a zero-sum game, one doesn't have to denigrate or question the intelligence of believers to be an athiest. There's a flavor of contrarian atheism out there that is looking for targets to swing at.
| 99 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:51:18pm |
re: #96 BigPapa
GMTA! I was going to post the same!
| 100 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:51:54pm |
re: #92 BigPapa
Trappists
| 101 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:52:07pm |
re: #87 Big Steve
Lizards...how would we describe Mandy Manners to the newbie.
Mandy wields the cluebat.
| 102 |
Ben G. Hazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:52:27pm |
| 103 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:52:38pm |
re: #89 jimmy
You missed the bit in the video about "Red Herrings," betting watch it again.
| 104 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:53:09pm |
re: #95 Sharmuta
The last Potter book was my favorite of them all. So wonderful. I like to pick up a favorite book to re-read as a break from the more weighty stuff I usually read.
I have weightier things to read - I haven't! I should. I have them in my bookcase but...
/no excuse.
| 105 |
tradewind Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:54:52pm |
re: #20 Big Steve
You should have smiled beatifically and answered that you're in between masses, and your vestments allow you and every other priest to wear shorts if you feel like it.
| 106 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:55:03pm |
re: #72 Occasional Reader
But you should presume showing respect to the person.
The problem is that religious faith is not objective and is therefore a very personal thing to most people. People of faith generally cannot distinguish between criticism of their deeply-held beliefs and ad hominems.
I never push my skepticism on people of faith. But if they engage in discussion, I make it clear early on that I will be candid.
| 107 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:55:19pm |
re: #89 jimmy
I didn't find the video condescending at all, and I'm not sure who you think is agreeing with the video as you perceived it and who is agreeing with the video because it was a good presentation of logic.
I personally think most LGFers agree with the video in the sense we don't appreciate those who wish to shove their religious views onto others, as we do not seek to push our views off on them. As I said- it's Freedom of Conscience, and many here at LGF will defend it.
| 108 |
austin_blue Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:55:54pm |
re: #87 Big Steve
Lizards...how would we describe Mandy Manners to the newbie.
Well, she is wee bit...opinionated, sometimes.
And she occasionally utilizes what my mom would call a "potty mouth".
And she likes to hit people with sticks, if they are foolish.
| 109 |
gregb Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:56:08pm |
re: #17 BigPapa
And therein lies the rub. It goes both ways: for my fellow zealous atheists, faith in non-God precludes having to prove his non-existence.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
You can always prove, for all but the most trivial of systems, that there are valid proofs outside of it. Why not call it God?
| 110 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:56:27pm |
re: #90 Thanos
hah! Well done :D
And I meant to say earlier that I am a big fan of Trappists. Just had a tasty Rochefort 10 last night.
(how do I delete one of my comments? Or can I delete comments?)
| 111 |
tradewind Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:56:49pm |
re: #101 lurking faith
Go easy. MM's house has recently been hit with the flubat.
| 112 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:57:15pm |
re: #107 Sharmuta
I didn't find the video condescending at all, and I'm not sure who you think is agreeing with the video as you perceived it and who is agreeing with the video because it was a good presentation of logic.
I personally think most LGFers agree with the video in the sense we don't appreciate those who wish to shove their religious views onto others, as we do not seek to push our views off on them. As I said- it's Freedom of Conscience, and many here at LGF will defend it.
In other words, tolerance is a two way street. And people get sick and tired of having it always demanded of them, but never extended to them.
| 113 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:57:50pm |
re: #112 Salamantis
In other words, tolerance is a two way street. And people get sick and tired of having it always demanded of them, but never extended to them.
Exactly!
| 114 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:58:34pm |
re: #89 jimmy
I'm the one who implied that the end sounded a little condescending. I do not, however, think that it was intended that way.
I also do not think that the depiction of shouting religious people was intended to characterize all religious people - only those who loudly and illogically try to force their religion on others. I'm ok with telling such people they are doing wrong and making no sense.
| 115 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:58:54pm |
re: #110 WindUpBird
hah! Well done :D
And I meant to say earlier that I am a big fan of Trappists. Just had a tasty Rochefort 10 last night.
(how do I delete one of my comments? Or can I delete comments?)
No Chimay?
(no you can't delete comments; but if they are flavorful enough Charles can)
| 117 |
reine.de.tout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:59:29pm |
re: #87 Big Steve
Lizards...how would we describe Mandy Manners to the newbie.
IMHO -
this says it all
If you own BP stock, sell it. The people who work at this particular BP are too stupid to pour piss out of a boot. I screwed up taking the nozzle out of my tank and gas gushed all over my leg and the ground when I dropped it. It only stopped when I picked it up again and undid the stay-thingy. I sent The Kid into the store to get him away from me and to get some help. He told them what had happened but NO ONE did a thing. I finally had to walk into the store with gasoline-soaked pants.
I stood at the door and told them what had happened and the stupid fucking clerks didn't even pause while ringing up Goober's six-pack of Bud to ask if I needed help. Only when I screamed that there was gasoline all over the place did anyone respond. One clerk sauntered--yes, SAUNTERED--to the rear to get a man to go check it out. Once he found out that I had turned off the nozzle, he asked me what I wanted him to do.
I told him I was a customer and asked him if he wanted me to go up in flames or if he was gonna' find me a jacket so I could go into the bathroom to remove my clothes. He just stood there and said, "we don't have any jackets in this store." I gave The Kid my check to drop on the counter, stripped right there, walked across the parking lot, dropped my clothes into the trunk, got The Kid in, got in on the passenger's side, started the engine then left. There was still fuel spilled on the ground.
| 118 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 3:59:48pm |
re: #108 austin_blue
Duly noted. I'll be sure to keep my head low, and activate some sort of cootie-shield.
| 119 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:00:46pm |
re: #89 jimmy
Oh, and by the way, there are fundamentalists among the regular commenters here at LGF. We can tell the difference between the sane and the mouth-frothing.
| 120 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:00:57pm |
re: #77 Bloodnok
It's not a question of where he grips it. It's a simple question of weight ratios.
The problem with having 3 heads is that the middle one always has bad breath.
| 121 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:01:09pm |
re: #116 Bagua
Pretty close but not quite a flounce.
| 123 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:01:48pm |
re: #109 gregb
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
You can always prove, for all but the most trivial of systems, that there are valid proofs outside of it. Why not call it God?
You mean call what we don't know or what's outside of what we know God? Why do we have to call it anything?
Please elaborate.
| 124 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:01:54pm |
re: #112 Salamantis
In other words, tolerance is a two way street. And people get sick and tired of having it always demanded of them, but never extended to them.
Yep. And of being accused of being intolerant of any expression of religious faith no matter how moderate, when what you are actually doing is attacking some vile, extremist element. That one is getting seriously old for me.
| 125 |
Ben G. Hazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:01:57pm |
| 126 |
austin_blue Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:02:44pm |
re: #118 cenotaphium
Duly noted. I'll be sure to keep my head low, and activate some sort of cootie-shield.
Don't misunderstand Mandy is an absolute hoot!
| 127 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:04:03pm |
re: #120 Ray in TX
The problem with having 3 heads is that the middle one always has bad breath.
But is this faith, or fact? How many 3 headed anythings are you acquanted with? Or is this some experiment from one of the nameless lower levels of the Grat Lizards Lair?
/White smoke
| 128 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:04:26pm |
re: #115 Naso Tang
I've had so many trappist beers 8-) Portland is beer-obsessed. I've got a Chimay Blue and a Gouden Carolus in the fridge right now ackshully!
(thanks, I'll remember to proofread next time, hah)
| 129 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:05:29pm |
re: #89 jimmy
I up-dinged this because I thought Jimmy stated his opinion politely and fairly and also because agree that the video is not just arguing against religious biggotry.
I do agree that this video mostly says that faith should be personal, and I'm not suprised that people here are in favor of that.
But did you hear that he contrasts stating something which cannot be proven with stating something that is logically impossible? And did you read all of the believes he listed as impossible? I would be very surprised if nobody here suscribed to any of these.
He explicitly states that religious people have no basis to demand that others agree, but he also clearly implies that there are valid grounds to criticize most personal religious believes (if not all).
He never comes right out and says it, but I would say that he strongly suggests that it's reasonable to call a personal belief impossible, which really means nonsense, if it contains internal contradictions. And he adds that those free of contradiction are to vague to be useful. That "veer too much to one side, and you have a problem" thing made it seem like he somehow advocated moderation of some sort, but I don't think he really did.
Personally, I think he has a point, which is why I'm an atheist, but you would be a total dick to actually go around telling people to change their believes because they contain logical fallacies.
Unless they're trying to convert or rebuke you, of course!
| 130 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:05:35pm |
Scanning for butthurt...butthurt detected.
| 131 |
Major Bedhead Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:05:49pm |
I almost feel afraid to ask this, but...
What's going on here? The world is poised on the verge of confrontation with Iran over a secret nuclear facility; Iran is firing rockets; the new American President faces, to put it mildly, the rearrangement of much of his foreign policy.
And this is what we're talking about? YouTube videos?
Am I the only weirdo who finds that unusual?
| 132 |
SixDegrees Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:08:02pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
I almost feel afraid to ask this, but...
What's going on here? The world is poised on the verge of confrontation with Iran over a secret nuclear facility; Iran is firing rockets; the new American President faces, to put it mildly, the rearrangement of much of his foreign policy.
And this is what we're talking about? YouTube videos?
Am I the only weirdo who finds that unusual?
Apparently.
It's a big Universe. There's lots to talk about.
| 133 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:08:47pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
We are capable of discussing many topics on this blog. Keeps the place from being one dimensional. If you don't like the thread topic, there are other blogs, or you can start your own, but the host here is under no obligation to post anything other than what strikes his fancy.
| 134 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:09:10pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
[...]
Am I the only weirdo who finds that unusual?
Probably not, I expect several weirdos to have slipped in.
| 135 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:09:39pm |
re: #127 Pietr
But is this faith, or fact? How many 3 headed anythings are you acquanted with? Or is this some experiment from one of the nameless lower levels of the Grat Lizards Lair?
/White smoke
re: #127 Pietr
But is this faith, or fact? How many 3 headed anythings are you acquanted with? Or is this some experiment from one of the nameless lower levels of the Grat Lizards Lair?
/White smoke
re: #127 Pietr
But is this faith, or fact? How many 3 headed anythings are you acquanted with? Or is this some experiment from one of the nameless lower levels of the Grat Lizards Lair?
/White smoke
re: #127 Pietr
But is this faith, or fact? How many 3 headed anythings are you acquanted with? Or is this some experiment from one of the nameless lower levels of the Grat Lizards Lair?
/White smoke
re: #127 Pietr
But is this faith, or fact? How many 3 headed anythings are you acquanted with? Or is this some experiment from one of the nameless lower levels of the Grat Lizards Lair?
/White smoke
The infinities cancel out in the 12-dimensional equations so, scientifically, we can state with a .95+.8i certainty that the middle of 3 heads will generate a halitosic aura.
However, without the evidence for opposable carrots, this all remains in the realm of probability, not certainty.
| 136 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:09:49pm |
Paulian who assists stalker blogs ( Eric Odom) to become media mogul...
Tea Party Founder Announces: "A Huffington Post Of Our Own"
Eric Odom, founder of American Liberty Alliance (ALA), the group that launched and organized the tea party movement across the country, announced Friday what he calls a movement-minded news portal and his answer to the the Huffington Post. While the domain and branding are secret for now, Odom has given his news portal a temporary name, Project 73.
...
Most political organizing outfits are registered as a 501(c)(4), meaning they are not a profit-making enterprise but contributions are not tax deductible (only contributions to charitable organizations are tax deductible). However, according to ALA's website, the organization is registered as a for-profit enterprise.
| 137 |
idioma Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:10:11pm |
This is so refreshing, especially after the morning radio program I endured: [Link: issuesineducation.org...]
Dr. Carl Werner shovels lies to those that want to believe Evolution is a matter of faith.
Barf.
| 138 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:10:14pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
The world is always at the verge of some crisis. How often do you find a bona fide informative YouTube video?
/possibly?
| 139 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:10:16pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
I almost feel afraid to ask this, but...
What's going on here? The world is poised on the verge of confrontation with Iran over a secret nuclear facility; Iran is firing rockets; the new American President faces, to put it mildly, the rearrangement of much of his foreign policy.
And this is what we're talking about? YouTube videos?
Am I the only weirdo who finds that unusual?
No, there are plenty of others with only one thing on their minds, seldom the exact same thing 'though.
| 140 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:10:43pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
We've talked about that other stuff. Plenty. You want us to talk about it 24/7, just in case you stop by?
The attempt to force religion onto unwilling people ought to be a topic of importance to any American. Well, any human, but especially Americans.
| 141 |
SixDegrees Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:11:22pm |
re: #136 Killgore Trout
Paulian who assists stalker blogs ( Eric Odom) to become media mogul...
Tea Party Founder Announces: "A Huffington Post Of Our Own"
Is he trying to siphon business away from Hot Air?
| 142 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:11:50pm |
| 143 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:00pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
Good blogs IMO have a breadth of topics (even if they lean towards certain subject matter) which I think provides a sort of immune system and diversity of ideas to keep things from becoming all harsh and single-minded.
| 144 |
Major Bedhead Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:25pm |
Huh.
Fair enough. Carry on and enjoy the discussion.
| 145 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:38pm |
re: #142 MandyManners
Uh-oh. Is she some kind of mother hen figure?
*cackle*
Hillary? Is that you?
/are those cankles?
| 146 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:39pm |
re: #141 SixDegrees
Is he trying to siphon business away from Hot Air?
Well, he certainly wants to compete with them, Hot Air occasionally disses Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.
| 147 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:43pm |
re: #135 Ray in TX
To whom were you replying? I'm confused.
| 148 |
bosforus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:54pm |
re: #11 Charles
One of the reasons I posted this video is contained in its conclusion -- because I've been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of hatred for my position against creationism. I've been told directly that I'm doomed to burn forever in hell more than once by people sent into a rage because they assumed I was a creationist like them.
I wonder if they know the story of Saul/Paul.
| 149 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:12:55pm |
re: #142 MandyManners
Uh-oh. Is she some kind of mother hen figure?
*cackle*
Incoming. To the bunkers./
| 150 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:13:17pm |
re: #144 Major Bedhead
Huh.
Fair enough. Carry on and enjoy the discussion.
Did you ever read anything here before registering?
| 151 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:13:45pm |
re: #129 suchislife
and I don't think that that religious people are depicted as shrill hypocritical shouters, but I can absolutely see why that would be a first impression, especially since, in my opinion, the video does argue that atheists generally have better grounds for their world view and are thus more reasonable.
| 152 |
Will Robinson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:14:07pm |
| 153 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:14:37pm |
re: #145 Salamantis
Hillary? Is that you?
/are those cankles?
Hen's been cackling long before HRC been politicking.
| 154 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:15:02pm |
re: #141 SixDegrees
I think the important question is "Who's funding the project?" They're going to pay bloggers. That money has to come from somewhere.
| 155 |
SixDegrees Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:15:15pm |
re: #146 Killgore Trout
Well, he certainly wants to compete with them, Hot Air occasionally disses Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.
Good news, then. Hot Air has been struggling through one sponsor after another, depleting their cash and moving on without ever becoming profitable, or even able to break even. Having the nutjobs split the market between another competitor means everybody loses. Which means everybody else wins.
I'm getting tired of being smacked in the head with an ideological hammer every time I read a news article.
| 157 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:17:42pm |
re: #147 MandyManners
To whom were you replying? I'm confused.
Ya, that was weird. There was no text cut in the creation of that post. I have no idea how that happened :P
| 158 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:18:18pm |
re: #150 Naso Tang
Did you ever read anything here before registering?
He's not new. Also, he was polite about the question, and the answers he got.
| 159 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:18:36pm |
re: #151 suchislife
and I don't think that that religious people are depicted as shrill hypocritical shouters, but I can absolutely see why that would be a first impression, especially since, in my opinion, the video does argue that atheists generally have better grounds for their world view and are thus more reasonable.
Aren't Christians supposed to not get bothered by what the world says about them?
| 160 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:18:51pm |
re: #151 suchislife
and I don't think that that religious people are depicted as shrill hypocritical shouters, but I can absolutely see why that would be a first impression, especially since, in my opinion, the video does argue that atheists generally have better grounds for their world view and are thus more reasonable.
Well they do have better grounds because they base their arguments on fact and logic. If you choose to argue for a God, you have to do it based on your faith, which by definition isn't based on fact or logic. That doesn't mean the Atheist automatically wins however, we could be wrong. You can take solace in the fact that we are such a small minority, those who have faith far exceed the ranks of atheists.
| 161 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:19:02pm |
re: #157 Ray in TX
Ya, that was weird. There was no text cut in the creation of that post. I have no idea how that happened :P
It happens.
| 163 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:19:58pm |
re: #154 Killgore Trout
I think the important question is "Who's funding the project?" They're going to pay bloggers. That money has to come from somewhere.
Smart money says they'll be pulling for Rand Paul in KY
| 164 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:20:21pm |
re: #155 SixDegrees
Reading Odom's announcement...
There is no question that our side is “catching up” when it comes to online media and news outlets. For example, you have HotAir.com and Michelle Malkin dominating the blogosphere with daily doses of everything that’s hot. We have RedState.com with its high impact, high response rate community of center-right activists. We have the guys over at TheNextRight.com putting together more strategic thoughts and updates.
...
We’re going to release our own “movement” minded news portal.The site will be a little more “independent” with its branding. We’re not going to be red this or conservative that.
I think the current establishment in the right blogosphere has too much residual conservative/Republican holdover. I think they're going to use it as a Paulian PJM.
| 165 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:20:37pm |
I suppose we could have reminded them to clean up any of their shell that's left, but advising them to avoid the clue bat seemed the sensible thing to say, lol. How are you doing in your flu siege, Ms Manners?
| 166 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:20:40pm |
Mandy. The hungry circling seagull as the new little turtle hatchlings scurry to the safety of the sea.
Nat Geo moment
| 167 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:22:36pm |
re: #157 Ray in TX
Ya, that was weird. There was no text cut in the creation of that post. I have no idea how that happened :P
Danged 12 dimensonal equations will do that to a post every time...
/white smoke
| 168 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:22:43pm |
re: #151 suchislife
and I don't think that that religious people are depicted as shrill hypocritical shouters, but I can absolutely see why that would be a first impression, especially since, in my opinion, the video does argue that atheists generally have better grounds for their world view and are thus more reasonable.
And, I have a hard time understanding how shrieking and shouting is fufilling Christ's commandment to go out into the world and spread the Word. Flies and honey v. vinegar.
| 169 |
Right Brain Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:22:46pm |
What a mess of a video, he believes in a paradigmatic unity between reason within language and being, forty years of deconstruction, the substitution of the anteriority of trace for the presence of a logos, and he still makes this basic error. I have two words for that folly: String Theory.
What his technique is, and I would recognize it without the accent, is the Anglo-American branch of philosophy, derived from Logical Positivism, where sentences are treated with the symbolic detachment of algebra. This gaming is considered grossly naive in post-modern philosophy as it is not aware of its own personal history, the thought without the thinker as it were.
| 170 |
Altermite Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:23:37pm |
re: #168 MandyManners
And, I have a hard time understanding how shrieking and shouting is fufilling Christ's commandment to go out into the world and spread the Word. Flies and honey v. vinegar.
Vinegar does better than you'd think.
/literalism.
| 171 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:24:05pm |
re: #165 Pietr
I suppose we could have reminded them to clean up any of their shell that's left, but advising them to avoid the clue bat seemed the sensible thing to say, lol. How are you doing in your flu siege, Ms Manners?
I'm fine--not a symptom to be found. Mr. Cranky's holding his own. Thank you for asking.
| 172 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:24:11pm |
re: #156 MandyManners
Scaring all these hatchlings...shameful.
Oh sure...all nice and polite...that's how it begins...but sometimes, quiet means too quiet.
First you lull your poor hapless victims into a false sense of security.
They get to feeling all warm and fuzzy, let their guards down, and say something irredeemably stupid.
Then, out of the peaceful blue, like lightning from a malevolent Zeus,
they are roundly Thwacked!, or commanded to perform an impossible urinary act!
And then it's too late for sorry.
| 173 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:25:15pm |
re: #166 poteen
Mandy. The hungry circling seagull as the new little turtle hatchlings scurry to the safety of the sea.
Nat Geo moment
I'M A FREAKIN' PUDDY TAT!
| 174 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:25:26pm |
re: #169 Right Brain
Which specific point do you disagree with? Please be specific and concise, not all who are reading are philosophy majors or even minors.
| 175 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:25:55pm |
re: #169 Right Brain
So basically.. you're dissing his philosophical school?
What kung-fu do you advocate as superior?
| 176 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:26:41pm |
re: #173 MandyManners
I'M A FREAKIN' PUDDY TAT!
So yer gonna play with the hatchlings before you kill em?
| 177 |
Altermite Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:26:52pm |
re: #169 Right Brain
What a mess of a video, he believes in a paradigmatic unity between reason within language and being, forty years of deconstruction, the substitution of the anteriority of trace for the presence of a logos, and he still makes this basic error. I have two words for that folly: String Theory.
What his technique is, and I would recognize it without the accent, is the Anglo-American branch of philosophy, derived from Logical Positivism, where sentences are treated with the symbolic detachment of algebra. This gaming is considered grossly naive in post-modern philosophy as it is not aware of its own personal history, the thought without the thinker as it were.
Yes, but you didn't actually say why he is wrong.
| 178 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:27:09pm |
re: #169 Right Brain
How about you make a video, hell, even a rhetorical counter, to the video? Otherwise you just made an overly complex statement where you could have said 'it sucks.'
| 180 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:28:24pm |
re: #151 suchislife
ok, last post about this, I reread the original comment, and I certainly don't agree with this:
It is a common charactature in "enlightened" society, and wrong. I disagree with this charactature and find it, frankly, diappointing that so many of you feel this way.
Jimmy, I think you believe in a caricature of what you call the "enlightened" society.
And I don't think those people you're disappointed in agree with the video you saw, they just saw a different one. Happens all the time.
| 181 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:29:42pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
I almost feel afraid to ask this, but...
What's going on here? The world is poised on the verge of confrontation with Iran over a secret nuclear facility; Iran is firing rockets; the new American President faces, to put it mildly, the rearrangement of much of his foreign policy.
And this is what we're talking about? YouTube videos?
Am I the only weirdo who finds that unusual?
We're doomed! Doomed!!! Doomed, I say! Augh!
[Run around screaming...]
Doomed!!!
Is that better?
| 182 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:29:59pm |
re: #167 Pietr
Danged 12 dimensonal equations will do that to a post every time...
/white smoke
I could have sworn the infinities canceled out. Let me recalculate.
Yep, looks good.
I could have sworn the infinities canceled out. Let me recalculate.
Yep, looks good.
| 183 |
bosforus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:30:06pm |
re: #168 MandyManners
When I was a Mormon missionary in Argentina the majority of missionaries did not press our beliefs on those we attempted to talk to. I'm not going to say I was perfectly reasonable with every person (it's 24/7 for two years) nor will I say that I don't know any "vinegar" kinds of missionaries but for the most part the missionaries I worked with were reasonable. Yes, we did approach many people to ask them their beliefs and tell them ours but conversations work two ways. If they didn't want to talk to us they didn't have to.
| 184 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:30:50pm |
re: #162 bosforus
Charles, any clue why LGF is so popular in South Korea?
Because South Koreans are cool.
| 185 |
Eclectic Infidel Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:30:53pm |
re: #169 Right Brain
What a mess of a post!
| 186 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:30:58pm |
re: #181 Charles
We're doomed! Doomed!!! Doomed, I say! Augh!
[Run around screaming...]
Doomed!!!
Is that better?
Need a blankie?
| 187 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:31:02pm |
re: #169 Right Brain
What a mess of a video, he believes in a paradigmatic unity between reason within language and being, forty years of deconstruction, the substitution of the anteriority of trace for the presence of a logos, and he still makes this basic error. I have two words for that folly: String Theory.
What his technique is, and I would recognize it without the accent, is the Anglo-American branch of philosophy, derived from Logical Positivism, where sentences are treated with the symbolic detachment of algebra. This gaming is considered grossly naive in post-modern philosophy as it is not aware of its own personal history, the thought without the thinker as it were.
All I see him accepting are Aristotelian logic, Occam's Razor, and the Popperian verification and falsification principles of empirical science.
Since Derridean deconstructionism is basically an exercise in extended ad hominem, reducing a text to the life history of its author, it would seem that you are trying to criticize the video on that basis in your first paragraph, while accusing the video of engaging in the selfsame thing in your second paragraph.
Talk about self-contradiction!
| 188 |
The Shadow Do Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:31:07pm |
McChrystal on 60 minutes. A real warrior.
| 190 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:31:56pm |
re: #178 BigPapa
How about you make a video, hell, even a rhetorical counter, to the video? Otherwise you just made an overly complex statement where you could have said 'it sucks.'
This is what I heard with the Right Brain comment: (from Cracked.com)
To put that in terms you may understand, imagine a paper on Batman that said the following:
"The full force of the Batarang (B) when properly extruded at the Riddler's tomfoolery (Tf), factoring in the resistance from Robin's homoerotic costuming(QUeer) and the Joker's reliance on governmental subsidies to pay for low-grade dementia medications (M) can be summed up by the equation B2 x πr2 = The Green Hornet."
| 191 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:32:00pm |
re: #158 lurking faith
He's not new. Also, he was polite about the question, and the answers he got.
8 posts in 3 years suggests a pattern around here, and the answer can be interpreted differently; but benefit of doubt is fine.
| 192 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:32:02pm |
re: #187 Salamantis
All I see him accepting are Aristotelian logic, Occam's Razor, and the Popperian verification and falsification principles of empirical science.
Since Derridean deconstructionism is basically an exercise in extended ad hominem, reducing a text to the life history of its author, it would seem that you are trying to criticize the video on that basis in your first paragraph, while accusing the video of engaging in the selfsame thing in your second paragraph.
Talk about self-contradiction!
Yeah... uh..what he said! Right on!
| 193 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:32:26pm |
re: #180 suchislife
Hey, for readablility, when you cut and paste to quote someone, could you then select the quoted text and hit the little quotation mark button above the comment box? Or else you could just type in quotation marks at the start and end of what you're quoting.
That way we know which words are/aren't yours.
Thanks!
| 195 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:33:35pm |
re: #193 lurking faith
Hey, for readablility, when you cut and paste to quote someone, could you then select the quoted text and hit the little quotation mark button above the comment box? Or else you could just type in quotation marks at the start and end of what you're quoting.
That way we know which words are/aren't yours.
Thanks!
and preview, preview, preview.
| 196 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:34:12pm |
| 197 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:34:38pm |
re: #194 Thanos
I'm waiting...
I think he said 'it sucks.' But I'm not an Egolosophy Major.
I'm almost done with his first sentence...
| 198 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:34:53pm |
re: #187 Salamantis
Damn! That's some philosophical smack-down right there.
I do think the exchange requires some colour commentary to be palatable though.
Maybe something along this line..?
| 199 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:36:21pm |
re: #198 cenotaphium
Damn! That's some philosophical smack-down right there.
I do think the exchange requires some colour commentary to be palatable though.
Maybe something along this line..?
It helps to actually have a degee in the subject...;~)
| 200 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:36:33pm |
| 201 |
RexMundi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:36:42pm |
I wholeheartedly agree. QualiaSoup has always had awesome, illustrative, top-notch videos. He's definitely a benefit to youtube.
| 202 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:37:06pm |
| 204 |
equable Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:37:35pm |
Let's try this - my faith does not make me necessarily delusional and on the other hand your lack of faith doesn't make you evil.
Just be good to others for the sake of being good to others. Simple recipe no matter the origin. If it comes from the heart and not some ersatz obligation to the "greater good" then you're wonderful.
I am not a pariah because of my faith (yet) and I don't hold atheists to some seperate standard. I have many atheist friends, and we all agree to disagree. I suppose I am lucky in that, as there's always some wiseass trying to tell me that I am completely off my bleedin' trolley and that I need to get a grip on "reality".
Well I like my reality. It friggin' kicks ass. And I am sure that most of you like yours. Let's just stop, drink a beer and say "whogivesafuck"?
| 205 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:38:53pm |
re: #190 Crimsonfisted
I had to read this a few times because I kept interpretting Green Hornet, as Green Lantern-and the Riddler has yellow in his outfit, so he'd win against Green Lantern...Now I'm confused, what was that calculation again?
/White Smoke
| 206 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:39:02pm |
re: #198 cenotaphium
That was good. I'm out of MegaUpdings for today.
| 207 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:39:09pm |
Really explains the indignation. He was always so good at that.
| 208 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:39:27pm |
re: #196 lurking faith
No, a towel.
Was he doing a Linus impression from Peanuts? Maybe my memory is fading.
| 209 |
Major Bedhead Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:39:47pm |
re: #181 Charles
We're doomed! Doomed!!! Doomed, I say! Augh!
[Run around screaming...]
Doomed!!!
Is that better?
No need for that, as it's not what I asked about.
We simply disagree on what deserves the conversation of the moment. And that's fine. Neither of us is under obligation. So it's all cool.
| 210 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:39:49pm |
re: #160 Thanos
did you read the comment where I said that I agree with his point, and that's why I'm an atheist? I'm just saying, he does make a judgement, and I didn't like the consensus that he just critizises extremists and shouters. Imo he implicity but clearly critizises religion, and while I'm fine with that, I don't expect a religious person to be.
| 211 |
Will Robinson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:40:16pm |
| 212 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:40:40pm |
re: #209 Major Bedhead
How about we discuss your sock puppetry?
| 215 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:41:05pm |
re: #209 Major Bedhead
No need for that, as it's not what I asked about.
We simply disagree on what deserves the conversation of the moment. And that's fine. Neither of us is under obligation. So it's all cool.
I knew that passive aggressive tone was darned familiar.
| 216 |
Major Bedhead Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:41:15pm |
Howdy. Hope you haven't minded me reading along.
| 217 |
Digital Display Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:41:18pm |
Hi Lizards! Great day of sports today..
OK now I'm supposed to go to a Colts party in 30 minutes..
How is everyone tonight and are you guys are rooting for the Colts tonight?
Right?
*wink*
| 218 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:41:24pm |
re: #210 suchislife
did you read the comment where I said that I agree with his point, and that's why I'm an atheist? I'm just saying, he does make a judgement, and I didn't like the consensus that he just critizises extremists and shouters. Imo he implicity but clearly critizises religion, and while I'm fine with that, I don't expect a religious person to be.
Well I'm not seeing that. I see that he criticizes those who use religion to become overweening.
| 221 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:42:17pm |
re: #205 PietrFunny article. I thought that particular bit was sooo funny.
So now, when I hear/read/see something that is flying over my head, I put it in Batman terms now.
| 222 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:43:13pm |
re: #216 Major Bedhead
Howdy. Hope you haven't minded me reading along.
No- I love getting to ding you down again, and loved seeing you at the stalker sites.
| 223 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:43:44pm |
Thank you for playing. Please collect your consolation prize at the Exit door.
| 226 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:44:47pm |
re: #223 Charles
Thank you for playing. Please collect your consolation prize at the Exit door.
Cognito Ergo Vexillum
| 227 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:44:55pm |
| 228 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:45:01pm |
| 229 |
bosforus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:47:25pm |
re: #228 Naso Tang
I don't think this was a gut check. Charles' suck puppetry detecting tools are very sophisticated and precise.
| 230 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:47:49pm |
re: #223 Charles
Thank you for playing. Please collect your consolation prize at the Exit door.
I can just picture the indignation...
| 232 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:49:12pm |
re: #229 bosforus
I don't think this was a gut check. Charles' suck puppetry detecting tools are very sophisticated and precise.
Of course. I was talking of my gut.
| 233 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:49:19pm |
We've got some old weirdos coming out of mothballs tonight. Another hatchling who just posted in the previous thread: "jinnderella" using the name "strangelet."
| 234 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:49:47pm |
re: #210 suchislife
did you read the comment where I said that I agree with his point, and that's why I'm an atheist? I'm just saying, he does make a judgement, and I didn't like the consensus that he just critizises extremists and shouters. Imo he implicity but clearly critizises religion, and while I'm fine with that, I don't expect a religious person to be.
One of the things you might be missing is that in logical argument you must if you are intellectually honest and consistent also state what some of the major objections to your statement might be. You then explain why those objections don't work. Explaining why you think an argument doesn't hold water is not an attack on religion per se, it's explaining what you think and why.
| 236 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:50:38pm |
| 237 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:51:23pm |
| 238 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:51:34pm |
re: #233 Charles
We've got some old weirdos coming out of mothballs tonight. Another hatchling who just posted in the previous thread: "jinnderella" using the name "strangelet."
Custom security tools is apparently another advantage of writing your own BBS code. :)
| 239 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:52:55pm |
Well, big surprise! We still haven't had any flounce-offs or meltdowns on this thread!
Only a single solitary banned troll detection/ejection.
| 240 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:53:36pm |
re: #239 Salamantis
Well, big surprise! We still haven't had any flounce-offs or meltdowns on this thread!
Only a single solitary banned troll detection/ejection.
They'll probably get around to it at about 2 am California time.
| 241 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:53:38pm |
re: #218 Thanos
I'm surprised you don't see it, since you used exactely the same argument he did. He stated in his first example of the box we cannot access that we can never know what is in it, but we can know what is not in it, viz. inherently illogical things, or things that have properties that make it impossible to put them in a box (amazonian river). Then he says, this is just like our situation vis à vis a supernatural being, and he adds, such believes will either be riddled with internal contradictions or so vague that they have no connection with our lifes. He ends by saying that the only important thing is how we treat each other. Above us only sky! That's a critique of religion.
Actually, I think the shrieking zealots ultimately served to hide the critique.
| 242 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:55:05pm |
re: #208 Ray in TX
Was he doing a Linus impression from Peanuts? Maybe my memory is fading.
Huh? No, I think it was Chicken Little.
But you should always know where your towel is.
| 243 |
bloodnok Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:55:30pm |
re: #239 Salamantis
Well, big surprise! We still haven't had any flounce-offs or meltdowns on this thread!
Only a single solitary banned troll detection/ejection.
But what a troll.
Oh the memories.
| 244 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:56:24pm |
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
| 245 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:56:55pm |
Excellent film from the BBC : God on trial.
In a block house in Auschwitz, a group of prisoners demand to know the nature of a God who can allow so much suffering. They attempt to settle their dispute by putting God on trial. Knowing half of them will be sent to the gas chamber, they have only one day to reach a verdict.
You tube: nine parts
| 246 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:57:20pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
That is suggestive of a trend.
| 247 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:57:21pm |
re: #234 Thanos
Hmm, I certainly wouldn't call it an attack. No one is waging war on religion/christmas. It is however a critique. Saying: "My stance is more valid then yours." is not the same as saying, "That's just my opinion."
| 248 |
Karridine Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:57:30pm |
re: #241 suchislife
That's a critique of religion.
It certainly SEEMS that way when we're surrounded by softly shrieking or loudly shrieking ecclesiastical organizations that call themselves 'religion'...
The video argues FOR logic, FOR reason, FOR restraint and FOR understanding of the limits of FAITH...
| 249 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:57:38pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
out of respect for persistence?
| 250 |
bloodnok Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:58:15pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
This is like that guy that introduces the elimination of Presidential term limits every session. You almost want them to succeed despite the obvious trouble it will cause.
| 251 |
gregb Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:58:27pm |
re: #123 BigPapa
You mean call what we don't know or what's outside of what we know God? Why do we have to call it anything?
Please elaborate.
There are always fundamental truths outside any system of logics that can't be proven within the limitations of the system. All the great scientists of the 20th century from Hawking to Einstein, Turing to Heisenberg, call it God. Who am I to break with convention?
On a completely different part of the thread, my friends at Lost Abbey won two gold medals at the Great American Beer Festival. One was a Trappist Ale called Duck Duck Gooze. Get it while you can find it.
| 252 |
Karridine Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:59:07pm |
re: #246 Bagua
Maybe she can change, and seeks a chance to demonstrate THAT she has had a change of heart...
| 253 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 4:59:09pm |
One more thing I really enjoyed about that video, but didn't realize it right away.
It was refreshing to a see a video where the religious person was portrayed as the angry antagonist and not the skeptic. You see, I grew up in the 70s/80s and it seemed like everything I enjoyed in my youth: comics, rock music, d&d, blue comedians, etc, etc, etc was demonized by the faithful. I attended sermons and church presentations about how people like me were "angry" and "rebelling against god" when in reality I was just being obliviously curious and had no idea what the fuss was all about.
In a lot of ways, the contrast presented between the faithful and skeptics in this video was just like the old days, except reversed. Maybe that subliminally triggered some extra endorphins. It's hard for me to sympathize with the objections with the religious nowadays when it's nothing compared to the bullshit I had to endure when I was growing up.
| 254 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:00:10pm |
re: #249 SpaceJesus
out of respect for persistence?
There are 3 qualities necessary to learn Tai Chi.
1. Right instruction.
2. Talent
3. Persistence.
Of the three persistence is the most important and overcomes faults in the other two.
| 255 |
Ojoe Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:00:58pm |
re: #20 Big Steve
If it is any consolation, Lincoln didn't go to church.
| 256 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:01:02pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
19th and 20th times are the charm?
| 257 |
MandyManners Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:01:10pm |
I see Cognito, a.k.a. Major Dickhead, has shot to the top of the bottom.
| 258 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:01:30pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
Youthful enthusiasm?
| 259 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:01:44pm |
re: #234 Thanos
I just realized, I misread your comment. I don't really get what you're saying.
Are you saying that the guy who made the video is somehow trying to vindicate religion by preemtivly stating the best arguments against it?
| 260 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:02:07pm |
re: #241 suchislife
I'm surprised you don't see it, since you used exactely the same argument he did. He stated in his first example of the box we cannot access that we can never know what is in it, but we can know what is not in it, viz. inherently illogical things, or things that have properties that make it impossible to put them in a box (amazonian river). Then he says, this is just like our situation vis à vis a supernatural being, and he adds, such believes will either be riddled with internal contradictions or so vague that they have no connection with our lifes. He ends by saying that the only important thing is how we treat each other. Above us only sky! That's a critique of religion.
Actually, I think the shrieking zealots ultimately served to hide the critique.
Well I can see how you might think the comparison is not apt, but most would call it very apt. You also gloss over the part where he states that most people who have faith understand this and don't care, understanding that belief is personal.
I happen to agree with him, and suspect that only those who have weak faith attempt to make the argument for god's existence through Science or Logic. (e.g. the discovery institute folks and their shills.)
At some far flung point in the future perhaps we will know enough to prove it one way or another, but we certainly do not know enough now.
| 261 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:02:17pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
I can see entire milli-seconds being spent pondering that one.
| 263 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:03:14pm |
re: #252 Karridine
Maybe she can change, and seeks a chance to demonstrate THAT she has had a change of heart...
The problem is one of honesty, if one has had a change of heart, the correct action would be to email Charles and ask to be re-instated. Subterfuge argues that any change has not been positive.
| 264 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:03:20pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
Can we have more than one? I have some more cool names and avatars.
| 265 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:03:21pm |
re: #251 gregb
All the great scientists of the 20th century from Hawking to Einstein, Turing to Heisenberg, call it God.
Looks like a typical vague statement. Define "great", and we'll see if it is indeed "all" of them. Also, the way they used God, and what it represented, varies greatly.
| 266 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:03:25pm |
re: #261 Jimmah
I can see entire milli-seconds being spent pondering that one.
It's time to move on to the 21st.
| 267 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:03:51pm |
re: #241 suchislife
I'm surprised you don't see it, since you used exactely the same argument he did. He stated in his first example of the box we cannot access that we can never know what is in it, but we can know what is not in it, viz. inherently illogical things, or things that have properties that make it impossible to put them in a box (amazonian river). Then he says, this is just like our situation vis à vis a supernatural being, and he adds, such believes will either be riddled with internal contradictions or so vague that they have no connection with our lifes. He ends by saying that the only important thing is how we treat each other. Above us only sky! That's a critique of religion.
Actually, I think the shrieking zealots ultimately served to hide the critique.
Well, let's instantiate this critique via a concrete example - say, the simultaneous attribution of the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience to a purported deity.
If an entity was aware of everything, it would know for certain what would happen in the furure, hence, be powerless to change it. Otoh, if it was all-powerful, it could chage the future at will, and hence could not know it for certain in advance, because such foreknoweledge would constrain its future-altering powers.
In other words, omniscience and omnipotence are like the irresistable force and the immoveable object; they cannot simultaneously inhere in the selfsame universe.
Why did the ancients then erroneously attribute both these attributes to deity? Because they were unaware of Greek logic, and did not realize that absolutizing attibutes could cause them to contradict each other. They just figured that strong was good, and stronger was better, and thus postulated that their deity was all-powerful, and likewise figured that wise was good and wiser was better, and likewise postulated their deity was all-knowing.
It may indeed be a logical critique of the cavalier human attribution of absolute characteristics to deity, but if it is, it is a quite valid critique.
| 268 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:04:02pm |
re: #161 MandyManners
It happens.
After some testing, I realized that I apparently hit the quote button multiple times without realizing that each click added another copy of the message.
Noob error. Nothing to see here.
| 269 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:04:55pm |
The 25th banned sock should come with a prize like a free copy of a Glenn Beck book, or something.
| 272 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:05:59pm |
re: #251 gregb
There are always fundamental truths outside any system of logics that can't be proven within the limitations of the system. All the great scientists of the 20th century from Hawking to Einstein, Turing to Heisenberg, call it God. Who am I to break with convention?
On a completely different part of the thread, my friends at Lost Abbey won two gold medals at the Great American Beer Festival. One was a Trappist Ale called Duck Duck Gooze. Get it while you can find it.
It appears that Dostoyevsky was right when he claimed that all defences of religious faith ultimately biol down to Magic, Mystery, or Authority.
| 275 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:06:45pm |
re: #268 Ray in TX
After some testing, I realized that I apparently hit the quote button multiple times without realizing that each click added another copy of the message.
Noob error. Nothing to see here.
re: #268 Ray in TX
After some testing, I realized that I apparently hit the quote button multiple times without realizing that each click added another copy of the message.
Noob error. Nothing to see here.
re: #268 Ray in TX
After some testing, I realized that I apparently hit the quote button multiple times without realizing that each click added another copy of the message.
Noob error. Nothing to see here.
You did what?! oh noes
//
| 276 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:07:35pm |
re: #244 Charles
I'm trying to decide if I should ban strangelet/jinnderella.
This is the 18th account she's registered at LGF, and all the others were banned.
You are getting soft, but why not see where it leads?
| 277 |
Digital Display Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:08:14pm |
Look Folks..If you have had your ass kicked out of year a dozen times.If you are going to sneak back in..Could you at least come up with some killer new nics? Please try to be original..We may even award you an Oscar or sometime..Doctor Stranglelove or something...Be original damn it!
GO BIG OR GO HOME!
LOL
| 278 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:08:28pm |
re: #268 Ray in TX
After some testing, I realized that I apparently hit the quote button multiple times without realizing that each click added another copy of the message.
Noob error. Nothing to see here.
I still Personally BELIEVE it was the flux caused by using 12 dimension equations, but my math isn't that strong to form an argument in proof, Sigh.
| 279 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:08:36pm |
re: #273 Sharmuta
You're right. I guess I didn't think it through really. There's the Ig Nobel, the Razzies and the Darwin Awards. A Beck prize might just work after all.
| 280 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:08:38pm |
| 281 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:08:39pm |
re: #267 Salamantis
If an entity was aware of everything, it would know for certain what would happen in the furure, hence, be powerless to change it. Otoh, if it was all-powerful, it could chage the future at will, and hence could not know it for certain in advance, because such foreknoweledge would constrain its future-altering powers.
It is possible to posit an omnipotent being that has no foreknowledge. It knows everything that has happened, but the future is still to be determined. It's the George Burns incarnation from "Oh God!"
If he has foreknowledge, then we are talking about Calvinism.
| 282 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:09:53pm |
re: #277 HoosierHoops
Look Folks..If you have had your ass kicked out of year a dozen times.If you are going to sneak back in..Could you at least come up with some killer new nics? Please try to be original..We may even award you an Oscar or sometime..Doctor Stranglelove or something...Be original damn it!
GO BIG OR GO HOME!
LOL
They say hate is next to love.
| 283 |
Right Brain Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:10:26pm |
re: #174 Thanos
Which specific point do you disagree with? Please be specific and concise, not all who are reading are philosophy majors or even minors.
Any "point" that attempts to link reason within sentences with being. I already said that.
| 284 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:10:33pm |
re: #276 Naso Tang
You are getting soft, but why not see where it leads?
I had to ban her. Just had to. It might be different if she had just come clean right away with the first comment, but no.
Here she is at Balloon Juice, by the way, complaining about being banned at LGF and forgetting to mention that she tried to register 17 freaking times:
[Link: www.balloon-juice.com...]
| 285 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:10:50pm |
re: #279 cenotaphium
You're right. I guess I didn't think it through really. There's the Ig Nobel, the Razzies and the Darwin Awards. A Beck prize might just work after all.
I have a sneaking suspicion this one likes Glenn Beck. If it is who I think it is, she told me so, and if it is who I think it is, Charles should know she's posting at 2 with yet another made up name.
| 286 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:11:00pm |
re: #279 cenotaphium
You're right. I guess I didn't think it through really. There's the Ig Nobel, the Razzies and the Darwin Awards. A Beck prize might just work after all.
I miss the Fiskie. Been a while.
| 287 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:11:05pm |
| 288 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:11:14pm |
If you've not seen John Carpenter's The Thing, this observation won't make any sense. Good movie though.
I think the fear of religion/atheism is like the fear of The Thing. Any group wants consistency in its members so that they can all face a common enemy with like mind. This was okay for small homogenous groups, but is failing us now that we've diversified. The religious see the atheists as The Thing infecting the group. The atheists see the religious as The Thing to be exposed and defeated so we can come to a new common understanding of the world around us. I think/hope atheism will eventually prevail, but it will be a long transition.
I just don't want any spider legs coming out of my neighbor's head...
| 289 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:11:37pm |
re: #284 Charles
I had to ban her. Just had to. It might be different if she had just come clean right away with the first comment, but no.
Here she is at Balloon Juice, by the way, complaining about being banned at LGF and forgetting to mention that she tried to register 17 freaking times:
[Link: www.balloon-juice.com...]
I defer.
| 290 |
Right Brain Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:11:50pm |
re: #177 Altermite
Yes, but you didn't actually say why he is wrong.
Never try to disprove and unproven hypothesis, it cannot be done. On the other hand that is exactly what he is trying to do.
| 291 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:12:06pm |
re: #283 Right Brain
Any "point" that attempts to link reason within sentences with being. I already said that.
You're not getting any clearer.
| 292 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:12:09pm |
re: #278 Pietr
I still Personally BELIEVE it was the flux caused by using 12 dimension equations, but my math isn't that strong to form an argument in proof, Sigh.
The professor for that class only teaches in a university in the 8th dimension. I just happened to stumble across his college thesis (and email address) while doing research on Latin hypercubes. Google books has EVERYTHING.
| 293 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:12:21pm |
re: #260 Thanos
Well I can see how you might think the comparison is not apt, but most would call it very apt.
Why would you think this? I have now stated twice that I agree with him!!
You also gloss over the part where he states that most people who have faith understand this and don't care, understanding that belief is personal.
I don't gloss over it. I said in my first comment that there is one explicit message, i.e. faith should be personal, which enjoys the support of most religious and atheist people, and most lizards. But there is a second clearly implicated message, namely a critique of religion, and that is not wrong, but it is contentious. I was drawing attention to this. That is not the same as glossing over the overt message.
I happen to agree with him,
Yes! You and me both!
and suspect that only those who have weak faith attempt to make the argument for god's existence through Science or Logic. (e.g. the discovery institute folks and their shills.)
At some far flung point in the future perhaps we will know enough to prove it one way or another, but we certainly do not know enough now.
But he does say that same things are known already. There is no Amazonian river in the box, and there are no inherently illogical beings.
I hope I did the quotes right!
| 294 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:12:52pm |
re: #285 Sharmuta
I have a sneaking suspicion this one likes Glenn Beck. If it is who I think it is, she told me so, and if it is who I think it is, Charles should know she's posting at 2 with yet another made up name.
Oh yes? Imagine my overweening surprise.
| 295 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:12:55pm |
re: #281 Ray in TX
If an entity was aware of everything, it would know for certain what would happen in the furure, hence, be powerless to change it. Otoh, if it was all-powerful, it could chage the future at will, and hence could not know it for certain in advance, because such foreknoweledge would constrain its future-altering powers.
It is possible to posit an omnipotent being that has no foreknowledge. It knows everything that has happened, but the future is still to be determined. It's the George Burns incarnation from "Oh God!"
If he has foreknowledge, then we are talking about Calvinism.
Yep, the doctrine that who was to be damned and who was to be saved was written in the Book of Life from time's beginning, and there is nothing whatsoever that anyone can do to change it.
Which is a license to do whatever one wants to do, however cruel or evil, because it matters not one whit as far as the future disposition of one's immortal soul is concerned, anyway. Besides which, God always intended for one to do what one does, and one really has no choice in the matter.
Say goodbye to free will.
| 296 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:13:03pm |
re: #284 Charles
That's probably not who I was thinking, but... I do know one has been persistent in socking up.
| 297 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:13:18pm |
re: #276 Naso Tang
You are getting soft, but why not see where it leads?
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
...
Ridiculous the waste sad time
Stretching before and after.
| 298 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:13:25pm |
| 299 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:14:23pm |
re: #293 suchislife
Ok, have to work on the quoting. Sorry!
| 300 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:00pm |
re: #283 Right Brain
Pick one, defend your disagreement, be specific.
| 301 |
Karridine Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:00pm |
re: #288 amused
Any group wants consistency in its members so that they can all face a common enemy with like mind.
Consistency?
Some organizations want unity and harmony while cherishing diversity... others demand UNIFORMITY...
| 302 |
Digital Display Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:09pm |
re: #282 Naso Tang
They say hate is next to love.
When I think of all those nights
All those games you played
All those times You tried to leave
But all those times you stayed
I still hear your laughter
You try to cut me with a blade
It's a thin line
It's a thin line between what is and what is not
It's a thin line between what you need and what you got
It's a thin line
You are a poster with your own mind
you got nothing left to lose
Moonlight through the window
left you looking like a fool..
It's a Thin Line
It's a thin line between what is and what is not
It's a thin line between what you need and what you got
It's a thin line
-Hoopster 2009
| 303 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:19pm |
| 304 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:25pm |
re: #293 suchislife
But there is a second clearly implicated message, namely a critique of religion, and that is not wrong, but it is contentious.
To what degree do you think that contentious, yet not wrong, issues need to be avoided?
| 305 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:33pm |
re: #288 amused
I just don't want any spider legs coming out of my neighbor's head...
I remember convincing my teenage daughter that movie was worth watching despite the superior effects of modern movies. She was enjoying the movie but, when the spider legs came out of the head, it suddenly became EPIC. I breathed a heavy sigh of relief knowing my status as "cool dad" had been preserved for at least one more week.
| 306 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:47pm |
re: #299 suchislife
Ok, have to work on the quoting. Sorry!
Ce'st La Vie (Did I get that right?) Lol.
| 307 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:16:51pm |
re: #299 suchislife
I have to go, so don't take it personally if I don't answer further comments!
| 308 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:17:00pm |
re: #296 Sharmuta
That's probably not who I was thinking, but... I do know one has been persistent in socking up.
Gah- who knows, Charles? Who I'm thinking of has no problems lying. No reason to think she's telling the truth at Balloon Juice.
| 309 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:17:16pm |
re: #290 Right Brain
Never try to disprove and unproven hypothesis, it cannot be done. On the other hand that is exactly what he is trying to do.
That is not what he's trying to do. He's pointing out that you can't prove an unprovable hypothesis.
To disprove an unprovable hypothesis? Well... duh. No shit. We all knew that.
| 310 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:17:31pm |
re: #302 HoosierHoops
I hope that is not really really personal.
| 311 |
cenotaphium Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:18:05pm |
Is it customary to say "good night" or "goodbye for now" after being involved in a thread?
I'll take my chances with a "good night, lizards"!
I feel pretty good about my first day! :)
| 312 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:18:26pm |
re: #305 Ray in TX
Yeah, that scene gets 'em every time. The character's response in the movie itself is priceless.
| 313 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:18:43pm |
Just to briefly change the subject - please keep our Manila lizards in mind... as they just had a tropical storm pass through and dump a record amount of rainfall on them (over 16" in 24 hours). Supposedly a quarter of a million people have been displaced in Manila.
"lazardo" hails from Manila and I didn't seen him post last night. Hope he is ok.
| 314 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:18:47pm |
re: #307 suchislife
I have to go, so don't take it personally if I don't answer further comments!
Not if you said you have to go.
| 315 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:20:23pm |
re: #303 albusteve
I do think the Wiley Coyote (Genius) analogy is perfect for the 18 time loser.
| 316 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:20:34pm |
One more question: I just copied "blockquote" before and after every quote, apparently that was wrong, what should I be doing? Or does it only work at the beginning of the comment?
| 317 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:20:37pm |
re: #312 amused
Yeah, that scene gets 'em every time. The character's response in the movie itself is priceless.
And I reiterate my heretical belief that Carpenter's The Thing was superior to the original.
| 318 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:20:42pm |
re: #305 Ray in TX
I remember convincing my teenage daughter that movie was worth watching despite the superior effects of modern movies. She was enjoying the movie but, when the spider legs came out of the head, it suddenly became EPIC. I breathed a heavy sigh of relief knowing my status as "cool dad" had been preserved for at least one more week.
That lasted until the first "boyfriend" episode, right?
| 319 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:20:42pm |
Zoe the kitten is becoming fascinated by the Roomba. She follows it from room to room watching it work. When she hears the beeps when I turn it on she comes running into the room.
| 320 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:21:00pm |
re: #316 suchislife
One more question: I just copied "blockquote" before and after every quote, apparently that was wrong, what should I be doing? Or does it only work at the beginning of the comment?
Highlight the quote, then hit "blockquote".
| 321 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:21:28pm |
re: #316 suchislife
One more question: I just copied "blockquote" before and after every quote, apparently that was wrong, what should I be doing? Or does it only work at the beginning of the comment?
Are you staying to read the answers? :)
| 322 |
Digital Display Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:21:33pm |
re: #310 Naso Tang
I hope that is not really really personal.
Last I checked..I've written 300 songs..It's hobby..
Last I checked no one in this world thought they were worth shit..
But I just love to write and always have..I'm crap.. but it brings joy to my heart.. Writing blues is always fun cause you just wish the listener would fall to his knees and beg you to stop...'Not the dog too!'
*wink*
| 323 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:21:51pm |
re: #319 Killgore Trout
Zoe the kitten is becoming fascinated by the Roomba. She follows it from room to room watching it work. When she hears the beeps when I turn it on she comes running into the room.
Cats being ATTRACTED to vacuum cleaners?!
And you're still gonna tell me you don't believe we're living in the End Times?
| 324 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:21:52pm |
re: #317 Occasional Reader
And I reiterate my heretical belief that Carpenter's The Thing was superior to the original.
Yes, by a huge margin!
| 325 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:21:52pm |
re: #316 suchislife
One more question: I just copied "blockquote" before and after every quote, apparently that was wrong, what should I be doing? Or does it only work at the beginning of the comment?
Highlight the text you want to blockquote and then click the button.
| 326 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:22:11pm |
re: #317 Occasional Reader
And I reiterate my heretical belief that Carpenter's The Thing was superior to the original.
If it is Kurt Russell, you can NEVER be wrong!
| 327 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:22:16pm |
| 328 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:22:32pm |
re: #311 cenotaphium
Me too! Goodnight, cenotaphium. Good to be here.
| 329 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:22:42pm |
re: #316 suchislife
One more question: I just copied "blockquote" before and after every quote, apparently that was wrong, what should I be doing? Or does it only work at the beginning of the comment?
[Link: www.w3schools.com...]
| 330 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:22:59pm |
re: #323 Occasional Reader
I suspect she thinks it's another animal of some sort.
| 331 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:23:10pm |
re: #316 suchislife
One more question: I just copied "blockquote" before and after every quote, apparently that was wrong, what should I be doing? Or does it only work at the beginning of the comment?
For each separately quoted paragraph, you would want blockquote inside the at the beginning, and then /blockquote inside the at the end.
I think.
| 332 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:23:18pm |
re: #283 Right Brain
Any "point" that attempts to link reason within sentences with being. I already said that.
Perception has evolved to present us with ever more and more authentic information concerning our surrounding world. Perception that fails to fulfill this function possesses negative survival value, and leads to the extinction of the organisms unlucky enough to suffer from its possession.
Cognition has evolved to allow us to draw ever more correct logical inferences from our perceptions. Cognition that fails to fulfill this function likewise possesses negative survival value, and leads to the extinction of the organisms unlucky enough to suffer from its possession.
Language has evolved to efficiently and correctly communicate the information gleanable from these perceptions between ourselves, and languages that perform this function less efficiently lose out in the darwinian struggle with more efficient languages.
| 333 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:23:44pm |
re: #316 suchislife
If you hit the "quote" button beside the posters name, their entire post will appear in your comment box (where you type your comments)
Put your cursor AFTEr their "last word" and you can type a reply to their post
If you dont want their entire post in youre bor, just hit "reply" next to their post and only theor screename will appear in your bax to alert them you're responding to them
| 334 |
Digital Display Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:23:50pm |
re: #317 Occasional Reader
And I reiterate my heretical belief that Carpenter's The Thing was superior to the original.
I am deeply humbled by your complement last night OR..
Thank you so much..You rock
| 335 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:09pm |
re: #319 Killgore Trout
She thinks she has found a new friend, maybe?
| 336 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:13pm |
re: #321 Naso Tang
Well, I'm reasonable and also curious, so yes!
| 337 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:23pm |
re: #319 Killgore Trout
Zoe the kitten is becoming fascinated by the Roomba. She follows it from room to room watching it work. When she hears the beeps when I turn it on she comes running into the room.
I've considered getting one, but based on what happens with the manual version, our Jack Russel would kill it instantly.
| 338 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:33pm |
re: #313 freetoken
As some of our peeps in The Southeast are also getting drenched. Does Realwest post still? Or Red, our South African living friend, who should be in Florida now?
| 339 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:36pm |
Evening lizards, the winds are kicking up, and I'm battening down the hatches here along the Lake Michigan shoreline.
It's coming.
/feart
| 340 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:45pm |
re: #319 Killgore Trout
Zoe the kitten is becoming fascinated by the Roomba. She follows it from room to room watching it work. When she hears the beeps when I turn it on she comes running into the room.
She's pissed. There's something in "her" personal space that she can't control!
| 341 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:24:51pm |
I scrolled through the DKos comments about LGF again. My favorites are the ones like this...
I guess I'll have to try to read LGF more to try to understand what a "rational" right would be. Apart from certain libertarian ideas, as far as I can tell the right is just a series of distractions to hide it's fundamental raison d'etre: empowering corporate and wealthy interests (which includes never-ending war). If you take away their obfuscations, what reason is left? If I can stomach it, I might read LGF a little more to find out...don't know if I can stomach it, though.
At least some of them are curious.
| 343 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:25:22pm |
re: #281 Ray in TX
If an entity was aware of everything, it would know for certain what would happen in the furure, hence, be powerless to change it. Otoh, if it was all-powerful, it could chage the future at will, and hence could not know it for certain in advance, because such foreknoweledge would constrain its future-altering powers.
Could you (or Sal) clarify temporal terms such as "future", "foreknowledge", and "in advance" relative to the supposed deity? Is it presumed that the Deity experiences time and the previously mentioned terms in a similar manner as us humans?
| 344 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:25:30pm |
re: #323 Occasional Reader
Cats being ATTRACTED to vacuum cleaners?!
And you're still gonna tell me you don't believe we're living in the End Times?
I think a much more reliable indicator of the End Times is that both Cognito and "jinnderella" suddenly showed up today with sock puppets.
We're doomed!!!
| 345 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:25:55pm |
re: #340 sattv4u2
Maybe if I modified it to dispense treats.
| 347 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:26:25pm |
re: #331 lurking faith
Dang it, I did that wrong. Inside the angle quotes. You know, < and >
| 348 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:26:27pm |
re: #290 Right Brain
Never try to disprove and unproven hypothesis, it cannot be done. On the other hand that is exactly what he is trying to do.
One can indeed absolutely disprove particular empirical hypotheses, by furnishing concrete empirical counterexamples. What cannot be done is to absolutely prove a general empirical assertion true in every case, because not every case can be checked, even in principle.
| 349 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:26:29pm |
re: #338 Pietr
As some of our peeps in The Southeast are also getting drenched. Does Realwest post still? Or Red, our South African living friend, who should be in Florida now?
Georgia is getting it. Florida is fine.
| 350 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:26:35pm |
re: #324 amused
Yes, by a huge margin!
The original is pretty good at the beginning, with the sense of the unknown at what had been discovered in the ice. But then, it gets stupid; faced with an angry extraterrestrial carrot, everyone sort of hangs around drinking cocktails and making glib remarks.
| 351 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:26:46pm |
re: #345 Killgore Trout
Maybe if I modified it to dispense treats.
The Roomba ,, or the cat? I have a feeling the cat already does, only in a different ,,, umm,,, "form"!
| 352 |
suchislife Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:26:58pm |
re: #342 suchislife
I'll read through the answers tomorrow and figure it out, thank you all and good night!
| 353 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:27:04pm |
re: #344 Charles
I think a much more reliable indicator of the End Times is that both Cognito and "jinnderella" suddenly showed up today with sock puppets.
We're doomed!!!
Cognito, again?
Yeesh, what a loser.
| 354 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:27:15pm |
re: #345 Killgore Trout
Maybe if I modified it to dispense treats.
so your promoting a relationship between a cat and a pile of plastic and batteries?...hang on, gotta pour another drink here
| 355 |
Digital Display Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:27:18pm |
OH CRAP! i'M LATE TO THE COLT'S PARTY! BYE!
/Blogging is addicting
| 357 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:27:34pm |
re: #341 Killgore Trout
I think that's great. I hope they do read and come understand a little better about the moderate right.
| 358 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:27:45pm |
re: #349 Naso Tang
Georgia is getting it. Florida is fine.
I'm in Georgia. Today was the 1st full sunny day in over 1 1/2 weeks
| 359 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:28:01pm |
re: #334 HoosierHoops
I am deeply humbled by your complement last night OR..
Thank you so much..You rock
Aw, hell, man. It was an observation, not a compliment!
| 360 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:28:05pm |
re: #345 Killgore Trout
Maybe if I modified it to dispense treats.
Which it would then vacuum up before the cat could eat them? That's cruel. LOL
| 361 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:28:22pm |
re: #355 HoosierHoops
OH CRAP! i'M LATE TO THE COLT'S PARTY! BYE!
/Blogging is addicting
Jeebus, what in hell is wrong with you man?
Run!
| 362 |
Ben G. Hazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:29:42pm |
| 363 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:30:04pm |
re: #341 Killgore Trout
I scrolled through the DKos comments about LGF again. My favorites are the ones like this...
I guess I'll have to try to read LGF more to try to understand what a "rational" right would be. Apart from certain libertarian ideas, as far as I can tell the right is just a series of distractions to hide it's fundamental raison d'etre: empowering corporate and wealthy interests (which includes never-ending war). If you take away their obfuscations, what reason is left? If I can stomach it, I might read LGF a little more to find out...don't know if I can stomach it, though.
At least some of them are curious.
My day just isn't complete unless I've empowered corporate interests and promulgated endless war. I live for it.
| 364 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:30:13pm |
re: #350 Occasional Reader
The DVD commentary with Carpenter is pretty good. He talks about going back to the original story, which the original movie strayed from.
| 365 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:30:55pm |
re: #352 suchislife
I'll read through the answers tomorrow and figure it out, thank you all and good night!
Just play with the format buttons, and a bit of cut and paste; then preview it until right.
| 366 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:31:05pm |
re: #317 Occasional Reader
And I reiterate my heretical belief that Carpenter's The Thing was superior to the original.
That's not heresy. It is the rare remake that exceeds the original, and "The Thing" is one of the few examples.
re: #318 poteen
That lasted until the first "boyfriend" episode, right?
I've been on a hot streak lately. Recommendations from Youtube have been very kind lately in keeping me in the "tolerable dad" category. Thank you, SkoalRebel, for your anti-Obama screed! We often gather as a family around the warm glow of the laptop, watching the latest episode of "Idiot posting on Youtube"
| 368 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:32:11pm |
re: #363 Charles
My day just isn't complete unless I've empowered corporate interests and promulgated endless war. I live for it.
And you're so good at it!
| 369 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:32:46pm |
re: #344 Charles
I think a much more reliable indicator of the End Times is that both Cognito and "jinnderella" suddenly showed up today with sock puppets.
We're doomed!!!
I don't even remember "jinnderella".
| 370 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:33:14pm |
re: #358 sattv4u2
I'm in Georgia. Today was the 1st full sunny day in over 1 1/2 weeks
Well... I'm in San Diego county, and we last had measurable rainfall on April 10, and that was about .09"
/we need water...
| 371 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:33:51pm |
re: #363 Charles
My day just isn't complete unless I've empowered corporate interests and promulgated endless war. I live for it.
Yes, those evil corporations that created all the computers and softwarz and internets!
Gah!
| 372 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:33:56pm |
Hey all, I'm new here, and while I'm normally pretty reticent, this is a subject that matters to me more than most.
I grew up agnostic and became a Christian in high school, and was fortunate enough to find evangelical and intellectual churches since then. I enjoyed the video, and I thought it was well-done and elucidated its points clearly, which many other commenters have mentioned. I have a couple issues with it, such as it making a strawman of intolerant and aggressive evangelists, while still indirectly talking down to religious believers (well, as long as you realize that what you believe is inherently illogical and/or don't bother others, there's no harm in letting you believe in it).
As for the classic paradox of "how could a being be omnipotent and omniscient" or "how could a being be omnipotent and good if he/she allows evil to happen", I don't think it's a paradox at all. I think that, for starters, having a world with self-aware beings and no pain or suffering will result in these beings not knowing what pleasure or happiness is, since they don't know what its absence is. This is like how people born wealthy are often unable to think of an alternative to having money or living well. I don't think, either, that it would be possible to create a world without pain and beings that would appreciate it, because the only way to do that is for people to be made omniscient. And if everyone would be omniscient, would there be distinctive personalities?
In addition to that, just because a being can do anything, doesn't mean he/she should. If people have free will, then having a being intercede every time something evil would happen, then that's no free will at all. Personally, I understand and to some degree share the objections in "The Brothers Karamazov", such as whether any good could counterbalance suffering inflicted on an innocent being, like a child. However, (and I understand the limitations of a 10m youtube video) saying "this isn't easily logical to me, so I'm filing this in the 'illogical' column" is unfairly dismissive of the philosophical, literary, and even logical debate that could be done in those subjects.
Please don't get me wrong, there are few people that frustrate and anger me more are closed-minded and hateful would-be evangelists that convert one person and turn off twenty, making my job and duty as a Christian (to make the lives of people in my life better (and not through evangelism)) that much more difficult.
| 373 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:34:41pm |
re: #370 freetoken
Well... I'm in San Diego county, and we last had measurable rainfall on April 10, and that was about .09"
/we need water...
ummm,,, you have the largest ocean in the world ,,, just look west!!
///
I envy you, btw ,, I LOVE San Diego
| 374 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:34:48pm |
| 375 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:35:27pm |
re: #363 Charles
My day just isn't complete unless I've empowered corporate interests and promulgated endless war. I live for it.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
| 377 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:36:06pm |
re: #370 freetoken
Well... I'm in San Diego county, and we last had measurable rainfall on April 10, and that was about .09"
/we need water...
why not take it out of the ocean?...too complicated?
| 378 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:36:08pm |
re: #363 Charles
My day just isn't complete unless I've empowered corporate interests and promulgated endless war. I live for it.
I won't lie and deny that my ears didn't perk up when justice Sotomayor made some comments recently about the legitimacy of corporate personhood. I've never seen anything in the Constitution about corporations and will not lose any sleep if their "rights" go the way of the Dodo.
War? That's like our national pastime.
| 379 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:36:48pm |
re: #370 freetoken
Well... I'm in San Diego county, and we last had measurable rainfall on April 10, and that was about .09"
/we need water...
On a serious note, at this time last year our main water supply ( Lake Lanier ) was down 19 FEET. We were under sever restrictions banning any and all outdoor watering
| 380 |
Ojoe Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:36:59pm |
| 381 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:37:10pm |
re: #371 BigPapa
Yes, those evil corporations that created all the computers and softwarz and internets!
Gah!
No, people created those things. Corporations just own them.
| 383 |
gregb Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:37:35pm |
re: #272 Salamantis
It appears that Dostoyevsky was right when he claimed that all defences of religious faith ultimately biol down to Magic, Mystery, or Authority.
I don't know about that, but my argument is about the fundamental theory of logic. It's a well known paradox. It just happens to be consistent with my religious faith.
You can either have any system of logic that is consistent or complete, but never both. If you assume one as true, you can always prove the contradiction of the other, thus the link to Goedel. Assume Logic is the box. You can always prove for any set of consistent logical tools you stick inside there and using only the tools inside the box that there is something outside of it that is true (but cannot be proven by using only those tools).
Another comment on the video from a logician's standpoint, all the statements he makes concerning the asymmetry are a red herring--equivalent to what he's trying to argue against. Logically, you can reverse any of those statements.
| 384 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:38:07pm |
OK, the Amazing Race is in Japan. I have to go watch this.
'night!
| 385 |
Will Robinson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:38:31pm |
re: #377 albusteve
why not take it out of the ocean?...too complicated?
Can't be that complicated, it's being done around the world, but 75% of the capacity is in the Middle East...
| 386 |
Randall Gross Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:38:34pm |
| 387 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:38:57pm |
re: #381 Ray in TX
No, people created those things. Corporations just own them.
Here we go. Corporations are made of... people.
| 388 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:38:57pm |
re: #384 lurking faith
OK, the Amazing Race is in Japan. I have to go watch this.
'night!
You must be a huge fan if you're going to Japan just to watch it. Why not just turn on the TV?
| 389 |
Ojoe Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:39:21pm |
re: #383 gregb
Faith is quite present these days IMHO; It used to build Cathedrals and now it launches Space Telescopes.
| 390 |
Crimsonfisted Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:39:33pm |
re: #388 sattv4u2
You must be a huge fan if you're going to Japan just to watch it. Why not just turn on the TV?
we need a funny icon to vote.
| 391 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:39:45pm |
re: #372 Liberally Conservative
I have a couple issues with it, such as it making a strawman of intolerant and aggressive evangelists...
Without getting into your other points, I can tell you from much personal experience that this is absolutely not a straw man argument. I've received dozens, possibly hundreds, of hate mails from pissed off fundamentalists because I've posted articles supporting evolution, and a very very common theme is that I'm doomed to burn forever in hell.
I'm not saying you are like that. But there's a reason why this kind of irrational behavior is so common -- it's instilled in these people since birth, and when they're challenged on it, the only response they have is to threaten eternal damnation.
| 393 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:39:56pm |
...Now if we could only get the Food Network to stop running shows about cakes.
| 394 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:40:12pm |
re: #387 BigPapa
Here we go. Corporations are made of... people.
hehehehe.. I used to love telling my lefty freinds that Haliburton employed 80,000 PEOPLE, with good pay and bennies!
| 395 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:40:37pm |
re: #393 Killgore Trout
...Now if we could only get the Food Network to stop running shows about cakes.
Why do you hate Fat Veggie Bastard?
//
| 396 |
Right Brain Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:41:07pm |
re: #291 BigPapa
You're not getting any clearer.
I saw a perfect sculpture built by a NYC conceptual artist: he enclosed a high-end reel to reel tape recorder connected to a state of the art microphone inside a six foot high plywood box, this particular recorder was widely used throughout the recording industry as was the microphone. All interior sides of the box had many layers of sound absorbent foam such that no sound could get in, and no sound could get out (within reason, this was not NASA). The recorder was set at "on" and sealed in the box for an hour until the tape was expected to run out. When he played the tape it had recorded its own mechanism, whirling motors, winding tapes, scraping across the heads, 60 cycle hum, etc.
His sculpture is an illustration of post-modern thought: a state of the art tape recorder was recording itself, always actually, just not as apparent as it was in this quiet room.
The criticisms of deconstruction is that its another way to doodle while the world goes to hell, one poster called it an ad hominem attack, I am sure that many bad deconstructions are little more than that. In French the word "trace" means a physical appearance, like a footprint in the snow, this seems not to have been grasped in English and often this activity is just insult.
In his book Glass, Derrida wrote one text prior to Hegel on glass, so you could place it on top of a page of Hegel and read both at the same time, that is a good deconstruction. Once you see a governing text or event inside of a writing, much like listening to a tape recorder record itself, one will never look at a text or listen to an argument the same way.
Now go back and listen to the video of British culture, thats all you're hearing.
| 397 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:41:08pm |
re: #395 sattv4u2
I'm guilty of cake-ism.
| 398 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:41:16pm |
re: #392 MikeySDCA
Would you care to suggest a truly practical way, nor based on imaginary technology?
Actually, it's not at all "imaginary"
Please see Egypt, amongst others
| 399 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:41:36pm |
re: #392 MikeySDCA
Would you care to suggest a truly practical way, nor based on imaginary technology?
no...I'd expect that and more from the Californians themselves if I thought for a minute they were practical
| 401 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:43:33pm |
re: #383 gregb
If you assume one as true, you can always prove the contradiction of the other, thus the link to Goedel.
That's not true. I don't believe in God: that doesn't mean I can prove a contradiction in proving god not true.
I don't understand the link to Goedel, but at least you're not a condescending about it like somebody else who I wont name (but the name rhymes with ight ain).
| 402 |
gregb Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:44:01pm |
re: #265 cenotaphium
Looks like a typical vague statement. Define "great", and we'll see if it is indeed "all" of them. Also, the way they used God, and what it represented, varies greatly.
Sounds like a challenge. Name the top 5 scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century. I'll name the scientists that made it possible, what theory they used and we can "un-vague" the statement.
People don't practice inconsistent science. To claim to do so would make them junk scientists.
| 403 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:44:06pm |
| 404 |
Will Robinson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:44:19pm |
re: #387 BigPapa
Here we go. Corporations are made of... people.
I thought it was Soylent Green that was made of people...
| 406 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:45:56pm |
re: #377 albusteve
why not take it out of the ocean?...too complicated?
Desalinization is expensive on a large scale. There is a project starting to do such... but again, it is expensive.
| 407 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:47:08pm |
Michelle Malkin and James "Some children absolutely demand to be spanked" Dobson, together at last:
[Link: www.rightwingwatch.org...]
| 408 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:47:09pm |
re: #383 gregb
Assume Logic is the box. You can always prove for any set of consistent logical tools you stick inside there and using only the tools inside the box that there is something outside of it that is true (but cannot be proven by using only those tools).
You are correct. They are tools. And, like all tools, they are ultimately judged by their utility and effectiveness.
Find me a tool for interpreting the world that has more utility and effectiveness than Logic, and I will listen.
| 409 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:47:10pm |
re: #372 Liberally Conservative
I have a couple issues with it, such as it making a strawman of intolerant and aggressive evangelists, while still indirectly talking down to religious believers (well, as long as you realize that what you believe is inherently illogical and/or don't bother others, there's no harm in letting you believe in it).
That is not a straw man at all and really the point. The 'talking down'' part is not there, I did not see it. The use of logical fallacy to prove the existence of God, that is talked down to.
Would you like to prove God without the use of fallacy or just believe and let me not believe and we'll call it a day?
| 410 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:47:39pm |
re: #400 MikeySDCA
[Link: www.globalwaterintel.com...]
| 411 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:47:57pm |
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
| 412 |
Ojoe Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:48:15pm |
Just to add to the discussion here, if you can perceive something, then I don't think you need to believe it. Faith can be a way to see things and as such, and as a personal thing, faith seems to me much stronger than belief, which is a half-way thing at best, IMHO.
Thus all the vehemence about believing in evolution vs God.
Really the vehemence comes form a place of thinness, of weakness.
| 413 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:48:16pm |
re: #406 freetoken
Desalinization is expensive on a large scale. There is a project starting to do such... but again, it is expensive.
re: #406 freetoken
Desalinization is expensive on a large scale. There is a project starting to do such... but again, it is expensive.
bummer...greens fees are expensive in California too
| 416 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:49:06pm |
re: #372 Liberally Conservative
Hey all, I'm new here, and while I'm normally pretty reticent, this is a subject that matters to me more than most.
I grew up agnostic and became a Christian in high school, and was fortunate enough to find evangelical and intellectual churches since then. I enjoyed the video, and I thought it was well-done and elucidated its points clearly, which many other commenters have mentioned. I have a couple issues with it, such as it making a strawman of intolerant and aggressive evangelists, while still indirectly talking down to religious believers (well, as long as you realize that what you believe is inherently illogical and/or don't bother others, there's no harm in letting you believe in it).
It is not stated in the video that it is necessary to disabuse others of their illogicalities; it is just stated that others should not be permitted to foist their illogicallities upon others against their will, and logical defences against this are provided.
As for the classic paradox of "how could a being be omnipotent and omniscient" or "how could a being be omnipotent and good if he/she allows evil to happen", I don't think it's a paradox at all.
It's a logical self-contradiction for a being to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent in the selfsame universe.
I think that, for starters, having a world with self-aware beings and no pain or suffering will result in these beings not knowing what pleasure or happiness is, since they don't know what its absence is. This is like how people born wealthy are often unable to think of an alternative to having money or living well. I don't think, either, that it would be possible to create a world without pain and beings that would appreciate it, because the only way to do that is for people to be made omniscient. And if everyone would be omniscient, would there be distinctive personalities?
So we are born to suffer for our own benefit and edification? I would think that an omniscient being could figure out a less brutal means to communicate such lessons.
In addition to that, just because a being can do anything, doesn't mean he/she should. If people have free will, then having a being intercede every time something evil would happen, then that's no free will at all. Personally, I understand and to some degree share the objections in "The Brothers Karamazov", such as whether any good could counterbalance suffering inflicted on an innocent being, like a child. However, (and I understand the limitations of a 10m youtube video) saying "this isn't easily logical to me, so I'm filing this in the 'illogical' column" is unfairly dismissive of the philosophical, literary, and even logical debate that could be done in those subjects.
But whatever a perfect being decides to do or let happen is the good and right thing to do, by definition - no matter how horrific the human consequences (see Holocaust).
The things listed on the illogical side are clearly illogical. They are either internally self-contradictory, externally contradict adjacent logical truths, or contradict the parameters of the empirical reality in which we reside.
Please don't get me wrong, there are few people that frustrate and anger me more are closed-minded and hateful would-be evangelists that convert one person and turn off twenty, making my job and duty as a Christian (to make the lives of people in my life better (and not through evangelism)) that much more difficult.
As long as people are good to and tolerant of each other, it matters not to me what their rationale for being so is. And neither should my rationale matter to them. What torques my jaws is when they gratuitously view me as ignorant, malevolent, or dense for not accepting their particular dogmas, and set out to forcibly redeem me 'for my own good' regardless of my wishes in the matter.
| 419 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:49:33pm |
re: #391 Charles
Without getting into your other points, I can tell you from much personal experience that this is absolutely not a straw man argument. I've received dozens, possibly hundreds, of hate mails from pissed off fundamentalists because I've posted articles supporting evolution, and a very very common theme is that I'm doomed to burn forever in hell.
I'm not saying you are like that. But there's a reason why this kind of irrational behavior is so common -- it's instilled in these people since birth, and when they're challenged on it, the only response they have is to threaten eternal damnation.
I don't doubt that you've been on the receiving end of intolerant fundies, and I agree that they're that way since they've been indoctrinated since their first Sunday School and Vacation Bible School. I just said they're a strawman because they're such an easy and deserving target, and not many people would mind using them as such. But they're not the audience here; thinking believers and non-believers are, and I think that arguments should be directed there.
And thank you for the reply, I feel special ^_^.
| 420 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:49:35pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
"Which door would the other guard say is the door that leads out if asked?"
| 421 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:49:46pm |
Speaking of impractical...The Palm Trilogy
The first one was originally surrounded by a solid breakwater ring island. The water inside became rancid, so they cut the breakwater island into pieces to let some fresh water in. Something tells me that if they misunderstood the hydrology to that extent, it won't be that long before the ocean takes them down.
| 422 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:49:50pm |
| 423 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:49:53pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
"Is this the exit?"
| 424 |
Ian MacGregor Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:50:01pm |
re: #89 jimmy
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
2 Corinthians 4:18
"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
Faith by definition rests on things which cannot be proven. Faith comes as much from the heart as from the mind.
Why would a believer want to change the mind of an atheist. It is because he wants that atheist to spend eternity in heaven not hell. Now it sounds as if lots of those contacting Charles are not about sharing the Truth in Love, but are rather happy about the prospect. This is because those believers are every bit as flawed as any atheist, and do sinful hurtful things.
People are not generally converted to a belief in God via logic. They are converted by testimonials about what God has meant in people's lives and the change that has made. God, or faith in God, has turned their lives around. There are excellent, highly moral, extremely kind atheists. Perhaps on the whole they have more of these qualities than believers. But a believer knows that with God he is a better person than he was before. He does not think of himself as sinless, he does not think of himself as better than non-believers, and he does not think of himself as more loved by God. He does however cherish his relationship with God and want to continue it. Nearly everyone who believes questions that belief. There is no logical reason for it. But for them life without God is life without purpose.
| 425 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:51:24pm |
| 426 |
erraticsphinx Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:51:43pm |
re: #422 Charles
She feels at home, what can ya say?
For some of us, home is where the disgusting bigot is.
| 427 |
Gus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:51:56pm |
re: #407 Charles
Michelle Malkin and James "Some children absolutely demand to be spanked" Dobson, together at last:
[Link: www.rightwingwatch.org...]
The circle is complete. Now that she's aligned herself with James Dobson (and the RR) will others be compelled to follow?
| 428 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:52:05pm |
re: #420 Pianobuff
"Which door would the other guard say is the door that leads out if asked?"
Correct. That was too easy.
| 429 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:52:29pm |
re: #418 MikeySDCA
This is mostly "plans" in the usual manner of the Third World.
which is exactly what CA is gonna be if they don't find some water
| 430 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:52:36pm |
re: #383 gregb
I don't know about that, but my argument is about the fundamental theory of logic. It's a well known paradox. It just happens to be consistent with my religious faith.
You can either have any system of logic that is consistent or complete, but never both. If you assume one as true, you can always prove the contradiction of the other, thus the link to Goedel. Assume Logic is the box. You can always prove for any set of consistent logical tools you stick inside there and using only the tools inside the box that there is something outside of it that is true (but cannot be proven by using only those tools).
Incomplete does not entail incorrect. And until an axiomatic system breaches the Godelian barrier of recursive self-reference, Godel doesn't apply anyway. Which is why it does not apply to the relatively simple system of Aristotelian logic.
Another comment on the video from a logician's standpoint, all the statements he makes concerning the asymmetry are a red herring--equivalent to what he's trying to argue against. Logically, you can reverse any of those statements.
Actually, no you can't. Please present me with your purported concrete examples, and I will concretely refute them.
| 431 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:53:53pm |
re: #407 Charles
James "Some children absolutely demand to be spanked" Dobson,
When all your tools are hammers, are your problems look like nails.
| 432 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:54:38pm |
re: #407 Charles
Michelle Malkin and James "Some children absolutely demand to be spanked" Dobson, together at last:
[Link: www.rightwingwatch.org...]
Color me surprised.
Time to dig a little deeper on this, methinks.
| 433 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:55:16pm |
re: #428 Mich-again
Correct. That was too easy.
Here's a famous one...
Four prisoners are arrested for a crime, but the jail is full and the jailer has nowhere to put them. He eventually comes up with the solution of giving them a puzzle so if they succeed they can go free but if they fail they are executed.
The jailer puts three of the men sitting in a line, on behind another. The fourth man is put behind a screen (or in a separate room). He gives all four men party hats. The jailer explains that there are two red and two blue hats. The prisoners can see the hats in front of them but not on themselves or behind. The fourth man behind the screen can't see or be seen by any other prisoner. No communication between the men is allowed.
If any prisoner can figure out and say (out loud) to the jailer what colour hat he has on his head all four prisoners go free. The puzzle is to find how the prisoners can escape.
NO CHEATING!
| 434 |
Occasional Reader Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:55:39pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
"Who put the bomp in the bomp-sha-bomp-sha-bomp?"
| 435 |
brookly red Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:55:41pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
What time is it?
| 436 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:55:58pm |
re: #355 HoosierHoops
OH CRAP! i'M LATE TO THE COLT'S PARTY! BYE!
/Blogging is addicting
Go Colts! The Bears won today, so I can root for Indy.
| 437 |
Irish Rose Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:56:32pm |
re: #427 Gus 802
The circle is complete. Now that she's aligned herself with James Dobson (and the RR) will others be compelled to follow?
Sounds like she "aligned herself" with them a while ago.
I'd like to know how long ago, among other things.
| 438 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:56:36pm |
re: #396 Right Brain
Now go back and listen to the video of British culture, thats all you're hearing.
So what you're saying is that it sucks. Why didn't you say that instead of wasting my time telling me about a tape recorder recording itself?
You could spent the same amount of time or effort retorting any statements in the video but instead chose overly verbose rhetoric of abstract thought which summarily said 'it's sucks, it's British.'
But I'm still game if you want to try one more time.
| 439 |
anubis_soundwave Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:57:31pm |
My observation of uber-Christianists:
Their primary concern is the safety of the ETERNAL SOULS (which in itself has not been empirically verified to exist) of others; they're in full firefighter mode.
Thought exercise:
From their view, each and every "unsaved" person is inside a burning building--only they're not aware that the building is in fact burning. Worse, these "unsaved" persons are drawing in the "firefighters'" children. If the firefighters don't barge in and save the kids and the unsaved, then the kids and the "heathen" will die in this burning, collapsed building.
/I never said it made sense, mind you.
Is live and let live out of the question?
| 440 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:58:33pm |
re: #439 anubis_soundwave
My observation of uber-Christianists:
Their primary concern is the safety of the ETERNAL SOULS (which in itself has not been empirically verified to exist) of others; they're in full firefighter mode.
Thought exercise:
From their view, each and every "unsaved" person is inside a burning building--only they're not aware that the building is in fact burning. Worse, these "unsaved" persons are drawing in the "firefighters'" children. If the firefighters don't barge in and save the kids and the unsaved, then the kids and the "heathen" will die in this burning, collapsed building.
/I never said it made sense, mind you.
Is live and let live out of the question?
What is an uber-christianist? I have not heard that term before.
| 441 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:58:51pm |
re: #396 Right Brain
I saw a perfect sculpture built by a NYC conceptual artist: he enclosed a high-end reel to reel tape recorder connected to a state of the art microphone inside a six foot high plywood box, this particular recorder was widely used throughout the recording industry as was the microphone. All interior sides of the box had many layers of sound absorbent foam such that no sound could get in, and no sound could get out (within reason, this was not NASA). The recorder was set at "on" and sealed in the box for an hour until the tape was expected to run out. When he played the tape it had recorded its own mechanism, whirling motors, winding tapes, scraping across the heads, 60 cycle hum, etc.
His sculpture is an illustration of post-modern thought: a state of the art tape recorder was recording itself, always actually, just not as apparent as it was in this quiet room.
The criticisms of deconstruction is that its another way to doodle while the world goes to hell, one poster called it an ad hominem attack, I am sure that many bad deconstructions are little more than that. In French the word "trace" means a physical appearance, like a footprint in the snow, this seems not to have been grasped in English and often this activity is just insult.
In his book Glass, Derrida wrote one text prior to Hegel on glass, so you could place it on top of a page of Hegel and read both at the same time, that is a good deconstruction. Once you see a governing text or event inside of a writing, much like listening to a tape recorder record itself, one will never look at a text or listen to an argument the same way.
Now go back and listen to the video of British culture, thats all you're hearing.
What I am hearing is, as I said before, a valid and sound application of Aristotelian logic (which is originally Greek), Occam's Razor, and Popperian epistemology.
You are claiming to apprehend an Anglophile forest in order to endeavor to discredit the unassailable logical trees. This is known as a category error.
| 442 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 27, 2009 5:58:59pm |
It makes sense. MM was buddying up to Tancredo (both approve of the VDARE view of the universe), and Tancredo is part of the Colorado group of the RR.
| 443 |
Gus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:00:11pm |
re: #437 Irish Rose
Sounds like she "aligned herself" with them a while ago.
I'd like to know how long ago, among other things.
I don't know. Maybe after she moved to Colorado? Would have to search through the "Focus on the Your Own Damn Family" website. ;) I just came up with stuff from this month over there.
| 444 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:00:18pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
Ask the one who lies, "Have you been cheating with the other guard's wife?"
When he lies and says, "yes", check out both doors while they are fighting.
| 445 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:00:27pm |
Heavenly Bank Account
| 446 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:00:54pm |
re: #440 Pianobuff
What is an uber-christianist? I have not heard that term before.
It's a hostile term liberals use to deride conservative Christians. When you see that term watch out: Sharp Turn to the Left Ahead.
| 448 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:02:23pm |
re: #447 Killgore Trout
Both cats now following the Roomba.
Post a photo when you get a chance. I like funny cat photos.
| 449 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:02:30pm |
re: #446 Dark_Falcon
It's a hostile term liberals use to deride conservative Christians. When you see that term watch out: Sharp Turn to the Left Ahead.
Thanks. I really hadn't heard that one. It sounds very... militant or something.
| 450 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:02:47pm |
re: #447 Killgore Trout
Both cats now following the Roomba.
mating season might be interesting...w00t!
| 451 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:02:51pm |
re: #409 BigPapa
That is not a straw man at all and really the point. The 'talking down'' part is not there, I did not see it. The use of logical fallacy to prove the existence of God, that is talked down to.
Would you like to prove God without the use of fallacy or just believe and let me not believe and we'll call it a day?
What bothers me isn't that people don't believe my religious views, that is their freedom and their choice, and they're not sinners bound for hell and unworthy of my attention. What does bother me is the fact that I have spent almost ten years thinking and analyzing my beliefs in depth, and familiarizing myself with the arguments of other religions and those of atheists and agnostics.
The problem that I have (and it's one largely unique to internet-based discussion, not as much when it's face-to-face), is that atheists seem to consider believing Christians (such as myself) to be second-class thinkers. In this video, it's shown in the classic Christian paradoxes being dismissed as "illogical", such as the omnipotent purely good God that allows suffering. I'm not saying anyone here does that or is dismissive to Christians in general. In addition, the video seems to believe that "acceptable" faith is a private one (which I largely agree with) that acknowledges that it's not logically sound and for personal use only (which I disagree with, since my faith is also very intellectual for me).
| 452 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:04:12pm |
re: #451 Liberally Conservative
Quite Concur. And let me also welcome you to LGF, since I wasn't here for the registration thread.
| 453 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:04:17pm |
re: #439 anubis_soundwave
Is live and let live out of the question?
Probably.
If a space alien came to earth and made all the right moves to "prove" he was Jesus in order to get everyone on the planet to accept annihilation so his species could take over the earth, I'd want my fellow humans to be rational enough to reject the whole concept and fight to survive.
So my own survival against a space alien invasion depends on the destruction of religion. It's a terrible existence but someone has to live it.
| 454 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:04:23pm |
re: #448 Dark_Falcon
I'll try to get video of them running on the bamboo cat wheel one of these days.
| 455 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:04:32pm |
re: #433 Pianobuff
OK I didn't cheat. Hers the strategy. If the guy at the back of the line sees two red or two blue hats in front of him, he knows he has the opposite color and calls it out. If he sees two different colored hats in front of him he says nothing and that is the clue to the guy in the middle that his hat is the opposite color of the one he sees on the guy in front of him and he calls it out.
| 456 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:04:43pm |
re: #424 Ian MacGregor
People are not generally converted to a belief in God via logic. They are converted by testimonials about what God has meant in people's lives and the change that has made. God, or faith in God, has turned their lives around. There are excellent, highly moral, extremely kind atheists. Perhaps on the whole they have more of these qualities than believers. But a believer knows that with God he is a better person than he was before. He does not think of himself as sinless, he does not think of himself as better than non-believers, and he does not think of himself as more loved by God. He does however cherish his relationship with God and want to continue it. Nearly everyone who believes questions that belief. There is no logical reason for it. But for them life without God is life without purpose.
That is because they have not grasped the fact that humans can imbue their own lives with purpose. And they may indeed happily live out the rest of their days, and be excellent and superb friends and neighbors, while never realizing this fact.
| 457 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:05:33pm |
re: #455 Mich-again
OK I didn't cheat. Hers the strategy. If the guy at the back of the line sees two red or two blue hats in front of him, he knows he has the opposite color and calls it out. If he sees two different colored hats in front of him he says nothing and that is the clue to the guy in the middle that his hat is the opposite color of the one he sees on the guy in front of him and he calls it out.
Check out the brain on Brad!
| 458 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:05:48pm |
re: #452 Dark_Falcon
Quite Concur. And let me also welcome you to LGF, since I wasn't here for the registration thread.
Thank you. You all seem like good people ^_^.
| 459 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:06:08pm |
re: #449 Pianobuff
Thanks. I really hadn't heard that one. It sounds very... militant or something.
It's what Leftists use to compare conservative Christians to Islamists. It's a hostile term like fundies, but less accurate. If you wants to take aim at fundamentalist Christians, fundies is the better term to use.
| 460 |
anubis_soundwave Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:06:13pm |
re: #446 Dark_Falcon
Actually, no; I was referring specifically to the fundamentalist Christians that think the earth was created in six calendar days and preach fire and brimstone.
| 462 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:06:24pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
If I were to ask you if this is the door that leads out, what would you tell me?
| 463 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:06:36pm |
re: #457 Pianobuff
Check out the brain on Brad!
There's a similar one about a village and some number of men cheating on their wives, but I can't remember it well.
| 464 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:06:56pm |
re: #446 Dark_Falcon
I've been deriding the Dobsonite line for years and I've never heard that one!
| 465 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:07:02pm |
re: #442 freetoken
It makes sense. MM was buddying up to Tancredo (both approve of the VDARE view of the universe), and Tancredo is part of the Colorado group of the RR.
Dobson is a major kingpin of the religious far right political machine. It's fascinating that Michelle Malkin actually moved from the east coast to be closer to his headquarters, and raises many questions about the reasons for the move.
The amount of money that Dobson can throw at his pet issues is almost unbelievable. He's very adept at fleecing the flock. And he apparently has a direct line into Fox News.
His schtick is to pretend to be completely apolitical, while in truth he's a major manipulator behind the scenes. Many of the most public political front groups of the far right are connected to Dobson in one way or another.
| 467 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:08:31pm |
re: #461 Chekote
I'd prefer to call Dawkins "Darwin's Bulldog", since he is British. The Rottweiler is a German breed. And he has a Bulldog's tenacity as well.
| 468 |
anubis_soundwave Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:08:47pm |
| 469 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:09:13pm |
re: #389 Ojoe
Faith is quite present these days IMHO; It used to build Cathedrals and now it launches Space Telescopes.
Please elaborate. How is a space telescope an expression of faith?
| 470 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:10:17pm |
re: #451 Liberally Conservative
What does bother me is the fact that I have spent almost ten years thinking and analyzing my beliefs in depth, and familiarizing myself with the arguments of other religions and those of atheists and agnostics.
The problem that I have (and it's one largely unique to internet-based discussion, not as much when it's face-to-face), is that atheists seem to consider believing Christians (such as myself) to be second-class thinkers.
Don't assume that. Though it does bother me that a lot of believers think I am going to hell, though I've spend over 10 years thinking about whether god exists or not, and continue to do so.
| 471 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:10:25pm |
re: #451 Liberally Conservative
What bothers me isn't that people don't believe my religious views, that is their freedom and their choice, and they're not sinners bound for hell and unworthy of my attention. What does bother me is the fact that I have spent almost ten years thinking and analyzing my beliefs in depth, and familiarizing myself with the arguments of other religions and those of atheists and agnostics.
The problem that I have (and it's one largely unique to internet-based discussion, not as much when it's face-to-face), is that atheists seem to consider believing Christians (such as myself) to be second-class thinkers. In this video, it's shown in the classic Christian paradoxes being dismissed as "illogical", such as the omnipotent purely good God that allows suffering. I'm not saying anyone here does that or is dismissive to Christians in general. In addition, the video seems to believe that "acceptable" faith is a private one (which I largely agree with) that acknowledges that it's not logically sound and for personal use only (which I disagree with, since my faith is also very intellectual for me).
Theodicy, the study of the perdurance of evil in a God-ruled world, remains one of the most undislodgeable thorns in the side of contemporary theology.
| 472 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:10:26pm |
I'd argue that Christianist is a valid term that describes the politicization of religion. Dobson is a Christianist, for example. But then, I also think Islam is really a political system masquerading as a religion, so Islamist is valid too.
| 473 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:11:00pm |
re: #460 anubis_soundwave
Actually, no; I was referring specifically to the fundamentalist Christians that think the earth was created in six calendar days and preach fire and brimstone.
I would ask you to please use the term "fundies" in the future. I've seen "Christianist" used as a term of abuse on more than one occasion. Fundies is more descriptive of those you are criticizing, a criticism I largely share.
| 474 |
lewisinnyc Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:11:30pm |
I agree with the video's premises, but not all of its arguments. For example, its argument comparing a non-physical divine entity with wind is misguided. There is a whole body of scientific study on the interface of non-matter with matter (i.e., dark energy, dark matter, etc.). Perhaps the author might be more willing to accept a non-physical divine entity if it was compartmentalized within such a framework. However, the fact that the divine entity and the way it might interact with physical matter stands outside of the author's understanding does not make it ipso facto irrelevant or wrong.
Similarly, the mere fact that the divine entity might exist ourside of our universe is no more irrelevant from a scientific perspective than the current scientific research into multiverses or other dimensions (in addition to the three perceived spatial dimensions and time).
| 476 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:11:40pm |
re: #465 Charles
I read an article recently (Newsmax, FOX?), wherein MM said she has had to move twice because of stalkers and death threats, Charles. Not arguing with your surmise, just throwing that out for your perusal.
| 477 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:12:20pm |
re: #472 amused
I'd argue that Christianist is a valid term that describes the politicization of religion. Dobson is a Christianist, for example. But then, I also think Islam is really a political system masquerading as a religion, so Islamist is valid too.
The other person gave a completely different definition about fires and souls, etc. Which one of you is right?
| 478 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:13:10pm |
re: #418 MikeySDCA
This is mostly "plans" in the usual manner of the Third World.
They've actually been doing it for years.
[Link: www.highbeam.com...]
The big controversy a few years back was the brine the desalinization was putting inot the ground
[Link: www.springerlink.com...]
| 479 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:13:57pm |
re: #468 anubis_soundwave
I goofed!
I'm not a leftist. I like keeping what I earn, for one.
Its OK. But since you're here, could you please deploy Laserbeak, and Buzzsaw and send them to make strafing runs on Rodan Place.
/Transformers joke, not meant literally
| 480 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:14:33pm |
re: #465 Charles
It would not surprise me if Ailes and Dobson work together to each other's advantage.
| 481 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:15:27pm |
re: #478 sattv4u2
They've actually been doing it for years.
[Link: www.highbeam.com...]
The big controversy a few years back was the brine the desalinization was putting inot the ground[Link: www.springerlink.com...]
Why wasn't it kept? Sea Salt is better than regular salt, and sales of same should make a desalination plant less expensive to run?
| 482 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:18:40pm |
re: #473 Dark_Falcon
I would ask you to please use the term "fundies" in the future. I've seen "Christianist" used as a term of abuse on more than one occasion. Fundies is more descriptive of those you are criticizing, a criticism I largely share.
I would also like to say that "Fundies" is fun to pronounce.
| 483 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:19:24pm |
re: #481 Pietr
Why wasn't it kept? Sea Salt is better than regular salt, and sales of same should make a desalination plant less expensive to run?
good point...CA should be world leaders at desalination, all the aerospace engineers etc out there...it's just not a priority, meanwhile agribusiness suffers while golf courses flourish and nuclear power is demonized
| 484 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:19:32pm |
re: #474 lewisinnyc
I agree with the video's premises, but not all of its arguments. For example, its argument comparing a non-physical divine entity with wind is misguided. There is a whole body of scientific study on the interface of non-matter with matter (i.e., dark energy, dark matter, etc.). Perhaps the author might be more willing to accept a non-physical divine entity if it was compartmentalized within such a framework. However, the fact that the divine entity and the way it might interact with physical matter stands outside of the author's understanding does not make it ipso facto irrelevant or wrong.
But dark energy and dark matter (and for that matter, anti-matter (pun intended)), are still all material. Like the wind. And unlike a conjectured immaterial being.
Similarly, the mere fact that the divine entity might exist ourside of our universe is no more irrelevant from a scientific perspective than the current scientific research into multiverses or other dimensions (in addition to the three perceived spatial dimensions and time).
But likewise, nowhere in physics is it entertained that any multiverses that might theoretically exist would be immaterial. Not even apples and oranges here, but galaxies and ghosts.
The presence of the imperceptible is impossible to detect. But so is its absence.
| 485 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:19:51pm |
re: #471 Salamantis
Theodicy, the study of the perdurance of evil in a God-ruled world, remains one of the most undislodgeable thorns in the side of contemporary theology.
It's a valid concern, but theologians haven't given up on that. My personal reasoning on that is on post 372, but I'm sure you can find better arguments.
| 486 |
Chip Designer Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:21:17pm |
re: #481 Pietr
Why wasn't it kept? Sea Salt is better than regular salt, and sales of same should make a desalination plant less expensive to run?
Isn't Sea Salt just regular salt with a little fish poop mixed in with it?
| 487 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:21:26pm |
re: #470 BigPapa
Don't assume that. Though it does bother me that a lot of believers think I am going to hell, though I've spend over 10 years thinking about whether god exists or not, and continue to do so.
So, I won't assume you're an ignorant hell-bound heathen and you won't assume I'm an intellectual lightweight? I can work with that : ).
| 488 |
Karridine Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:21:31pm |
re: #434 Occasional Reader
#411 Mich-againOK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
I ask EITHER Guard, "If you were the other guard, which door would you try to get me through?" and then I'd choose the OPPOSITE DOOR...
The emboldened bit at the end is missing in previous entries... :D
| 489 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:21:31pm |
re: #200 Charles
Well, well. Isn't that interesting.
Hi, Cognito!
And to think of all the time I spent defending that man. I could have painted a Battletech miniature from start to finish. Live and learn, I guess. And that he would stoop to a sock puppet further proves you were right to ban him.
| 490 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:21:57pm |
re: #485 Liberally Conservative
It's a valid concern, but theologians haven't given up on that. My personal reasoning on that is on post 372, but I'm sure you can find better arguments.
Nor have they solved it. I answered your post 372 with post 416.
| 491 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:22:42pm |
re: #465 Charles
I can't help thinking that their strategy is flawed. They are putting together a coalition of pretty diverse groups (Religious right, Racists, Birch society, moonies/Wash Times idiots, etc) but it's going to be a money pit. They are going to put a lot of money into creating propaganda and noise. Even when the koskidz were batshit insane antisemites they wasted a lot of time "framing issues" but they also raised money and supported every candidate in obscure districts in every state. They were very conscious of nuts and bolts politics and were very passionate about it.
That's why I'm looking at Eric Odom's next project. Paulians know how to work the system, raise money and support candidates. Not sure who's funding him but he'll put that money to good use. Dobson's just wasting his money on Malkin.
| 492 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:22:54pm |
re: #481 Pietr
Why wasn't it kept? Sea Salt is better than regular salt, and sales of same should make a desalination plant less expensive to run?
No idea. I can only speculate that there was so much sea salt extracted they could never use/ sell it all
| 493 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:23:15pm |
re: #490 Salamantis
Nor have they solved it. I answered your post 372 with post 416.
Ooh, totally missed that, my mistake.
| 494 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:23:40pm |
re: #486 Chip Designer
Isn't Sea Salt just regular salt with a little fish poop mixed in with it?
I think the difference in salts depends on how bourgeoisie you are...I might be wrong
| 495 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:23:48pm |
re: #486 Chip Designer
Isn't Sea Salt just regular salt with a little fish poop mixed in with it?
NOTE TO SELF
Scratch SEA SALT off the grocery list
| 496 |
Karridine Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:24:01pm |
re: #487 Liberally Conservative
I like yr style, LibCon... there may be some truth in the condescension, though, if people sneer at Persons-of-Faith trying to PROVE a logical basis for their FAITH-BELIEF...
| 497 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:24:19pm |
re: #486 Chip Designer
Isn't Sea Salt just regular salt with a little fish poop mixed in with it?
It's supposed to be lower sodium salt, which is Campbells' soup big selling point right now. My wife has had us using it for about 5 years.
| 498 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:25:36pm |
re: #488 Karridine
That one works. Had to think about it for a sec. How have you been? I haven't seen you here in a while.
| 499 |
Ian MacGregor Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:26:40pm |
re: #456 Salamantis
Without a doubt People can be happy, good citizens, etc. without God. But for most people those qualities increase with faith.
| 500 |
Chip Designer Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:27:57pm |
re: #497 Pietr
It's supposed to be lower sodium salt, which is Campbells' soup big selling point right now. My wife has had us using it for about 5 years.
I don't think that you can have low sodium salt. You can dilute it with other things, but that is the same thing as using less. The salt beds I have seen in California get their salt from the San Francisco bay, which has a lot of pollution. And everything in the bay that is not water winds up in the sea salt.
| 501 |
albusteve Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:28:17pm |
re: #499 Ian MacGregor
Without a doubt People can be happy, good citizens, etc. without God. But for most people those qualities increase with faith.
says who?...how could you measure that?...and is there an absence of faith where there is an absence of God?...sounds fishy
| 502 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:29:27pm |
| 503 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:29:33pm |
re: #496 Karridine
I like yr style, LibCon... there may be some truth in the condescension, though, if people sneer at Persons-of-Faith trying to PROVE a logical basis for their FAITH-BELIEF...
To endeavor to empirically prove faith is, whether people to try to do such things realize it or not, to strive to kill it off and replace it with knowledge, for faith can only manifest itself in the absence of empirical evidence, while the presence of empirical evidence supporting a contention places it within the realm of (provisional or probable) knowledge.
| 504 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:32:15pm |
re: #499 Ian MacGregor
Without a doubt People can be happy, good citizens, etc. without God. But for most people those qualities increase with faith.
I do not agree that those who do not embrace religious faith are worse citizens than those who do. But the video pointed out that coercive people of faith are fond of contending such things for the purpose of coercing others who do not share their faiths into acquiescence.
| 505 |
jdog29 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:32:47pm |
re: #503 Salamantis
To endeavor to empirically prove faith is, whether people to try to do such things realize it or not, to strive to kill it off and replace it with knowledge, for faith can only manifest itself in the absence of empirical evidence, while the presence of empirical evidence supporting a contention places it within the realm of (provisional or probable) knowledge.
Excellently said.
| 506 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:34:00pm |
re: #411 Mich-again
OK here's a decent one.
You are in a room with two doors and you only get one chance to pick the one door that leads out. A man stands guard at each door. One of the men always lies and the other always tells the truth but you don't know which one is the liar. Both men know which door is the correct one. You get to ask only one question to one of them to determine which is the correct door. What do you ask?
I took the dog for a walk to discuss. She suggested asking any one of them the following:
"If I ask the other guy if your door is the correct one, will he tell the truth?"
(fingers crossed)
| 507 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:36:04pm |
re: #499 Ian MacGregor
Without a doubt People can be happy, good citizens, etc. without God. But for most people those qualities increase with faith.
Christopher Hitchens argues against this assertion in this debate with Alister McGrath.
Click on the second tab in the program list to go straight to his argument.
| 508 |
gregb Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:36:53pm |
re: #430 Salamantis
Actually, no you can't. Please present me with your purported concrete examples, and I will concretely refute them.
It's a tradtional F-->T statement.
He says that the 17th Century is in the box.
I say the 17th Century is outside the box.
That's the equivalent negation. Both the affirmative and negative statements have the same access to the tools outside the box.
It's a red herring that you can not prove it is or isn't. It's traditional Heisenberg.
| 509 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:36:56pm |
re: #506 Naso Tang
"If I ask the other guy if your door is the correct one, will he tell the truth?"
(fingers crossed)
The answer to that question wouldn't tell you which door was correct. The answer is in 420.
| 510 |
lewisinnyc Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:38:08pm |
re: 474
I don't think that you can argue that dark matter is material (unlike divine entities). The fundamental nature of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with matter in the same way as normal matter does. In other words, it does not contain atoms and does not interact via electromagnetic forces. It is a terra incognita in much the same way as the divine realm. We can see its impact, but it is not made up of the building blocks of matter. That doesn't mean that is does not exist.
As for the multiverses, I don't want to get too technical, but the discussion of "branes" and how they may have impacted (or may impact in future) our universe sounds awfully like an attempt at a scientific explanation for the divine. Yet, critically, they are no less an article of faith than the belief in a divine being.
| 511 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:40:48pm |
re: #508 gregb
It's a tradtional F-->T statement.
He says that the 17th Century is in the box.
I say the 17th Century is outside the box.That's the equivalent negation. Both the affirmative and negative statements have the same access to the tools outside the box.
It's a red herring that you can not prove it is or isn't. It's traditional Heisenberg.
No, actually, he said that it was impossible for the 17th century to be inside the box.
And so it is.
And all I have to do to empirically prove same is to go to any museum that contains something from the 17th century and point to that thing.
| 512 |
Ian MacGregor Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:41:01pm |
re: #495 sattv4u2
Sea salt contains traces of every elemre: #501 albusteve
Agreed its hard to measure, and we know that anecdotes, i.e. testimonials, are not data. But very few who come to know God do not claim to change for the better, and in most cases this is true. They better see how their own sins have hurt others.
I'm not sure what you mean by faith without God. If you mean faith in something which cannot be proven to exist is the reason for the change and not any not God himself that indeed is possible.
| 514 |
Ojoe Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:46:10pm |
re: #469 Ray in TX
A space telescope is a search for truth and you would not attempt it unless you had faith in your own powers of reason, and in your ability to see things as they really are, and in the coherence of creation.
| 515 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:47:09pm |
re: #510 lewisinnyc
re: 474
I don't think that you can argue that dark matter is material (unlike divine entities). The fundamental nature of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with matter in the same way as normal matter does. In other words, it does not contain atoms and does not interact via electromagnetic forces. It is a terra incognita in much the same way as the divine realm. We can see its impact, but it is not made up of the building blocks of matter. That doesn't mean that is does not exist.
We don't know that dark matter is immaterial; in fact, the fact that it gravitationally effects universal expansion is a virtually conclusive indicator that dark matter is indeed material - which might be why it is called dark matter.
As for the multiverses, I don't want to get too technical, but the discussion of "branes" and how they may have impacted (or may impact in future) our universe sounds awfully like an attempt at a scientific explanation for the divine. Yet, critically, they are no less an article of faith than the belief in a divine being.
I consider string theory to be less of a theory than a hypothesis or conjeture, as at present it is a mathematical castle constructed in the air, without a single iota or whit of empirical evidence to ground it, or any way to garner such evidence.
I think that Garrett Lisi's eminently testable theory is much closer to the actually obtaining stae of physical affairs:
[Link: arxiv.org...]
| 516 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:47:50pm |
re: #513 wily
After all, what logic could I employ to prove that slavery is wrong? My belief that it is wrong is a matter of faith.
Just because you cannot make a logical argument against slavery without invoking religion doesn't mean that it can't be done. Your own limitations are yours, and not shared by everyone.
| 517 |
Pawn of the Oppressor Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:48:56pm |
Speaking of matters of faith -
Can anybody advise me on the appropriateness of visiting a synagogue on Yom kippur? Especially as a prospective convert?
I don't know how to explain my concerns without writing a novel about myself and the status of my faith, but long story short, I would like to visit a Conservative synagogue tomorrow to participate in Yom Kippur services as much as I am able. I've been observing as best I can manage under current circumstances for a year or two now and I very much want to go to synagogue in general, and I figure any time is a good time to start, but on the other hand, I'm not sure if Yom Kippur would be an appropriate time to show up out of the blue as a "wannabe Jew". I want to do more than just pray and fast at home, but given my status, I don't know how exactly to go about it.
Besides religious forums or actually contacting the synagogue personally, this was the first place I thought of to ask... Thanks for any advice...
As for where and when, I was planning to go here for the evening services.
| 519 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:52:06pm |
re: #513 wily
This video is so naive, it's frightening. I say this as someone who has been firmly agnostic about "God" matters for 30 years.
If I believe, say, that slavery is wrong, I shouldn't try to convince someone else that it is? After all, what logic could I employ to prove that slavery is wrong? My belief that it is wrong is a matter of faith. I should just sit on my ass, so as not to offend someone?
No, I don't want to hear from amateur logicians that can prove slavery is wrong. Thanks in advance.
No, you use the Kantian moral categories of reversalizeability and universalizeability to convince them:
What if YOU were the slave? Would that be okay? Or are you only okay with it when it applies to other people?
What if EVERYONE were slaves? Would that be okay? And isn't the concept of everyone being a slave a contradiction in terms, just as much as the concept of everyone being a master?
But everyone can be honest, or helpful, or tolerant, and there is no contradiction. And you would like to yourself be these things as much as you would want others to be them, wouldn't you?
| 520 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:53:55pm |
re: #518 Wily
there is no logical argument against slavery (or any ethical issue, for that matter), with or without religion.
Not true. Morals do not require Religion.
| 521 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:54:25pm |
re: #509 Mich-again
The answer to that question wouldn't tell you which door was correct. The answer is in 420.
Yes it will. If the answer is no, that is the door. If it is yes, it is the other door.
| 522 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:54:26pm |
re: #416 Salamantis
It is not stated in the video that it is necessary to disabuse others of their illogicalities; it is just stated that others should not be permitted to foist their illogicallities upon others against their will, and logical defences against this are provided.
My problem with this is calling the religion of someone you don't know an "illogicality" in the first place. Many people do ignorantly believe illogicalities, and many others try to make sense of their beliefs when faced with new data.
It's a logical self-contradiction for a being to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent in the selfsame universe.
Except it's not. For example, if you've ever played the "Civilization" game series, you (the player) have the ability to turn on a mode to see everything and do anything. But you don't play that way since it's not fun. You have the potential to do anything, but you don't. I believe that this is also how God works (in a sense), limiting his own knowledge in order to give humans free will. This is also the way I approach creation; I believe God *can* do anything, and that the Genesis account is to show Bronze-Age Israelites what God could do, but I believe the Deist "God-as-a-watchmaker" view of creation. There are many instances where people hold back their full ability because there's no reason to use it, and I think that God does the same.
So we are born to suffer for our own benefit and edification? I would think that an omniscient being could figure out a less brutal means to communicate such lessons.
But what options are there? If people don't know suffering, they don't know happiness. If people are omniscient, they don't have individuality, or maybe even understanding. The best solution I could think of is to give a short exposure to suffering, and then allow eternity to be spent without it, so that people could appreciate what they have. Unfortunately, I can't really talk about my views on Heaven given the character limit : (.
The things listed on the illogical side are clearly illogical. They are either internally self-contradictory, externally contradict adjacent logical truths, or contradict the parameters of the empirical reality in which we reside.
As long as people are good to and tolerant of each other, it matters not to me what their rationale for being so is. And neither should my rationale matter to them. What torques my jaws is when they gratuitously view me as ignorant, malevolent, or dense for not accepting their particular dogmas, and set out to forcibly redeem me 'for my own good' regardless of my wishes in the matter.
They're not all clearly illogical, and I believe that these arguments are worth your time and effort to understand them, even though I'm sure many people can make better arguments. And, well, I want pretty much the same thing, but neither of us has managed to avoid conflict in that regard, have we?
| 523 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:55:57pm |
re: #520 Mich-again
Not true. Morals do not require Religion.
It is illogical to assume that good can only come from god or a faith in god.
| 524 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:56:05pm |
re: #521 Naso Tang
Yes it will. If the answer is no, that is the door. If it is yes, it is the other door.
But I concede the other solution is simpler.
| 526 |
Racer X Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:58:09pm |
re: #518 Wily
Sharmuta, the point is that there is no logical argument against slavery (or any ethical issue, for that matter), with or without religion. Arguments require propositions that we know to be true or false. According to the video, there must be empirical evidence. There is none.
That has to be one of the stupidest statements I've read in a long time.
| 527 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:59:09pm |
re: #525 Wily
I thought that's what I said. However, morals require that I have an unprovable belief that something is right or wrong.
And Salamantis, whether or not I am a slave, or everyone is a slave is irrelevant. There is no empirical evidence that I should or shouldn't be a slave. Same with the rest of the world. It is a matter of faith (not necessarily based in a religion).
Huh?
| 528 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:59:52pm |
re: #521 Naso Tang
Yes it will. If the answer is no, that is the door. If it is yes, it is the other door.
With your question regardless who you ask the answer will always be no.
| 529 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:59:55pm |
re: #514 Ojoe
A space telescope is a search for truth and you would not attempt it unless you had faith in your own powers of reason, and in your ability to see things as they really are, and in the coherence of creation.
I thought a space telescope was a search for stars and planets, at least that's what I gather from the astronomy forum I frequent. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Besides, if we did not have faith in our powers of reason and to see things as they really are, it's hard to imagine how we could ever develop the technology needed to construct and launch the telescope in question.
| 530 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 6:59:55pm |
re: #526 Racer X
That has to be one of the stupidest statements I've read in a long time.
There was more than one.
| 532 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:01:25pm |
There's no logical argument against slavery if you don't believe in god? HuH?
Ironic that the concept of slavery is used in this discussion.
| 533 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:01:37pm |
re: #518 Wily
There are logical arguments against slavery. Most of them rely on the fact that slavery is inefficient. Southern plantations before the Civil War were far less productive than Northern farms. You can always get better labor paying a free man to do work than forcing a slave to do it. Slavery also induces paranoia by placing the constant fear of an uprising in the minds of the slave master. That is a second argument against slavery: it produces unhealthy physiological traits among non-slaves.
| 534 |
transient Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:02:49pm |
re: #517 Pawn of the Oppressor
Speaking of matters of faith -
Can anybody advise me on the appropriateness of visiting a synagogue on Yom kippur? Especially as a prospective convert?
I don't know how to explain my concerns without writing a novel about myself and the status of my faith, but long story short, I would like to visit a Conservative synagogue tomorrow to participate in Yom Kippur services as much as I am able. I've been observing as best I can manage under current circumstances for a year or two now and I very much want to go to synagogue in general, and I figure any time is a good time to start, but on the other hand, I'm not sure if Yom Kippur would be an appropriate time to show up out of the blue as a "wannabe Jew". I want to do more than just pray and fast at home, but given my status, I don't know how exactly to go about it.
Besides religious forums or actually contacting the synagogue personally, this was the first place I thought of to ask... Thanks for any advice...
As for where and when, I was planning to go here for the evening services.
Most folks best able to answer your question are not online tonight, as the holy day has already begun.
My major question would be have you previously visited synagogues for regular Shabbat services or other holidays? If this is the first time you've "gone live" I'm not sure I'd pick YK, especially at the last minute. The major issue is space. Most synagogues are very crowded on the high holidays and space is at a premium. In some places you have to buy tickets in advance. Depending on how willing you are to suffer disappointment, you could just go and see if they let you in. It would have been easier if you could have called last week; no one is likely to answer a phone tonight or tomorrow.
| 535 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:02:50pm |
re: #532 BigPapa
There's no logical argument against slavery if you don't believe in god? HuH?
Ironic that the concept of slavery is used in this discussion.
Considering that religion has been used to justify placing people into slavery?
I agree- pretty ironic.
| 536 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:02:56pm |
| 538 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:04:59pm |
re: #532 BigPapa
There's no logical argument against slavery if you don't believe in god? HuH?
No that is not what Wily said. He said there is no logical argument for ethical issues period. I read it wrong the first time. If I understand it correctly, its basically "ethics are not logical". Not sure how that applies to the video though.
| 539 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:06:38pm |
re: #531 Wily
Then where is the evidence, Einstein? Show me the argument. Please, deliver me from my stupidity. Is this the part where you get silent?
Try the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. These are man made documents, but ones we accept as a basis for our way of life. You are discussing a moral and social issue, as if it were the same as religious belief, or a proven scientific fact. Can you say apples and oranges, and the comparison is useless?
| 540 |
Racer X Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:06:40pm |
re: #531 Wily
Then where is the evidence, Einstein? Show me the argument. Please, deliver me from my stupidity. Is this the part where you get silent?
I need evidence to show slavery is wrong? Are you really saying that?
For starters how would you feel if you were a slave?
| 541 |
amused Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:08:32pm |
re: #537 Wily
Ok, it is inefficient. I agree with you. Where is the logical argument that says inefficient things are right or wrong. I believe inefficient things are wrong. But I don't have any evidence.
Because the history is too short, there's a paucity of evidence. But, most social scientists will argue that an ethical society is/will be more stable over time. Is a stable society good? Is a failed society bad?
| 542 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:09:13pm |
There was no logical argument for one of the most significant factors causing the Civil War.
Isn't deconstructionism fun!
| 544 |
Ray in TX Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:09:34pm |
re: #518 Wily
Sharmuta, the point is that there is no logical argument against slavery (or any ethical issue, for that matter), with or without religion.
All logical arguments begin with assumptions that are considered self-evident. As enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, three Enlightenment principles recognize the rights of all people "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Therefore, there is a logical argument against slavery among Enlightened persons.
| 545 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:09:50pm |
re: #537 Wily
Ok, it is inefficient. I agree with you. Where is the logical argument that says inefficient things are right or wrong. I believe inefficient things are wrong. But I don't have any evidence.
Inefficiency leads to hardships, and hardships cause pain. Causing pain when it can be decently prevented is wrong, and that is yet a third argument against slavery. Give up the chase before you run off a cliff, Wiley. The Lizard Army is even faster than the Roadrunner and we're a lot smarter.
| 546 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:10:57pm |
re: #528 Mich-again
With your question regardless who you ask the answer will always be no.
Quite right. That'll teach me to try to work puzzles with a pooper scooper in one hand.
| 547 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:11:08pm |
re: #522 Liberally Conservative
My problem with this is calling the religion of someone you don't know an "illogicality" in the first place. Many people do ignorantly believe illogicalities, and many others try to make sense of their beliefs when faced with new data.
It doesn't matter whether or not I know the person; if I am aware of logical contradictions within the faith with which they are endeavoring to proselytize me, I am eminently justified in mentioning them.
Except it's not. For example, if you've ever played the "Civilization" game series, you (the player) have the ability to turn on a mode to see everything and do anything. But you don't play that way since it's not fun. You have the potential to do anything, but you don't. I believe that this is also how God works (in a sense), limiting his own knowledge in order to give humans free will. This is also the way I approach creation; I believe God *can* do anything, and that the Genesis account is to show Bronze-Age Israelites what God could do, but I believe the Deist "God-as-a-watchmaker" view of creation. There are many instances where people hold back their full ability because there's no reason to use it, and I think that God does the same.
So you are arguing that God would willfully stupefy himself for his own amusement, or that he even could? The theological argument has been made that the one thing an omnipotent deity is incapable of doing is withdrawing power and control; the same argument can be made concerning omniscience and knowledge.
This just sounds like the riposte to the question of whether God can make a rock so big that (S)He can't lift it: "If (S)He wanted to (S)He could!"
But what options are there? If people don't know suffering, they don't know happiness. If people are omniscient, they don't have individuality, or maybe even understanding. The best solution I could think of is to give a short exposure to suffering, and then allow eternity to be spent without it, so that people could appreciate what they have. Unfortunately, I can't really talk about my views on Heaven given the character limit : (.
I don't consider either human ommniscience or human omnipotence to be necessary for people not to suffer; invulnerability, however, might be nice...;~)
People do indeed suffer not only because of human finitude and frailty before the ravages of the natural world, but also because they have free will, and that allows them to choose to do things that hurt themselves and others.
They're not all clearly illogical, and I believe that these arguments are worth your time and effort to understand them, even though I'm sure many people can make better arguments. And, well, I want pretty much the same thing, but neither of us has managed to avoid conflict in that regard, have we?
Please furnish specific examples of where particular contentions labeled as illogical in that video are not - and the logical reasons why.
| 548 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:11:09pm |
re: #531 Wily
It's the whole "there can be no morality without belief in God" canard, isn't that one a bit dated?
| 549 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:12:06pm |
re: #531 Wily
Then where is the evidence, Einstein? Show me the argument. Please, deliver me from my stupidity. Is this the part where you get silent?
First off, I would like to suggest that more liberal arts should be taught in schools to counter the view that the only allowable argument is a "logical" (scientific) argument. Many fields, such as history or literature, cannot be proven scientifically. You can't logically prove that Napoleon existed, that Hamlet is an anti-hero, or that Lincoln freed the slaves, etc.
Where logic does matter is in issues of math, science and some philosophy. You need to logically prove the formulas of tangential and normal components of acceleration, the effect of gravity on planetary orbits, and so on.
As people have said, the logical argument against slavery is based on the fact that it is incompatible with the laws and ideals that our country was founded on. The historical argument against slavery is that it is ineffective at ensuring a strong and prosperous society in the future. And the moral argument against slavery combines both.
| 550 |
Simple Voice Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:13:47pm |
re: #131 Major Bedhead
I almost feel afraid to ask this, but...
What's going on here? The world is poised on the verge of confrontation with Iran over a secret nuclear facility; Iran is firing rockets; the new American President faces, to put it mildly, the rearrangement of much of his foreign policy.
And this is what we're talking about? YouTube videos?
Am I the only weirdo who finds that unusual?
I do not agree with Mr. Johnson on many issues, but I would never be so arrogant to think I could dictate what he can or can not post on his own blog.
If Mr. Johnson wants to blog about Islam, evolution or jock itch, he certainly does not need the approval of a lizardoid, pj's media or even his mom.
Sheesh, some people need to get a clue.
| 552 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:15:57pm |
re: #550 Simple Voice
The major is long gone. Look upthread (or down, whatever)
| 553 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:16:21pm |
re: #525 Wily
I thought that's what I said. However, morals require that I have an unprovable belief that something is right or wrong.
And Salamantis, whether or not I am a slave, or everyone is a slave is irrelevant. There is no empirical evidence that I should or shouldn't be a slave. Same with the rest of the world. It is a matter of faith (not necessarily based in a religion).
Nope. It's a matter that is empirically based in the existential world in which we find ourselves - spatiotemporally finite, consciously self-and-other-aware beings surrounded by others like ourselves whom we know ito varying degrees, and in the exigency that given these circumstances, we should strive to find the utilitarianly optimum way in which to share finite space and resources on a single sphere while maximizing cumulitive freedom, prosperity, and ecurity.
| 554 |
Simple Voice Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:18:42pm |
re: #552 Naso Tang
The sentiment applies to many that linger and lurk.
| 555 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:19:23pm |
re: #537 Wily
Ok, it is inefficient. I agree with you. Where is the logical argument that says inefficient things are right or wrong. I believe inefficient things are wrong. But I don't have any evidence.
Try going skindiving with an inefficient air regulator and the last thing you will experience is evidence.
| 556 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:19:33pm |
re: #551 Wily
Bagua, that's not what I said. I do not believe in a god. I do believe in right and wrong.
Most of us accept this proposition: It is wrong to harm an innocent person.
Just as there is no empirical evidence or logical arguments to support the existence of a god, there is nothing to support the proposition above. It is a proposition we accept on faith. I know we'd all like to consider ourselves erudite scientists, but this is a case where we all employ faith.
As I stated further upthread, your argument is flawed. The belief that murder is murder, that slavery is wrong is a Social and Moral issue, not a matter of faith. It is something that we in our society have fixed as LAW, and is therefore illegal based on these socially agreed upon laws. How hard is that to accept and understand?
| 557 |
Chip Designer Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:19:58pm |
re: #553 Salamantis
... while maximizing cumulitive freedom, prosperity, and ecurity.
Salamantis.
I frequently have to look up some of the words you use.
The #1 definition of ecurity at Google is:
ecurity - 1 definition - Anal sex between the alien squirrels of northern Ireland.
Please tell me that is a typo!
| 558 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:20:03pm |
re: #543 Wily
And what I am trying to point out is that the belief that "slavery is wrong" is not something that can be proven with empirical evidence and logical arguments. Most of what we believe to be right or wrong cannot be proven.
I wouldn't go that far. There is a lot of empirical evidence available to prove some things are indeed wrong.
| 559 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:21:20pm |
re: #551 Wily
re: #551 Wily
Bagua, that's not what I said. I do not believe in a god. I do believe in right and wrong.
Most of us accept this proposition: It is wrong to harm an innocent person.
Just as there is no empirical evidence or logical arguments to support the existence of a god, there is nothing to support the proposition above. It is a proposition we accept on faith. I know we'd all like to consider ourselves erudite scientists, but this is a case where we all employ faith.
It's rather silly to assert that one needs "faith" in order to accept that it's wrong to harm an innocent person. Certainly this idea operates also as a belief, but one which is highly logical and has plenty of "empirical evidence."
| 560 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:21:37pm |
re: #551 Wily
Bagua, that's not what I said. I do not believe in a god. I do believe in right and wrong.
Most of us accept this proposition: It is wrong to harm an innocent person.
Just as there is no empirical evidence or logical arguments to support the existence of a god, there is nothing to support the proposition above. It is a proposition we accept on faith. I know we'd all like to consider ourselves erudite scientists, but this is a case where we all employ faith.
Rubbish. What are you, some troll trying to deliberately give non believers a bad name with this crap?
Come to think of it...
I don't know if it worth restating the obvious for you, but like many social animals we have an instinctive, and thereafter rationalized, understanding to behave in a manner that allows us to live in a social setting.
I smell something here.
| 561 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:21:58pm |
re: #555 Salamantis
Try going skindiving with an inefficient air regulator and the last thing you will experience is evidence.
You decompressionist!
| 563 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:22:58pm |
re: #549 Liberally Conservative
First off, I would like to suggest that more liberal arts should be taught in schools to counter the view that the only allowable argument is a "logical" (scientific) argument. Many fields, such as history or literature, cannot be proven scientifically. You can't logically prove that Napoleon existed, that Hamlet is an anti-hero, or that Lincoln freed the slaves, etc.
Where logic does matter is in issues of math, science and some philosophy. You need to logically prove the formulas of tangential and normal components of acceleration, the effect of gravity on planetary orbits, and so on.
As people have said, the logical argument against slavery is based on the fact that it is incompatible with the laws and ideals that our country was founded on. The historical argument against slavery is that it is ineffective at ensuring a strong and prosperous society in the future. And the moral argument against slavery combines both.
I was going to suggest this earlier- does the Constitution count as evidence?
| 564 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:24:34pm |
| 565 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:25:06pm |
re: #547 Salamantis
So you are arguing that God would willfully stupefy himself for his own amusement, or that he even could? The theological argument has been made that the one thing an omnipotent deity is incapable of doing is withdrawing power and control; the same argument can be made concerning omniscience and knowledge.
This just sounds like the riposte to the question of whether God can make a rock so big that (S)He can't lift it: "If (S)He wanted to (S)He could!"
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the Christian view of Jesus; that Jesus had all the frailties of man while still retaining all of the power of God. My interpretation of Satan's second temptation of Jesus (jump off the Temple, God will send angels to save you, that'll prove you're the Messiah really well!) is that Jesus rejected it because it would let him transcend these frailties and limitations of humanity.
And you basically asked the "could God make a rock too heavy for him to pick up?" question. The discussion inevitably goes downhill from there : (.
I don't consider either human ommniscience or human omnipotence to be necessary for people not to suffer; invulnerability, however, might be nice...;~)
People do indeed suffer not only because of human finitude and frailty before the ravages of the natural world, but also because they have free will, and that allows them to choose to do things that hurt themselves and others.
Which is why I wonder sometimes if free will is worth the suffering of innocents. But I suppose free will is an all-or-nothing affair.
| 566 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:25:15pm |
But is anal sex between alien squirrels right or wrong?
| 567 |
Chip Designer Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:25:24pm |
re: #564 Salamantis
Security.
But you knew that...;~)
Actually, I didn't realize it until I saw the definition.
| 568 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:25:34pm |
re: #563 Sharmuta
I tried that in my #539, and 536 Sharmuta, but it is being ignored, lol.
| 569 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:26:14pm |
re: #560 Naso Tang
I smell something here.
You're not the only one smelling something very wrong. I'm putting a stop to this one before it goes any further.
| 571 |
Pietr Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:27:53pm |
re: #566 BigPapa
But is anal sex between alien squirrels right or wrong?
That is for them to decide! What if it's how they reproduce?
| 572 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:28:32pm |
re: #562 Wily
There are certainly countries that were founded on different principles, and those are the ones we sometimes have an obligation to "convert".
I think I see the real problem you're having with the video. You think it's your obligation to convert people and this video told you that it's not. Would you use force to convert these people? Because Freedom of Conscience means you can try to spread your faith, but people are free to reject it.
| 573 |
gregb Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:28:43pm |
re: #511 Salamantis
No, actually, he said that it was impossible for the 17th century to be inside the box.
And so it is.
And all I have to do to empirically prove same is to go to any museum that contains something from the 17th century and point to that thing.
Thanks, but I think "something from the 17th century" and "the 17th century" are not equal. His argument, at least in the video, was that nonsensical things prove that they can't be in the box. You cannot prove nonsensical things outside the box either--so you have an equivalence class of nonsensical things.
That's the point I was making about his reasoning.
| 575 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:29:36pm |
re: #562 Wily
I agree with most of what you say. However, even if slavery is incompatible with our laws and ideals, it still says nothing about whether it is right or wrong. Most of us would still recognize it as wrong, even if tomorrow we dug up an ancient revised copy of our laws and ideals that supplanted the one we've been working from.
There are certainly countries that were founded on different principles, and those are the ones we sometimes have an obligation to "convert".
It is wrong to use other people as means to ends beyond themselves rather than relate to them as ends within themselves. In other words, it is wrong, and in empirical error, to treat other people as if they were things, which they are not.
The inability to understand this principle is a prime attribute of sociopathy.
| 576 |
Sharmuta Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:29:52pm |
re: #569 Charles
You're not the only one smelling something very wrong. I'm putting a stop to this one before it goes any further.
Yeah- 562 reeked of religious supremacism.
| 577 |
What, me worry? Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:30:54pm |
re: #574 BigPapa
Wily was being.. wily.
lol I was trying to compose something when he fell through the trap door.
Was he saying that without God, one could not judge morality? (Curse my slow typing!)
| 579 |
poteen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:31:57pm |
re: #566 BigPapa
But is anal sex between alien squirrels right or wrong?
Martian or Venutian squirrels? It matters.
| 580 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:32:00pm |
re: #577 marjoriemoon
He was getting there, in agonising slow motion.
| 581 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:33:11pm |
re: #569 Charles
You're not the only smelling something very wrong. I'm putting a stop to this one before it goes any further.
And Wily has just run off the cliff. The coyote troll falls to the rocks below and splats onto them like a pack of late summer tomatoes.
| 582 |
Pawn of the Oppressor Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:33:39pm |
re: #534 transientThat's what I thought... Maybe only some folks in California might be online still. I think I just missed them.
I've never been to any services. I wanted to go last week but couldn't arrange it. IMO you're right about crowds, etc. It's probably best if I leave the space to the genuine Jews! And I'd like to talk to somebody before I show up, too. I imagine they'd be busy with the services.
Best to leave a visit for later, I think, as much as I want to go.
| 583 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:37:10pm |
re: #565 Liberally Conservative
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the Christian view of Jesus; that Jesus had all the frailties of man while still retaining all of the power of God. My interpretation of Satan's second temptation of Jesus (jump off the Temple, God will send angels to save you, that'll prove you're the Messiah really well!) is that Jesus rejected it because it would let him transcend these frailties and limitations of humanity.
And you basically asked the "could God make a rock too heavy for him to pick up?" question. The discussion inevitably goes downhill from there : (.
A refusal to attempt an X of which one's absolutized attributes supposedly render one capable is no defence against the charge that such actions would be logically impossible because they would be either self-contradictory, or contradict other absolutized attributes.
Which is why I wonder sometimes if free will is worth the suffering of innocents. But I suppose free will is an all-or-nothing affair.
You might like this poem of mine. Or perhaps not...;~)
Hard Question, Hard Answer
Why are we the only ones?
Of all life,
We commit mass homicide,
Kill ourselves,
And befoul our only home.
Only we.
Why?
After painful meditiation
And careful consideration
I've come to believe
That we are infected
With a blessed, damned disease
Called consciousness.
Caught between beasthood and divinity
Between being of the world and not of it
Between knowing none and knowing all
Between utter self-ignorance and supreme self-understanding
We are the creatures of individual possibility.
In the natural world there is neither good nor evil;
With awareness comes the capacity for both.
That same infection which permits art, altruism,
Loyalty and loving care, allows violence, indifference,
Cruelty and psychosis,
For it spawns personality and its offspring
Personal choice.
I have come to believe in both the divinity
And the diaboly of human nature
And that they are inseparable.
Our disease is terminal
And all we can do is try to make the best of it
By striving to treat its more virulent symptoms
While reaping its manifold blessings.
| 584 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:38:30pm |
re: #581 Dark_Falcon
And Wily has just run off the cliff.
It seems the class of 2004 has not yet exhausted its flounce potential confounding all the math based models.
| 585 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:40:35pm |
re: #573 gregb
Thanks, but I think "something from the 17th century" and "the 17th century" are not equal. His argument, at least in the video, was that nonsensical things prove that they can't be in the box. You cannot prove nonsensical things outside the box either--so you have an equivalence class of nonsensical things.
That's the point I was making about his reasoning.
Actually, the 17th century is neither inside the box nor outside the box, if we are speaking about the present, because the 17th century is in the past. But in the past, the 17th century was outside the box - which most likely didn't even exist at that time.
| 586 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:43:58pm |
re: #569 Charles
You're not the only one smelling something very wrong. I'm putting a stop to this one before it goes any further.
Next time there is taqiyya being practiced here I'll just say fe fi fo fum.
| 587 |
Ojoe Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:45:42pm |
re: #518 Wily
You may very well say that the empirical evidence that slavery is wrong is the desire for freedom written in every human heart.
Ask any small boy, "Which would you rather have, enemies or overlords?"
They will say enemies every time, there's your evidence that slavery is wrong.
| 589 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:47:27pm |
re: #585 Salamantis
Actually, the 17th century is neither inside the box nor outside the box, if we are speaking about the present, because the 17th century is in the past. But in the past, the 17th century was outside the box - which most likely didn't even exist at that time.
Is that where gregb was headed from the outset?
| 591 |
transient Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:48:04pm |
re: #582 Pawn of the Oppressor
That's what I thought... Maybe only some folks in California might be online still. I think I just missed them.
I've never been to any services. I wanted to go last week but couldn't arrange it. IMO you're right about crowds, etc. It's probably best if I leave the space to the genuine Jews! And I'd like to talk to somebody before I show up, too. I imagine they'd be busy with the services.
Best to leave a visit for later, I think, as much as I want to go.
Good luck! Try a Shabbat service and work up from there.
Maybe go for Yom Kippur next year.
| 592 |
tradewind Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:48:08pm |
re: #500 Chip Designer
Sea salt generally has a much lower sodium content than 'regular ' mined table salt.
There are all different kinds, with different trace mineral content and different tastes... some of it is really good stuff.
| 593 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:53:39pm |
re: #589 Pianobuff
Is that where gregb was headed from the outset?
Probably. The presently nonexistent can be nowhere. Hence, it cannot be inside the box. So the contention in the video is true.
| 594 |
What, me worry? Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:54:41pm |
re: #582 Pawn of the Oppressor
That's what I thought... Maybe only some folks in California might be online still. I think I just missed them.
I've never been to any services. I wanted to go last week but couldn't arrange it. IMO you're right about crowds, etc. It's probably best if I leave the space to the genuine Jews! And I'd like to talk to somebody before I show up, too. I imagine they'd be busy with the services.
Best to leave a visit for later, I think, as much as I want to go.
If I could add my $.2
Transient gave you a great answer. Any synagogue should be accepting of converts and they usually are. I would only add if by chance you find one that isn't, try another.
| 595 |
yoshicastmaster Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:56:11pm |
re: #28 Occasional Reader
LOL- so i guess the divine is now taking its cues from The Ring?
| 596 |
Chip Designer Sun, Sep 27, 2009 7:57:12pm |
re: #592 tradewind
Sea salt generally has a much lower sodium content than 'regular ' mined table salt.
There are all different kinds, with different trace mineral content and different tastes... some of it is really good stuff.
I'm not going to deny it has a different taste. A lot of that comes from it being about 11% Magnesium Sulfate (a laxative). Still, it is about 85% pure salt. That is 15% less than mined salt. Use one shake less, and you have the same result.
| 597 |
Salamantis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:00:46pm |
Here's why my answer to Mich-again's question is correct:
If you ask a truth-teller whether he would say that a particular door led outside, he would honestly answer you that he would if it in fact did, and that he wouldn't if it in fact did not.
However, if the person you asked were a liar, he would alsohave to answer that he would if in fact it did, and that he wouldn't if it in fact did not, because he would have to lie about his hypothetical lie, and that would render his response true.
The other solution works, as well.
| 598 |
Gretchen G.Tiger Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:02:06pm |
why does G-d need a starship?
Hey Lizards!
| 599 |
sagehen Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:03:49pm |
re: #517 Pawn of the Oppressor
Speaking of matters of faith -
Can anybody advise me on the appropriateness of visiting a synagogue on Yom kippur? Especially as a prospective convert?
Yom Kippur is a really bad choice for a first-timer; the service is way different than a regular shabbat, and all that atoning makes people introspective.
But sukkot starts next week, and is perfect for newcomers. It's festive and welcoming and everyone will have tons of time and be in the mood for chat. Just watch for when the little huts go up, and feel free to wander in. They might even have snacks.
| 600 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:03:49pm |
re: #598 ggt
Don't bring up Star Trek V. That movie sucked.
| 601 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:03:51pm |
re: #598 ggt
why does G-d need a starship?
Because green-skinned alien babes don't screw themselves.
/no, wait, that's Kirk's reason for needing a starship. nm
| 602 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:05:35pm |
re: #601 Slumbering Behemoth
Because green-skinned alien babes don't screw themselves.
/no, wait, that's Kirk's reason for needing a starship. nm
LOL!
| 603 |
Gretchen G.Tiger Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:06:40pm |
re: #600 Dark_Falcon
Don't bring up Star Trek V. That movie sucked.
Nevertheless, it's a valid question (and a great line).
| 604 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:07:06pm |
re: #583 Salamantis
You might like this poem of mine. Or perhaps not...;~)
Hard Question, Hard Answer
Why are we the only ones?
Of all life,
We commit mass homicide,
Kill ourselves,
And befoul our only home.
Only we.Why?
After painful meditiation
And careful consideration
I've come to believe
That we are infected
With a blessed, damned disease
Called consciousness.Caught between beasthood and divinity
Between being of the world and not of it
Between knowing none and knowing all
Between utter self-ignorance and supreme self-understanding
We are the creatures of individual possibility.In the natural world there is neither good nor evil;
With awareness comes the capacity for both.
That same infection which permits art, altruism,
Loyalty and loving care, allows violence, indifference,
Cruelty and psychosis,
For it spawns personality and its offspring
Personal choice.I have come to believe in both the divinity
And the diaboly of human nature
And that they are inseparable.
Our disease is terminal
And all we can do is try to make the best of it
By striving to treat its more virulent symptoms
While reaping its manifold blessings.
I'll drink to that. Cheers!
| 605 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:09:11pm |
re: #603 ggt
Nevertheless, it's a valid question (and a great line).
Spock tends to ask valid questions. To ask questions that can be invalidated is illogical.
| 606 |
KronoGhazi Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:11:15pm |
| 607 |
Gretchen G.Tiger Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:14:36pm |
re: #605 Dark_Falcon
Spock tends to ask valid questions. To ask questions that can be invalidated is illogical.
tends? I thought he (oh wait, he is 1/2 human)-never mind.
| 608 |
Dark_Falcon Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:18:50pm |
re: #597 Salamantis
Sal, we could use you upstairs. Some topics have come up that you are well suited to answer. Such as fetal brain activity.
| 609 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:28:57pm |
re: #433 Pianobuff
Late to the puzzle party, but I had to answer.
I know Mich-again's response is the official correct one. I have a different one:
Nothing in the terms of the problem says a prisoner can't take off his own hat and look at it.
| 610 |
Pianobuff Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:32:02pm |
re: #609 lurking faith
Late to the puzzle party, but I had to answer.
I know Mich-again's response is the official correct one. I have a different one:
Nothing in the terms of the problem says a prisoner can't take off his own hat and look at it.
This isn't the Kobayashi Maru!!!
:)
| 611 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:33:58pm |
re: #597 Salamantis
Yours is harder to explain, but it does work.
| 612 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:35:43pm |
re: #610 Pianobuff
This isn't the Kobayashi Maru!!!
:)
Why think hard when you can get around it by thinking?
/
I always look for the trick question. Sometimes I find trick answers instead. :)
| 613 |
fat.elvis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:50:09pm |
As a Christian, not offended by this video and find the logic sound. As a gun owner, not offended by the Onion video. (In fact, find it hilarious.) As a Georgian though I am offended by The Other McCain and his childish neo-confederate gameplay theories. I wonder if it started out as a Dungeons n Dragons thing in his mother's basement.
| 614 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:53:43pm |
In the absence of the historical record of the life of Jesus, this is a wonderful video and everything in it is flawlessly logical and accurate.
| 615 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 8:54:36pm |
re: #609 lurking faith
Late to the puzzle party, but I had to answer.
I know Mich-again's response is the official correct one. I have a different one:
Nothing in the terms of the problem says a prisoner can't take off his own hat and look at it.
Yes it does,
The prisoners can see the hats in front of them but not on themselves or behind.
Ha.
| 617 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:00:26pm |
re: #614 Don
In the absence of the historical record of the life of Jesus,
What would you consider a legitimate historical record of someone from that era if the Gospels and Epistles don't qualify? Just wondering here.
| 618 |
Liberally Conservative Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:04:14pm |
re: #617 Mich-again
What would you consider a legitimate historical record of someone from that era if the Gospels and Epistles don't qualify? Just wondering here.
Ooh, this is a whole new can of worms. Uh oh is right.
| 619 |
jaunte Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:06:36pm |
re: #614 Don
In the absence of the historical record of the life of Jesus, this is a wonderful video and everything in it is flawlessly logical and accurate.
Generally statements formulated in this way are presented to highlight the opposite of what the statement purports to say. Is that your intent?
| 621 |
fat.elvis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:08:35pm |
Heh, I remember being 11 or 12 and my mother wanted me to play these James Dobson tapes about adolescence she had heard were helpful. I never got past tape 1. He kept saying something about I was headed straight for the "canyon of inferiority". I mocked and ridiculed the tapes so much she told me stop listening to them. It's a still a running family joke to this day - the canyon of inferiority. Good laughs all around. It's funny how children can have a better radar for creeps than adults sometimes.
| 622 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:19:51pm |
re: #615 Mich-again
I know, I know. But the problem does not specifically preclude the prisoners from acting so as to make it possible for them to see more.
A slight change or addition to the wording would be enough to block the possibility - and I have seen a similar puzzle with that wording included.
| 623 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:22:56pm |
re: #622 lurking faith
Can one prove empirically that the hat has a color without faith?
| 624 |
Mich-again Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:25:50pm |
I will look back tomorrow evening for the response. I'd like to hang out and wait, but I have to get up for work in 5 hours or so. Otherwise Severus Sleepus Deprivationus wil ensue...
| 625 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 9:43:17pm |
re: #616 Charles
Literal LOL!
re: #617 Mich-again
I'm wholly unprepared to argue the side that played such a significant role in my own conversion. While I once was able to make the logical argument with citation to non-biblical, mainstream, historical texts, I couldn't begin to do the same today 20 years later...nor can I any longer do advanced calc or def eq. Suffice it to say, my conversion did not rely exclusively on the Gospels and Epistles. As I recall, it involved a great deal of Roman history. A little google fu for "historical Jesus" will get you started.
re: #619 jaunte
Sorry if I was unclear, I meant exactly what I said.
| 626 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:02:55pm |
Interesting, so clear and exact and yet unprepared to explain, what an unhelpful fellow you are Don.
| 627 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:11:19pm |
re: #626 Bagua
Interesting, so clear and exact and yet unprepared to explain, what an unhelpful fellow you are Don.
No problem, give me your slings and arrows, I deserve them, I'm perfectly willing to admit and accept defeat here. I am wholly unable to speak authoritatively on historical Jesus, taylor series, wheatstone bridge or the krebs cycle solely due to the passage of time. I get zero internet points tonight.
| 628 |
jaunte Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:18:56pm |
re: #627 Don
A little google fu for "historical Jesus" will get you started.
Maybe you can come back some time when you feel like explaining and supporting the point you want to make, instead of giving the explanation over to a random google-fu.
| 629 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:18:59pm |
re: #627 Don
I see, so you're some sort of martyr for something and have forgotten a lot of irrelevant things?
That explains everything.
| 630 |
radcap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:22:55pm |
The fundamental problem with the video is that it assumes its viewers accept logic to be superior to faith. In other words, it presumes there is no 'alternate' means of knowledge (ex 'divine communication'); it presumes that 'this world' is properly the object of cognition; it presumes the senses are valid perceivers of 'true' reality; etc etc. Many do not hold to these premises. Many explicitly reject them. And many MANY more implicitly reject them. That is why, for instance, the identification of an argument being 'self-contradictory' - ie absurd - will not be seen as objectionable by many. For them, that is precisely the basis on which they accept it - ala "credo quia absurdum".
In other words, the video is essentially preaching to the choir. And though it does so quite lucidly, it never addresses the metaphysical or epistemological premises which make the appeal to logic valid - and the appeal to faith invalid. To actually make a case to those who already accept faith (and consequently have accepted ideas on the basis of faith rather than logic) it is those premises which must be challenged and refuted. Without that, as some commenters have already noted, this video can be viewed as simple (and 'offensive') proselytizing by 'priests of logic' .
Put simply, the appeal to logic is not going to work UNTIL one validates logic and invalidates any supposed 'alternative' - including faith.
| 631 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:25:32pm |
re: #629 Bagua
I see, so you're some sort of martyr for something and have forgotten a lot of irrelevant things?
That explains everything.
*sigh* far from a martyr. Although as I recall there were those who'd rather suffer a torturous death than admit they hadn't seen a resurrected Jesus. Perhaps, though, not everything can be explained through quips on an internet discussion thread.
| 633 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:30:24pm |
re: #631 Don
So if I follow you...
you feel some affinity to those allegedly crucified rather than admit to something they hadn't seen but it's hard to explain?
| 634 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:33:21pm |
re: #630 radcap
Put simply, the appeal to logic is not going to work UNTIL one validates logic and invalidates any supposed 'alternative' - including faith.
um, so, you mean exactly what the video did?
| 635 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:39:43pm |
re: #634 SpaceJesus
um, so, you mean exactly what the video did?
Nah, he's got faith and that trumps logic because your eyes don't see and your ears don't hear and such.
In a nutshell.
| 636 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:42:04pm |
re: #633 Bagua
So if I follow you...
you feel some affinity to those allegedly crucified rather than admit to something they hadn't seen but it's hard to explain?
Affinity: "A natural attraction, liking, or feeling of kinship."
Hmmm...not sure if this is the right word, how about it makes me think twice about instantly dismissing what they died for. You, a normal every day kind of guy/gal come to me and said you saw a UFO land and an alien come out and talk to you. I dismiss you as a kook. You get tortured to death for this belief, you maintain your account to the bitter end, while that doesn't instantly make me a believer, it might make me reexamine your account and become a UFO buff interested in learning more about the subject and your alleged experience.
For me at least, it was, and remains a very large puzzle with many pieces, just one of which would be martyrs.
| 638 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:53:49pm |
re: #630 radcap
I think you are missing the point, or at least one of the major points.
Among other things, the video points out the logicial fallacy involved in any attempt to prove by argument a proposition for which genuine evidence is unknowable and unavailable. It's a good point.
An appeal to faith is by definition something other than an argument. If someone wants to evoke or induce faith in others, logic is the wrong tool. It can only be supplemental at best.
| 639 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:54:25pm |
re: #634 SpaceJesus
um, so, you mean exactly what the video did?
No. The video didn't validate logic. It simply PRACTICED logic, assuming it to be self-evidently valid. Big difference.
If you sincerely believe logic was actually validated in the video, provide a quote from it which proves this claim please.
| 640 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:55:20pm |
re: #639 RadCap
No. The video didn't validate logic. It simply PRACTICED logic, assuming it to be self-evidently valid. Big difference.
If you sincerely believe logic was actually validated in the video, provide a quote from it which proves this claim please.
Of course, one would have to use logic to do that, wouldn't one?
And as we all know, logic stinks.
| 641 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:56:02pm |
re: #640 Charles
Of course, one would have to use logic to do that, wouldn't one?
And as we all know, logic stinks.
Dang, you're quick. I was going to say something similar.
| 642 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:56:28pm |
re: #635 Bagua
Nah, he's got faith and that trumps logic because your eyes don't see and your ears don't hear and such.
In a nutshell.
Not at all. I am an atheist and do not accept anything on faith or any other form of emotionalism. I was pointing out that logic requires validation - which was not provided in that video. If you believe logic does NOT require validation, then it is YOU who are accepting LOGIC arbitrarily (ie on faith).
| 643 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:57:17pm |
re: #636 Don
Affinity: "A natural attraction, liking, or feeling of kinship."
Hmmm...not sure if this is the right word, how about it makes me think twice about instantly dismissing what they died for. You, a normal every day kind of guy/gal come to me and said you saw a UFO land and an alien come out and talk to you. I dismiss you as a kook. You get tortured to death for this belief, you maintain your account to the bitter end, while that doesn't instantly make me a believer, it might make me reexamine your account and become a UFO buff interested in learning more about the subject and your alleged experience.
For me at least, it was, and remains a very large puzzle with many pieces, just one of which would be martyrs.
So the suffering of the martyrs inspires your faith and illuminates the post you’ll not explain?
If say, a madman jumped to his death believing he could fly, would you decide to reexamine gravity?
Does the mad man’s death support faith based levitation or give one pause to think also?
Myself I’m unmoved by the fever or passion of others when judging the merit of the facts and stories they present.
Facts are facts and faith is faith.
Faith proves no fact.
| 644 |
jaunte Sun, Sep 27, 2009 10:57:43pm |
re: #642 RadCap
Will you demonstrate a validation of logic that will fit your criteria?
| 645 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:01:50pm |
re: #642 RadCap
Not at all. I am an atheist and do not accept anything on faith or any other form of emotionalism. I was pointing out that logic requires validation - which was not provided in that video. If you believe logic does NOT require validation, then it is YOU who are accepting LOGIC arbitrarily (ie on faith).
And yet you are still calling for him to use it to prove something to you. How can you accept the result if you don't accept the method of proof? And wouldn't we be involved in a circular argument?
*sigh* It's too late at night for this, at least where I am. Before long I'll be stuck dreaming of rereading Derrida or one of that crowd. Maybe I'll be lucky and it will only be Kant.
| 646 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:02:51pm |
re: #638 lurking faith
I think you are missing the point, or at least one of the major points.
Among other things, the video points out the logicial fallacy involved in any attempt to prove by argument a proposition for which genuine evidence is unknowable and unavailable. It's a good point.
An appeal to faith is by definition something other than an argument. If someone wants to evoke or induce faith in others, logic is the wrong tool. It can only be supplemental at best.
Actually, I would suggest you missed my point. I agree the video points out a logical fallacy. But to say something is logically invalid (fallacious) is to accept that logic is a valid tool of cognition. MY point is that the video doesn't provide the validation of logic. Your point doesn't address this MORE fundamental point.
| 647 |
jaunte Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:03:30pm |
re: #646 RadCap
Can you demonstrate an acceptable validation of logic?
| 648 |
Velvet Elvis Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:10:02pm |
re: #639 RadCap
No. The video didn't validate logic. It simply PRACTICED logic, assuming it to be self-evidently valid. Big difference.
If you sincerely believe logic was actually validated in the video, provide a quote from it which proves this claim please.
You're not allowed to use that argument unless you can actualy explain Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
| 649 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:14:24pm |
re: #643 Bagua
So the suffering of the martyrs inspires your faith and illuminates the post you’ll not explain?
If say, a madman jumped to his death believing he could fly, would you decide to reexamine gravity?
Does the mad man’s death support faith based levitation or give one pause to think also?
Myself I’m unmoved by the fever or passion of others when judging the merit of the facts and stories they present.
Facts are facts and faith is faith.
Faith proves no fact.
No, the "suffering of the martyrs" is only one piece in a very large puzzle, by itself it does nothing.
If a "madman"...no reexamination necessary, he was mad. If, however, you did this, I'd want some investigation. I'll bet you were pushed, or depressed over something else and maybe just made a statement about gravity as some kind of f-this world type thing. I don't believe in everything every tortured martyr believed in. Some were insane, some were brainwashed, some were innocently wrong and some...were right.
As for faith proving no fact, there is the placebo effect. I just read something that it is increasing which results in some modern drugs not being approved today because they don't have sufficient clinical effectiveness but would have been approved a few decades ago when the placebo effect was lower. There's speculation that faith in modern medicine has increased the placebo effect.
I think this is an interesting example of nothing more than faith creating a real physical effect. What if my belief in a non-existent imaginary God makes my life better in a way that could not have been brought about by my devotion to logic and reason? Am I a fool? Should I be disparaged for not worshiping at the foot of Plato, Aristotle and Frege? Or, might I be on to something?
| 650 |
jaunte Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:16:26pm |
re: #644 jaunte
Will you demonstrate a validation of logic that will fit your criteria?
Apparently not, based on the evidence so far.
| 651 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:22:20pm |
re: #640 Charles
Of course, one would have to use logic to do that, wouldn't one?
No. That is why I said validate, rather than prove (proof being the standard of logic). The *validation* of logic is neither circular reasoning nor the acceptance of logic on faith. The validation of logic is fundamentally the same as, say, the validation of the color 'blue'. One does not use an argument to 'prove' blue exists. One simply points to instances of it in reality. The same is essentially true of logic. The validation of logic is the appeal to a self-evident axiom of existence. One simply points to an aspect of reality.
That axiom is 'identity'. It is the fundamental epistemological law upon which logic is founded. And that law is a metaphysical fact of existence. The appeal to those axioms - to identity and existence - which are the validation of logic.
| 652 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:28:12pm |
re: #645 lurking faith
And yet you are still calling for him to use it to prove something to you. How can you accept the result if you don't accept the method of proof? And wouldn't we be involved in a circular argument?
*sigh* It's too late at night for this, at least where I am. Before long I'll be stuck dreaming of rereading Derrida or one of that crowd. Maybe I'll be lucky and it will only be Kant.
Perhaps you are projecting - because I NEVER asked him to PROVE *anything* to ME. I already know the validation of logic along with the reasons other so-called means of cognition (forms of emotionalism) are not means of cognition at all.
All I did here was point out the fact that he did not provide material which is required to begin to sway those who don't already agree with him. That you and others have jumped to the conclusion that I somehow accept faith because I make this *valid* observation is simply NOT logical.
| 653 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:29:42pm |
re: #639 RadCap
No. The video didn't validate logic. It simply PRACTICED logic, assuming it to be self-evidently valid. Big difference.
this may be the stupidest thing i have ever read
| 654 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:31:18pm |
re: #649 Don
The placebo effect is a medical phenomena, not a proof of supernatural powers. Your faith may or may not have positive effects on your moods, this also proves nothing. Your cryptic hints about being on to something are typical of those who proselytize by “just asking questions.”
| 655 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:31:23pm |
re: #648 Conservative Moonbat
You're not allowed to use that argument unless you can actualy explain Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
In other words, you have no quotes to back up your claim - and so are doing exactly what the video showed the other faithful doing - engaging in red herrings.
Nice try. :)
| 657 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:34:36pm |
| 658 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:35:47pm |
re: #653 SpaceJesus
And that is certainly an example of what the faithful do, as demonstrated quite clearly in the video - attack in place of reasoning. Congratulations on your rejection of the principles advanced by the video.
| 659 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:38:05pm |
re: #658 RadCap
And that is certainly an example of what the faithful do, as demonstrated quite clearly in the video - attack in place of reasoning. Congratulations on your rejection of the principles advanced by the video.
charles already handled you, go run in circles some more.
| 660 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:42:21pm |
re: #659 SpaceJesus
charles already handled you, go run in circles some more.
And now the appeal to authority along with ad hom. You are truly a faithful practitioner of illogic.
| 661 |
Bagua Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:44:22pm |
re: #660 RadCap
Whatever is your real point RadCap, do you actually have one?
| 662 |
Don Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:44:43pm |
re: #654 Bagua
You don't get it. I'm admitting you are right. Everything you've said here and everything you've ever said everywhere is absolutely correct.
The God I believe in is an utter myth, fake, false, doesn't exist, never did.
But, the fact that my life is made better by my belief bugs you. And, if I'm incorrect, let me apologize and say that it bugs a lot of people, the religiously agnostic/atheists if you will. This thread is the most evangelical I've been in years. I'm not anonymous and a brief search of my blog and the interweb would confirm this. I don't give my testimony, I don't proselytize, I don't have a little fish on the back of my car, I don't belong to an organized religion (wife and kids are another subject). It's just me, my bible and my faith. And, for some reason, this drives some people bonkers. I don't get it.
| 663 |
SpaceJesus Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:46:25pm |
re: #660 RadCap
And now the appeal to authority along with ad hom. You are truly a faithful practitioner of illogic.
oh no you got me mr. spock
| 664 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:51:46pm |
re: #651 RadCap
Do you really think that epistemology would be useful in convincing people who have previously rejected logic, preferring faith, that logic is valid?
I'm pretty sure you would only be preaching to the choir if you tried.
Logic is difficult. Epistemology frightens people who think logic is difficult. This type of mental exercise is alien to those so accustomed to accepting everything on faith that the video applies to them.
And now I really do have to go to sleep.
| 665 |
lurking faith Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:54:26pm |
re: #661 Bagua
Whatever is your real point RadCap, do you actually have one?
I think RadCap wants us to prove that addition is commutative before he will allow us to solve basic equations for X.
/couldn't resist
| 666 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:56:20pm |
re: #661 Bagua
Whatever is your real point RadCap, do you actually have one?
Yes. And I already made it a few times now:
The video simply preaches to the choir. It does not provide validation for logic, as opposed to faith, and thus provides no basis for the faithful to embrace logic and reason instead of faith. It simply says to the faithful: "Your approach violates the tenets of logic." But if someone doesn't agree or care about those tenets - about logic (as many gadflies here are demonstrating they do not) - then merely pointing out those violations does nothing.
If one wants to actually try to convince someone to follow the rules of logic then you have to convince them that logic is valid and their alternative is not valid.
The video did not even *try* to do that - it simply proceeded as if appealing to logic is self-evidently right. That is precisely the approach the video criticisms when it comes to the faithful. Logic - a method of cognition - is FAR from self-evident. It must be validated.
As such, my point ultimately is that the author needs to actually practice what he preaches if he hopes to persuade rather than simply preach.
| 667 |
RadCap Sun, Sep 27, 2009 11:59:50pm |
re: #664 lurking faith
Do you really think that epistemology would be useful in convincing people who have previously rejected logic, preferring faith, that logic is valid?
Faith is epistemology as well - so this question makes no sense.
| 668 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:00:29am |
re: #662 Don
You overrate your performance Don, the wonders to which you testify are irrelevant to me or this discussion. What “bugs me” is that you have said nothing that supports your premise that faith trumps reason yet revel in the ecstasy of imagined persecution.
| 669 |
Don Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:15:48am |
re: #668 Bagua
You overrate your performance Don, the wonders to which you testify are irrelevant to me or this discussion. What “bugs me” is that you have said nothing that supports your premise that faith trumps reason yet revel in the ecstasy of imagined persecution.
I am my harshest critic and, to the extent I have performed here, I have utterly failed and therefore I do not overrate my performance.
Keep talking about irrelevance and maybe you'll convince yourself.
My premise has never been that faith trumps reason. Nor, do I believe reason trumps faith...more correctly my faith. I believe they co-exist just fine for me. If tomorrow some aspect of my faith was disproved by science, I would reassess my faith. I was first a physics major and then a Christian. My beliefs do not contradict science, they fill in the gaps which science cannot explain.
I don't think I've brought up "persecution" so good luck beating that straw man.
Good night all, it's been fun. 2:15 hear and finishing up some work.
| 670 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:21:29am |
re: #666 RadCap
If one wants to actually try to convince someone to follow the rules of logic then you have to convince them that logic is valid and their alternative is not valid.The video did not even *try* to do that - it simply proceeded as if appealing to logic is self-evidently right. That is precisely the approach the video criticisms when it comes to the faithful. Logic - a method of cognition - is FAR from self-evident. It must be validated.
Dude, if you want to banish the basic building blocks of reason and human cognition, namely logic, and argue that principles like "If P then Q, P, therefore Q" require proof and validation (!!!), there is no point to discussing anything with you. You've just announced that you yourself are operating completely outside the sphere of rationality.
There's a famous principle in philosophy called the principle of charity.
You've just demonstrated that we shouldn't apply it to you. You're like a counterexample in motion. Holy shit.
| 671 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:24:04am |
re: #667 RadCap
Faith is epistemology as well
What? No, it is not. The best you could hope to argue is that faith is a seperate epistemic process which reveals a separate realm of facts, inaccessible to reason.
Even so, you'd be destroyed in an argument because you can't provide any non-circular justification for accepting the existence of that realm of facts, much less explain the workings of that epistemic process. Jesus, it really isn't worth it to try to ague this with you.
| 672 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:25:11am |
re: #669 Don
Right, come back again in five years when the spirit hits you and waffle on evasively on the next Faith thread.
| 673 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:26:14am |
re: #669 Don
My premise has never been that faith trumps reason. Nor, do I believe reason trumps faith...more correctly my faith. I believe they co-exist just fine for me. If tomorrow some aspect of my faith was disproved by science, I would reassess my faith. I was first a physics major and then a Christian. My beliefs do not contradict science, they fill in the gaps which science cannot explain.
In other words, you accept ideas arbitrarily (without evidence) so long as they do not contradict "science". The problem is that the arbitrary acceptance of ideas is a complete contradiction of both science AND logic. To claim arbitrary belief does not contradict science (or logic) is itself a contradiction.
The claim that faith and reason can "co-exist" is the arbitrary acceptance of reason - ie the acceptance of logic and science on faith.
THIS is the reason I say one MUST provide a validation for logic. Without it, logic simply becomes another set of arbitrary rules accepted on faith - ie becomes no different than any other religious dogma.
| 674 |
Fon_Win Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:28:53am |
re: #267 Salamantis
...
If an entity was aware of everything, it would know for certain what would happen in the furure, hence, be powerless to change it. Otoh, if it was all-powerful, it could chage the future at will, and hence could not know it for certain in advance, because such foreknoweledge would constrain its future-altering powers.
In other words, omniscience and omnipotence are like the irresistable force and the immoveable object; they cannot simultaneously inhere in the selfsame universe.
Not really... If the Multi verse m-theory thingy is true. then there are innumerable timelines existing... So in effect there is a future for every decision, and there is a timeline for it. And thus assuming this spaghetti god thor thing could simply choose which time line to be in... Assuming of course that the spaghetti god was in a higher dimension where he could observe time and move through it.
Course if there was a timeline where the was no spaghetti god... that would be troublesome.
| 675 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:29:59am |
re: #642 RadCap
If you believe logic does NOT require validation, then it is YOU who are accepting LOGIC arbitrarily (ie on faith).
This statement depends on logic. Care to validate logic before you go around attempting to use it like this? Statements about faith involve the use of logic as much as statements about science. The point of the video was to show how faith differs from the rational, scientific method as a means of acquiring knowledge of the world.
Your misunderstanding of this basic fact is quite stunning.
| 676 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:31:31am |
re: #673 RadCap
Look, Descartes, we don't need to start rebuilding epistemology by doubting everything that it is possible to doubt and then rebuilding it again every time we want to assert if P then Q.
You're less concerned with epistemology than you are e-pisstake-ology, the study of playing concern troll on religious topics.
| 677 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:32:26am |
re: #670 iceweasel
Dude, if you want to banish the basic building blocks of reason and human cognition, namely logic...
You really need to read what has been posted rather than creating straw men. Identifying that which validates logic is the OPPOSITE of 'banishing' logic. It is the GROUNDING of logic in reality.
To accept logic arbitrarily (without validation) is to accept logic on faith. That makes your belief in it no better than any other arbitrary belief - including the belief in a supreme deity.
I am sorry you apparently do not grasp this fact of reality and instead treat logic as some form of dogma instead.
| 678 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:36:19am |
re: #676 iceweasel
Look, Descartes, we don't need to start rebuilding epistemology by doubting everything that it is possible to doubt and then rebuilding it again every time we want to assert if P then Q.
You were not asked to doubt anything. You were asked to provide validation of logic to those who have rejected logic or believe it can 'co-exist' with faith. And you are apparently admitting (through your resort to ad homs) that you are incapable of doing so.
That is a problem for you, since it renders your belief in logic to be just as arbitrary as their belief in a god.
| 679 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:37:49am |
re: #677 RadCap
I am sorry you apparently do not grasp this fact of reality and instead treat logic as some form of dogma instead.
Oh please. I've tutored predicate logic. I've constructed modal logics. Like to have a debate about S5 and Kripkean semantics?
Go elsewhere for it. My rates are high.
Don't even try to tell me that I'm treating logic as a form of dogma, dumbass.
| 680 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:38:01am |
re: #678 RadCap
You were not asked to doubt anything. You were asked to provide validation of logic to those who have rejected logic or believe it can 'co-exist' with faith. And you are apparently admitting (through your resort to ad homs) that you are incapable of doing so.
That is a problem for you, since it renders your belief in logic to be just as arbitrary as their belief in a god.
Why do I get the feeling this brainwreck resulted from the collison of a moron, a bible and a couple of pages from a semester 1 philosophy textbook?
| 681 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:41:24am |
re: #678 RadCap
You were asked to provide validation of logic to those who have rejected logic
In other words, you're asking me to provide a valid and sound argument to someone who has announced they reject all the principles by which such arguments are made.
That's easy enough.
1. Kittens are pretty.
2. Blue.
Therefore, logic is validated.
Since you reject logic, you have no basis by which to criticise or assess the logic of my argument, and your own principles dictate that you must accept that its conclusion follows.
:-)
| 682 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:43:25am |
re: #680 Jimmah
Why do I get the feeling this brainwreck resulted from the collison of a moron, a bible and a couple of pages from a semester 1 philosophy textbook?
Indeed, Jimmah-ski, a little learning is a dangerous thing. Can result in braincrash.
| 683 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:53:10am |
re: #682 iceweasel
Be forewarned, Radcap is know to use ALL CAPS to indicate his really KEY points. Its been validated.
| 684 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:54:13am |
re: #671 iceweasel
What? No, it is not. The best you could hope to argue is that faith is a seperate epistemic process which reveals a separate realm of facts, inaccessible to reason.
No. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which identifies the methods of acquiring and validating knowledge. Faith is a method put forth by various philosophies as their particular epistemology. Reason is a different method put forth by other philosophies as their particular epistemology.
Put simply, faith and reason are different forms of epistemology. There is no such thing as only one kind of epistemology.
Even so, you'd be destroyed in an argument because you can't provide any non-circular justification for accepting the existence of that realm of facts, much less explain the workings of that epistemic process.
Then its a good thing I would never try to make an argument using the epistemology of faith.
You still seem to be under the impression - despite the facts provided to the contrary - that I am somehow a proponent of faith. I am not. I am saying you must meet such proponents with facts - including the validation of your methodology, ie of your epistemology. In other words, I am saying that an epistemology must be validated.
So far as I can tell, you have NO validation for logic , since you seem to keep decrying my call for such validation. If that is the case, then that makes your practice of the rules of logic no different than the faithful's practice of their rules of 'cognition' . In other words, you BOTH accept your method of cognition - your epistemology - dogmatically, ie arbitrarily. You both accept those rules by means of faith.
My point is that one must not do that - for that is a violation of the fundamental law of logic.
| 685 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 12:59:04am |
re: #684 RadCap
So far as I can tell, you have NO validation for logic , since you seem to keep decrying my call for such validation.
You are an idiot, sir, who has read some pages of philosophy, somewhere, misunderstood them, and mistakes his misunderstanding for profundity.
Go take a class on predicate logic thru completeness and compactness.
BTW, you do know that 'validity' itself is a logical term, right? referring to logical form? No, of course you don't. You're using it in the sloppy, nonlogician's sense to mean 'truth'-- what actual logicians call soundness.
When I call you an idiot, sir, it's not ad hominem. It's descriptive.
| 686 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:00:06am |
re: #679 iceweasel
Oh please. I've tutored predicate logic.
...
Don't even try to tell me that I'm treating logic as a form of dogma, dumbass.
You are the one claiming that logic requires no validation. And you are the one providing only ad homs, appeals to supposed authority and the like as support for that premise. If that is what you taught as proper forms of 'logic', then you owe those poor students a refund.
| 687 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:01:08am |
re: #686 RadCap
You are the one claiming that logic requires no validation. And you are the one providing only ad homs, appeals to supposed authority and the like as support for that premise. If that is what you taught as proper forms of 'logic', then you owe those poor students a refund.
Fortunately, I've already dealt with this -- cough-- "argument" above. And with you.
| 688 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:04:54am |
re: #675 Jimmah
This statement depends on logic. Care to validate logic before you go around attempting to use it like this?
It does indeed. And the people to whom it is directed CLAIM to accept logic. I am simply pointing out that they missed a step in that acceptance. Thus the only "stunning" misunderstanding here is on the part of those who seem to think that their epistemology does not require validation.
That is the argument of faith.
Is that your argument? If not, then on what point do you claim we disagree?
| 689 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:05:34am |
re: #683 Bagua
Be forewarned, Radcap is know to use ALL CAPS to indicate his really KEY points. Its been validated.
Illiogical troll is illogical.
| 690 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:09:16am |
re: #681 iceweasel
In other words, you're asking me to provide a valid and sound argument to someone who has announced they reject all the principles by which such arguments are made.
No I am not. You really need to go back and reread the posts which have been made instead of inventing straw men. If you did you might see that your emotionalism is blinding you here.
Since you reject logic...
And where exactly was this done? Please supply the quote which backs up this completely unsupported assertion. Otherwise you simply prove my point - you are not practicing logic at all.
| 691 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:13:19am |
re: #688 RadCap
It does indeed. And the people to whom it is directed CLAIM to accept logic. I am simply pointing out that they missed a step in that acceptance. Thus the only "stunning" misunderstanding here is on the part of those who seem to think that their epistemology does not require validation.
That is the argument of faith.
Is that your argument? If not, then on what point do you claim we disagree?
Why should I listen to anything you say what involves logic in some way - ie everything you've said - until YOU validate it?
Is it because you don't feel it is necessary to do this for every logical statement you make? If so, how do you differ from the guy who made that video? (Except in that you are being utterly stupid of course).
| 692 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:13:59am |
re: #686 RadCap
You are the one claiming that logic requires no validation. And you are the one providing only ad homs, appeals to supposed authority and the like as support for that premise. If that is what you taught as proper forms of 'logic', then you owe those poor students a refund.
Great, the internet slang version with a definition. We are dealing with an authority here.
| 693 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:14:11am |
re: #685 iceweasel
you do know that 'validity' itself is a logical term, right? referring to logical form?
Apparently you didn't bother reading prior posts which identifies the fact that validation and proof are two different concepts. I am also sorry you think the term 'validation' is limited to logic and reason and in the context of philosophy cannot be applied to faith etc. I would suggest it is you who needs to read a little more.
When I call you an idiot, sir, it's not ad hominem. It's descriptive.
Since you substitute it for an argument, it is indeed a logical fallacy. Again, if you taught your students otherwise, you owe them their money back.
| 694 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:14:47am |
re: #690 RadCap
And where exactly was this done? Please supply the quote which backs up this completely unsupported assertion. Otherwise you simply prove my point - you are not practicing logic at all.
No problem.
#678 RadCapYou were asked to provide validation of logic to those who have rejected logic
Illogical dishonest troll is both dishonest and illogical.
| 696 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:17:21am |
re: #692 Bagua
Great, the internet slang version with a definition. We are dealing with an authority here.
Yes, clearly.
re: #691 Jimmah
Why should I listen to anything you say what involves logic in some way - ie everything you've said - until YOU validate it?
Is it because you don't feel it is necessary to do this for every logical statement you make? If so, how do you differ from the guy who made that video? (Except in that you are being utterly stupid of course).
Exactly. Illogical and dishonest troll already had this demonstrated to him here. I suggest we abandon it to its fapping, and depart upstairs.
| 697 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:19:20am |
re: #695 Bagua
Besides that one, come on, play FAIR.
True story: friend of mine who is a professor once angrily had a student say, "Stop boxing me in with your logic!"
Heh. It's so unfair to use words and logic and stuff on people! CHEATER!
| 698 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:26:42am |
re: #690 RadCap
And where exactly was this done? Please supply the quote which backs up this completely unsupported assertion. Otherwise you simply prove my point - you are not practicing logic at all.
Note to redcap: refrain from advancing arguments so fucking stupid and self annihilating that you are left with no option but to start trying to move your goalposts. Iceweasel just handed you your ass several times over, and are now encountering butthurt:
| 699 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:28:07am |
re: #696 iceweasel
Exactly. Illogical and dishonest troll already had this demonstrated to him here. I suggest we abandon it to its fapping, and depart upstairs.
Sounds like a great idea to me, ice-ski! On my way :)
| 700 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:31:47am |
re: #691 Jimmah
Why should I listen to anything you say what involves logic in some way - ie everything you've said - until YOU validate it? Is it because you don't feel it is necessary to do this for every logical statement you make? If so, how do you differ from the guy who made that video?
Have you ever heard of the term 'context'? Right now, you are dropping it.
To whom is the video addressed? To those who practice faith over or in place of logic.
To whom am I addressing? Those who claim to already accept logic (including the video author).
He is trying to get the faithful to accept logic as valid - as something to which faith must be subjugated.
I am trying to get those who accept logic (including him) to recognize that the faithful will not accept logic as valid UNLESS you actually give them a VALIDATION of it (a validation I have already provided in its barest essence - I am sorry you didn't bother reading it).
On what basis do you claim the faithful should change their minds and accept logic as valid WITHOUT such validation? That is an appeal to the arbitrary. That is wanting them to change their minds WITHOUT reason.
That is wanting them to act on faith in order to reject faith.
That is as "utterly stupid" as one can get.
My one and only point here is that if the video producer wants to do more than just preach to the choir - if he wants to even TRY to convince those who accept faith over reason, he needs to provide the validation for reason. Just telling the faithful they aren't adhering to the laws of logic isn't going to do anything. Ultimately they already know that - which is why they call what they do 'faith' as opposed to logic.
| 701 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:33:43am |
re: #698 Jimmah
Iceweasel just handed you your ass several times over, and are now encountering butthurt:
It's true. I keep handing him his ass, and he keeps insisting on wearing it as a hat.
Not the best fashion accessory. Except in the usual grief-holes, where it's considered haute couture.
Who knew that those vids would be as useful as they are, Jimmah-ski? :) Time to party upstairs, I think.
| 702 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:35:24am |
re: #701 iceweasel
It is still wittering on about VALIDATION, leave it to debate with itself.
| 703 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:39:28am |
re: #694 iceweasel
No problem.
-- #678 RadCap
You were asked to provide validation of logic to those who have rejected logic --
Illogical dishonest troll is both dishonest and illogical.
Apparently you are incapable of reading. I did not claim *I* reject logic. I have explicitly stated quite the opposite. You would know that if you bothered actually reading my posts.
The video is aimed at the those who already rejected logic and accept faith instead. It is THEY who require convincing. And to do that convincing, one must provide to THEM the validation of what one is preaching. The video did not do that.
That you somehow have come to the conclusion that I placed myself in the category of those who reject logic, despite my multiple EXPLICIT statements to the contrary, demonstrates that logic divorced from the facts of reality is worse than nothing.
Now go play with your straw men and stop bothering the grown ups.
| 704 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:42:16am |
re: #698 Jimmah
Note to redcap: refrain from advancing arguments so fucking stupid and self annihilating that you are left with no option but to start trying to move your goalposts. Iceweasel just handed you your ass several times over, and are now encountering butthurt:
Wow - the complete lack of ANY logical argument and the resort to pure emotionalism is truly wonderful to watch. Obviously you rejected EVERYTHING the video preached.
No wonder you are on the attack.
| 705 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:22:56am |
re: #703 RadCap
Now go play with your straw men and stop bothering the grown ups.
re: #704 RadCap
Wow - the complete lack of ANY logical argument and the resort to pure emotionalism is truly wonderful to watch. Obviously you rejected EVERYTHING the video preached.
No wonder you are on the attack.
Gosh, that sounds just like the kind of 'emotionalism' our resident logician was just pretending to decry.
Downding.
| 706 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:33:44am |
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back."And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
| 707 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:36:48am |
re: #630 radcap
The fundamental problem with the video is that it assumes its viewers accept logic to be superior to faith. In other words, it presumes there is no 'alternate' means of knowledge (ex 'divine communication'); it presumes that 'this world' is properly the object of cognition; it presumes the senses are valid perceivers of 'true' reality; etc etc. Many do not hold to these premises. Many explicitly reject them. And many MANY more implicitly reject them. That is why, for instance, the identification of an argument being 'self-contradictory' - ie absurd - will not be seen as objectionable by many. For them, that is precisely the basis on which they accept it - ala "credo quia absurdum".
In other words, the video is essentially preaching to the choir. And though it does so quite lucidly, it never addresses the metaphysical or epistemological premises which make the appeal to logic valid - and the appeal to faith invalid. To actually make a case to those who already accept faith (and consequently have accepted ideas on the basis of faith rather than logic) it is those premises which must be challenged and refuted. Without that, as some commenters have already noted, this video can be viewed as simple (and 'offensive') proselytizing by 'priests of logic' .
Put simply, the appeal to logic is not going to work UNTIL one validates logic and invalidates any supposed 'alternative' - including faith.
Those who reject logic itself place themselves in the untenable position of not being able to argue for or against anything, because it is by means of logic that all sound and valid arguments proceed.
And, as has been noted before, faith can only obtain in the absence of evidence; the moment evidence is proferred, one is no longer speaking of faith, but of (probable and provisional) knowledge.
Thus you objection fails, on both logical and empirical grounds.
Plus, those who reject the veracity of sense perception reject their own histories, because it is only on the basis of the validity of sense perceptions that one's own ancestors were able to avoid extinction via starvation, predation or natural dangers existent in their landscape, and survive long enough to continue the process of surviving long enough, in an unbroken reproductive chain, to produce oneself. Otherwise, environmental selection would have long hence taken its fatal evolutionary toll.
| 708 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:40:11am |
re: #704 RadCap
Wow - the complete lack of ANY logical argument and the resort to pure emotionalism is truly wonderful to watch. Obviously you rejected EVERYTHING the video preached.
No wonder you are on the attack.
I referenced the fact, already demonstrated, that your argument is self annihilating. That's a logical argument. Something you have yet to succeed in making here. And those FULL CAPS of yours - yes wonderful display of zen like detachment you are showing there. What a joke.
| 709 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:41:35am |
re: #706 Bagua
One of my fave poems ever! :) BTW, I can answer your q about throbert. Just thought it would be lame to do it on the new thread, especially when new people are hanging out. It's totally uninteresting and offputting to them.
re: #113 Bagua
Throbert banned at long last? He of the nine lives.
What proved his undoing exactly, he pushed every boundary he could find.
First, multiple and pathetic attempts to excuse the behaviour of flouncers, combined with an ongoing and witless defence of one banned poster who most certainly deserved the banning.
Second, for the last two nights (while this was happening) he lurked in week-old threads playing passive-aggressive games with dinging comments, all directed at two posters. Both of which posters, not coincidentally, had called him out on his behaviour the last two days.
Or something like that. Details are hazy to me.
After his banning he logged in with a sockpuppet to spew some more filth at his 'enemies'.
| 710 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:42:22am |
re: #639 RadCap
No. The video didn't validate logic. It simply PRACTICED logic, assuming it to be self-evidently valid. Big difference.
If you sincerely believe logic was actually validated in the video, provide a quote from it which proves this claim please.
Logic is directly drawn from the world.
A Or Not A: either it's there or it ain't.
Not Both A And Not A: it can't both be there and not be there in the same spatiotemporal location.
If A Then A: If it's there, then it's there.
If Not A Then Not A: If it ain't there, then it ain't there.
| 711 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:43:49am |
re: #707 Salamantis
Yes but Salamatis, that's all good and well but you are missing the bit about eyes not seeing and ears not hearing. You see, this is an alternative reality of SPECIAL knowledge we are up against.
| 712 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:47:32am |
re: #667 RadCap
Faith is epistemology as well - so this question makes no sense.
Wrong. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge; faith resides in a different realm, characterized by knowledge's absence.
| 713 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:48:38am |
re: #710 Salamantis
Logic is directly drawn from the world.
A Or Not A: either it's there or it ain't.
Not Both A And Not A: it can't both be there and not be there in the same spatiotemporal location.
If A Then A: If it's there, then it's there.
If Not A Then Not A: If it ain't there, then it ain't there.
Be prepared to be accused of commiting the fallacy of arguing from authority Sal. Our logician troll apparently believes that means "It's a fallacy when you know more about the topic than me!"
Just as it uses 'strawman argument' to mean "argument that the troll can't answer'.
| 714 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:52:00am |
re: #674 Fon_Win
Not really... If the Multi verse m-theory thingy is true. then there are innumerable timelines existing... So in effect there is a future for every decision, and there is a timeline for it. And thus assuming this spaghetti god thor thing could simply choose which time line to be in... Assuming of course that the spaghetti god was in a higher dimension where he could observe time and move through it.
Course if there was a timeline where the was no spaghetti god... that would be troublesome.
Impossible. Movement requires spatiotemporality - both 'space' and 'time' which are actually a single inseparable manifold.
One cannot move independently of this manifold.
| 715 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:55:14am |
re: #712 Salamantis
Also be advised that it will refer to "Ad Homs" when it smarts from your observations. It has "learned" this over 5 years of lurking in preparation of this manifestation of logicide.
| 716 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:01:11am |
re: #703 RadCap
The video is aimed at the those who already rejected logic and accept faith instead. It is THEY who require convincing. And to do that convincing, one must provide to THEM the validation of what one is preaching. The video did not do that.
The dichotomy is between reason and faith, not logic and faith. As demonstrated repeatedly, and ignored repeatedly by yourself, any statements about anything involve logic. If one is required to establish the validity of logic before one makes a statement about science, one must also be required to do so before making a statement about faith. In short, the people of faith who reject all logic that you are describing do not exist. There is no one in need of the kind of convincing you are talking about,and complaining about the lack of in this video.
Which leaves us with you.
Now go play with your straw men and stop bothering the grown ups.
You would do well to take your own advice here, idiot.
| 717 |
Bagua Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:04:16am |
re: #716 Jimmah
You would do well to take your own advice here, idiot.
Ha, I call Homs! No fair refuting his argument AND making a reasonable observation.
| 718 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:05:41am |
re: #717 Bagua
Ha, I call Homs! No fair refuting his argument AND making a reasonable observation.
lol. I call Add Homs; I'm adding the observaton that he's moronic.
| 719 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:19:33am |
Once one rejects logic itself, one necessarily reduces all of one's subsequent assertions to incoherence; that is, to nonsense
After that, no meaningful - much less credible - contention can remain against which one's interlocuter is required to argue, for from that point on, there can no longer be any rational or reasonable 'there' there.
BTW: since the basic tenets of logic are, as I demonstrated in #710, directly drawn from the phenomenological exigencies of embodied perceptual existence itself, they constitute the very definition of apodictically self-evident.
| 720 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:24:13am |
One thing that people of faith sometimes incorrectly believe is that homosexuality does not occur in nature. This is of course easily debunked:
| 721 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:39:51am |
re: #720 Jimmah
One thing that people of faith sometimes incorrectly believe is that homosexuality does not occur in nature. This is of course easily debunked:
So true. They could spend five seconds googling, and find this:, which has loads of references.
Or a little time on youtube, or observing our animal friends.
BTW, let's note that the claim "animals other than humans don't practice homosexuality" is a strikingly weird one for people of faith (or anyone) to point to as a justification for claiming that homosexuality isn't 'normal' for humans.
Animals also don't observe 'laws' about murder, or cannibalism, or stealing. We usually use the word 'animalistic' to denote behaviour which is violent and unthinking, 'brute' in the original sense of the term. And most of us, no matter how fervently pro-science and pro-evolution, will agree that there is a huge difference morally and intellectually and in every other way between us and a chimp. I don't expect the same behaviour from a chimp as I do from a human being.
And the religious people are often determined to insist that humans are completely different from animals, so different that we can't be a product of evolution-- so whycome the sudden insistence that we should look to animals for a guideline for what's normal or approved for humans?
| 722 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:48:54am |
re: #721 iceweasel
Fantastic video ice-ski :)
And you are absolutely correct of course. It is both incorrect to claim that homosexuality does not occur in nature, and a bizarre 'moral' argument against homosexuality in humans as well. Religious people in particular seem to have all kinds of strange and contradictory attitudes towards animals generally. On the one hand, they are the glory of God's creation - oh look at the lovely flower and the birds and the trees - but oh no - what's this - it's a filthy monkey - we arent related to those disgusting things!
| 723 |
BARACK THE VOTE Mon, Sep 28, 2009 6:12:02am |
re: #722 Jimmah
Fantastic video ice-ski :)
And you are absolutely correct of course. It is both incorrect to claim that homosexuality does not occur in nature, and a bizarre 'moral' argument against homosexuality in humans as well. Religious people in particular seem to have all kinds of strange and contradictory attitudes towards animals generally. On the one hand, they are the glory of God's creation - oh look at the lovely flower and the birds and the trees - but oh no - what's this - it's a filthy monkey - we arent related to those disgusting things!
You filthy and cheeky monkey! How dare you! :)
Yes. Other creations are lovely when they're the lillies of the field, or the ickle sparrow God tenderly tracks the fall of...but not when they're those lesbian bonobos, those commie ants, or the freakish sexual enslavement of male bees by a female queen bee.
I wonder why no one has held up the honey bee as a god-ordained and approved model of human sexual society?
Oh, that's right -- I don't wonder.
(BTW, the Mormons, ironically, chose the beehive as their symbol for hard work and community, especially for young girls. )
(And let's remember Deseret. lol )
| 724 |
lewisinnyc Mon, Sep 28, 2009 6:16:43am |
re: 515 Salamantis
Dark matter and dark energy are not matter in the conventional sense, since they are not made up of the building blocks of matter (i.e. atoms and molecules). To call them matter requires that matter itself be redefined to include anything that exerts a force on matter. If we make that leap of logic, then any divine entity that exerts a force on matter would also be matter itself. In such a case, it is no less relevant than the study of wind or dark matter.
| 725 |
Teh Flowah Mon, Sep 28, 2009 7:46:42am |
re: #649 Don
As for faith proving no fact, there is the placebo effect. I just read something that it is increasing which results in some modern drugs not being approved today because they don't have sufficient clinical effectiveness but would have been approved a few decades ago when the placebo effect was lower. There's speculation that faith in modern medicine has increased the placebo effect.
I think this is an interesting example of nothing more than faith creating a real physical effect. What if my belief in a non-existent imaginary God makes my life better in a way that could not have been brought about by my devotion to logic and reason? Am I a fool? Should I be disparaged for not worshiping at the foot of Plato, Aristotle and Frege? Or, might I be on to something?
But faith in medicine is backed by decades of good finding. We have documented proof and we work scientifically in reproducible ways to cure illnesses. It's the same kind of "faith" you put in a man who 99% of the time tells the truth. I wouldn't exactly call it a leap.
| 726 |
Mr Secul Mon, Sep 28, 2009 8:17:13am |
re: #724 lewisinnyc
re: 515 Salamantis
Dark matter and dark energy are not matter in the conventional sense, since they are not made up of the building blocks of matter (i.e. atoms and molecules). To call them matter requires that matter itself be redefined to include anything that exerts a force on matter. If we make that leap of logic, then any divine entity that exerts a force on matter would also be matter itself. In such a case, it is no less relevant than the study of wind or dark matter.
Does dark matter have mass?
| 727 |
gregb Mon, Sep 28, 2009 8:26:49am |
re: #593 Salamantis
Probably. The presently nonexistent can be nowhere. Hence, it cannot be inside the box. So the contention in the video is true.
But also the contravention is true also, so you have an inconsistent logic. That means proving God doesn't exist is in the same equivalence class.
| 728 |
gadlaw Mon, Sep 28, 2009 8:33:54am |
Thank you very much for putting this video up there. Nice and logical without being strident and hitting all the relevant arguments and calmly answering them. Of course it won't help, you can't argue with insane people and try to present logical discussion to bring them into the realm of sanity and logical thinking but cool nonetheless.
| 729 |
Achilles Tang Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:32:45am |
re: #726 Mr Secul
Does dark matter have mass?
Yes, that is how it can be detected. Of course one could speculate that it is something else that only mimics mass, like lots of little fairies flitting around.
| 730 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Sep 28, 2009 9:35:41am |
I nominate Radcap for this week's Relentless Tautology Prize.
| 731 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:19:38am |
re: #707 Salamantis
re: #707 Salamantis
Those who reject logic itself place themselves in the untenable position of not being able to argue for or against anything, because it is by means of logic that all sound and valid arguments proceed.
Good thing I never claimed otherwise then, eh?
So - this refutes my point that he is preaching to the choir (those who have already accepted logic above faith) and that if he wants to get the faithful to accept logic as valid, he needs to provide the validation of it?
You have simply added another straw man to the growing pile.
And, as has been noted before, faith can only obtain in the absence of evidence; the moment evidence is proferred, one is no longer speaking of faith, but of (probable and provisional) knowledge.
And again, another straw man. So it is quite unclear how you can logically come to the conclusion that my "objection fails, on both logical and empirical grounds" when it is you who have failed to even address my objection.
Plus, those who reject the veracity of sense perception reject their own histories
Again, then I am glad I never tried to argue the senses are invalid. Of course those who have argued throughout history that the senses distort, do not contact 'true' reality, are inferior to other non-sensory forms of awareness, etc ad nauseum, would claim they do not reject sense perception but merely rely on something superior to it (ala a sixth sense) - and that they are sorry you are apparently incapable of accessing it. In other words, they would consider your assertion to be the ravings of a blind man who claims sight doesn't exist because HE doesn't see.
Put simply, you have created another straw man. I agree that those who reject the validity of the senses imperil their lives. I have just pointed out that if your goal is to try to convince them of its validity, then you need to provide the validation of it. And I have simply pointed out that such validation was not provided in the video.
If you claim that such validation was provided, then you need to provide the proof of that claim. Or if you claim such validation is not required to get someone to accept the validity of logic over faith, then you need to identify what is required to get someone to accept the validity of logic over faith. Otherwise, it would appear you are simply agreeing with me that the producer of the video is simply preaching to the choir (ie to those who already accept logic over faith).
| 732 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:33:25am |
re: #712 Salamantis
Wrong. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge; faith resides in a different realm, characterized by knowledge's absence.
No. You are attempting a package deal here. You are trying to redefine a concept so that one particular epistemology is defined as epistemology. That is fallacious.
While some philosophies (including my own) reject faith as a means of knowledge, that does not mean all philosophies reject faith as a means of knowledge. Some philosophies hold that faith is the only means of actually attaining knowledge. One cannot simply pretend such philosophies don't exist - that they do not claim faith is a means of knowledge.
Put simply, acknowledging that some philosophies hold faith to be their epistemology is not the same as evaluating that epistemology. You have tried to substitute the evaluation of an epistemology for the identification of an epistemology. That is a logical error.
| 733 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:42:12am |
re: #730 Charles
I nominate Radcap for this week's Relentless Tautology Prize.
So then apparently you believe logic does not require validation (that being my only point here). You apparently accept logic without validation - ie on the basis of faith. That is exactly what the religious nuts you rail against do as well.
| 734 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:45:14am |
re: #733 RadCap
So then apparently you believe logic does not require validation (that being my only point here). You apparently accept logic without validation - ie on the basis of faith. That is exactly what the religious nuts you rail against do as well.
The very fact that you are typing these relentlessly tautological arguments into a comment form on your computer, and they are instantly transmitted over a vast network of technological devices, validates logic far more than any pointless arguments ever could.
I'm always amazed when people try to discredit the fundamental engines of science and modern society, even as they enjoy the fruits of those engines.
But go ahead, keep arguing that logic needs to be "validated." It seems to be very important to you to make this point.
| 735 |
jaunte Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:48:57am |
re: #733 RadCap
So then apparently you believe logic does not require validation (that being my only point here). You apparently accept logic without validation - ie on the basis of faith. That is exactly what the religious nuts you rail against do as well.
You demand "validation" of logic, but have yet to provide an example of "validation" that you could accept.
| 736 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:03:18am |
re: #734 Charles
I'm always amazed when people try to discredit the fundamental engines of science and modern society, even as they enjoy the fruits of those engines.
Interesting. You assert that I am trying to discredit logic by providing its validation (a validation you apparently ignored). In other words, your premise is that logic requires no validation - and that to even try to validate logic is to try to deny logic.
Put simply, the premise you are putting forth is that logic must be accepted on faith - and that to reject the acceptance of logic by means of faith is to be an 'enemy' of logic.
Talk about completely backwards.
To claim that logic requires no validation is to commit an act of faith.
| 738 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:07:59am |
re: #735 jaunte
You demand "validation" of logic, but have yet to provide an example of "validation" that you could accept.
Not true. My first response to Charles provided the barest essence of such a validation. I have pointed this out more than a few times now.
Apparently the manufacture of straw men, rather than the actual reading of what people write, is becoming the practice on LGF (or should that now be LGS - Little Green Scarecrows). Ironic considering Charles' complaints about what is being done to him by the rest of the Web and beyond.
| 740 |
RadCap Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:09:59am |
| 741 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:10:45am |
re: #738 RadCap
And with that insulting and stupid-to-the-bone comment, I bid you ... adieu!
| 742 |
jaunte Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:11:06am |
re: #740 RadCap
That is insufficient information. Please list your criteria for "validation."
| 743 |
Fenris Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:13:11am |
Charles:
Here Be Dragons: an excellent primer on critical thinking and the analysis of pseudoscience by Brian Dunning, of Skeptoid fame.
41 minutes.
| 744 |
jaunte Mon, Sep 28, 2009 11:20:22am |
Here's a little info for the late RadCap:
In common usage, validation is the process of checking if something satisfies a certain criterion. Examples would include checking if a statement is true (validity), if an appliance works as intended, if a computer system is secure, or if computer data are compliant with an open standard. Validation implies one is able to document that a solution or process is correct or is suited for its intended use.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Validation requires a stated set of criteria; something to check against.
| 745 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:27:49pm |
re: #724 lewisinnyc
re: 515 Salamantis
Dark matter and dark energy are not matter in the conventional sense, since they are not made up of the building blocks of matter (i.e. atoms and molecules). To call them matter requires that matter itself be redefined to include anything that exerts a force on matter. If we make that leap of logic, then any divine entity that exerts a force on matter would also be matter itself. In such a case, it is no less relevant than the study of wind or dark matter.
If they exert gravitational force, which they do, then they possess mass. If they possess mass, they are either matter or energy - in any case, they are material, not im-. And they do exert gravitational force.
End of story.
| 746 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:32:50pm |
re: #727 gregb
But also the contravention is true also, so you have an inconsistent logic. That means proving God doesn't exist is in the same equivalence class.
You are wrong. The video didn't claim that those things (for instance, the 17th century)were outside the box, it correctly claimed that they were not inside the box. And that claim is indeed true.
The only way you could place God in the same equivalence class with the 17th century would be to say that God also once existed in the past, but exists no longer. And something tells me you don't wanna do that.
| 747 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 1:56:06pm |
re: #731 RadCap
re: #707 Salamantis
Good thing I never claimed otherwise then, eh?
So - this refutes my point that he is preaching to the choir (those who have already accepted logic above faith) and that if he wants to get the faithful to accept logic as valid, he needs to provide the validation of it?
You have simply added another straw man to the growing pile.
Nope. My point was that since logic is grounded in and drawn from the most basic laws of sense perception (laws of identity and relation), it is apodictically self-evident. In other words, anyone who is using their senses is implicitly being furnished with continuous perceptual validation of the laws of logic, whether or not they are explicitly aware of the fact.
And again, another straw man. So it is quite unclear how you can logically come to the conclusion that my "objection fails, on both logical and empirical grounds" when it is you who have failed to even address my objection.
Since when does conclusively refuting your claim that faith is an independent conduit for knowledge by pointing out that faith and knowledge are by necessity mutually exclusive constitute a straw man?
Again, then I am glad I never tried to argue the senses are invalid. Of course those who have argued throughout history that the senses distort, do not contact 'true' reality, are inferior to other non-sensory forms of awareness, etc ad nauseum, would claim they do not reject sense perception but merely rely on something superior to it (ala a sixth sense) - and that they are sorry you are apparently incapable of accessing it. In other words, they would consider your assertion to be the ravings of a blind man who claims sight doesn't exist because HE doesn't see.
Yeah, ravers like that tend to bark their shins unmercifully when placed in a dark, strange, furniture-filled room. They claim such 'special' senses, but can never demonstrate their real-world efficacy. Which renders their claims groundless.
Put simply, you have created another straw man. I agree that those who reject the validity of the senses imperil their lives. I have just pointed out that if your goal is to try to convince them of its validity, then you need to provide the validation of it. And I have simply pointed out that such validation was not provided in the video.
The fact that they are even able to watch the video demonstrates that the perceptual grounds of logic obtain.
If you claim that such validation was provided, then you need to provide the proof of that claim. Or if you claim such validation is not required to get someone to accept the validity of logic over faith, then you need to identify what is required to get someone to accept the validity of logic over faith. Otherwise, it would appear you are simply agreeing with me that the producer of the video is simply preaching to the choir (ie to those who already accept logic over faith).
Radcap selectively and inadequately addressed my #707, without addressing #710 (where I demonstrate that logic is grounded in the apodictically self-evident laws of perception) or #712 (where I point out that a rejection of logic reduces one to dismissable incoherency) at all.
| 748 |
gregb Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:03:59pm |
re: #746 Salamantis
You are wrong. The video didn't claim that those things (for instance, the 17th century)were outside the box, it correctly claimed that they were not inside the box. And that claim is indeed true.
The only way you could place God in the same equivalence class with the 17th century would be to say that God also once existed in the past, but exists no longer. And something tells me you don't wanna do that.
Sure, granted, but that's not the way logic works. You can't prove that the 17th century is inside or outside the box. In fact, you can't prove anything about what is inside the box, and a whole class of things outside. You would have an extremely improbable time trying to find everything that is the 17th century (again, a nonsensical) and prove you had all of it without looking inside the box--which you can't.
Isn't that what he's arguing about faith? It's indeterminate.
| 749 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:19:59pm |
re: #748 gregb
Sure, granted, but that's not the way logic works. You can't prove that the 17th century is inside or outside the box. In fact, you can't prove anything about what is inside the box, and a whole class of things outside. You would have an extremely improbable time trying to find everything that is the 17th century (again, a nonsensical) and prove you had all of it without looking inside the box--which you can't.
Isn't that what he's arguing about faith? It's indeterminate.
Anything? Do you mean to tell me that one cannot mathematically prove that, say, a solid cube with sides measuring 3 meters (or 3000 miles) could not fit inside a box with sides measuring 2 meters? I really don't think you're thinking this through.
You can most definitely state that things that never existed, or which exist no longer (i.e. the 17th century) cannot be inside the box. Or in fact, outside of it, either. The nonexistent is absolutely, universally, determinately absent, and being absent from everywhere, cannot be present anywhere, including inside the box.
But if you're trying to move goalposts to talk about artifacts (which the example is not), possessing a single one from that era would prevent the 17 century artifact collection as a whole from being inside the box - not to mention the obvious fact that they could never fit.
Heisenberg only applies to the microphysical realm. And the 17th century ain't Schrodinger's cat.
| 750 |
Daniel Ballard Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:49:15pm |
re: #11 Charles
Okay I understand your reaction to all the hate mail. No one should be subject to that sort of thing, but lets admit it goes with your chosen territory.
While there is little or no science in faith, excess faith in our science can be just as dangerous to ourselves and our fellow humans. Science provides little if any in how or why to treat others well. This reminds me of a hypothetical comparison of sex and food. Only one is necessary to live. Yet who wants to live without either? These two things are separate and necessary to out human existence. Logic is often in the eye of the beholder.
What might I fall back on when two scientific arguments are logical and perhaps mutually exclusive, such as string theory and dark energy/matter? I might fall back on the scientist or paper or available evidence/math I have the most faith in.
Keep us thinking Charles, good post!
| 751 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Sep 28, 2009 2:59:25pm |
re: #750 Rightwingconspirator
While there is little or no science in faith, excess faith in our science can be just as dangerous to ourselves and our fellow humans.
That's just a silly comment. No one needs to have "faith" in science -- by its very nature, science is based on evidence and the scientific method. "Faith" has nothing to do with it.
Science provides little if any in how or why to treat others well.
And this statement is untrue. In fact, scientists are making real progress in finding out the Origins of Human Empathy -- and the often-repeated canard that morality and empathy are impossible without religion is simply untrue as well.
| 752 |
gregb Mon, Sep 28, 2009 3:17:54pm |
re: #749 Salamantis
Anything? Do you mean to tell me that one cannot mathematically prove that, say, a solid cube with sides measuring 3 meters (or 3000 miles) could not fit inside a box with sides measuring 2 meters? I really don't think you're thinking this through.
.
Laughing. No, I was only specifically talking about the nonsensicals he listed and only in reference to the asymmetry--which I am arguing is a red herring.
With physics, you can do anything that's consistent including bending time and space to fit into a very small area. I don't think the size of the box matters all that much.
In fact, in theory if you could create a lense to see far enough and interpret the signals, you pretty much might be able to see the whole 17th century and it most likely would be infinitely smaller than meters or miles.
| 753 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 4:03:23pm |
re: #752 gregb
Laughing. No, I was only specifically talking about the nonsensicals he listed and only in reference to the asymmetry--which I am arguing is a red herring.
With physics, you can do anything that's consistent including bending time and space to fit into a very small area. I don't think the size of the box matters all that much.
You can't do that and still leave something as it was before. A rock collapsed into a black hole is not the same rock that it was before it was gravitationally crushed. It doesn't even possess elements, as their atomic structure has been completely annihilated.
In fact, in theory if you could create a lense to see far enough and interpret the signals, you pretty much might be able to see the whole 17th century and it most likely would be infinitely smaller than meters or miles.
You might be able to see light that reflected off objects during the 17th century, but to argue that such reflections are the same as the century itself is to argue that your mirror image contains every bit of you. And they would be distributed around our planet in a vast hollow ball the inside diameter of which would be 818 light years (409 light years in each direction) and the outside diameter of which would be 200 light years more.
| 755 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:54:57pm |
re: #754 alanohwhat
OK, you're nuts. Buh-bye!
| 756 |
Salamantis Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:55:25pm |
re: #732 RadCap
No. You are attempting a package deal here. You are trying to redefine a concept so that one particular epistemology is defined as epistemology. That is fallacious.
While some philosophies (including my own) reject faith as a means of knowledge, that does not mean all philosophies reject faith as a means of knowledge. Some philosophies hold that faith is the only means of actually attaining knowledge. One cannot simply pretend such philosophies don't exist - that they do not claim faith is a means of knowledge.
Put simply, acknowledging that some philosophies hold faith to be their epistemology is not the same as evaluating that epistemology. You have tried to substitute the evaluation of an epistemology for the identification of an epistemology. That is a logical error.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
[Link: www.google.com...]
Some theologies may consider faith to be a conduit to knowledge, but no credible philosophies do.
You cannot gratuitously morph epistemology into a branch of theology. Even Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge was abstracted from sense perception. And he didn't mean psychic 'sixth senses', either.
| 757 |
gregb Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:39am |
re: #753 Salamantis
You might be able to see light that reflected off objects during the 17th century, but to argue that such reflections are the same as the century itself is to argue that your mirror image contains every bit of you. And they would be distributed around our planet in a vast hollow ball the inside diameter of which would be 818 light years (409 light years in each direction) and the outside diameter of which would be 200 light years more.
Man's current understanding of Physics allows that, with infinite resources, I can construct a bijection from your rock to the model in the box such that I can perfectly recreate the rock in all 14 dimensions such that it is indistinguishable from the original.
It's not a large leap to pre-suppose (again with infinite resources and according to modern laws and understanding of physics) that I should be able to do the same with the 17th century.
A mirror does not include simple things such as time. (So why do you appear reversed but not upside down in a mirror {Google Interview question}). The answer is, unlike how it appears, the mirror neither reverses side to side nor up or down, but front to back. A front to back mapping is not the same thing as a multidimensional bijection of the original object.
"If you wish to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe!!"
— Dr. Carl Sagan
| 758 |
Salamantis Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:12:04pm |
re: #757 gregb
Man's current understanding of Physics allows that, with infinite resources, I can construct a bijection from your rock to the model in the box such that I can perfectly recreate the rock in all 14 dimensions such that it is indistinguishable from the original.
You missed the entire point; what was claimed could not be in the box was not a recreation of the 17th century, but the 17th century itself. And that is indeed true.
It's not a large leap to pre-suppose (again with infinite resources and according to modern laws and understanding of physics) that I should be able to do the same with the 17th century.
Once again; a copy ain't the original.
A mirror does not include simple things such as time. (So why do you appear reversed but not upside down in a mirror {Google Interview question}). The answer is, unlike how it appears, the mirror neither reverses side to side nor up or down, but front to back. A front to back mapping is not the same thing as a multidimensional bijection of the original object.
So? A mirror image of you still ain't the same as the you that is the source of the mirror image. It's just the patten of light reflecting off the original you.
"If you wish to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe!!"
— Dr. Carl Sagan
And in that universe, you still won't be able to cram the 17th century into a small box!
-- Salamantis
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ...
teleskiguy
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
