O’Donnell: Evil Scientists Are Creating Mouse-Human Hybrids

Wingnuts • Views: 14,570

In a stunningly moronic discussion about cloning on the Bill O’Reilly show in 2007, GOP candidate Christine O’Donnell warned of the dangers of mice with fully functioning human brains.

O’DONNELL: Bill, if we — if we approach this complicated bioethic issue with our heads in the sand, the other end is in the air.

O’REILLY: My head isn’t in the sand, Christine. I have the biggest head in the world. There isn’t enough sand on the beach in Hawaii for my head to be in there.

O’DONNELL: My point is, we’re approaching this issue with the other end in the air.

O’REILLY: No, no, no. Hold it.

O’DONNELL: By their own admission…

O’REILLY: No.

O’DONNELL: … these groups admitted that the report that said, “Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we’re using this to start cloning humans.” We have to keep…

O’REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won’t do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

This would explain a lot; perhaps O’Donnell is an early, failed experiment that ended up as a human with a fully functioning mouse brain?

Jump to bottom

432 comments
1 Political Atheist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:06:14am

She should know, she lost her brother when she left the lab.

2 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:06:40am

How'd you like to write that funding proposal?

3 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:06:42am

Wait. What?

Is she trying to warn us about Brain's recurring desire to take over the world?

Is her real name...Pinky?

4 deranged cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:06:51am

lol, wtf.

5 ProGunLiberal  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:06:53am

Allow me to be the first to say this. What the Hell? Honestly, how did this woman manage to get the nomination to the US Senate? This 90 pounds of stupid and crazy in a 10 pound bag.

6 efuseakay  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:07:05am

Oh... she's not lying... she was just... wrong!

7 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:07:18am

Excuse me, I'll be over here banging my head against a brick wall. It hurts less ...

8 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:07:21am

ITS THE KILLER JOKE MADE FLESH!

9 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:07:34am

I don't think her parents ever told her Mickey Mouse wasn't real.

10 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:08:02am

OK.

That one was new to me. You got me Charles.

Fortunately, in this case I don't have that "I feel stupid" sensation since the subject at hand is O'Donnell and her supporters.

11 jaunte  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:08:25am

I guess this is what she means by smaller government.

12 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:08:25am

re: #7 wlewisiii

Excuse me, I'll be over here banging my head against a brick wall. It hurts less ...

Image: FaceDesk.gif

13 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:08:37am

O’REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won’t do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

Bad news Bill the fact that this woman could in theory become a US Senator shows quite clearly that yes "all craziness is going on."

14 Mark Pennington  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:09:00am

Roy Sekoff is right... She does make Palin look deep.

15 harrylook  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:09:28am

[mouth agape] did any of this shit come out before the primary? if so, how could any sane person vote for this LOON?

16 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:10:16am

You know ...

If I had known that the Tea Partiers were serving hallucinogens in their Tea all this time I would have been much more understanding.

Now I get it.

Tea Party!

17 jaunte  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:10:46am

re: #5 ProLifeLiberal

Allow me to be the first to say this. What the Hell? Honestly, how did this woman manage to get the nomination to the US Senate? This 90 pounds of stupid and crazy in a 10 pound bag.

She's the other end of the experiment: a human with a fully functioning mouse brain.

18 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:07am

re: #9 SteveMcG

I don't think her parents ever told her Mickey Mouse wasn't real.

HE'S NOT?!?!

19 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:09am

re: #15 harrylook

[mouth agape] did any of this shit come out before the primary? if so, how could any sane person vote for this LOON?

She's been running for Senate for five years. On what we heard about her before this one, people had to be crazy to vote for her. But I guess talking to Democrats must be a greater sin.

20 Four More Tears  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:19am

Lunatic. She's out-Angled Angle.

21 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:22am

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

OOPS!

22 deranged cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:23am

whats worse for her is that these statements are from 2007, not 1998 or whatever people have been reporting on. a lot can change in 12 years.. but in her case, apparently not.

23 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:48am

re: #16 karmic_inquisitor

You know ...

If I had known that the Tea Partiers were serving hallucinogens in their Tea all this time I would have been much more understanding.

Now I get it.

Tea Party!

Because back in those days, Tea was a slang for Marijuana....

24 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:11:58am

re: #15 harrylook

[mouth agape] did any of this shit come out before the primary? if so, how could any sane person vote for this LOON?

Yes - the GOP dug much of it up (not hard to do).

She played the Sarah Palin "I am a cute victim of the elite establishment" card. Worked brilliantly.

25 Interesting Times  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:12:32am

re: #15 harrylook

[mouth agape] did any of this shit come out before the primary? if so, how could any sane person vote for this LOON?

Look at the post by the person topping our Bottom Comments at the moment - the explanation he provides for why he supports her is amazingly insightful and deep.

///eleventy

26 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:13:44am

Well, that settles it. The mouse experiment to find the question regarding life, the universe, and everything will fail due to faulty components in the computer.

27 harrylook  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:13:47am

re: #25 publicityStunted

Ah - I had never even looked there before. Thanks....I ....think. :)

28 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:14:14am

re: #25 publicityStunted

Look at the post by the person topping our Bottom Comments at the moment - the explanation he provides for why he supports her is amazingly insightful and deep.

///eleventy

What does that even mean?

29 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:14:33am

re: #26 oaktree

Well, that settles it. The mouse experiment to find the question regarding life, the universe, and everything will fail due to faulty components in the computer.

"What do you get if you multiply seven by nine?"

There I just saved you a lot of time and effort.

30 lawhawk  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:14:40am

Her bottom line if I can translate that nonsense is that she's uncomfortable with then existing bioethics and was concerned over experimentation with animals.

It's one thing to be concerned about the bioethics of a new technology on the forefront of science and medicine and frequently the ethics of a particular situation lags behind the technology, but she's way past concern in crazy territory thinking that scientists are going Dr. Frankenstein and putting human brain tissue into mice.

The fact is that scientists have been using certain kinds of mice to conduct basic medical research in a wide range of diseases because it's a model that can't be duplicated elsewhere and the results from that research can be astounding.

31 jaunte  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:14:41am

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
-- Christine O’Donnell

/Just wanted to look at it again.

32 brennant  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:15:29am

...but when the human-brained mice start masturbating...

33 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:15:30am

re: #31 jaunte

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
-- Christine O’Donnell

/Just wanted to look at it again.

She obviously wasn't one of those successful mice.

34 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:15:39am

Bill Handel on KFI (LA radio) asserted this morning that he'd like to see her elected because it will provide an endless stream of entertainment.

35 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:16:16am

re: #31 jaunte

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice candidates with fully functioning human brains."
-- Christine O’Donnell

*I wish*

36 BongCrodny  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:17:15am

She obviously hates meeces to pieces.

37 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:17:25am

[psst. Christine. You are on to them. The answer is "42" ]

38 Vambo  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:17:28am

I used to think she was funny with all her anti-fap zaniness.

After hearing her opinion on AIDS (that we should stop looking for a cure and just teach people not to be gay instead), I think she is just... to use an O'Donnell-approved religious term... evil.

39 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:18:00am

Words can not properly convey the EPIC WTFNESS of this.

40 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:18:10am
American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains


Her fear is based on ignorance and scientific illiteracy. The inject human stem cells into mouse brains to create human synapses to study brain diseases like Alzheimer's. The synapses are human but the brain is still a mouse brain. The synapses are simply relaying mouse brain information about cheese.

41 Reginald Perrin  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:18:28am

re: #29 jamesfirecat

"What do you get if you multiply seven by nine?"

There I just saved you a lot of time and effort.

Seven times nine equals 63.

Seven times six works better

42 Charles Johnson  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:18:41am

re: #30 lawhawk

It's one thing to be concerned about the bioethics of a new technology on the forefront of science and medicine and frequently the ethics of a particular situation lags behind the technology, but she's way past concern in crazy territory thinking that scientists are going Dr. Frankenstein and putting human brain tissue into mice.

Not just brain tissue -- fully functioning human brains.

43 Four More Tears  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:19:18am

re: #39 Varek Raith

Words can not properly convey the EPIC WTFNESS of this.

I don't even think we have emoticons for this...

44 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:19:35am

OK, I just thought I'd read here for a few minutes whilst taking a break from moving dirt from one spot to another, but... hahahahahahahahaha, snort.

45 jaunte  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:20:11am

re: #38 Vambo

Seriously. There is a point at which a refusal to learn about the world stops being simply lazy, and switches over into aggressive, evil ignorance.

46 BongCrodny  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:20:20am

I know a few mouse-brained humans, so it's possible!

47 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:20:27am

re: #42 Charles

Not just brain tissue -- fully functioning human brains.

She wouldn't know one of those if it bit her on the inside of her skull.

48 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:20:35am

re: #41 Reginald Perrin

Seven times nine equals 63.

Seven times six works better


Does the universe make sense?


Then why do you expect the answer and the question to life the universe and everything to make sense?

49 Mark Pennington  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:20:57am

Christine O'Donnell to Speak at FRC Action's Values Voter Summit:

[Link: www.prnewswire.com...]

50 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:21:03am

re: #40 Killgore Trout

Her fear is based on ignorance and scientific illiteracy. The inject human stem cells into mouse brains to create human synapses to study brain diseases like Alzheimer's. The synapses are human but the brain is still a mouse brain. The synapses are simply relaying mouse brain information about cheese.

And the talking points are straight out of the standard set of lies/errors you see all over the Intelligent Design/creationist attacks on science.

And the attacks on education are what I see as the greatest threat to our culture.

51 lawhawk  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:21:17am

re: #42 Charles

Okay, that hurt my brain. She thinks that they're implanting fully functional brains? What kind of level of stupid is that? I don't think she's been busy reading Mary Shelly, that's for sure.

52 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:21:34am

re: #48 jamesfirecat

It's not the real question anyway.

My favored guess at what that was remains "How many roads must a man walk down?"

53 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:21:39am

re: #44 calochortus

OK, I just thought I'd read here for a few minutes whilst taking a break from moving dirt from one spot to another, but... hahahahahahahahaha, snort.

Did you fill the boss' hole with your dirt? And then got instructions to move it?

54 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:22:05am

re: #29 jamesfirecat

"What do you get if you multiply seven by nine?"

There I just saved you a lot of time and effort.

Sorry my bad that should multiply six by nine, hope my mistatement didn't start any religious wars....

55 Cato the Elder  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:22:12am

She seems peculiarly obsessed with sticking her ass up in the air.

56 Spider Mensch  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:22:14am

I think the Seinfeld episode where Kramer sees the Pig Man at the hospital has sunk into her subconcious..." Jerry I'm telling Ya, I saw a pig man!! The goverment is cloning Pig Men and will make an entire army of them!"

57 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:22:15am

Sadly, I don't think this epic level of stupidity would have been enough to keep True Conservatives from voting for her. I suspect most of the folks who did, really knew very little about her, though.

58 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:23:36am

Holy Shit!

It's true!

59 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:24:26am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

A way to maintain her virginity.

60 zora  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:25:09am

i guess it goes without saying. she is also a young earth, creationist.

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, Concerned Women for America: Well, as the senator from Tennessee mentioned, evolution is a theory and it's exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put — that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory. But creation —



CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.

[Link: nymag.com...]

61 Bubblehead II  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:25:14am

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

I think this is what she may be referring to about the mixing of Human and Mice DNA/Stem Cells. Still doesn't make her any less of a Loon
Mice With Human Brain Cells Created

62 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:25:17am

re: #53 oaktree

Nah, I'm just working in the yard. The water company dug out an area on our back hillside while fixing a water main break and I don't see any sign that they're going to even things out again, so I'm taking care of it.

63 Spider Mensch  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:25:40am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

She seems peculiarly obsessed with sticking her ass up in the air.


she probably has some anal issue thing going..it's naughty to touch herself you know where..but her tushy is dirty anyhow..so that's ok to have fun with......

64 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:26:12am

re: #60 zora

That SOOO 36 hours ago.

65 Mark Pennington  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:26:21am

The Women of Middle Earth
December 18th, 2003 by Christine O'Donnell

[Link: catholicexchange.com...]


LoLoLoL

66 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:27:10am

re: #60 zora

i guess it goes without saying. she is also a young earth, creationist.

[Link: nymag.com...]

THEORIES NEVER BECOME FACTS!

Gravity is still a mother f***ing theory!

67 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:28:01am
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.

And that evidence would be?

68 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:28:04am

re: #65 beekiller

The Women of Middle Earth
December 18th, 2003 by Christine O'Donnell

[Link: catholicexchange.com...]


LoLoLoL

Do you think she actually read the trilogy or just watched the movies?

69 Bubblehead II  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:28:27am

re: #61 Bubblehead II

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

I think this is what she may be referring to about the mixing of Human and Mice DNA/Stem Cells. Still doesn't make her any less of a Loon.

Mice With Human Brain Cells Created

pimf!

70 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:28:30am

She may be right... I think I say a news report on Fox about this... it was titled "Dollhouse" or something like that. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

71 Four More Tears  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:28:36am

re: #67 calochortus

And that evidence would be?

It's all in the Bible.

72 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:29:32am

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the old meme, "I'd make a better politician." is absolutely and utterly wrong for 99% of the general population. Most people don't even know enough to just how much they don't about any particular subject. Most people also hold views that are incompatible with the majority of the country. The tea party is showing exactly what happens when you take relatively normal people and put them in a position where everything they say and think is out there, and it's really ugly. If you ask general people questions on subjects, they're going to be horribly opinionated and ignorant about most things. And most of the time, they're going to be very unwilling to educate themselves on things.

I presume that most people have seen the chart where you have Lazy/Energetic on one axis, and Incompetent/Competent on the other? Well, I'm willing to say that O'Donnell and most of the tea party candidates are firmly in the Energetic/Incompetent category.

73 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:29:33am

re: #67 calochortus

And that evidence would be?

///Grand Canyon.

74 Vambo  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:29:40am

This is not real politics. According to blahblahblah poll, people are unhappy with Obama and the Democrats. The Dems are going down. //Walter

We're gonna show those deadbeat Dems a thing or two, with our high-quality GOP candidates.//

75 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:30:41am

re: #68 SteveMcG

Do you think she actually read the trilogy or just watched the movies?

Neither, she had a cousin or something as an intern who wrote it for her.

76 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:30:59am

re: #74 Vambo

This is not real politics. According to blahblahblah poll, people are unhappy with Obama and the Democrats. The Dems are going down. //Walter

We're gonna show those deadbeat Dems a thing or two, with our high-quality GOP candidates.//

Where did I say that? I bet you can't find me saying that... jerk.

77 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:31:36am

Allah Akbar!

It's True!

78 Cato the Elder  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:31:44am

re: #66 jamesfirecat

THEORIES NEVER BECOME FACTS!

Gravity is still a mother f***ing theory!

No transitional theorifacts?

79 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:31:55am

re: #75 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Neither, she had a cousin or something as an intern who wrote it for her.

It did seem to be rather depressingly coherent and well thought out when I skimmed it.

80 webevintage  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:33:51am

I wonder if there are enough folks in Delaware who will think that she is the "underdog" who is being picked on and vote for her? Or folks who like "pissing off liberals"....whatever that means?

She's already got Rove kissing her ass....

81 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:33:56am

re: #71 JasonA

re: #73 jamesfirecat

But, but her own standards require tests-that's what brought down evolution.///

82 kingkenrod  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:34:35am

re: #69 Bubblehead II

Yeah, the article says the human cells became "functional components" not "fully functional", which is why O'Reilly's other guest said it was an exaggeration.

83 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:34:50am

GOP, I applaud you.
I never thought you'd find such a kooky and evil candidate.

84 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:35:40am

90% of the DNA found in the human gut is microbial. What Ms. O'Donnell doesn't realize is she is nothing more then a community of bacteria WITH A HUMAN BRAIN.

Burp. Fart. Burp. Fart.

85 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:35:53am

re: #83 Varek Raith

GOP, I applaud you.
I never thought you'd find such a kooky and evil candidate.

Well, they've done kooky, and they've done evil, so they figured what the hell.

86 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:36:08am

Ah well, time to hang out the laundry and go back to my dirt relocation program. I'd say thanks for the laugh if it wasn't becoming so scary out there.

87 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:36:27am

re: #86 calochortus

Ah well, time to hang out the laundry and go back to my dirt relocation program. I'd say thanks for the laugh if it wasn't becoming so scary out there.

Boo.

88 sagehen  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:36:37am

re: #31 jaunte

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
-- Christine O’Donnell

/Just wanted to look at it again.

She has a different understanding than the rest of us as to what constitutes "a fully-functioning human brain."

89 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:37:32am

re: #88 sagehen

She has a different understanding than the rest of us as to what constitutes "a fully-functioning human brain."

Maybe she's just a huge fan of TMNT???
/

90 jaunte  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:38:18am

re: #88 sagehen

I guess all those words were in the original article. She just rearranged them to mean something completely different.

91 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:38:29am

I wonder if Christine is still investigating the reports of the turtles displaying knowledge of the martial arts and eating pizza living in the NYC sewers?

92 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:39:03am

re: #89 Varek Raith

Maybe she's just a huge fan of TMNT???
/

I've about had it with your sorceror's ways, sith.

93 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:39:25am

No... wait... it wasn't "Dollhouse." It was another news report, the one about that hitchhiker and the universe... I saw those mice... yep... they talked an all that stuff...

94 Political Atheist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:39:40am

re: #56 Spider Mensch

I think the Seinfeld episode where Kramer sees the Pig Man at the hospital has sunk into her subconcious..." Jerry I'm telling Ya, I saw a pig man!! The goverment is cloning Pig Men and will make an entire army of them!"

PigMentation?

95 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:40:07am

re: #91 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I wonder if Christine is still investigating the reports of the turtles displaying knowledge of the martial arts and eating pizza living in the NYC sewers?

It's turtles all the way down.

96 Cato the Elder  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:40:08am

And here I thought it was impossible to make Sawah Pawin look smart.

97 Wozza Matter?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:40:17am

re: #91 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I wonder if Christine is still investigating the reports of the turtles displaying knowledge of the martial arts and eating pizza living in the NYC sewers?

no no no, the turtles are living on the back of a giant elephant. the ninja stuff is just a sideline.

98 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:41:11am

re: #97 wozzablog

no no no, the turtles are living on the back of a giant elephant. the ninja stuff is just a sideline.

No you fool, FOUR elephants on the back of ONE gigantic turtle!

99 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:41:34am

re: #96 Cato the Elder

And here I thought it was impossible to make Sawah Pawin look smart.

Perhaps its an elaborate ploy, a cunning ruse, if you will?

100 sagehen  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:41:38am

Am I the first one to think of this?

101 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:42:15am

You know she's gonna get more than 30K votes in November.

102 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:42:40am

re: #95 karmic_inquisitor

It's turtles all the way down.

It's Yggdrasil, it's the tree...

Loki told me.

103 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:43:28am

re: #100 sagehen

Am I the first one to think of this?

No... I suspect the creator(s) of "Pinky and the Brain" were the first ones?

104 Wozza Matter?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:43:31am

re: #98 jamesfirecat

No you fool, FOUR elephants on the back of ONE gigantic turtle!

Shhhhh - we don't want "her" to know that. Such disinformation would have kept her bogged down and out of our hair for months........

105 jaunte  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:43:35am

re: #101 SteveMcG

Lots of mouseketeers out there.

106 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:43:57am

You know - with Steve Carell leaving "The Office" there is room for another comedic "reality" show.

I think America has found it. "The Senator" would be a great replacement if she gets in. And just think - the producers can fire the entire writing staff.

107 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:44:53am

re: #106 karmic_inquisitor

You know - with Steve Carell leaving "The Office" there is room for another comedic "reality" show.

I think America has found it. "The Senator" would be a great replacement if she gets in. And just think - the producers can fire the entire writing staff.

And it can be co-hosted by O'Donnell and Kucinich.

108 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:46:17am

re: #101 SteveMcG

You know she's gonna get more than 30K votes in November.

She got 140k votes last time she ran against Biden.

109 cliffster  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:46:46am

Pig and Elephant DNA, just won't splice..

110 njdhockeyfan  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:46:54am

She probably was aware of the mouse problem in the UK.

111 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:47:46am

I think if she had a fully functioning mouse brain, she would be far more interested in cheese, food pellets and broccoli, chewing cardboard and running on a wheel. Her preoccupations are distressingly human.

112 compound idaho  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:51:31am

Overheard a friend profusely apologizing to his wife on the cell phone. After he hung up, I asked him "What are you a man or a mouse?"

His response

eek eek eek

113 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:52:19am

O'Donnell on CNN in 1996: 'Just As Much, If Not More' Proof For Creationism Than Evolution

As Dan Amira at New York magazine dug up, O'Donnell appeared in March 1996 on a CNN panel discussion with Dr. Michael McKinney, a professor of evolutionary biology from the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga.

At one point, O'Donnell provided this definition: "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

O'Donnell opened the discussion saying: "Well, as the senator from Tennessee mentioned [Note: it is not clear from the Nexis transcript who is being referred to here], evolution is a theory and it's exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put- that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."

When McKinney objected and explained that evolution is considered a fact with evidence and experiments to support it, O'Donnell responded. "Now, he said that it's based on fact. I just want to point out a couple things," she said. "First of all, they use carbon dating, as an example, to prove that something was millions of years old. Well, we have the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens and the carbon dating test that they used then would have to then prove that these were hundreds of millions of years younger, when what happened was they had the exact same results on the fossils and canyons that they did the tests on that were supposedly 100 millions of years old. And it's the kind of inconsistent tests like this that they're basing their 'facts' on."

114 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:52:25am

Why am I craving cheese right now?

115 Political Atheist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:53:13am

re: #114 darthstar

Why am I craving cheese right now?

It's the right wing whine getting to you. :)

116 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:53:21am

The Mouse-Human Hybrids are drunkards!

Proof!

(Black Label is about 80 proof, in fact).

117 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:54:31am

re: #108 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

She got 140k votes last time she ran against Biden.

That was when she was the "generic Republican" and nobody paid attention to her - and back then because no other Republicans ran in the primaries, the GOP didn't have to waste 42,000 dollars trying to fight Biden in an election...they just let her sink on her own.

Now she's a known entity, albeit one who makes graduates of Liberty University sound like reasonable people.

118 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:54:45am

re: #114 darthstar

Why am I craving cheese right now?

I'm always a tad peckish for a taste of the Venezuelan Beaver...

119 Political Atheist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:55:01am

If I were her opponent I'd be really tempted to make a mousetrap my campaign logo.

120 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:55:12am

re: #115 Rightwingconspirator

It's the right wing whine getting to you. :)

What kind of cheese goes with right wing whine?

121 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:55:19am

re: #97 wozzablog

no no no, the turtles are living on the back of a giant elephant. the ninja stuff is just a sideline.

Flat Earther.

122 allegro  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:56:12am

re: #120 darthstar

What kind of cheese goes with right wing whine?

Cheez Whiz

123 Political Atheist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:56:36am

re: #120 darthstar

What kind of cheese goes with right wing whine?

Swiss i would think. Always full of holes.

124 engineer cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:56:52am

mice don't care what 'race' you are or what religion you practice

mice aren't interested in what you are doing with your hands

vote mouse!

125 njdhockeyfan  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:56:55am

The Bells of Saint Mary played on the mouse organ.

126 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:57:01am

re: #120 darthstar

What kind of cheese goes with right wing whine?

Head.

127 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:57:12am
128 allegro  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:57:56am

re: #123 Rightwingconspirator

Swiss i would think. Always full of holes.

Oh, no, no, no! That would bring lust to their holy li'l hearts and make them do bad, abusive things to the cheese... or something.

129 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 10:58:06am

re: #126 MrSilverDragon

Head.

That was my guess.

130 Political Atheist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:00:44am

re: #128 allegro

Oh, no, no, no! That would bring lust to their holy li'l hearts and make them do bad, abusive things to the cheese... or something.

I always disliked swiss cheese. Now I have that mental image to cement the impression, that's for sure~

131 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:00:46am

The Russian authorities have the pizza eating turtle menace in hand.

Image: 1245076908990.jpg

132 allegro  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:01:09am

re: #120 darthstar

There's always Rush Limbaugher cheese. Stinky.

133 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:02:13am

re: #125 njdhockeyfan

The Bells of Saint Mary played on the mouse organ.



Dude...you must have really small hands.

134 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:02:28am

re: #26 oaktree

Well, that settles it. The mouse experiment to find the question regarding life, the universe, and everything will fail due to faulty components in the computer.

The answer is still 42.

135 allegro  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:02:55am

re: #130 Rightwingconspirator

I always disliked swiss cheese. Now I have that mental image to cement the impression, that's for sure~

Kinda like I do now about monkeys and toads. Wish I'd never seen that video. Just... ew.

136 Gus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:03:05am

Christine "Minnie Mouse Brain" O'Donnell -- the pride of the Tea Party.

137 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:03:12am

re: #133 darthstar

Dude...you must have really small hands.

Well, it keeps the mice happy...

138 Killgore Trout  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:03:13am

Conservative women under "assault", things being "forced down throats"...
Bachmann: The Movie

Citizens United, the conservative, Supreme Court-case-winning no-profit that produced Newt Gingrich's "America at Risk" documentary, is releasing two more films this month. The first, coming next Wednesday: "Fire from the Heartland," a documentary that features Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.), and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) as examples of what CU's David Bossie calls "an awakening among women in America."

139 Cato the Elder  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:03:20am

re: #113 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, we have the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens and the carbon dating test that they used then would have to then prove that these were hundreds of millions of years younger, when what happened was they had the exact same results on the fossils and canyons that they did the tests on that were supposedly 100 millions of years old.

What does that even mean?

140 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:04:32am

re: #139 Cato the Elder

What does that even mean?

I really can't say. I have no clue what her point is.

141 engineer cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:04:55am

speaking of the flat earth society, a check of the freak republic threads finds them confident of victory in delaware

Coons should be ahead by at least 20 points. He is vulnerable.

Again, the raw split of 53/42 is not an insuperable margin.

The three most important numbers here are that only 1% are leaners, only 4% are undecideds and 270% more Delawareans view O'Donnell very unfavorably than view Coons very unfavorably

still angry at the regular republicans

Only the 7th time the Soreloserbots have posted this. Bad news for the RNC clown posse. She had only $50,000 in her war chest and was down 20 according to the last poll. Now she has over $1 million to spend and is down only 11. Might want to quit pouting and get on board.

You lost, Get over it

and... um... confused... on the subject of differing views of morality

Yet the perverts in the progressive left-wing are pushing to teach homosexuality, masturbation, fisting, etc… to kids –in school as young as they can get away with all of the time.

I will take Christine O’Donnel’s view on purity over the left-wing perverted morality, thank-you.

Any time a left-winger brings up these views of hers and tries to mock her we must come right back and remind people of the other sick perverted extreme that the progressives seek.

142 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:05:06am

re: #53 oaktree

Did you fill the boss' hole with your dirt? And then got instructions to move it?

Upding for the Cool Hand Luke reference. What an incredible movie.

143 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:05:55am

re: #140 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I really can't say. I have no clue what her point is.

Seriously. Since carbon dating is used to measure things up to only 60,000 years.

144 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:06:06am

re: #139 Cato the Elder

What does that even mean?

Why couldn't God have created everything in six days and made everything look like it was billion of years old?

145 RadicalModerate  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:06:45am

Is it just me, or does the Republican Party remind you of the cast of BlackAdder II, and someone forgot to invite Rowan Atkinson?

146 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:07:27am

re: #144 Walter L. Newton

Why couldn't God have created everything in six days and made everything look like it was billion of years old?

Of course he could have.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to assume he did.

Nor does it mean that making this assumption (which is strictly based on a religious text) has any place in scientific discourse.

147 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:07:49am
148 Gus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:08:04am

re: #145 RadicalModerate

Is it just me, or does the Republican Party remind you of the cast of BlackAdder II, and someone forgot to invite Rowan Atkinson?

And like on House the doctors will have to sift through every possible disease in order to find the correct diagnosis and cure.

149 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:08:11am

re: #139 Cato the Elder

What does that even mean?

It is irreducibly complex.

150 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:08:12am

re: #146 gehazi

Of course he could have.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to assume he did.

Nor does it mean that making this assumption (which is strictly based on a religious text) has any place in scientific discourse.

Show me proof he didn't?

151 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:08:27am

re: #144 Walter L. Newton

Why couldn't God have created everything in six days and made everything look like it was billion of years old?

I suppose I choose not to believe that the creator of heaven and earth works like some Rembrandt forger putting fake wormholes into the panels.

I could be mistaken, of course, but I always tell my sixth-graders not to try to overthink my directions.

152 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:08:35am

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

Show me proof he didn't?

Show me proof he did.
;)

153 Spider Mensch  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:08:50am

re: #144 Walter L. Newton

Why couldn't God have created everything in six days and made everything look like it was billion of years old?


or, to quote the late comedic genius, George Carlin..." hey Fodder! if God is all powerful, could he make a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it??"

154 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:09:33am

OT...I think I am a Moral dilemma.. I went to my favorite place for lunch today and saw a new hire drinking at the bar... I'm not sure I should say anything to his boss.. Jeez

155 webevintage  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:09:44am

I just looked and she has one of those generic websites with no information on how she would vote if elected. No issues at all.

Luckily there is wikipedia...
and she is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
Nice.

You know I wish these folks who want "smaller government" would explain what that means. How do you make the government smaller? How do you continue to serve the poor? How can you promise to never raise taxes?
What specificlly would you cut?
If you were able to do away with Health Care Reform would you replace it with anything or just go back to what we had? Could I still keep my adult child on my health insurance that I am paying for....would they still fund the community health centers like the ones they have in Vermont that work great and save money and they have already started getting funding?
I like specifics.

And once again it is a pity that the Tea Party has become the Dick Army/Koch Bro. Christan Tea party Express.

156 engineer cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:09:44am

re: #144 Walter L. Newton

Why couldn't God have created everything in six days and made everything look like it was billion of years old?

a theory of a prankster god?

157 wrenchwench  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:10:25am
158 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:10:34am

re: #145 RadicalModerate

Is it just me, or does the Republican Party remind you of the cast of BlackAdder II, and someone forgot to invite Rowan Atkinson?

Season II? OK - Palin is Queenie. Nursie is O'Donnell.

Melchet?
Baldrick?

159 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:11:09am

re: #141 engineer dog

speaking of the flat earth society, a check of the freak republic threads finds them confident of victory in delaware

Coons should be ahead by at least 20 points. He is vulnerable.

Again, the raw split of 53/42 is not an insuperable margin.

The three most important numbers here are that only 1% are leaners, only 4% are undecideds and 270% more Delawareans view O'Donnell very unfavorably than view Coons very unfavorably

still angry at the regular republicans

Only the 7th time the Soreloserbots have posted this. Bad news for the RNC clown posse. She had only $50,000 in her war chest and was down 20 according to the last poll. Now she has over $1 million to spend and is down only 11. Might want to quit pouting and get on board.

You lost, Get over it

and... um... confused... on the subject of differing views of morality

Yet the perverts in the progressive left-wing are pushing to teach homosexuality, masturbation, fisting, etc… to kids –in school as young as they can get away with all of the time.

Damn, all I was taught was the missionary's position.

I didn't figure out the rest until I was 45.

160 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:11:26am

She's also against nudity.

O'DONNELL: But let me tell you something! They -- homosexuals' special rights groups can get away with so much more than nobody else can!

COLMES: Well, what are they getting away with here, Christine? Tell me what you're seeing...

O'DONNELL: They're getting away with nudity!

FAY: Oh, right.

O'DONNELL: They're getting away with nudity! They're getting away with lasciviousness! They're getting away with perversion!

FAY: Oh, Christine...

O'DONNELL: They're getting away with blasphemy!

My favorite part is where FAY (whoever that is, says, "Oh, Christine..." )

161 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:12:38am

re: #144 Walter L. Newton

Why couldn't God have created everything in six days and made everything look like it was billion of years old?

God made everything 5 minutes ago and just made everything look like its older.

162 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:12:47am

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

Show me proof he didn't?

The assertion is not a scientific one, but a religious one. I could offer you religious proof that he did or did not, but asking for scientific proof one way or another is confusing what the question even is.

163 webevintage  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:13:06am

re: #138 Killgore Trout

Conservative women under "assault", things being "forced down throats"...
Bachmann: The Movie
The first, coming next Wednesday: "Fire from the Heartland," a documentary that features Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.), and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) as examples of what CU's David Bossie calls "an awakening among women in America."

That is kind of offensive...as if women have not been involved in politics or concerned until it is conservative women who are all up in arms.
I guess the rest of use don't count seeing as we are not heartland born jebus lovin' real American grizzly Mamas.

164 Jadespring  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:13:12am

re: #140 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I really can't say. I have no clue what her point is.

I know!

I heard about some tests that were done on thingys and goopey stuff that came out of St Helens and like scientists were like you know questioning the results cause they weren't what the totally expected and they said some about dating--the carbon dating thing and something or other about other thingys and dating stuff in other places that are supposed to be old too but maybe not quite as old. The oldness you see matched up or something when they didn't think it should have. So that means that since the oldness matched when they shouldn't have that the test itself is flawed cause if the tests say the same thing when the things aren't SUPPOSED to be the same, that the test, and in this case this carbon testing thing is OBVIOUSLY the problem and we can't trust it at all. Like evaaaah.

Duh.. I mean come on.you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

165 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:13:20am

re: #161 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

God made everything 5 minutes ago and just made everything look like its older.

The thing that pisses me off the most about god is that he backdated all my bills.

166 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:13:22am

re: #146 gehazi

re: #151 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #153 Spider Mensch

re: #156 engineer dog

Well, for all you believers, you certainly put limits on your god, and you attribute him/her/it with qualities which sound very "human," yet you offer no proof that he/she/it couldn't have done whatever the fuck that he/she/it wants/wanted to do, all your little theories and opinions sound as stupid as O'Donnel.

167 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:13:24am

re: #139 Cato the Elder

What does that even mean?

Word salad of a bunch of various creationist claims attempting to challenge the geologic record.

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]
[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]
[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

168 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:13:48am

re: #162 gehazi

The assertion is not a scientific one, but a religious one. I could offer you religious proof that he did or did not, but asking for scientific proof one way or another is confusing what the question even is.

No you can't.

169 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:14:17am

re: #165 darthstar

The thing that pisses me off the most about god is that he backdated all my bills.

170 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:14:18am

re: #168 Walter L. Newton

No you can't.

Huh? I can't offer you religious proof?

171 Coracle  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:14:21am

I think O'Donnell thinks Mrs. Frisbee and the Rats of NIMH is nonfiction.

172 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:14:45am

re: #170 gehazi

Huh? I can't offer you religious proof?

Right.

173 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:16:23am

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

re: #151 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #153 Spider Mensch

re: #156 engineer dog

Well, for all you believers, you certainly put limits on your god, and you attribute him/her/it with qualities which sound very "human," yet you offer no proof that he/she/it couldn't have done whatever the fuck that he/she/it wants/wanted to do, all your little theories and opinions sound as stupid as O'Donnel.

What is this I don't even.

God could have created the world 5 minutes ago or 5 thousand years ago, complete with age in either case. Or aliens could have. Or none of you are real and I'm just a brain in a vat of a mad scientist. Prove that none of those happened!

Any of that could be true just as it could be untrue. None of it has anything to do with science.

174 engineer cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:16:48am

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

re: #151 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #153 Spider Mensch

re: #156 engineer dog

Well, for all you believers, you certainly put limits on your god, and you attribute him/her/it with qualities which sound very "human," yet you offer no proof that he/she/it couldn't have done whatever the fuck that he/she/it wants/wanted to do, all your little theories and opinions sound as stupid as O'Donnel.

i take your point, but, for myself, i plead rationalism, since in fact i am an atheist

175 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:17:46am

re: #172 Walter L. Newton

Sure I can, in fact there are reams of theological opinions out there expressing either support for or against the idea that God created the universe in six days with age. Do you somehow deny that?

What exactly are you trying to say?

176 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:17:48am

If you accept the fact that God created the universe X amount of time ago, and that all evidence to the contrary was merely put their to fool us, then X can be any arbitrary amount of time.

The Civil War, your dead grandparents, the Roman Empire, stubbing your toe on the front step last week. Never happened, because God made it all up to fool you.

177 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:18:05am

re: #173 gehazi

What is this I don't even.

God could have created the world 5 minutes ago or 5 thousand years ago, complete with age in either case. Or aliens could have. Or none of you are real and I'm just a brain in a vat of a mad scientist. Prove that none of those happened!

Any of that could be true just as it could be untrue. None of it has anything to do with science.

You said you could prove it to me religiously... go for it?

178 Cato the Elder  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:18:25am

re: #154 HoosierHoops

That is not a moral dilemma. It comes under the heading of "mind your own business".

179 webevintage  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:18:35am

re: #160 darthstar

She's also against nudity.

My favorite part is where FAY (whoever that is, says, "Oh, Christine..." )

Man she has a lot of "issues".
I wish they Christines in the country would realize that blasphemy! is not against the law.
This is not Saudi Arabia or even a heavily run Catholic country.
We can blaspheme all we want in America.

180 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:19:05am

re: #179 webevintage

Man she has a lot of "issues".
I wish they Christines in the country would realize that blasphemy! is not against the law.
This is not Saudi Arabia or even a heavily run Catholic country.
We can blaspheme all we want in America.

You're goddamn right we can.

181 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:20:39am

re: #175 gehazi

Sure I can, in fact there are reams of theological opinions out there expressing either support for or against the idea that God created the universe in six days with age. Do you somehow deny that?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Theological opinions. No, you said "I could offer you religious proof that he did..." I want the proof, not opinions. There are reams and reams of fairy tales out there too... doesn't PROVE that their are wizards or fairies.

182 SteveMcG  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:24:29am

re: #179 webevintage

Just don't stand next to me in a thunderstorm.

183 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:26:30am

re: #145 RadicalModerate

Is it just me, or does the Republican Party remind you of the cast of BlackAdder II, and someone forgot to invite Rowan Atkinson?

Just so long as the rest of us don't have to live out being part of Blackadder Goes Forth...

184 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:26:31am

re: #177 Walter L. Newton

You said you could prove it to me religiously... go for it?

One of the common "proofs" is that the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis 1 almost always refers to literal 24-hour days (and when it does not, there are clear indications of metaphor), that Jesus quotes the Torah on multiple occasions and never questions it's basic assumptions about the nature of reality, and that if Moses and/or Jesus is untruthful or lying then he becomes a false god, unworthy of worship. Since we know (via spiritual means) that he is truly God and worthy of worship, the account in Genesis that he supports must in fact be accurate.

But of course there is plenty of religious scholarship on either side of this question, you can do your own research if you care to. It's a religious question that can only be addressed religiously.

I'll repeat: what's your point?

185 ZeroGain  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:27:13am

OMG! "Pinky and the Brain" was... REAL? GASP! God, and I thought I had 4 years of point-and-laugh at the democrats...

186 cliffster  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:27:36am

re: #154 HoosierHoops

OT...I think I am a Moral dilemma.. I went to my favorite place for lunch today and saw a new hire drinking at the bar... I'm not sure I should say anything to his boss.. Jeez

well, if he was drinking blended scotch instead of single malt, I would certainly want to know if I were his boss

187 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:28:12am

re: #181 Walter L. Newton

Theological opinions. No, you said "I could offer you religious proof that he did..." I want the proof, not opinions. There are reams and reams of fairy tales out there too... doesn't PROVE that their are wizards or fairies.

proof
–noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

188 webevintage  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:28:46am

re: #154 HoosierHoops

OT...I think I am a Moral dilemma.. I went to my favorite place for lunch today and saw a new hire drinking at the bar... I'm not sure I should say anything to his boss.. Jeez

Is what he does dangerous to the public?

189 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:29:02am

re: #184 gehazi

One of the common "proofs" is that the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis 1 almost always refers to literal 24-hour days (and when it does not, there are clear indications of metaphor), that Jesus quotes the Torah on multiple occasions and never questions it's basic assumptions about the nature of reality, and that if Moses and/or Jesus is untruthful or lying then he becomes a false god, unworthy of worship. Since we know (via spiritual means) that he is truly God and worthy of worship, the account in Genesis that he supports must in fact be accurate.

But of course there is plenty of religious scholarship on either side of this question, you can do your own research if you care to. It's a religious question that can only be addressed religiously.

I'll repeat: what's your point?

What is Genesis? If you are going to quote Genesis to PROVE that god created the universe, than you need to prove to me Genesis is the word of god. Otherwise, you still haven't proved anything.

190 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:29:33am

re: #186 cliffster

well, if he was drinking blended scotch instead of single malt, I would certainly want to know if I were his boss

Looks like we already drove the new hire to drinking during work...
oh well

191 webevintage  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:29:33am

re: #188 webevintage

Is what he does dangerous to the public?

and would you be responsible if he screwed something up due to having a few drinks at lunch?

192 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:31:02am

re: #188 webevintage

Is what he does dangerous to the public?

nah.. We just sit in cubes and stress out all day

193 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:31:04am

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

I think we're talking past each other...

I stated that the assertion of creation in six days with age was a religious assertion, only addressable by religious means. Religious texts are the primary religious means used to address religious questions.

I'm certainly not trying to say that religious evidence is somehow equivalent to scientific evidence. That was what I was arguing against.

194 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:31:10am

re: #187 gehazi

proof
–noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

Oh goody... you got a dictionary... now look up "fairy tale."

195 cliffster  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:32:02am

re: #190 HoosierHoops

Looks like we already drove the new hire to drinking during work...
oh well

There's plenty of times when I've gone out to lunch with my coworkers and we'll have a beer or a margarita or two, especially if we're celebrating something. Just cozying up to the bar kicking one back during lunch, though? Bad sign..

196 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:32:16am

re: #194 Walter L. Newton

The point is there's very little in this world that can be proven in some absolute sense. Mostly there is only strong or weak evidence.

197 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:32:27am

re: #193 gehazi

I think we're talking past each other...

I stated that the assertion of creation in six days with age was a religious assertion, only addressable by religious means. Religious texts are the primary religious means used to address religious questions.

I'm certainly not trying to say that religious evidence is somehow equivalent to scientific evidence. That was what I was arguing against.

No... you used the word "prove." You can't, nor anyone else can, prove creation using religious means... it's all a fairy tale... got it?

198 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:33:36am

re: #197 Walter L. Newton

No... you used the word "prove." You can't, nor anyone else can, prove creation using religious means... it's all a fairy tale... got it?

No one can scientifically prove a religious statement using religious means.

Which is...what I've been saying!

199 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:35:00am

re: #198 gehazi

No one can scientifically prove a religious statement using religious means.

Which is...what I've been saying!

No it's not what you have been saying. You believe in god?

200 engineer cat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:35:08am

the scientific point of view, of course, allows for the possibility that all of our current ideas about the origin of the world may eventually look as silly and outdated as the phlogiston theory

201 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:35:32am

re: #199 Walter L. Newton

No it's not what you have been saying. You believe in god?

Please don't tell me what I've been saying. I know what I've been saying.

202 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:35:54am

re: #201 gehazi

Please don't tell me what I've been saying. I know what I've been saying.

You believe in god?

203 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:37:08am

re: #201 gehazi

Just a word of friendly advice here, as it appears you're being drawn into a theological debate with Walter. I find driving nails into green timber with my forehead is a far more pleasant experience. At least the resistance of the wood is consistent.

204 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:37:29am

re: #199 Walter L. Newton

No it's not what you have been saying. You believe in god?

And this just confirms to me that we've been talking past each other. Why don't you go back and read everything I've written on this from the beginning? I clearly misunderstood you to be in earnest in #144 and that's my fault; I'm still new here. I was attempting to argue against the idea that religious questions can be scientifically proven from the very beginning of the conversation.

205 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:37:55am

re: #203 darthstar

Just a word of friendly advice here, as it appears you're being drawn into a theological debate with Walter. I find driving nails into green timber with my forehead is a far more pleasant experience. At least the resistance of the wood is consistent.

You... you... believer you...

206 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:38:02am

re: #202 Walter L. Newton

You believe in god?

Irrelevant.

207 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:38:13am

re: #204 gehazi

And this just confirms to me that we've been talking past each other. Why don't you go back and read everything I've written on this from the beginning? I clearly misunderstood you to be in earnest in #144 and that's my fault; I'm still new here. I was attempting to argue against the idea that religious questions can be scientifically proven from the very beginning of the conversation.

You believe in god?

208 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:38:38am

re: #202 Walter L. Newton

You believe in god?

I believe in God...What I don't believe in is that the Bible has anything to do with Science..Zip..Nadda..

209 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:38:57am

re: #54 jamesfirecat

Sorry my bad that should multiply six by nine, hope my mistatement didn't start any religious wars...

That's still incorrect if you're going for the reference I think you are.

/(six * seven)

210 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:39:53am

re: #206 gehazi

Irrelevant.

No it's not... if you believe in a god... then your opinion on people's opinions, like O'Donnell, like her opinion on creation (as has been discussed here) is moot... you are as gullible as she is...

You believe in god?

211 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:40:16am

re: #207 Walter L. Newton

Unfortunately I misunderstood your meaning in #144, and I will accept that.

Is it so difficult for you to admit that possibly you have misunderstood my meaning as well?

212 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:40:38am

re: #208 HoosierHoops

I believe in God...What I don't believe in is that the Bible has anything to do with Science..Zip..Nadda..

Are you limiting your god? Or do you believe in science more than the word of your god?

213 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:41:36am

re: #211 gehazi

Unfortunately I misunderstood your meaning in #144, and I will accept that.

Is it so difficult for you to admit that possibly you have misunderstood my meaning as well?

I misunderstood your meaning too... I thought you were a rational person that understand the concept of a god has about as much validity as a fairy tale. I'm sorry.

214 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:42:04am

re: #213 Walter L. Newton

I misunderstood your meaning too... I thought you were a rational person that understand the concept of a god has about as much validity as a fairy tale. I'm sorry.

Are you always this much of an asshole?

215 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:42:21am

re: #214 gehazi

Are you always this much of an asshole?

Are you always this evasive?

216 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:42:41am

re: #214 gehazi

Are you always this much of an asshole?

According to some, yes.

217 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:42:52am

re: #215 Walter L. Newton

Are you always this evasive?

Only when talking to assholes who aren't interested in honest discussion.

218 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:43:02am

Another day on LGF...

219 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:43:22am

re: #218 researchok

Another day on LGF...

I got popcorn!

220 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:43:44am

re: #219 Varek Raith

I got popcorn!

Hey- that's my line!

221 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:43:48am

re: #217 gehazi

Only when talking to assholes who aren't interested in honest discussion.

I'm interested in an honest discussion. Do you believe in god? Once I find out where you sit... we can get to the meat of the discussion here and find out where you stand.

222 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:44:20am

re: #220 researchok

Hey- that's my line!

You started it yesterday... you were juggling 3 threads at a time... I fucking ran out of popcorn.

223 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:44:27am

re: #212 Walter L. Newton

Are you limiting your god? Or do you believe in science more than the word of your god?

I never limit God...The Bible isn't a scientific book...When I read in Luke about stopping a router from Flapping or the principles of GPS I'll change my mind...
/I know I'm out of my league in theology with you...Just my opinion

224 Jadespring  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:44:32am

re: #214 gehazi

Are you always this much of an asshole?

Yep pretty much. At least when it comes to religious stuff. It's one of the things you figure out after being around here for a while. Try not to take it personal.

225 Petero1818  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:45:11am

Hey, now at least we know why that thing that looks like her head actually sounds like an ass.

226 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:45:13am

That, Walter, I understand.

227 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:45:51am

re: #221 Walter L. Newton

I'm not interested in a discussion of the reality or unreality of god or gods. I was trying to make a point about how creationism is anything but science which I presume you would agree with, but apparently you'd rather just attack on a point which isn't relevant.

228 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:46:38am

re: #219 Varek Raith

Well I'm done now, sorry.

229 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:46:51am

re: #219 Varek Raith

I got popcorn!

No... you know me well enough... I get a chuckle out of people who will mock someone like O'Donnell for her religious beliefs... when in fact, many of these people mocking her are as gullible as she is... it's all a matter of degrees... my beliefs are not as crazy as your beliefs... even though all those beliefs are not better than discussing fairy tales.

Yet all will claim to be rational players.

LOL.

230 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:47:14am

re: #172 Walter L. Newton

Right.

He can offer it, but you don't have to accept it.

231 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:47:20am

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

No... you know me well enough... I get a chuckle out of people who will mock someone like O'Donnell for her religious beliefs... when in fact, many of these people mocking her are as gullible as she is... it's all a matter of degrees... my beliefs are not as crazy as your beliefs... even though all those beliefs are not better than discussing fairy tales.

Yet all will claim to be rational players.

LOL.

I know.
:)

232 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:47:33am

re: #216 Walter L. Newton

According to some all that know me, yes.

/couldn't resist

233 cliffster  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:47:42am

re: #223 HoosierHoops

I for one am convinced that God doesn't throw dice. I think that was in Proverbs

234 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:48:05am

I will say this: Conversations about/on religion do are much more easily had when positions are staked out early on.

After that, the kind of belief becomes germane- is it literal, allegorical, etc., and even the kind of disbelief becomes relevant- is adversarial, is it benign, is it tolerant, not tolerant and so on.

235 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:50:18am

re: #231 Varek Raith

I know.
:)

And then they run away... oh well... and you know me well enough, I respect a persons belief in religious idea, concepts, their theologies, but I don't respect someone when they can't respect a fellow religionist... back to what I said...

236 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:50:58am

re: #233 cliffster

I for one am convinced that God doesn't throw dice. I think that was in Proverbs

Try Einstein.

237 jamesfirecat  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:51:10am

re: #233 cliffster

I for one am convinced that God doesn't throw dice. I think that was in Proverbs

Stop telling God what to do with his dice.

238 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:51:37am

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

No... you know me well enough... I get a chuckle out of people who will mock someone like O'Donnell for her religious beliefs... when in fact, many of these people mocking her are as gullible as she is... it's all a matter of degrees... my beliefs are not as crazy as your beliefs... even though all those beliefs are not better than discussing fairy tales.

Yet all will claim to be rational players.

LOL.

So I can't say O'Donnell is wrong if I'm a God believer, because since God can't be proven, I have no right dissing her beliefs. And if she's wrong, I'm wrong.

Is that it?

239 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:53:40am

re: #237 jamesfirecat

Stop telling God what to do with his dice.

That's the problem I see with religionists... they want to limit their god. If they are sure that their god exists, then they can never be sure that their god couldn't do what ever he/she/it wants to do, including creating the universe in 6 days and making it look like it took billions of years.

I challenge ANYONE who believes in god to prove that otherwise?

240 Jadespring  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:53:54am

re: #238 marjoriemoon

So I can't say O'Donnell is wrong if I'm a God believer, because since God can't be proven, I have no right dissing her beliefs. And if she's wrong, I'm wrong.

Is that it?

I think you can say it. He's just saying he won't respect you saying it.

So basically it's just really about whether you care if people that hold that sort of opinion, respect your opinion.

241 cliffster  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:55:00am

re: #236 Walter L. Newton

Try Einstein.

Einstein wrote a book in the Bible?

242 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:55:40am

re: #238 marjoriemoon

So I can't say O'Donnell is wrong if I'm a God believer, because since God can't be proven, I have no right dissing her beliefs. And if she's wrong, I'm wrong.

Is that it?

There is a fine line line between faith and beliefs (interpretations). I can be critical of certain beliefs and at the same time, not mock faith.

Is that you are saying?

243 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:55:54am

re: #238 marjoriemoon

So I can't say O'Donnell is wrong if I'm a God believer, because since God can't be proven, I have no right dissing her beliefs. And if she's wrong, I'm wrong.

Is that it?

You have all the right you want to be... hypocrites have rights too. If you can believe in such a fantastical concept such as a god, then you cannot claim (without some proof) that that god is not capable of doing anything he/she/it wants to do... including fooling everyone with this thing called science.

245 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:57:31am

re: #243 Walter L. Newton

You have all the right you want to be... hypocrites have rights too. If you can believe in such a fantastical concept such as a god, then you cannot claim (without some proof) that that god is not capable of doing anything he/she/it wants to do... including fooling everyone with this thing called science.

But one could certainly say that these beliefs, whether they hold similar ones or not, shouldn't be used to justify public policy changes, yes? Or is that also not a respectable stance to take - just curious.

246 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:58:29am

re: #214 gehazi

Are you always this much of an asshole?

re: #223 HoosierHoops

I never limit God...The Bible isn't a scientific book...When I read in Luke about stopping a router from Flapping or the principles of GPS I'll change my mind...
/I know I'm out of my league in theology with you...Just my opinion

Luke 47:21 Look not unto the hub for the packets which thou lost, for while thy ports be many, configurations be few.

247 darthstar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:59:06am

re: #246 darthstar

Oops...don't know how gehazi's quote got in there.

248 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:59:11am

re: #243 Walter L. Newton

You have all the right you want to be... hypocrites have rights too. If you can believe in such a fantastical concept such as a god, then you cannot claim (without some proof) that that god is not capable of doing anything he/she/it wants to do... including fooling everyone with this thing called science.

"If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting."

249 Kragar  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 11:59:28am

re: #244 WindUpBird

Don Bluth told us this day would come

They're remaking it? BASTARDS!

250 Petero1818  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:00:21pm

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

What is Genesis? If you are going to quote Genesis to PROVE that god created the universe, than you need to prove to me Genesis is the word of god. Otherwise, you still haven't proved anything.

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

No... you know me well enough... I get a chuckle out of people who will mock someone like O'Donnell for her religious beliefs... when in fact, many of these people mocking her are as gullible as she is... it's all a matter of degrees... my beliefs are not as crazy as your beliefs... even though all those beliefs are not better than discussing fairy tales.

Yet all will claim to be rational players.

LOL.



re: #243 Walter L. Newton

You have all the right you want to be... hypocrites have rights too. If you can believe in such a fantastical concept such as a god, then you cannot claim (without some proof) that that god is not capable of doing anything he/she/it wants to do... including fooling everyone with this thing called science.

I think it is possible to be rational and have a belief in god, as a rational person may understand quite clearly that a belief in a higher being, while not provable, fulfils some need, that may itself not be rational but may be emotional. In other words, the human condition may be served by both a rational discourse and an emotional one. The trouble seems to come when one seeks to define rationally that which could only be explained emotionally. Does god exist? Hell if I know, but if it makes you feel good to believe god exists, it may be quite rational to hold that belief. Allowing that belief to guide endeavours that are more verifiably served by science seems a little nuts to me though. That seems to be irrational.

251 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:00:35pm

re: #245 rhino2

But one could certainly say that these beliefs, whether they hold similar ones or not, shouldn't be used to justify public policy changes, yes? Or is that also not a respectable stance to take - just curious.

I don't think religion should be brought into public policy in any way, but I'm an atheist... if I was a believer, I could have a different opinion.

252 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:02:09pm

re: #249 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're remaking it? BASTARDS!

I haven't heard anything about it recently, but yeah, I despair of them screwing with a classic :(

253 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:02:45pm

re: #251 Walter L. Newton

I don't think religion should be brought into public policy in any way, but I'm an atheist... if I was a believer, I could have a different opinion.

But do you acknowledge that a believer could also share that opinion?

254 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:03:02pm

re: #251 Walter L. Newton

I don't think religion should be brought into public policy in any way, but I'm an atheist... if I was a believer, I could have a different opinion.


Agree 100% Walter

255 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:03:04pm

re: #31 jaunte

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
-- Christine O’Donnell

/Just wanted to look at it again.

Christine O'Donnell is a furry

256 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:03:20pm

re: #250 Petero1818

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

re: #243 Walter L. Newton

I think it is possible to be rational and have a belief in god, as a rational person may understand quite clearly that a belief in a higher being, while not provable, fulfils some need, that may itself not be rational but may be emotional. In other words, the human condition may be served by both a rational discourse and an emotional one. The trouble seems to come when one seeks to define rationally that which could only be explained emotionally. Does god exist? Hell if I know, but if it makes you feel good to believe god exists, it may be quite rational to hold that belief. Allowing that belief to guide endeavours that are more verifiably served by science seems a little nuts to me though. That seems to be irrational.

"it may be quite rational to hold that belief" but "belief to guide endeavours that are more verifiably served by science seems a little nuts to me though. That seems to be irrational."

Nice save...

257 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:03:25pm

re: #251 Walter L. Newton

I don't think religion should be brought into public policy in any way, but I'm an atheist... if I was a believer, I could have a different opinion.

Right- and therein lies the source of a big problem I have with politicians.

Values can and should be brought into the public square- but not under the guise of religion.

258 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:03:29pm

re: #243 Walter L. Newton

You have all the right you want to be... hypocrites have rights too. If you can believe in such a fantastical concept such as a god, then you cannot claim (without some proof) that that god is not capable of doing anything he/she/it wants to do... including fooling everyone with this thing called science.

God is capable of doing anything and everything.

When talking about creationism, are you saying that God planted the fossils just to fool us (not sure why God would want to do that) in believing the earth is millions of years old instead of 6000? Why would God want to fool us again? I mean, as creationists would say it (I don't think you actually say this, but one never knows with you!).

Scientific theory proves certain things. As Maimonides said, if science proves the Torah wrong, than we messed up the interpretation of the Torah and we have to go back and look at it again. Torah is not wrong and scientific theory is not wrong. Only WE, HUMANS, OUR INTERPRETATION is wrong.

259 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:04:05pm

re: #242 researchok

There is a fine line line between faith and beliefs (interpretations). I can be critical of certain beliefs and at the same time, not mock faith.

Is that you are saying?

I was trying to understand Walterese.

260 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:05:07pm

re: #253 rhino2

But do you acknowledge that a believer could also share that opinion?

Sure... and I can also see how a believer sharing that opinion and mocking another believer who believes strongly enough that their belief tells them that their god is right... is a hypocrite.

261 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:05:27pm

re: #259 marjoriemoon

I was trying to understand Walterese.

I think that was the point you and he were making, albeit from different directions.

Walter often exceeds the speed limit.

262 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:05:30pm

re: #258 marjoriemoon

God is capable of doing anything and everything.

When talking about creationism, are you saying that God planted the fossils just to fool us (not sure why God would want to do that) in believing the earth is millions of years old instead of 6000? Why would God want to fool us again? I mean, as creationists would say it (I don't think you actually say this, but one never knows with you!).

Scientific theory proves certain things. As Maimonides said, if science proves the Torah wrong, than we messed up the interpretation of the Torah and we have to go back and look at it again. Torah is not wrong and scientific theory is not wrong. Only WE, HUMANS, OUR INTERPRETATION is wrong.

If God is actually just a really powerful snotty teenager, I could see it

264 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:07:23pm

I initially thought this was a joke post of some sort.

Whoa.

265 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:07:42pm

I posted this before, but The Frisco Kid has a better answer.

266 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:08:36pm

re: #258 marjoriemoon

God is capable of doing anything and everything.

When talking about creationism, are you saying that God planted the fossils just to fool us (not sure why God would want to do that) in believing the earth is millions of years old instead of 6000? Why would God want to fool us again? I mean, as creationists would say it (I don't think you actually say this, but one never knows with you!).

Scientific theory proves certain things. As Maimonides said, if science proves the Torah wrong, than we messed up the interpretation of the Torah and we have to go back and look at it again. Torah is not wrong and scientific theory is not wrong. Only WE, HUMANS, OUR INTERPRETATION is wrong.

"not sure why God would want to do that" There is no way for you to know otherwise. He could, couldn't he?

"Why would God want to fool us again?" There is no way for you to know otherwise. He could, couldn't he?

"Torah is not wrong and scientific theory is not wrong. Only WE, HUMANS, OUR INTERPRETATION is wrong." Torah could be wrong, why couldn't it?

267 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:08:42pm

re: #259 marjoriemoon

I was trying to understand Walterese.

I wish you luck in this endeavor

268 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:09:22pm

And now Rush Limbaugh has made Rove his jail punk, now Rove's falling in line over O'Donnell

Another honest appraisal bites the dust, I love how the republican party works

269 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:09:56pm

re: #265 marjoriemoon

I posted this before, but The Frisco Kid has a better answer.


[Video]

LOLOL

270 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:10:22pm

re: #262 WindUpBird

If God is actually just a really powerful snotty teenager, I could see it

Well the creationists say that, yes? So what's the reason God planted all those fossils again? Honestly, I don't know the purpose of why God would want to fool us...

Whatever the answer, what's weird to me is why they would think God would be purposefully deceptive.

271 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:10:41pm

re: #260 Walter L. Newton

Sure... and I can also see how a believer sharing that opinion and mocking another believer who believes strongly enough that their belief tells them that their god is right... is a hypocrite.

Seems to me that a believer who doesn't believe religion has any place in public policy can rightly criticize another believer who does believe their religion should be used as a basis for public policy.

How is this hypocritical?

272 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:11:52pm

I'm also an atheist by the way Walter, this is just a fun exercise.

273 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:12:11pm

re: #270 marjoriemoon

Well the creationists say that, yes? So what's the reason God planted all those fossils again? Honestly, I don't know the purpose of why God would want to fool us...

Whatever the answer, what's weird to me is why they would think God would be purposefully deceptive.

They don't seem to think very highly of the entity they worship, that's for sure

274 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:12:27pm

re: #271 rhino2

Seems to me that a believer who doesn't believe religion has any place in public policy can rightly criticize another believer who does believe their religion should be used as a basis for public policy.

How is this hypocritical?

Because... when you are dealing with gods, any believer could be right, and you could be wrong. Why are you limiting god?

275 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:13:16pm

re: #266 Walter L. Newton

"not sure why God would want to do that" There is no way for you to know otherwise. He could, couldn't he?

"Why would God want to fool us again?" There is no way for you to know otherwise. He could, couldn't he?

"Torah is not wrong and scientific theory is not wrong. Only WE, HUMANS, OUR INTERPRETATION is wrong." Torah could be wrong, why couldn't it?

Easy to say all that. Harder to actually have to think why it isn't so.

The Torah is God's word. I know you're don't believe that. Not all Jews even believe it, but I believe it.

There isn't a lesson, parable or story in the Torah that doesn't have a beginning, a middle and an end. God wouldn't plant fossils for no reason, because no where else has He done something for "no reason." There's always a reason.

276 Petero1818  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:14:50pm

re: #271 rhino2

I suspect that his answer is that if you believe any aspect of that which is not rationally explainable, you cannot criticize someone else for believing something (also not rationally explainable) so strongly that it impacts their policy making etc.. So you may disagree with them, but can't call them batty for doing so. Is that accurate Walter?

277 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:15:19pm

Oh hell, let's talk about abortion instead.

Or maybe someone has a hot poker I can stick in my eye.

278 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:16:22pm

re: #277 marjoriemoon

Oh hell, let's talk about abortion instead.

Fortunately, short term memory loss is not something I have to worry about.
/

279 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:16:38pm

re: #272 rhino2

I'm also an atheist by the way Walter, this is just a fun exercise.

Let's see if I can simply it. Obviously, any one, believer or not, can hold an opinion. But, when you move into the realm of the fantastical, there is NO WAY you can say that you're god is telling you one thing, and the other believer is wrong. You both are dealing with a myth, therefore, you are simply using a foundation made of sand to build a ideology, one that you bring into your secular life, and then claim that as policy.

280 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:17:09pm

re: #275 marjoriemoon

Easy to say all that. Harder to actually have to think why it isn't so.

The Torah is God's word. I know you're don't believe that. Not all Jews even believe it, but I believe it.

There isn't a lesson, parable or story in the Torah that doesn't have a beginning, a middle and an end. God wouldn't plant fossils for no reason, because no where else has He done something for "no reason." There's always a reason.

Says who?

281 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:17:30pm

re: #278 researchok

Fortunately, short term memory loss is not something I have to worry about.
/

Oh yes, you poor thing. You were the King of the Bottom Ten. I saw that.

I still love you even if you're a little crazy :>

282 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:18:04pm

re: #274 Walter L. Newton

Because... when you are dealing with gods, any believer could be right, and you could be wrong. Why are you limiting god?

I'm not limiting god at all, I'm not even discussing god, he (she, it, whatever) wasn't in my question at all. I'm focusing only on the opinions of two believers whether or not their god should dictate public policy. I'm a little rusty on my bible so sorry if this is incorrect but, pretty sure there isn't anything in the new testament about forcing the "laws of the land" to conform to the bible, just that Christians should obey them. With that in mind, it seems the intent on whether or not to do that lies solely in the minds of said believers and not from some order from god that one is choosing to believe while the other choosing to limit.

283 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:18:22pm

re: #280 Walter L. Newton

Says who?

I already said it. Every story has a beginning, middle and end. Did you not read it?

284 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:18:50pm

re: #281 marjoriemoon

Oh yes, you poor thing. You were the King of the Bottom Ten. I saw that.

I still love you even if you're a little crazy :>

LOL

I'm crazy?

285 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:18:53pm

re: #277 marjoriemoon

Oh hell, let's talk about abortion instead.

Or maybe someone has a hot poker I can stick in my eye.

LOL I hear ya Sister...Moving upstairs..
I'm getting a Tee-shirt that says 'I survived the religious thread'

286 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:19:38pm

re: #285 HoosierHoops

LOL I hear ya Sister...Moving upstairs..
I'm getting a Tee-shirt that says 'I survived the religious thread'

Ah, you're no fun!
:)

287 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:20:33pm

re: #277 marjoriemoon

Oh hell, let's talk about abortion instead.

Or maybe someone has a hot poker I can stick in my eye.

I'm probably not really giving all my attention to this issue, even though I'm the one that guided the conversation in this direction.

I'm trying to put together a short explanation for a friend of mine of why I don't thing his Three Kingdoms Coin Da Quan Wu Bai,
Northern Song Dynasty Coin Zheng He Zhong Bao, Ming Dyansty Zhu Yuanzhang Emperor Da Zhong Tong Bao and Southern Song Dynasty Coin Jian Yan Tong Bao cash coins are reproductions and not originals.

A lot of stuff about casting techniques and these coins missing certain casting characteristics and so on...

So, sorry if I'm not being clear enough.

288 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:20:55pm

re: #284 researchok

LOL

I'm crazy?

Well not usually, but yea, you had a moment there.

289 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:21:32pm

re: #283 marjoriemoon

I already said it. Every story has a beginning, middle and end. Did you not read it?

And so, every story in Torah, because it has a beginning, middle and end, that makes it the word of god? I'm confused.

290 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:22:49pm

re: #287 Walter L. Newton

I'm probably not really giving all my attention to this issue, even though I'm the one that guided the conversation in this direction.

I'm trying to put together a short explanation for a friend of mine of why I don't thing his Three Kingdoms Coin Da Quan Wu Bai,
Northern Song Dynasty Coin Zheng He Zhong Bao, Ming Dyansty Zhu Yuanzhang Emperor Da Zhong Tong Bao and Southern Song Dynasty Coin Jian Yan Tong Bao cash coins are reproductions and not originals.

A lot of stuff about casting techniques and these coins missing certain casting characteristics and so on...

So, sorry if I'm not being clear enough.

It's ok. I'm not really interested in the "Does God exist" discussion. If you don't think so, that's fine. If you do, that's fine, too.

I jumped in when I saw you were talking to gehazi, but I don't think I got the whole jist of it.

291 SpaceJesus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:23:09pm

has anyone here made a pinky and the brain joke yet because i want to be the first but haven't read the thread

292 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:23:28pm

re: #290 marjoriemoon

It's ok. I'm not really interested in the "Does God exist" discussion. If you don't think so, that's fine. If you do, that's fine, too.

I jumped in when I saw you were talking to gehazi, but I don't think I got the whole jist of it.

I may have even lost the whole gist of it myself. :)

293 Varek Raith  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:23:35pm

re: #291 SpaceJesus

has anyone here made a pinky and the brain joke yet because i want to be the first but haven't read the thread

Yes.
Sorry.

294 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:23:46pm

re: #291 SpaceJesus

has anyone here made a pinky and the brain joke yet because i want to be the first but haven't read the thread

Yeah it's been done, sorry

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

295 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:24:30pm

re: #289 Walter L. Newton

And so, every story in Torah, because it has a beginning, middle and end, that makes it the word of god? I'm confused.

No, I was making the point that all the stories, parables, what have you, have a meaning. There's a reason or a lesson there. If God simply planted the fossils like the creationists say, what would be the reason? There has to be a reason. God doesn't just say, HAHA! FOOLED YA! Well he hasn't anywhere else.

296 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:24:34pm

re: #282 rhino2

I'm not limiting god at all, I'm not even discussing god, he (she, it, whatever) wasn't in my question at all. I'm focusing only on the opinions of two believers whether or not their god should dictate public policy. I'm a little rusty on my bible so sorry if this is incorrect but, pretty sure there isn't anything in the new testament about forcing the "laws of the land" to conform to the bible, just that Christians should obey them. With that in mind, it seems the intent on whether or not to do that lies solely in the minds of said believers and not from some order from god that one is choosing to believe while the other choosing to limit.

Romans 12... Greek Scriptures.

297 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:24:57pm

re: #296 Walter L. Newton

Romans 12... Greek Scriptures.

Er Romans 13... sorry.

298 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:25:40pm

re: #295 marjoriemoon

No, I was making the point that all the stories, parables, what have you, have a meaning. There's a reason or a lesson there. If God simply planted the fossils like the creationists say, what would be the reason? There has to be a reason. God doesn't just say, HAHA! FOOLED YA! Well he hasn't anywhere else.

Why not... if it's not written down, it's not so?

299 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:26:00pm

re: #288 marjoriemoon

Well not usually, but yea, you had a moment there.

In here, I suppose so.

Never again shall I suggest that fewer abortions may be in everyone's best interest.

Seriously, when you take away both extremes, I do not understand the 'take no prisoners' attitude in the debate is so sacred.

When I say that I support choice though abortion makes me uncomfortable, why does that raise such vitriol?

300 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:27:16pm

re: #297 Walter L. Newton

Er Romans 13... sorry.

Yes that passage I'm aware of, if taken at face value says every single authority figure was placed there by god, but O'Donnell isn't an authority figure yet, so she doesn't have "appointed by god" status yet.

301 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:27:50pm

re: #298 Walter L. Newton

Why not... if it's not written down, it's not so?

This is tiring. You should watch that Frisco Kid video I posted upthread.

302 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:27:54pm

Of course I'm no theologian and certainly not one of Walter's caliber, so I may be digging the hole deeper here completely unknowingly

303 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:28:30pm

Sorry, but the "world was created looking old" theory came and went about 150 years ago in the book Omphalos. It was poorly received at the time despite the authors conviction that it would reconcile Biblical Creation with evolution.

304 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:29:30pm

re: #299 researchok

In here, I suppose so.

Never again shall I suggest that fewer abortions may be in everyone's best interest.

Seriously, when you take away both extremes, I do not understand the 'take no prisoners' attitude in the debate is so sacred.

When I say that I support choice though abortion makes me uncomfortable, why does that raise such vitriol?

I don't recall that part. I recall something about, there really aren't any threats to legal abortion.

And that's another discussion I really don't want to rehash.

305 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:29:56pm

Ummm, author's conviction. It is possessive.

306 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:30:16pm

re: #303 calochortus

Sorry, but the "world was created looking old" theory came and went about 150 years ago in the book Omphalos. It was poorly received at the time despite the authors conviction that it would reconcile Biblical Creation with evolution.

It's possible.

307 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:30:37pm

re: #299 researchok

In here, I suppose so.

Never again shall I suggest that fewer abortions may be in everyone's best interest.

Seriously, when you take away both extremes, I do not understand the 'take no prisoners' attitude in the debate is so sacred.

When I say that I support choice though abortion makes me uncomfortable, why does that raise such vitriol?

I think it was the the dismissive attitude towards the obstacles being intentionally stood up in the way of getting an abortion in many states that people were riled up about. The "it's still legal and it's going to stay legal so why worry about it" type stuff versus all the shit being put into place in some states to make it as hard as possible to actually get to have that completely legal abortion.

308 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:31:01pm

re: #306 Walter L. Newton

Many things are possible.

309 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:32:25pm

Walter it seems to me you are addressing the literalists, the majority of the visible 'believers'? Am I correct?

From what you have said so far, it does not appear as if you take issue with 'values' based believers or those for whom the Bible represents an allegorical expression of a canon of ethics.

Am I on the right track?

310 Steve Dutch  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:34:19pm
This would explain a lot; perhaps O’Donnell is an early, failed experiment that ended up as a human with a fully functioning mouse brain?

I have far too much respect for mice to believe that

311 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:34:27pm

re: #307 rhino2

I think it was the the dismissive attitude towards the obstacles being intentionally stood up in the way of getting an abortion in many states that people were riled up about. The "it's still legal and it's going to stay legal so why worry about it" type stuff versus all the shit being put into place in some states to make it as hard as possible to actually get to have that completely legal abortion.

Fair enough.

I did not mean to come across as strident or flippant.

Certainly my support for choice is clear. That is something I came to by way of experience.

312 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:35:13pm

As to God. There's also the point that although it can't be proven that God exists, it also can't be proven that it doesn't exist either. SO HA!

313 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:35:46pm

re: #309 researchok

Walter it seems to me you are addressing the literalists, the majority of the visible 'believers'? Am I correct?

From what you have said so far, it does not appear as if you take issue with 'values' based believers or those for whom the Bible represents an allegorical expression of a canon of ethics.

Am I on the right track?

No... simple... if you believe in god, then you cannot mock another believer who considers creationism the final word on the origins of the universe... why... because in my opinion, your fantastical belief is no more fantastic than the others belief in a 6 day creation.

This is coming from my point of view, as an atheist. As a believer, you may see this differently.

314 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:36:06pm

re: #312 marjoriemoon

As to God. There's also the point that although it can't be proven that God exists, it also can't be proven that it doesn't exist either. SO HA!

SO WHAT!

315 harlequinade  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:36:24pm

re: #256 Walter L. Newton

re: #250 Petero1818

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

re: #243 Walter L. Newton

I think it is possible to be rational and have a belief in god, as a rational person may understand quite clearly that a belief in a higher being, while not provable, fulfils some need, that may itself not be rational but may be emotional. In other words, the human condition may be served by both a rational discourse and an emotional one. The trouble seems to come when one seeks to define rationally that which could only be explained emotionally. Does god exist? Hell if I know, but if it makes you feel good to believe god exists, it may be quite rational to hold that belief. Allowing that belief to guide endeavours that are more verifiably served by science seems a little nuts to me though. That seems to be irrational.

"it may be quite rational to hold that belief" but "belief to guide endeavours that are more verifiably served by science seems a little nuts to me though. That seems to be irrational."

Nice save...

Why is that a save? As an atheist myself that sounds like a perfectly rational statement.

If belief in something is a personal comfort, who are you to say that person is less? And as long as that personal comfort isn't used as a yardstick to measure scientific evidence or public policy it should be of no importance to anyone else.

316 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:37:31pm

re: #214 gehazi

Are you always this much of an asshole?

No. He's a bully, and you're not a frequent poster, so he's picking on you.

It's pretty pathetic.

317 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:37:56pm

re: #299 researchok

That is a misrepresentation of the conversation.

318 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:40:57pm

re: #316 Obdicut

No. He's a bully, and you're not a frequent poster, so he's picking on you.

It's pretty pathetic.

Obdicut is always late to the party and then says something stupid.

319 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:41:01pm

re: #317 Obdicut

That is a misrepresentation of the conversation.

I gave my outsiders view of it a few comments back - clicking my portrait may not reveal very impressive posting statistics but I lurk here a ton, love reading the conversations/discourse/arguments/debates. So I saw that whole episode

320 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:41:14pm

re: #313 Walter L. Newton

No... simple... if you believe in god, then you cannot mock another believer who considers creationism the final word on the origins of the universe... why... because in my opinion, your fantastical belief is no more fantastic than the others belief in a 6 day creation.

This is coming from my point of view, as an atheist. As a believer, you may see this differently.

What about for the believer who sees the Bible as divine, but allegorical and not necessarily literal?

How do you classify that kind of belief?

321 SpaceJesus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:41:15pm

re: #293 Varek Raith

arrrggg

322 calochortus  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:42:25pm

re: #311 researchok

I think Rhino2 put it well, over the years we've seen a lot of what could be called concern trolling about how women are victimized by abortion, how we need to regulate it and so on with the real intent of denying women control over their own bodies. The actual, practical availability of abortion for poor or rural women has decreased over the years and it is taught less in medical school than it once was. This all makes many of us very suspicious of arguments that touch on the protection of women and the like. I don't know anyone who thinks abortions are wonderful, but the right to obtain one is important.

323 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:42:28pm

re: #314 Walter L. Newton

SO WHAT!

SO THERE!

324 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:42:41pm

re: #317 Obdicut

That is a misrepresentation of the conversation.

Perhaps- but that is how I saw it.

No adversarial intent.

325 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:42:43pm

re: #313 Walter L. Newton

This is a really simple logical error you're making, Walter.

Creationism, and some other religious beliefs, assert some things that are contradicted and disproved by science.

A belief in a God who's presence is unknown and unknowable, a belief in the 'supernatural' that can never be measured is an unscientific claim that cannot be disproved by science.

There is no need to make such a claim in the first place, of course.

But they are two entirely, entirely different forms of belief. Creationism, in rejecting scientific disproof, is by far crazier.

You really don't have a very good handle on atheism.

326 HappyWarrior  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:43:06pm

What in the.

327 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:43:58pm

re: #324 researchok

Perhaps- but that is how I saw it.

No adversarial intent.

You are leaving out your claims that abortion rights have not been under attack.

It was not the expression of the desire that fewer abortions that got you attacked. You didn't even make that claim until the discussion is well underway.

And nobody really castigated you for it, they-- including myself-- simply said that abortions are the symptom of the problem, so fewer abortions would not necessarily mean that the situation had improved.

328 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:44:21pm

re: #313 Walter L. Newton

No... simple... if you believe in god, then you cannot mock another believer who considers creationism the final word on the origins of the universe... why... because in my opinion, your fantastical belief is no more fantastic than the others belief in a 6 day creation.

This is coming from my point of view, as an atheist. As a believer, you may see this differently.

Ahh ok. I got it. So all believers are wrong and atheists are right?

See you are for certain there is no God. But you can't be for certain about that, Walter, because God can't be proven. So you know no more than the rest of us silly believers.

329 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:46:12pm

re: #328 marjoriemoon

I can be certain there is no need to ever raise the question of whether or not there is a god.

But I detailed the simple mistake Walter is making above.

Have I mentioned Don Cupitt to you? He's a favorite of mine. He believes in a non-real God-- as in, God as human concept, like love, justice, or, well, meaning in general.

I like that.

330 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:46:56pm

re: #322 calochortus

I think Rhino2 put it well, over the years we've seen a lot of what could be called concern trolling about how women are victimized by abortion, how we need to regulate it and so on with the real intent of denying women control over their own bodies. The actual, practical availability of abortion for poor or rural women has decreased over the years and it is taught less in medical school than it once was. This all makes many of us very suspicious of arguments that touch on the protection of women and the like. I don't know anyone who thinks abortions are wonderful, but the right to obtain one is important.

As I said, I have no problem whatsoever with choice. I do not approve of anything that might impede access to abortion.

My concerns are and remain the same as those addressed by other liberals- that the prevalent culture has done little to make abortion less common and that in and of itself poses other, greater issues.

331 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:47:41pm

re: #327 Obdicut

You are leaving out your claims that abortion rights have not been under attack.

It was not the expression of the desire that fewer abortions that got you attacked. You didn't even make that claim until the discussion is well underway.

And nobody really castigated you for it, they-- including myself-- simply said that abortions are the symptom of the problem, so fewer abortions would not necessarily mean that the situation had improved.

Fair enough.

332 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:48:59pm

re: #328 marjoriemoon

Ahh ok. I got it. So all believers are wrong and atheists are right?

See you are for certain there is no God. But you can't be for certain about that, Walter, because God can't be proven. So you know no more than the rest of us silly believers.

I never want a tombstone that says 'God is a myth'
I believe in God and I hope He believes in me...

333 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:50:52pm

re: #318 Walter L. Newton

Obdicut is always late to the party and then says something stupid.

Heh. For someone making a very simple logical mistake when comparing creationism-- the belief in something despite scientific evidence to the contrary-- and belief in an ineffable God who cannot be disproved by science-- you're rather quick to judge the intelligence of others.

Seriously, this is one of the simplest logical errors that can be made about the nature of religious beliefs.

Comparing a creationist to someone who believes in a God who's true nature and action can never be known is like comparing someone who truly believes that the next girl they see will be their true love and someone who believes in true love.

334 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:50:55pm

re: #332 HoosierHoops

I never want a tombstone that says 'God is a myth'
I believe in God and I hope He believes in me...

My tombstone will say ""

335 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:52:30pm

re: #329 Obdicut

I can be certain there is no need to ever raise the question of whether or not there is a god.

But I detailed the simple mistake Walter is making above.

Have I mentioned Don Cupitt to you? He's a favorite of mine. He believes in a non-real God-- as in, God as human concept, like love, justice, or, well, meaning in general.

I like that.

I'll take a look. Is he a Buddhist?

God is very real to me as a non-tangible entity.

336 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:53:10pm

re: #334 rhino2

My tombstone will say ""

Mine will say 'He didn't give a damn about Sponge Bob Squarepants, Cartman or So You Think You Can Dance?'

337 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:54:01pm

re: #280 Walter L. Newton

Says who?

Says the books they base their belief in a god on. Those books, directly and indirectly define their god. The book sets the limits and expectations believers should have in their god.

If their god is omnipotent and inscrutable, then the expectations should be that he can do whatever he/she/it damn well pleases, but in the world of modern ME origin religions, the books supposedly make god scrutable.

338 A Man for all Seasons  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:55:27pm

re: #336 researchok

Mine will say 'He didn't give a damn about Sponge Bob Squarepants, Cartman or So You Think You Can Dance?'

I've preordered mine
Don't you judge me

339 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:56:18pm

re: #335 marjoriemoon

I'll take a look. Is he a Buddhist?

God is very real to me as a non-tangible entity.

No, he was an Anglican priest. Now he's just him.

Cool guy.

God is very real to me as a non-tangible entity.

That's what I mean. If you say he is 'non-tangible', it means you're making a claim that can never be scientifically tested. To me, that means you're a human who has emotions, an innate wonder at the universe and consciousness, and a desire and belief in meaning in the world. And you're calling your interaction with those questions, that searching and questing, and that drive to not just be a moral and ethical person but a fulfilled one, "God".

I can respect that form of religiosity. The only kind of religious fervor I can't respect is when people think that they know what God wants other people to do.

340 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:57:27pm

I've heard stranger. I once has a conversation in a pub with a man who claimed IBM was using human brains as the CPUs of their supercomputers.

However that man wasn't seeking a position of responsibility in the Canadian government. The mere fact that a paranoid loon like O'Donnell can get that close to power in the U.S. does not bode well for the future.

341 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:57:40pm

re: #334 rhino2

Gah, can't figure out how to do html tags without them disappearing...anyway it was /life inside the html less-than greater-than tags.

342 researchok  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:57:43pm

re: #335 marjoriemoon

I'll take a look. Is he a Buddhist?

God is very real to me as a non-tangible entity.

I believe God is divine.

I also believe we are put here to do the heavy lifting with each year as a new chapter in the Creation.

I believe the Bible to be the allegorical drawing, offering us ideas and suggestions to create a better world.

343 cliffster  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 12:58:18pm

re: #325 Obdicut

A belief in a God who's presence is unknown and unknowable, a belief in the 'supernatural' that can never be measured is an unscientific claim that cannot be disproved by science.

If he were Feuerbach, he would point out that stipulating an ineffable X, with no properties and no definition, is an exercise in irrelevance. What is the logic in saying something exists, if the very things used to define existence are left undefined, he'd ask.

344 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:00:01pm

re: #325 Obdicut

This is a really simple logical error you're making, Walter.

Creationism, and some other religious beliefs, assert some things that are contradicted and disproved by science.

A belief in a God who's presence is unknown and unknowable, a belief in the 'supernatural' that can never be measured is an unscientific claim that cannot be disproved by science.

There is no need to make such a claim in the first place, of course.

But they are two entirely, entirely different forms of belief. Creationism, in rejecting scientific disproof, is by far crazier.

You really don't have a very good handle on atheism.

I think a better way of putting it is, the existence of god is untestable, because every outcome is consistent with an omnipotent being.

345 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:01:10pm

re: #343 cliffster

I'd agree it's an irrelevant question and irrelevant proposition, and that claiming something can exist without having any discernible effect makes the definition of 'existence' far too broad.

However, it's very different from a creationist insisting that things that do exist-- scientific facts-- don't exist.

346 rhino2  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:02:08pm

A universal negative can never be proven, and are pointless to even bother bringing up.

"Purple spotted elephants don't exist anywhere in the universe"

....prove it.

347 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:02:56pm

re: #339 Obdicut

No, he was an Anglican priest. Now he's just him.

Cool guy.

That's what I mean. If you say he is 'non-tangible', it means you're making a claim that can never be scientifically tested. To me, that means you're a human who has emotions, an innate wonder at the universe and consciousness, and a desire and belief in meaning in the world. And you're calling your interaction with those questions, that searching and questing, and that drive to not just be a moral and ethical person but a fulfilled one, "God".

I can respect that form of religiosity. The only kind of religious fervor I can't respect is when people think that they know what God wants other people to do.

It's a bigger concept than I can write and yes, all those things you said. But also, I don't need proof and I think people who believe don't need proof. We rely on faith. Proof is for science, yes? Faith is something else. We have faith in a lot of things. You fall in love with someone, you have faith in them. You have faith in your parents, your siblings, etc.

God also represents that space that inspires us to have compassion and reach out beyond our selfish lives to help others. Which is what it's all about when you get down to it.

348 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:04:15pm

re: #48 jamesfirecat

Does the universe make sense?

Then why do you expect the answer and the question to life the universe and everything to make sense?

As Arthur Dent noted at the end of second book, "I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."

349 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:04:25pm

re: #344 b_sharp

I think a better way of putting it is, the existence of god is untestable, because every outcome is consistent with an omnipotent being.

The existence of an active god-- one who actually did stuff, who popped his head down and said "By the way, I'm God, I'm really huge. Watch, I'm going to violate the laws of physics over here, and you can measure that. Now I"m restoring reality. Cool. Now stop killing each other, you dirty little fuckers."-- would be provable.

The existence of a god who uses his omnipotence to cover his tracks is a much more problematic claim because, even if we grant the existence of a god who has omnipotence, there is no basis for making a claim that he uses that omnipotence in that fashion. The claim that god existed, had omnipotence, and has never done anything would be equally strong.

350 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:04:46pm

re: #342 researchok

I believe God is divine.

I also believe we are put here to do the heavy lifting with each year as a new chapter in the Creation.

I believe the Bible to be the allegorical drawing, offering us ideas and suggestions to create a better world.

I really love Judaism because it's multi-dimensional. You can study on a very basic level, but you can also go deeper. As deep as you like.

351 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:06:31pm

re: #349 Obdicut

The existence of an active god-- one who actually did stuff, who popped his head down and said "By the way, I'm God, I'm really huge. Watch, I'm going to violate the laws of physics over here, and you can measure that. Now I"m restoring reality. Cool. Now stop killing each other, you dirty little fuckers."-- would be provable.

The existence of a god who uses his omnipotence to cover his tracks is a much more problematic claim because, even if we grant the existence of a god who has omnipotence, there is no basis for making a claim that he uses that omnipotence in that fashion. The claim that god existed, had omnipotence, and has never done anything would be equally strong.

You pulled that from Monty Python somewhere, I just know it.

352 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:07:54pm

re: #347 marjoriemoon

It's a bigger concept than I can write and yes, all those things you said. But also, I don't need proof and I think people who believe don't need proof. We rely on faith. Proof is for science, yes? Faith is something else. We have faith in a lot of things. You fall in love with someone, you have faith in them. You have faith in your parents, your siblings, etc.

No, sorry. There is no comparison in the faith in a real thing-- the interaction between two people, with its attendant emotions, history, etc.-- and the faith in something that cannot be discerned or in any way measured.

What I'm saying is one step backwards; I'm saying that the faith that I have that love is more than just a series of chemical reactions in my brain, that there is meaning beyond base physics, that consciousness is more than a observer phenomenon-- that is faith.

God also represents that space that inspires us to have compassion and reach out beyond our selfish lives to help others. Which is what it's all about when you get down to it.

Yeah, that's what I meant about God representing, to you, the desire to be ethical, moral, and fulfilled. Some of the best people I've known have been heavily religious, and they all had one thing in common: They were inspired by their religious belief but they in no way thought that they knew what "God" wanted other people to do.

353 mikhailtheplumber  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:13:19pm

Obviously, for O'Donnell, saying stupidly deceitful and wrong things don't count as lies if you believe in them.

Or, you know, God gives you a special exemption not to lie to Hitler.

354 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:16:25pm

re: #349 Obdicut

The existence of an active god-- one who actually did stuff, who popped his head down and said "By the way, I'm God, I'm really huge. Watch, I'm going to violate the laws of physics over here, and you can measure that. Now I"m restoring reality. Cool. Now stop killing each other, you dirty little fuckers."-- would be provable.

I think it would be a lot cooler if he zapped us to the other side of the galaxy just long enough for the Borg to notice us and start heading this way. Might even revitalize our space program.

355 HappyWarrior  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:18:50pm

Can I meet one of these mouse-human hybrids? I'm sure they know how to find or make some killer good cheese.

356 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:21:38pm

re: #352 Obdicut

No, sorry. There is no comparison in the faith in a real thing-- the interaction between two people, with its attendant emotions, history, etc.-- and the faith in something that cannot be discerned or in any way measured.

What I'm saying is one step backwards; I'm saying that the faith that I have that love is more than just a series of chemical reactions in my brain, that there is meaning beyond base physics, that consciousness is more than a observer phenomenon-- that is faith.

Yeah, that's what I meant about God representing, to you, the desire to be ethical, moral, and fulfilled. Some of the best people I've known have been heavily religious, and they all had one thing in common: They were inspired by their religious belief but they in no way thought that they knew what "God" wanted other people to do.

I think faith in God is no different than faith in anything else.

I have faith my husband won't cheat on me. I don't know that to be a fact, and in fact, one day I may be wrong. What's so different than faith in God? I may find out one day I have it wrong, but today it is my truth.

Judaism, because it's based on law, is very literal to me. It strives to make the determination between right and wrong. Emotions, not so much. Not that emotions aren't part of the spiritual experience, they are, but they aren't so much "right" or "wrong". The law will always be the law. I.e., it's wrong to murder and will always be wrong to murder.

357 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:24:13pm

re: #354 negativ

I think it would be a lot cooler if he zapped us to the other side of the galaxy just long enough for the Borg to notice us and start heading this way. Might even revitalize our space program.

Sorta like in the last crusade where Indie and his dad are caught in the nazi revolving secret door, and all the nazis spot them

ALARRRRM!!!

358 allegro  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:24:23pm

re: #356 marjoriemoon

I think faith in God is no different than faith in anything else.

I have faith my husband won't cheat on me. I don't know that to be a fact, and in fact, one day I may be wrong. What's so different than faith in God? I may find out one day I have it wrong, but today it is my truth.

Judaism, because it's based on law, is very literal to me. It strives to make the determination between right and wrong. Emotions, not so much. Not that emotions aren't part of the spiritual experience, they are, but they aren't so much "right" or "wrong". The law will always be the law. I.e., it's wrong to murder and will always be wrong to murder.

Isn't that conflating faith with culture?

359 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:26:01pm

re: #318 Walter L. Newton

Obdicut is always late to the party and then says something stupid.

actually, he's the smartest guy on these here comments, but hey!

360 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:28:17pm

re: #356 marjoriemoon

I think faith in God is no different than faith in anything else.
.

Well, it is.

There are two categories of 'faith', really. Predictive faith-- where, even though you can't be certain, you decide you have reason enough to have faith in certain events unfolding or things being true-- like your husband not cheating on you. Then there's ontological faith-- faith that things have meaning. The existence of God is one of these, like having faith that love is more than just a biological process.


I have faith my husband won't cheat on me. I don't know that to be a fact, and in fact, one day I may be wrong. What's so different than faith in God? I may find out one day I have it wrong, but today it is my truth.

Judaism, because it's based on law, is very literal to me. It strives to make the determination between right and wrong. Emotions, not so much. Not that emotions aren't part of the spiritual experience, they are, but they aren't so much "right" or "wrong". The law will always be the law. I.e., it's wrong to murder and will always be wrong to murder

Right. Much of Judaism has nothing to do with faith, and is just about figuring out an ethical system from first principles. Which is cool.

361 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:28:32pm

re: #358 allegro

Isn't that conflating faith with culture?

Yes, Judaism is more than faith. It's also cultural. Islam is similar actually in that way.

362 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:28:46pm

re: #284 researchok

LOL

I'm crazy?

You're not crazy, you just kept making completely specious and indefensible statements with no basis in fact about the politics of, and access to, abortion, that were defeated with ease, then you moved the goal posts and made more specious and indefensible statements

Hence the bottom ten! When you're really really obviously wrong on something that can be looked up with a quick google, then you dig in?

Tend to get some static for that

363 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:31:01pm

re: #360 Obdicut

I read something somewhere that I thought was kinda neat, although maybe it sounds cruel, but I think it's true. Judaism is a religion of law, while Christianity is a religion of love.

364 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:31:39pm

re: #360 Obdicut

I have a pretty mild faith that consciousness and self-awareness does not end with death, that it's not destroyed, it "goes somewhere"

That's about as far as I go with it, I realize it's pure naked egoism (I'm totally so awesome I cannot be eradicated! Death cannot contain my baditude!) but it's a thing I believe :D

Having said all that, like a dozen of my favorite songs are all about death and the afterlife, so I'm not sure what that says about me

365 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:33:56pm

re: #363 marjoriemoon

I read something somewhere that I thought was kinda neat, although maybe it sounds cruel, but I think it's true. Judaism is a religion of law, while Christianity is a religion of love.

My friend Robert Alter would take exception to that-- he's written a lot about the passionate stories of the Torah.

He said something once along the lines that Christianity thinks that love is the only good emotion, whereas Judaism realizes they're all necessary to be a complete human.

366 mikhailtheplumber  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:37:02pm

I have no faith whatsoever and I'm just dandy with that. Call me a cynic. I do, too.

367 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:37:22pm

re: #356 marjoriemoon

I think faith in God is no different than faith in anything else.

I have faith my husband won't cheat on me. I don't know that to be a fact, and in fact, one day I may be wrong. What's so different than faith in God? I may find out one day I have it wrong, but today it is my truth.

Judaism, because it's based on law, is very literal to me. It strives to make the determination between right and wrong. Emotions, not so much. Not that emotions aren't part of the spiritual experience, they are, but they aren't so much "right" or "wrong". The law will always be the law. I.e., it's wrong to murder and will always be wrong to murder.

It is possible to tangibly disprove your faith that your husband won't cheat on you. It is not possible to disprove your faith that God exists. Thus, they are fundamentally different things. One type of "faith" does not have the same properties as the other.

368 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:40:00pm

re: #352 Obdicut
What I'm saying is one step backwards; I'm saying that the faith that I have that love is more than just a series of chemical reactions in my brain, that there is meaning beyond base physics, that consciousness is more than a observer phenomenon-- that is faith.

Is that what you believe or is it just an example?

369 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:42:02pm

Walter L. Newton / Gehazi

It is not hard to give a quick proof (though not conclusive) that a god created the world and that the god did not create everything to look like it was billions of years old.

IF:
1. Man’s reason is capable of epistemological knowledge of the nature of reality even if imperfectly.
1a. sensory data and life experience indicate to us true, if imperfect, knowledge.
1b. man’s conscience, even if imperfectly, informs him of the nature of reality.

2. if a god exists, then the god’s existence will be reflected in the nature of reality.

3. a god’s existence is reflected in the nature of reality
3a. man has an innate and unlearned concept of “a god” within his mind.
3ai. one of the fundamental hallmarks of any ancent civilization is belief in a god.
3aii. a purely atheistic view of reality is acquired by being taught to reject the innate concept.
3b. causality shows the existence of a god.
3bi. creation appears as an effect and not its own cause
3bii. creation shows and unfolding and a progressing towards that which is not creation.

4. man’s empirical and rational and intuitive etc. reflection on reality indicates the existence of a god.
4a. the perfections of creation affirm what the god is like.
4b. the imperfections of creation affirm what the god is not like.
4c. from the limited perfections of creation it can be deduced what the god is like.

5. the god is the good, in its relationship to itself and to creation.
5a. this extends to moral goodness so that the god’s actions are not good because it is done by the god, but rather stemming from its being are in fact good.
5ai. the god cannot do an evil action.

GIVEN:

Man’s empirical knowledge of the world indicates that it is several billions of years old.

THEN:

1. If man is correct in his empirical knowledge, the god did not create a world and make it look several billion years old because such an action would be an evil action as 1.) it would indicate that man is incapable of epistemological knowledge of reality 2.) would indicate that capricious arbitrary trickery is part of the god’s nature 3.) that the god is not good.


One of my biggest pet peeves is when people assume that Faith and Science are separate things that have nothing to do with each other. Since the Reformation we have been buried under the notion that Faith is “fiducial faith” or a species of trust/hope. It resulted in this war between faith and reason so that people who are believes cannot be true scientists and vice versa. Faith is rather a species of knowledge as Augustine taught (specifically a form of knowledge of another person gained by being in relationship with that person). This is why faith and science cannot contradict – they are both forms of knowledge that tell us things about realty but from different points of view that relate to each other. To say that science says that the universe is several billion years old and then to say that faith teaches that God made the universe only to appear to be several billion years old is to completely have NO concept of how God and the creation relate to each other. It is one thing to say that we perhaps do not understand the science or perhaps we do not understand our scriptures but it is completely unacceptable to say that reality is nothing but a trick and a lie to test us for that posits a very evil and controlling God. God did not create us to simply obey him as some Baal god, but God created us so that we might love Him – which is only possible if we can trust that He created creation to truly tell us about Him.

As for O’Donnell – if someone has issues with the conclusions of science, they had better have a strong grasp of the science and what it actually says so that they might discuss the problems with the science instead of revealing themselves to be filled with nothing but opinion. Same thing with theology and its conclusions – whether one is speaking from the position of a believer or a disbeliever.

370 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:43:53pm

re: #356 marjoriemoon

I think faith in God is no different than faith in anything else.

I have faith my husband won't cheat on me. I don't know that to be a fact, and in fact, one day I may be wrong. What's so different than faith in God? I may find out one day I have it wrong, but today it is my truth.

It's not the same because you have a history of tests of his honesty and intentions. That is more correctly called trust.

No such set of tests exist for god.

371 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:45:59pm

re: #360 Obdicut

Kabbalah is a wonderful study. Not the red bracelet, holy water bullshit, but the real stuff (I think you know that). The symbolism is really amazing. It's just a beautiful religion.

There's a very inspirational rabbi named Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz whom I love to read. He recently wrote this, although you have to have some knowledge of Judaism first.

"God's embrace"
The classic metaphor used to describe the Tishrei festivals comes from a verse in the Song of Songs:

His left hand under my head, his right arm embraces me.’ (2:6)

The customary explanation is that the left-hand, which is a symbol of rigor and judgment, designates Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

On Sukkot we are supported by God’s right, the symbol of love.

God’s two “arms” correspond to the architecture of the sukkah.

The law requires that the sukkah have at least two walls, plus the beginning of the third.

This is exactly the form of an embrace.

It is God’s embrace.

372 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:48:21pm

re: #367 Fozzie Bear

It is possible to tangibly disprove your faith that your husband won't cheat on you. It is not possible to disprove your faith that God exists. Thus, they are fundamentally different things. One type of "faith" does not have the same properties as the other.

Really? How can you prove that I have no faith in my husband's monogamy?

373 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:48:51pm

re: #370 b_sharp

It's not the same because you have a history of tests of his honesty and intentions. That is more correctly called trust.

No such set of tests exist for god.

There's the Torah.

374 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:52:06pm

re: #372 marjoriemoon

Really? How can you prove that I have no faith in my husband's monogamy?

Well other than all men are pigs and will always cheat on you.

And no, I'm not bitter.

375 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:59:03pm

re: #372 marjoriemoon

Really? How can you prove that I have no faith in my husband's monogamy?

Well, I meant is it would be possible to prove that your husband had cheated, if he were to do so, whereas it would be impossible under any circumstances to disprove the existence of God in the same way. You can't disprove that someone has faith (not yet anyway) but you can establish the truth or falsehood of the belief that serves as the object of faith.

In other words, you can't disprove that somebody does or does not believe that Santa lives at the north pole, but you can go to the north pole and show that he is not in fact present there.

376 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:59:39pm

re: #368 b_sharp

I do believe that there is meaning to consciousness, yes. I just think it arose through non-divine means.

I think AI will be sentient in the same way we are.

377 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:00:48pm

re: #369 Liet_Kynes

3. Is an assumption on your part. It is, in fact, begging the whole question.

378 Jack Fate  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:05:39pm

re: #364 WindUpBird

I have a pretty mild faith that consciousness and self-awareness does not end with death, that it's not destroyed, it "goes somewhere"

That's about as far as I go with it, I realize it's pure naked egoism (I'm totally so awesome I cannot be eradicated! Death cannot contain my baditude!) but it's a thing I believe :D

If you have a stroke before you die, will your consciousness and self-awareness continue to exist at the same functional level as they were when your "shell" expired?

379 Decatur Deb  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:08:35pm

re: #364 WindUpBird

I have a pretty mild faith that consciousness and self-awareness does not end with death, that it's not destroyed, it "goes somewhere"

That's about as far as I go with it, I realize it's pure naked egoism (I'm totally so awesome I cannot be eradicated! Death cannot contain my baditude!) but it's a thing I believe :D

Having said all that, like a dozen of my favorite songs are all about death and the afterlife, so I'm not sure what that says about me

That's a harmless belief system. (Unfortunately, you "go" to Newark.)

380 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:11:03pm

re: #373 marjoriemoon

There's the Torah.

The Torah is not a test for god, it is a text with the claim it was written under the influence of God. That in itself is disputable.

You may have faith that it is the word of God, but that cannot be tested so cannot be used as a measure of truth in a different test.

Everything you experience in the physical world can be tested, and is tested each time you interact with them. The qualities your husband presents that allow you to trust he will never cheat are tested by you every day. Your trust in him is based on those tests, not on an unfounded (on tests) faith.

I trust that the light will turn green every time I stop at a red light. I base this trust on the fact of personal experience - they always have in the past - the intent of the designers - that of controlling traffic flow - and the reliability of electrical systems.

You use the same process with your husband, even if you not immediately aware of it.

381 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:11:29pm

re: #376 Obdicut

I do believe that there is meaning to consciousness, yes. I just think it arose through non-divine means.

I think AI will be sentient in the same way we are.

If consciousness requires for its existence a particular physical arrangement of physical parts, a substrate, in order to exist at all (rather than just to become corporeal), and if that consciousness derives its properties from the specific arrangement of its substrate, then that necessarily implies that the death of a consciousness is permanent and irrevocable, and occurs at the event of the destruction of the substrate.

I think it's pretty clear that we have shown through scientific inquiry that the substrate produces the consciousness, not the other way around, so for me, the question ends there. Even if there is a God, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any particular consciousness can persist past the death of the body that animates it. In other words, you can't believe in a God that can save or damn your soul (i.e., can do anything meaningful in the long term regarding me in particular) without also believing in magic.

Once you get to that point, it's sort of silly to contemplate much further. Does that make me an atheist? I'm not sure. I just don't consider the question even worth pursuing any further than that, because the answer has literally no impact on me either way.

382 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:13:08pm

re: #376 Obdicut

I do believe that there is meaning to consciousness, yes. I just think it arose through non-divine means.

I think AI will be sentient in the same way we are.

Do you believe consciousness is more than the result of the physical brain and its electrochemical processes?

If so, can you describe it?

383 Shared Humanity  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:13:19pm

In her defense, a mouse with a fully functioning human brain is kind of scary. What if the brain is Limbaughs?

384 What, me worry?  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:13:26pm

re: #375 Fozzie Bear

Well, I meant is it would be possible to prove that your husband had cheated, if he were to do so, whereas it would be impossible under any circumstances to disprove the existence of God in the same way. You can't disprove that someone has faith (not yet anyway) but you can establish the truth or falsehood of the belief that serves as the object of faith.

In other words, you can't disprove that somebody does or does not believe that Santa lives at the north pole, but you can go to the north pole and show that he is not in fact present there.

Okies gotcha.

385 Shared Humanity  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:14:44pm

What is it about consciousness that requires the existence of God?

386 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:15:16pm

re: #385 Shared Humanity

What is it about consciousness that requires the existence of God?

Answer: absolutely nothing.

387 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:15:18pm

re: #383 Shared Humanity

In her defense, a mouse with a fully functioning human brain is kind of scary. What if the brain is Limbaughs?

Can you imagine watching that huge melon of a head on a tiny mouse as it tries to scamp into its mouse hole?

388 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:17:00pm

re: #386 Fozzie Bear

Answer: absolutely nothing.

Fozzie, either we think a lot alike, or you're a figment of my imagination.

389 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:19:14pm

re: #388 b_sharp

Fozzie, either we think a lot alike, or you're a figment of my imagination.

Perhaps "you" are just a figment of your own imagination. In a very real sense, we all are. :)

390 Shared Humanity  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:21:32pm

Whose imagination is O'Donnell a figment of? We've got to find them and make it stop.

391 b_sharp  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:22:22pm

re: #389 Fozzie Bear

Perhaps "you" are just a figment of your own imagination. In a very real sense, we all are. :)

I'm afraid my figment fragmented years ago. Now parts of me just can't get along.

392 Decatur Deb  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:22:22pm

re: #389 Fozzie Bear

Perhaps "you" are just a figment of your own imagination. In a very real sense, we all are. :)

I strongly suspect I'm not at all what I imagine myself to be. That could be a sentinel trait for liberals.

393 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:25:13pm

re: #381 Fozzie Bear

Oh, yeah, I think death is final.

Unless this is all a hologram.

Which I really doubt.

394 Petero1818  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:26:33pm

re: #383 Shared Humanity

In her defense, a mouse with a fully functioning human brain is kind of scary. What if the brain is Limbaughs?

Well I guess we would know by now how many oxycontin pills a mouse could swallow before OD.

395 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:27:23pm

re: #382 b_sharp

Do you believe consciousness is more than the result of the physical brain and its electrochemical processes?

If so, can you describe it?

No, I don't. How could that be?

That should have been clear by me saying that I think AI will be sentient in the same way that we are. What I said was that consciousness was more than an observer phenomenon; as in, consciousness isn't just along for the ride, but that some form of identity and, well, person, is real.

396 mikhailtheplumber  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:32:52pm

re: #383 Shared Humanity

In her defense, a mouse with a fully functioning human brain is kind of scary. What if the brain is Limbaughs?

She said functioning brain.

397 Liet_Kynes  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 2:53:07pm

re: #377 Obdicut

Point 3 is derived from Point 2 and is thus not assumed. What is "assumed" is that if a god exists then creation will indicate it (and also vice versa). In point 3 I give two indications in reality that indicate the existence of a god.

The "assumption" being made is that the indications of reality match what is really true. Here is why that is valid.

The only options for the question of "is there a god" when it comes to observing reality are

1.) creation indicates that there is no god and there is in fact no god.
2.) creation indicates that there is no god and there is in fact a god.
3.) creation indicates that there is a god and there is in fact a god.
4.) creation indicates that there is a god and in fact there is no god.

When we actually observe reality, we find that reality indicates that there is a god. Thus I am assuming that the indication matches the reality. If the indication does not match the reality we cannot verify that, BUT even if 4 was correct it still would be best to live life as if there was a god and to build the rest of the philosophical system from that assumption. 2 is just nonsense as there would be no possibility of knowing how to live one's life as living in accord with reality, as it does not indicate god, would always be displeasing to the god as not indicating it is always not what it wants and what it wants is always but other than what is indicated and the indicated's opposite.

---------
Just to be clear here I am presenting a case at a very basic level that any concept of a god must be compatable with reality. From reality we understand what the god is like and not like. This is fundamental epistomology and holding to anything other than that places an individual in the realm of mere opinion.

People who view epistomology as only being contained within their holy books need to be loudly rejected as knowing nothing about science and nothing about religion.

Theists and Atheists need to be on the same page here that observable reality does in fact teach us things, and if there is a god creation truly teaches us things about that god.

398 mikhailtheplumber  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 3:29:53pm

re: #397 Liet_Kynes

Yeah, your reasoning behind 2) is not convincing. You say "When we actually observe reality, we find that reality indicates that there is a god." And that is the leap of faith you take, where all this logic you are using stops being convincing.

How exactly do we find, when observing reality, that there is a god? How does reality indicate that? If you're basing your assumption in personal experience, let me remind you that it is not an acceptable proof. If it were, alien abductions would be beyond doubt.

3.a is also unconvincing. You justify it thus:

"3ai. one of the fundamental hallmarks of any ancient civilization is belief in a god.
3aii. a purely atheistic view of reality is acquired by being taught to reject the innate concept."

You assume that 3.ai already makes your case for god's existence being an innate concept. But bear in mind that:
1) ancient civilizations believed in several gods, neither of them actually compatible with the Abrahamic monotheistic deity.
2) ancient civilizations also believed in a lot of whacky, nonsensical bull that you conveniently do not mention. The Mayans were strong believers in the importance of praising their gods by sacrificing people, for example. Babylonian medicine is a load of rubbish, completely lacking abstraction (something that must be learned... weird, huh?), and assuming that a bruise in the left buttock meant something completely different than one in the right cheek (if I remember correctly, one meant the patient was as good as dead).
3) non-"civilized", clannish neolithic men believed that all natural phenomena was divine, as they lacked any means for explaining them.
So perhaps your conclusion should not be "ancient civilizations believed in god, therefore it is innate in humans to believe in god", but rather "ancient civilizations had a limited way to understand natural phenomena, and created elaborated pantheons and theologies to give meaning to their surroundings. These theologies also proved handy to explain philosophical issues (like the meaning of life and life after death).

Can you give more detail, please?

399 gehazi  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 3:37:34pm

re: #316 Obdicut

No. He's a bully, and you're not a frequent poster, so he's picking on you.

It's pretty pathetic.

I'm surprised this thread is still moving along, but thanks for the word of support. I didn't see much point in continuing the conversation.

re: #345 Obdicut

I'd agree it's an irrelevant question and irrelevant proposition, and that claiming something can exist without having any discernible effect makes the definition of 'existence' far too broad.

However, it's very different from a creationist insisting that things that do exist-- scientific facts-- don't exist.

Thanks also for making this point much better than I was apparently able to.

400 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 5:23:13pm

re: #273 WindUpBird

They don't seem to think very highly of the entity they worship, that's for sure

That's because deep down inside, they don't think much of themselves.

401 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 5:31:32pm

re: #363 marjoriemoon

I read something somewhere that I thought was kinda neat, although maybe it sounds cruel, but I think it's true. Judaism is a religion of law, while Christianity is a religion of love.

So all the atrocities committed in the name of God over the last 2000 years by "Christians" are now to be understood as having been done for love.

I think a little less of that kind of love and a little more peace is in order.

402 Obdicut  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 5:36:41pm

re: #397 Liet_Kynes

Point 3 is not derived from point 2.

You are really bad at logic.

403 claire  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 7:30:12pm

...squeak...

404 Idle Drifter  Thu, Sep 16, 2010 9:14:06pm

Late 2 cents: O'Donnell must have stumbled upon 4chan.

405 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 1:01:25am

Mikhailtheplumber~

Don’t know if you will get to this as it is quite late and the thread is stale but here are the answers to what you asked of me.

As an aside I really extremely dislike Kierkegaard precisely because of his “leap of faith” argument in part because it is using an improper definition of faith (faith as trust or hope) but mostly because if one is leaping one is resting more so on opinion than anything else. Thus I find that is really personally important that when I explain things of Christian religion that I never had to make someone “leap” without verifiable certitude or resolve a question based upon opinion.

On to your questions.

I think that you are making my argument more complex than it actually is. It is not a proof of anything other than that there is a god and that it is good and as such if science is correct in that the universe is 15 billion years old that is how old it is and the god isn’t trying to trick us. It is not an argument that the god is eternal or triune or purple stripped or anything else.

I think we both can agree that personal experience does in fact give indication that something is true. My personal experience of jumping off the porch and landing on the ground gives me an indication that I am being pulled down towards the center of the mass of the earth and that the concept of gravity is indicated as true. Thus personal experience is an acceptable indicator of truth especially if said personal experience is repeatable. Personal experience is also used all the time in criminal cases. There may be no other evidence that John James robbed the bank other than the personal experience of Jane Smith seeing him do it and yet this is enough to convict.

There are only 4 possible options for the question of “is there a god”. I covered this above but let me repost for clarity.

1.) creation indicates that there is no god and there is in fact no god.
2.) creation indicates that there is no god and there is in fact a god.
3.) creation indicates that there is a god and there is in fact a god.
4.) creation indicates that there is a god and in fact there is no god.

2 is nonsense for it posits a fully chaotic system that is unverifiable. It is like an imaginary number – it doesn’t really exist but we can talk about it and do equations with it.

Our universe is either 1, 3, and 4. For 4 we can say that even if there is no god it is best to live as if that god actually existed. Why? If creation indicates that there is a god it thus indicates that you will be happier being a theist than not, even if there is no god. Being in harmony towards which creation points and indicates always results in increased happiness (because one is in harmony with reality) even if that towards which creation points is not there.

We really only then are concerned with whether or not creation indicates that there is a god or not. What then are the basic fundamental indicators?

1. Does the human person have an innate an unlearned concept of “a god” or not?
2. Does creation indicate that it is its own cause?
3. Does creation indicate that it is an end in it of itself or is it unfolding and shot towards something which it is not?

Solid argumentation can be given for all three of these, but I will save space and refer you to Plato, Aristotle, or St. Thomas Aquinas as well as many other figures.

You asked to have more detail that man has an innate idea of “the god” as part of his constitutive creations.

I don’t know of any ancient civilization that lacked belief in any god.

406 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 1:07:26am

Mikhailtheplumber~

. As to your points

1.) I am not discussing the Abrahamic deity. I am simply pointing out that the belief in “a god” is innate. Yes several ancient civilizations believe in several gods, but they do in fact believe in gods so that still indicates that belief in a god is innate. (as an aside, ancient polytheistic religions all have a “great high sky/mountain god” as a prime god though this is often buried in the later polytheistic mythologies).

2.) Wacky practices are just that, wacky practices. They tell us two things 1.) they are wacky 2.) they stem from an innate concept of a god which propels people to develop practices of worship. The fact that a practice is wacky does not detract from the fact that it is a practice. The Mayan practice of sacrificing people is “wacky” but it is indicative of an insight that the human person is highly valued by the god. Babylonian medicine is rubbish but it is indicative that medicine is important. When we study ancient history and comparative religion, what you don’t find is a shift from teaching that there is no god to teaching that there is a god. This indicates that the concept of “a god” is not learned but innate. This is like wise true of the concept of love, or truth, or justice. We don’t invent those concepts – they are innate in the human person and are not acquired by being taught made-up concepts.

3.) I don’t understand your point here. Incorrect specific beliefs do not detract from the fact that such individuals had an innate concept of a god.

Limited understanding of how creation works does not detract from whether or not a concept is innate. What is justice? Do we even now have a full understanding or is it still limited? Yet we all have this innate concept of justice as part of our nature. The default position of man is to act religiously, to act as if there was a god. That action may be misguided, it may be wacky, it may be wrong, but none the less it is innately there.

Some books from various perspectives:

The Idea of the Holy – Otto
The Myth of the Eternal Return – Eliade
The Sacred and the Profane – Eliade
When Science Meets Religion -- Ian G. Barbour
The Everlasting Man -- Chesterton

407 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 2:23:59am

re: #406 Liet_Kynes

Wrong. Belief in the supernatural is innate. Belief in 'a god' is not.

You are really terrible at making your arguments. You're prolix, and you appear to think that by sticking your logical fallacy in the middle of a mountain of dense text, nobody will notice it.

Instead, pretty much nobody even reads what you write; and those that do can see the logical failure.

Rethink your strategy. Then rethink the idea of trying to prove that there is a god by looking for marks of a being who's qualities you have no idea of in a creation. It makes no sense. At all.

408 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 8:54:16am

re: #405 Liet_Kynes

I don’t know of any ancient civilization that lacked belief in any god.

And you think this is a point in religion's favor -- that it was conceived during the Bronze Age?

Rather than assuming this means religious fervor is "innate," I suggest it's much more likely that these primitive cultures were exactly that -- primitive, utterly ignorant of science, and dominated by superstition.

Your argument says exactly the opposite of what you think it says.

409 mikhailtheplumber  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 11:34:38am

re: #406 Liet_Kynes

Sorry, still not convincing.
Justice and belief in a god, examples you give, are not innate. They are taught. That's exactly what growing up means. That is why babies and small children often seem selfish: they are not born with innate beliefs, they are born with instincts, like every other animal.
Those innate beliefs are internalized as they grow up and watch their family and society behave. You have provided no evidence whatsoever of it being innate. Just because ancient societies worshiped gods (and the king-god of the pantheons was still not omnipotent, just so you know) does not mean it was innate. In fact, history has long explained ancient religion (in Egypt, Babylon, and other early civilizations) as the creation of a chaste that established rituals, protocols and behaviors to keep its monopoly on the word of the supposed deities, as a way to maintain their social status and basically live out of thin air.

(Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, the Vatican today is the last living example of just that.)

My point about the wackiness was that the fact that ancient civilizations believed something does not make it true in any way. If that was the case, your Mayan and Chinese horoscopes would never conflict. Also, the world would end in 2012.

Also, I do not believe for a minute you are not arguing for an Abrahmic/Christian deity, even if you are not a Christian literalist (which I do believe you are not). Are you arguing for Zeus? For Krishna? Or just for a non-descript abstract deity who, even though he imprinted our brains with an innate idea of his existence, failed miserably to make us understand just what kind of god he is, to the point that humanity has vainly tried to identify who exactly this innate deity seems to be?

If the last case is what you are arguing for, I believe you are making a case for the god of Spinozza, a god which did not matter. I personally think that Spinozza was pretty much an atheist (or as close to an atheist as you could be in the 17th century), so he turned god into basically, nature. A god that is in everything and everyone and cannot affect anything is the same as there being no god (do I even need to use my Occam razor here?).

Anyway, you keep saying how there are 4 possibilities:

1.) creation nature indicates that there is no god and there is in fact no god.
2.) creation nature indicates that there is no god and there is in fact a god.
3.) creation nature indicates that there is a god and there is in fact a god.
4.) creation nature indicates that there is a god and in fact there is no god.

First things first: the fact that you use the term creation shows us that you are not trying to logically see whether there is a god, but rather you already believe so and are trying to prove it to us.

But anyway: you correctly eliminate position 2) and say that 4) means that we should believe in god even if he does not exist (which sounds very much like a sad version of Pascal's wager), when we should in fact eliminate it for the same reasons as 2). So what about 1) and 3), which seem to be the key part?
You have not yet proved that 3) is more conceivable than 1), which is where we non-believers stand.
Your only proof is that "ancient civilizations believed in gods", which is a pretty lame form of evidence. Or your personal experience, which might be good for court, but is useless to our discussion, since my personal experience stands in opposition to yours - and there is no footage of god that we can use to solve who is right here.
Therefore, if you want to use logic to convince us, your personal experience (in logic and in the scientific method) is completely unreliable and unconvincing.

410 mikhailtheplumber  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 11:39:09am

re: #406 Liet_Kynes

Oh, and by the way, your example of experience and gravity is also faulty logic: the fact that repeated experience tells you that if you jump you will fall to the ground does not in any way mean that you will naturally abstract from it a general principle about objects being drawn to Earth due to the planet's mass. If that was the case, Hammurabi would have stated the theory of gravity before Newton. All you would know is that most objects thrown up fall back down. Best scenario would be Aristotle (also standing in the shoulder of giants, though), who thought that things made of Earth and Water tended to go down, while Fire and Aire tended to go up. And you would still have to explain pesky things like flying birds.

Well, pay no mind to this post. But do reply to the previous one, K?

Ktnxby.

411 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 10:58:22pm

re: #407 Obdicut

Given that you are willing to state that you consider that belief in the supernatural is innate, I would say that the argument that I am using works just fine. All I have to argue is that innate belief in the supernatural carries with it innate belief in a god. For example, if I wish to talk about the innate concept of justice, I must also implicitly talk about the innate concept of truth. Likewise if you wish to speak on the innate concept of the supernatural then perhaps you should consider if that is not carrying with it implicitly the innate concept of a god.

I found this article interesting and I present it as something that is interesting.
[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Now mind you, I am not jumping to conclusions here by saying that innate belief in a god means that a god really exists. I have stated that this might not be the case (and especially might not be the case if there were no other indicators) but it is best to live life according to what is indicated rather than making up something arbitrary. To say that one should live life against what is indicated is always to rest upon pure opinion, for not being indicated there is absolutely no logical reason to act as such.

I really think you are overthinking the argument that I am presenting. Let us look at this another way.

For the sake of argument let us consider that innate belief in the supernatural and innate belief in a god are equivalent enough for the following.

We both see a shadow of a chair on the wall. How do we know if there really is a chair there or if it is just something else casting a chair like shadow? We have to look and observe! Your argument is that if we observe we will not find a chair.

If we observe creation, do we find indication of there being a god or do we find indication that there is not (that we are mistaken about the chair shadow on the wall)? I am not asking if we find indication that there is a giant flying spaghetti monster or if we find an indication that there is Allah, but rather do we find an indication that there is a god?

I have given two. 1) creation does indicate that it is not its own cause. 2.) creation does indicate that it is not its own end.

It is possible to keep going to keep on showing indications. But you seem to be missing my point that affirming that the innate belief in a god wholly precludes thinking that that god is trying to trick you by making the universe only appear to be 15 billion years old. Theists who posit that science and religion are in conflict and that it is possible for the date of science to simply be a trick are poor theists. Atheists should hammer on them for being poor theists not for being theists.

I think it is fully fair for you to say that, yes belief in a god is innate but that doesn’t mean that there is a god there, I don’t accept the indicators as indicators, and I am going to live my life as if there was not a god.

412 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 11:02:29pm

re: #408 Charles

Charles~

With respect, my argument does in fact show exactly what I am saying. Your belief that it says the opposite is occurring because you are assuming several things in what you said and several things you attribute to me which I am not saying. Permit me kindly to vindicate what I am saying.

First you are assuming that religion was conceived during the Bronze Age. To be a bit snarky, what proof do you have that religion didn’t exist during the Stone Age and only came into being during the Bronze Age? Also I am talking about belief in a god not about religion for religion is how that interaction with god is expressed and not the actual fact of the innate belief in a god. Thus when we observe history we can see how religions appear within time but belief in god exists innately as part of man’s condition.

Secondly you are assuming that I am talking about religious fervor being “innate”. I have not said that nor is that part of my argumentation. I am not speaking at all towards how one puts into practice the innate belief of a god.

Thirdly what precisely makes an ancient culture primitive? You point out that limited understanding of science (to say that an ancient culture is ignorant of science is hardly fair for to expect a society of 1000 years ago to have our level of scientific understanding is as ridiculous as calling our society ignorant of science for not having the scientific understanding of 1000 years from now.) and being dominated by superstition. Is our society not likewise dominated by superstition? If people have false beliefs that does not mean that all beliefs are untrue. If I have a belief in chocolate trees, which don’t exist, that doesn’t mean that no trees exist. Likewise if I have a false belief about a god that doesn’t mean that no god exists.

The chief problem with trying to argue that belief in a god is primitive is that no animal has a belief in a god. Elephants do not set up shrines, monkeys do not fold their hands in prayer, and dolphins don’t go around preaching. If belief in a god is a primitive thing, then we would see such occurrences within animals that are more primitive and less evolved than man. We do not see any form of primitive belief in a god within animals. Thus, the belief in a god is an advancement and indicates a species that is not primitive but is advanced beyond a primitive state (whether by evolution or otherwise).

I do not see how one can argue that rejecting the innate belief in a god and acting in a way that is opposed to the innate impulse of man is a step forward that makes an individual less primitive. Just as society becomes less primitive the more it seeks to understand and to live by man’s innate concept of justice, so too then does society become less primitive and more advanced the more it seeks to understand and live by man’s innate concept of a god.

NOW I don’t want to have the point of my original post lost in all of this which is simply this: Belief in a god wholly precludes pitting the data of science against the data of scripture. If science is correct in saying that the universe is 15 billion years old, that it how old it is. Theists and Atheists need to be on the same page here. An atheist should not say to a “theist” who believes that God is trying to trick people and test their faith by making creation appear to be 15 billion years old that “belief in God is primitive and illogical” but rather “your beliefs show that you do not understand your own God very much for they are wholly inconsistent with theism for you are positing a capricious and evil God”

413 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 11:06:49pm

re: #409 mikhailtheplumber

mikhailtheplumber

The specific nature and content of what justice is is taught, like you said, but that does not mean that the concept is not innate. Perhaps I am too theoretical let me be a little more practical. The concept of family is innate to the human condition. Human society constantly builds family structures (in fact the whole concept of society is underpinned by the innate movement of humanity to form into family structures). We do this without having a fully cognitive understanding of what a family precisely is but we do it with an innate sense of what it is.

Does a child have an innate concept of justice? Yes. That is easy to prove. Give a small child a toy. Let them play with it. Let me suddenly take it away while the child is playing. The child will break down in tears. Why? Because that child has an innate reaction that something unjust has occurred to him.

Does a child have an innate concept of a god? Yes. The best examples of this can be shown in individuals who are cognitively disabled or handicapped. They cannot be taught very much about religion, but an innate understanding of a god shines through in a very pronounced way as it is not clouded over by over intellectualizing.

Ok you are saying that belief in a god is not innate but strictly learned. Show me when then historically that human society switched from belief in no god to belief in a god. We are not talking about when a specific religion was historically formed but rather a shift from atheism to theism. Can you cite any professor of comparative religion, philosophy of religion, sociology of religion, who creditably argues when humanity switched from atheism to theism? We can show historically when democracy developed and when capitalism developed and when socialism developed. When did theism develop?

The fact that ancient civilizations believed something is an indicator of truth. I am not arguing that the innate concept of a god proves that there is a god. Additional indicators are necessary to develop the proof.

No I am not arguing for an Abrahamic/Christian deity in any way shape or form. We are discussing natural religion, what is innate in man, and the conclusions that we draw from observing the reality around us. We are not discussing the existence of revelation or the possibility of the a god saying “Hi”.

Here is why I am very interested in natural theology and natural philosophy as fundamental principles of universal belief: It is the only way we can get everyone (Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Jew, Hindu, etc.) on the same page and the only way to get to develop fundamental principles of law and governance so that people of one belief can be ruled by people of another belief without fear of being persecuted and the government will not fear being over thrown by those who are in the minority.

There needs to be a fundamental agreement that epistemological knowledge is possible through understanding the created world and that epistemology is not strictly located within one religions set of books.

I was going to use the term “nature” but decided against it as that has certain presuppositions to it which I wished to avoid – namely being that “nature” is typically taken as simply matter/energy in its existence in spacetime. What term do we use to denote also the possibility for the supernatural or non matter/energy things and beings or things that exist outside of spacetime (for example that which exists at time 10^-43s)? Is reality the term? No because we must use a term that allows for alternate realities and a multiverse. Creation does in fact fit those criteria. Yes it does suggest that creation was created but I am completely open to a better term so long as it encompasses all of the above.

414 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 11:15:34pm

mikhailtheplumber
Actually when it comes to the four possibilities I find that position 1 doesn’t match the data. When I look out at creation I find no evidence at all that a god doesn’t exist. If I were an atheist, I would argue that “creation” indicates that there is a god but that god does not exist and it is best to live as if god does not exist. But I am not an atheist for I look at creation and see that there is a god. If God did not exist, he would have to be invented. But all nature cries aloud that he does exist: that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our own dependence on it. Voltaire (are we to argue that Voltaire was a rube and a primitive??
My proof is not “ancient civilizations believed in gods”. I have stated that there is no indication of a shift from atheism to theism in any ancient civilization which indicates that the concept of a god is not invented but resides as an innate concept within the human person. Having developed this, I then asked if “creation” does in fact show indication that there is a god or if creation indicates that there is not a god and the innate concept is false.
First let me vindicate position 4 that in fact if creation does indicate that there is a god it is better to live life as if there was a god and not to try to attempt to live life as if there was not god.
Let us say that I am married. My wife gives me every indication that she is not cheating on me. Is it better to live life according to that indication or to live life as if that indication was false?
You are currently reading my work here. I am giving you ever indication that I am not a cat typing at the computer. Is it better to live life as if that indication is true or false?
I have ever indication that putting a gallon of gas in my tank gets me 20 miles. Is it better to live life according to that indication or not?
I am sure you can see that one could go on forever showing indications and that it is better to in fact live life as if it were the case instead of trying to live life as if it were not the case.
I cannot see magic eye photos (never will) but there is every indication that the optical illusion is real. Is it better for me to live life as if they are real or to live life as if it is a giant hoax?
Now you ask why is 3.) more conceivable than 1.) and what proof do I have to offer?
I don’t expect you to believe me because atheism is a willed choice and as a willed choice one does not simply get talked out of their position, that only changes if their interpretation of their experience of reality shifts. Thus I simply give you indications rather than say the god’s telephone number.
I have offered two things so far – that creation indicates that it is not its cause and that creation indicates that it is not its end. Let me give two more examples that indicate that a god really exists.
Here I would suggest THE IDEA OF THE HOLY by Otto and The Everlasting Man by Chesterton
If a god does not exist we should note that individuals who lead a theistic life are equally as quintessentially human and excel to the same heights of virtue as those who lead an atheistic life. We should not notice any real benefit from being theistic vs. atheistic. That is not the case. List 10 really really virtuous people that universally recognized as being really really virtuous. How many of these are Atheists?
If a god who interacts with creation exists, then we should observe some interaction. The best type of interaction to look for is predictive interaction – the god saying that I am going to do x and x occurring. We can observe prayers actually working. Granted this opens up talking about revelation (God says x then does x) but since I said that it is important that we don’t talk about revelation here, I don’t want to address it other than say you check this by cross checking what is said in purported books of revelation against the historical record.

415 Liet_Kynes  Fri, Sep 17, 2010 11:31:32pm

Ok I write way too long, the thread is stale (too me too long to get back to it), and I prefere to lurk so I will let any follow ups stand, regardless, unless some one asks a specific question of me.

I do want to say again and underline that real theists are strong supporters of science and do not at all look kindly upon those that say that epistemology finds its source / is limited to a set of sacred books. (you would not believe some of the heated arguments that I have had with "theists" who say that epistemology is limited to scripture that the person of Christ is not the epistemological source but only scripture is the source of truth and that which we are to judge truth by.)

Thank you kindly Charles for providing space for me to expound.

416 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 12:46:16am

Wow. A five-post reply? I'll digest the new load and reply when able. Please wait comfortably and patiently.

417 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 1:36:40am

re: #415 Liet_Kynes

It's 4am so I will not give a long answer now. But I will tell you a few things:

1) I lost the count of how many logical fallacies you have used. Just to recount a few, we have argument from authority (Voltaire, and more), the "no real Scotsman" fallacy ("real theists are strong supporters of science"), a semi-strawman ("If I were an atheist, I would argue..."), negative proof (you show me when theism started), false analogy (shadows of the chair simile, although that was your reply to Obdicut), generalization from fictional evidence, presupposition... and I'll stop there only because I'm getting up in 5 hours.

2) Your analogies are flawed. You constantly make analogies between something easily proven and god's existence. Let me illustrate:

If I have a belief in chocolate trees, which don’t exist, that doesn’t mean that no trees exist. Likewise if I have a false belief about a god that doesn’t mean that no god exists.


It's very easy to verify that trees of the non-chocolatey kind exist. One needs only put his head out the window. But see, I put my head out the window, and I don't see god. "Trees" and "god" are not comparable categories through analogy, because there is no doubt that trees exists, and you are trying to prove to us god's existence. See?

418 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 1:44:42am

3) I'll only answer one of your counter-questions tonight due to a total lack of Zzzzzz in my brain. Don't worry, I'll return. But here it goes:

Ok you are saying that belief in a god is not innate but strictly learned. Show me when then historically that human society switched from belief in no god to belief in a god.

I would remind you that you should prove to us that believe in god i innate, since the evidence you showed so far was really disappointing. But I will tackle this anyway. See, of course there is no remaining evidence of lack of belief in god since why would people with no writing system live evidence of their not-worshiping something? That's why I am unable to reply to your request for acceptable scholarship (note that you haven't offered any either, though: Voltaire, Otto and Chesterton were not social scientists). But I can try to answer using logic, just like you seem to try to do.
Let's go back, before those wise "ancient societies", to a time when men lived in caves and feared darkness and lightning. We assume these people believed in the supernatural, since they did not understand most of what was going on around them (I will say, while it is not a necessary part of my argument, that no, sorry, belief in the supernatural does not imply belief in god). We are, however, not sure . We have a gap of knowledge of this era. What we do know, is that millenia before that moment, there was no belief in god for sure, because there were no humans. Your words:

The chief problem with trying to argue that belief in a god is primitive is that no animal has a belief in a god. Elephants do not set up shrines, monkeys do not fold their hands in prayer, and dolphins don’t go around preaching. If belief in a god is a primitive thing, then we would see such occurrences within animals that are more primitive and less evolved than man. We do not see any form of primitive belief in a god within animals. Thus, the belief in a god is an advancement and indicates a species that is not primitive but is advanced beyond a primitive state (whether by evolution or otherwise).

(BTW: your idea of "more" and "less" evolved shows a misundertanding of evolutionary biology: existing animals are not "less" evolved than us; they evolved differently to answer different environmental challenges.)
Regardless, you clearly believe that the common ancestor we share with apes lacked an innate belief in god, or apes would worship (and "monkeys [not apes, but you catch my drift] do not fold their hands in prayer"). So, did the homo habilis develop an innate belief in god? Did the homo erectus? Or was it only with the birth of the first homo sapiens sapiens that the "innate" belief in god sprung into being?
But why would they develop it in the first place? What evolutionary advantage would an innate idea of god provide? How would it benefit survival and thus become a successfully inherited trait? And where in the brain is that evolved part allocated?

The fact that you claimed that men have an innate knowledge of god and animals don't further shows that you don't understand evolution. There was no clear-cut moment when we stopped being "primitive" apes and became pure homo sapiens sapiens. The idea of the supernatural, and later the idea of supernatural beings (that's gods for ya), must have developed at some moment. So what is more likely, that it sprung up as an incomprehensible (and potentially harmful) evolutionary adaptation once our jaw drew back enough and we lost enough arm hair, or that it was developed by the first societies of men (or pre-men) as an explanation to common doubts and fears?
That is all for tonight. Now it's almost five. I hope someone other than you reads this, but even if only you do, it'll be enough to keep each other interested.

419 Obdicut  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 2:17:46am

re: #411 Liet_Kynes

Given that you are willing to state that you consider that belief in the supernatural is innate, I would say that the argument that I am using works just fine. All I have to argue is that innate belief in the supernatural carries with it innate belief in a god.

And it doesn't. So your argument still stinks on ice.

If a god does not exist we should note that individuals who lead a theistic life are equally as quintessentially human and excel to the same heights of virtue as those who lead an atheistic life. We should not notice any real benefit from being theistic vs. atheistic. That is not the case. List 10 really really virtuous people that universally recognized as being really really virtuous. How many of these are Atheists?

Heh. How long as atheism been an acceptable option for anyone in public life? This question is stupid as it gets; if I do provide my list, you'll simply declare them not really virtuous-- probably lacking virtues associated with religion.

This one bit really shows the paucity of your argument; you don't stop to consider for a single second that atheism has been literally dangerous to state for most of human history, and is still a barrier to success in many, many areas. You know the conclusion you want to make, so you reason backwards from it. You also don't care that you almost certainly couldn't make a list of ten virtuous religious people who are actually universally acknowledged to be virtuous-- it's a fatuous claim.


In the end, you keep making one logical mistake over and over; since you cannot know any of the qualities of god when you begin looking for evidence of that god, it is meaningless to ask if there are any signs of that god in the universe. If you have no idea what his attributes might be, you have no idea of what signs there might be.

That you keep rephrasing this over and over doesn't make it go away. It is still a very simple and very obvious logical mistake. You assume god exists. It is everywhere in your argument.

To improve your attitude towards atheism, you should read The Ball and the Cross, by G.K. Chesterton.

420 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 10:26:48am

re: #419 Obdicut

In the end, you keep making one logical mistake over and over; since you cannot know any of the qualities of god when you begin looking for evidence of that god, it is meaningless to ask if there are any signs of that god in the universe. If you have no idea what his attributes might be, you have no idea of what signs there might be.

That you keep rephrasing this over and over doesn't make it go away. It is still a very simple and very obvious logical mistake. You assume god exists. It is everywhere in your argument.

TKO.

421 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 2:22:56pm

Thank you both for your replies. They are both very helpful in understanding your positions and opinions and also where mine can be better constructed.

I see some questions so let me address quickly.

Obdicut –

1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Confucius
4. Mother Teresa
5. Rabbi Hillel
6. Buddha
7. Nelson Mandela
8. The Dalai Lama
9. Francis of Assisi
10. Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef

I don’t know why you suggest that it is meaningless to look for signs of god if one does not know beforehand many the qualities of a god. (One knows at least one quality to start with -- "I am not god"). Any inquiry into any subject always starts off will little to no understanding of the qualities of the subject and moves towards knowledge of said qualities. IN THE POSITIVE For example I don’t know the qualities of that which is buzzing outside my window, but if I inquire and study I will understand the qualities of the hummingbird. For example I have an innate concept of justice but I do not fully know its qualities. So I study and I enquire and thus come to understand the qualities of justice. IN THE NEGATIVE Sam may have an indication that he am being watched, but after inquiry he finds that he is not being watched and is just paranoid. Sue may have an indication that heat flows like a liquid from object to object, but after study finds that her idea of “caloric” is not real.

Thus it is not meaning less to study and search when starting from a stand point of having little knowledge of the qualities of what one is looking for. That is why one searches, to find the qualities. If one knew the qualities then one would not need to search for they would have already found.

If we look at the argument, I am not presuming that a god exists. I am presuming that if a god exists then the qualities of a god can be known through observing creation.

I will put THE BALL AND THE CROSS on my to read book list. Thank you kindly. I don’t have a problem with atheists so long as they don’t deny the existence of universals because my problem is primarily with those that deny the existence of universals (theists or atheists). Besides I find modern atheism to be largely the logical and rational outcome of some of the presuppositions of the Reformation.

Thank you again kindly for your help and suggestions.

BTW and you don't have to answer, did you ever search for the god and if so what were some of the qualities that you were looking for?

422 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 2:44:04pm

re: #421 Liet_Kynes

Now, now. If god was an innate idea, we wouldn't have to look for him/her/it, now would we?

So, if you don't mind me asking: what is your definition of virtue and how do your ten people fit into the category of virtuous? Three small comments on people on your list:
1) The publication of Mother Teresa's diaries and letters have pretty much proven that she could not find it in herself to believe in god, even though she was a nun. She was pretty much an atheist, one of those who wants to believe but cannot.
2) Buddha is considered to be a state of ascension/enlightenment, not the name of one person but a title. There were in fact several buddhas. Which one of them is virtuous?
3) I am assuming that by "Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef", you mean Jesus Christ. Can you provide any reliable source about this person (can you even prove that he existed?)? Note: the self-contradictory propagandist tales of the New Testament are not a reliable source for anyone but a true believer.

423 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 2:59:27pm

mikhailtheplumber ~

Your question

Again, no I am not trying to prove to you that a god exists. Again I offered my proof to show that if a god exists then it is bad theism to say that if science is correct in saying that the universe is 15 billion years old then that is just God trying to trick us.

I offered Mircae Eliade (expert on history of religion and comparative religion) as a supporter of my position that belief in god is innate. He is widely read and well critiqued (both in pro and con). I can offer others.

Your story is nice but if we limit ourselves to the historical record and what is in archeology (and not conjecture) we do not find a single society that we would call human that is atheistic. The problem that you have is that the historical record shows that people with no writing system left evidence in their belief in a god. If archeiology showed groups of atheistic humans the predated theists you would have a point. (pre-historical societies of atheistic humans would look precisely like any animal save they would have human qualities (such as art, culture, indication of rational thought, etc.). There would be a complete dirth of doing any theistic things just as animals have a complete dirth of doing any theistic things. You don’t find that at all. [Link: concise.britannica.com...]

If belief in a god is an evolutionary adaption that moved our ancestors from a primitive to a more advanced state then shifting back to the prior state (atheism) is de-evolving.

I am not arguing that innate concepts are evolutionary adaptions. I am arguing that innate belief in a god is not primitive but rather an advancement that indicates that a species has advanced beyond a primitive state (whether by evolution or otherwise).

Anyway thank you again for your time and thoughts. I shall reflect upon them and seek to remove the flaws and failures in my argumentation. Keep in mind though that I gave you an argument to use against theists who think that science saying that the universe is 15 billion years old is God trying to trick them. We are both on the same page of it being a bad and wrong thing to think that one's holy books are the primary or only source of epistemology.

424 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 3:35:52pm

re: #423 Liet_Kynes

Oy vey. You of course ignored the gist of my evolution-based argument. I'll go slower for your convenience.

If animals do not have an innate belief in god, and humans do, as long as you insist that this belief is innate (that is, we are born with it), it must be an evolutionary trait. There is simply no other option, unless god him/her/itself chose a "first human" and bestowed this innate trait to him upon birth. Since we are not talking or believing in an interventionist deity here, and there is absolutely no proof of him/her/it, let's go back to evolution.
I know you do not argue that innate belief is an evolutionary trait. But if it IS innate, it MUST be an evolutionary trait. Your problem is that it makes no sense, but these are implication of your reasoning.
This generates two questions which you must answer successfully to argue that belief in god is innate and exclusive to humans.

1) When exactly did this evolutionary trait appeared in human evolution? Did the ancestors of homo sapiens sapiens had it? Why the homo erectus and not the homo habilis? And why not the common ancestor with apes?

2) What survival/environmental advantage would such a trait give? It is not clear that it would provide any, as a matter of fact. Someone with a belief in god would most likely value his life less than non-believing cavemen, for example, thinking their god would save them or that they would end up in the cave of endless meat and women in the sky. That is not a trait that assures survival and the passage of your genes to future generations, in my mind.

Since apes and other animals have no belief in gods that we know of (innate or otherwise), and there appears to be no evolutionary advantage to developing an innate belief in god, the explanation that belief in deities is a social construction of men is simpler, clearer, and more likely, Occam razor and all. (By the way, acquiring and losing traits is not evolving and de-evolving. Evolution is about adaptation to a changing environment, so there is no such thing as de-evolving, silly).

See, I am not saying that men lived socially without believing in the supernatural (and the supernatural does not equate god, sorry). I am saying that since the first men that we know of lived socially, it is specious to argue that since they believed in the supernatural, belief in god must have been an innate trait. Particularly because innate traits are hereditary and therefore must follow evolutionary principles.

Oh, and about your previous proof of how innate "justice" and "god" are, you wrote:

Does a child have an innate concept of justice? Yes. That is easy to prove. Give a small child a toy. Let them play with it. Let me suddenly take it away while the child is playing. The child will break down in tears. Why? Because that child has an innate reaction that something unjust has occurred to him.

Just so you can picture it mentally, I am rolling my eyes now. A child will cry if you take a toy away from him because you are removing something he likes and enjoy. That is a selfish impulse, not an innate idea of justice. Many many many children (I have worked with children, trust me) will remorselessly take toys they covet from other children who are enjoying them. Heck, some unborn babies strangle their twins in utero with the umbilical cords for no apparent reason. What innate idea of justice leads them to do it?

Does a child have an innate concept of a god? Yes. The best examples of this can be shown in individuals who are cognitively disabled or handicapped. They cannot be taught very much about religion, but an innate understanding of a god shines through in a very pronounced way as it is not clouded over by over intellectualizing.

I had to wonder if you were being serious here. Are you actually arguing with "an innate understanding of god shines through" mentally handicapped individuals? That is so low, it needs no refutation.

425 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 3:49:04pm

re: #422 mikhailtheplumber

mikhailtheplumber

We have an innate idea of justice and we still have to seek to understand it and look for it. Having an innate concept of something is not equivalent to possessing that something. You seem to be conflating the understanding of something with the possessing of something.

I used a very basic definition of virtue – that the individual must generally be regarded as being an exemplum of what it means to be human and their lives must show a full expression of the heights of what a human can be.

1.) I don’t think you have read Mother Teresa’s diaries if you think she didn’t believe in god. She experienced a lengthy period of the dark night of the soul, which does not mean that a person is an atheist.

2.) Yes Buddha is a tile. So is Christ. But when we say either we understand who we meant. (besides there are not several Buddhas – they are all the same person, just different reincarnations.)

4.) I used "Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef” so as not to discuss him in the context of being God but rather in the context of being a virtuous man. Yes of course we have lots and lots of historical evidence about this person. The Jews believed that he existed (if he didn’t, they would be the first to say that he never existed. The Jews do affirm the existence and teachings of Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef they just don’t believe in everything he taught) [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

426 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 4:09:47pm

re: #424 mikhailtheplumber

mikhailtheplumber

Ill get to this later but I skipped over the evolution based argument because I was not talking about evolution and evolution is always a horribly lengthy discussion.

You are assuming that innate beliefs must be evolutionary. We have not considered if the deity is interventionist or not. You are a priori and without warrant rejecting a possibility before it is investigated. Until one has investigated one cannot rule out a god being interventionist, non-interventionist, or something else. Leave open possibilities until we get to a state where they are discussed!!!

Until later when I deal with evolution.

427 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Sep 18, 2010 4:12:21pm

re: #425 Liet_Kynes

I am not conflating things. You are talking about an innate sense of justice, then moving the goalposts. Define exactly how this innate sense of justice works. If it exists, it must be definable. Define it.

So virtue is not an inherent trait, but something that only exists when it is recognized by others? That mean that people humble honest people are not virtuous? Going back to your list:

1) Well, we will have to agree to disagree about Mother Teresa. Particularly because what you call a period of "the dark night of the soul", I see as her most enlightening experience. Also, how can you have a period of disbelief if belief in god is an innate part of us?

2) They are reincarnations of they same person for those who believe in reincarnations, man. We, however, are rational individuals, are we not?

3) From your own link, the only sources "proving" the historicity of Jesus:

Material presented as evidence for his existence includes the books of the New Testament, hypothetical sources that biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.

So, we have expansionist religious propaganda, hypothetical sources that we do not know even existed (to prove someone existed! Funny!), statements from the very propagandists whose livelyhood depended on the Jesus myth, and references in sources produced decades or centuries after he died. Well, gee, I bend knee in the face of overwhelming proof.

Even if Jesus existed, all the information we have about him was written down by these very propagandists like Paul (sorry, Shaul) and the other apostles. How do we know the real Jesus was virtuous?
Heck, how do we know if Buddha was virtuous? We know of him through Buddhist texts!

Aristotle, while a great philosopher, does not strike me as a particularly virtuous man. This dude believed that women were inferior, less perfect, and that they had fewer teeth than men (something he could have easily disproved, seeing as he had a wife). He was bright beyond a shadow of a doubt, and was a man of deep thoughts. But for all we know he never tipped the waiter, always took from the leave-a-penny-take-a-penny, and urinated without lifting the toilet seat.

Sorry I derrailed. I'm growing frustrated.

428 Liet_Kynes  Sun, Sep 19, 2010 12:32:13am

mikhailtheplumber

On Evolution and the Like.

We need not assume that innate concepts originate through evolutionary means. We can say they come from God, we can say they are participation in the Platonic Forms, we can say a host of things. Is there something beyond mater/energy and spacetime? To disregard from the get go possibilities without disproving them is not good philosophy or science.

Look at my argument. You will notice that it accepts both the possibility that there is no go and that there is a god. You will notice that it accepts both evolution and other possibilities for the source of innate concepts.

Let me address your questions from within an evolutionary framework.

1. The evolutionary trait appears in human evolution when the genetic lineage of human’s ancestry first became classifiable as human. Let me here cite the work of Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson who discovered “Lucy”. [Link: www.actionbioscience.org...] Key points in his research which I wish to point out are

1.) rejection of the Multiregional Continuity Model for human evolution (polygenism).
2.) the presence of religious ritual, in particular burial, as a distinguishing feature that separates what we consider to be human from the preceding and contemporary hominids.
3.) the presence of art and culture that separates what we consider to be human from the preceding and contemporary hominids.
4.) The shift from pre-homo sapien homids and contemporary hominids to homo sapiens who are “quintessentially modern in appearance and behavior” is sudden and not understood.

As to why only homo sapiens had it, biologist as I stated do not know why there is this sudden shift other than that there is in fact this sudden shift when characteristics go from not being present to being innate and part of what distinguishes homo sapiens from other hominids.

5.) I don’t agree with materialistic evolutionary theories where evolution only occurs according to what is most advantageous for survival/environmental adaption. It reduces life to utility, and life, especially human life is so much more than simple utility. What is the survival aspect for man’s innate attraction towards beauty and the production of art? But if we need to look at this from a utility point of view let me suggest that theism promotes the development of technology and learning. Theistic motivation is by and large the driving force behind the advancement of society especially ancient societies (it is also the driving motivation for wars and other nasty stuff when theistic conclusions are wrong).

Occam’s razon and all?? In science it is not just that which matches the principle of simplicity is most likely true but also that that which matches the principle of beauty, which often co-insides with the principle of simplicity but takes precedence when they conflict. Anyway you assuming that its either materialistic evolution or a social construction. Those are not the only possibilities. Besides social construction is too complex. Things that are socially constructed do not become innate (thoughts don’t get transferred to our genes/nature) and secondly and more importantly ancient religions are not missionary in nature. They presuppose that people innately have a concept of god and they are not structured to try to convince people that there is a god. Look at Christianity. It is a modern missionary religion constructed to convince people that Jesus is the innate God that people are searching for. The ancient religions are not constructed like this. If you look at the ancient religions, they are not missionary and they are not constructed to convince non-theists to accept theism.

429 Liet_Kynes  Sun, Sep 19, 2010 12:45:46am

The simplest explanation for the observed phenomena is that the concept of a god, like the concept of justice, is innate – it simply is part of what makes a human a human. To answer how it got there in us, is the same exact answer as to how a human got here. It is part of what defines us and if we know how we got here, then that is how that got here too. As stated above, science currently does not know how we got here. As Donald Johanson wrote, science doesn’t understand the sudden shift from pre-homo sapien homids and contemporary hominids to homo sapiens who are “quintessentially modern in appearance and behavior.
-
Define how this innate sense of justice works? Sure I will give an explanation of Plato’s understanding of how justice is an innate concept :
[Link: www.bu.edu...]
Justice is, for Plato, at once a part of human virtue and the bond, which joins man together in society. It is the identical quality that makes good and social . Justice is an order and duty of the parts of the soul, it is to the soul as health is to the body. Plato says that justice is not mere strength, but it is a harmonious strength. Justice is not the right of the stronger but the effective harmony of the whole. All moral conceptions revolve about the good of the whole-individual as well as social.
I did not say that virtue is not an inherent trait but that virtue is something that can be recognized by others.
1.) You can believe what you want about anyone. I shall believe Mother Teresa’s own actions and her own words. It is quite clear that a sensation of “. . . just that terrible pain of loss, of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing.” Is not the same thing as disbelieving in God.
3.) The “hypothetical sources that biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament” is the Q Source [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] I wouldn’t say “livelyhood depended on the Jesus myth” because no one made any money off of it and most of them got killed for it. Most of the Apostles are martyrs. Most of the Early Christian fathers who are sources are martyers. The “decades later” are still primary sources – they are individuals who lived within living memory of Jesus and are his contemporaries. If Jesus didn’t exist they would have said so. If Jesus didn’t exist there would be LONG texts in Jewish literature saying that he didn’t exist.

I do tire greatly of the adjectives of derision that you are using, it is not worthy of you.

The amount of evidence that Jesus existed is more expansive than many other historical figures that we say existed. We believe in the existence of people whose name only appears once on a stone tablet. We believe in the existence of places that only are known in myth (ex. the city of Troy).

As for whether or not Buddha or Jesus was virtuous – go by what is given. Does what is said depict a virtuous person and an exemplum of what it means to be human?

Anyway again thanks for your impute.

I really want to get things back to the original focus of why I wrote in the first place – to show that theism precludes believing that the god is trying to trick people if science is correct in saying that the universe is 15 billion years old. You are trying to put us on different pages when we are not. Our core unity between any theist and the atheist must be that epistemological knowledge is possible and not limited to one’s holy books. We can disagree on so much else but as long as that is held to we will not be afraid of the other persecuting one’s self, and we can live in harmony under a government that is not of our beliefs without fear of persecution, and the government can live without fear of being overthrown by a minority.

430 Liet_Kynes  Sun, Sep 19, 2010 12:48:33am

Thank you again for your time. I know you grow frustrated. If you care to continue, let us at least take sunday off, I know I will. Email can be given if you wish that too so as not to clutter Charles' home up too much with my blathering, but I think we understand each other -- and I hope we can agree about finding common ground in epistemology as a necessary fundamental.

431 mikhailtheplumber  Sun, Sep 19, 2010 3:42:37pm

Liet,

There is no doubt in my mind that we stand together against religious fundamentalists, particularly biblical literalists. The thread derailed because:

1) it is boring to agree, and
2) from an atheistic perspective, it is not hard to find presumptions in your logical argument that are not entirely to our taste and a lot of fun to poke holes into.

However, let me tell you that for use against Young Earth creationists and their ilk, your argument holds water as they would never object to what an atheist objects.

Of course, arguing with a Young Earth creationist and that kind of people is pretty much a waster of time. Their whole lives rotate around the Bible being the literal, unfailing word of god. No logic, no matter how flawless, will ever convince them this is not the case.

K, happy goyim shabbos!

432 Liet_Kynes  Mon, Sep 20, 2010 11:53:47am

Mikhailtheplumber~

Thank you kindly.

Solo Holy book literalists (Christian, Muslim, whatever) really need to be stood against because the philosophy devalues the human person just as much as strong atheistic materialism (the type of atheism that believes that people should and can only be used as means to ends). To say that knowledge is not possible outside of the holy book leads directly to the idea that those who do not accept, those who are not part of the enlightened, need to be corralled, subjugated, and ruled over by the enlightened.

The human person and his intrinsic value (try talking to a stanch biblical literalist, heck even a moderate fundamentalist, who is well taught about what it means to be such, about the intrinsic value of the human person – but be prepared to be strongly castigated) is the driving force that should propel us towards solidarity and rapprochement between all people (and perhaps a bit of mutual asking for forgiveness) of different cultures and beliefs. You cannot have a discussion about the intrinsic value of a human person if you locate the source of your religious beliefs in a text. You will always value legal obedience to the text over the value of loving one’s neighbor. Only if you locate the source of one’s religious beliefs in the human person will a theist be primarily propelled towards charity and love of neighbor and avoid any sort of legalism. And legalism not a better position than atheism. Point this out next time – scripture calls the atheist a fool but scripture calls the legalist someone with a dead soul.

Atheism, in its positive forms, does have a lot of insights into the nature of man. So too does the positive forms of theism.

Oh it takes time to shift a Young Earth creationist, but it is doable. It takes a lot of getting them to read the bible. Their presuppositions are not the presuppositions of scripture. I have a great article by a “biblical literalist” talking about how it is important to ignore and not use the language of Paul because it conflicts with their confessions of faith.

Thank you for the conversation!!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 38 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 92 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1