On 12 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with
>>>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>>
>> That's the plan :)
>
>It's always good to have a plan. :-)
>

And someone to blame ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:19:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 12 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along
>>>>with all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>>>
>>> That's the plan :)
>>
>>It's always good to have a plan. :-)
>>
>>
> And someone to blame ;)

Oh yes, that's also useful. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
> to respond.

If he isn't responding, he's still negligent.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:58:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>>  It wasn't until the NT
>> that hell really became defined
> 
> You may not have noticed, but I wasn't actually speaking solely of 
> Christianity - or any individual religion. ;-)
> 
> Jim
True, but I was referring in mine specifically to the last sentence. 
Prior... most of them where a lot more vague about what did or didn't 
happen to you.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 12-7-2009 8:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that 
>>> you can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that 
>>> the search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions 
>>> from others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a 
>>> sound basis to build your own ethics.
>>> I don't like the "I don't care".
>>
>> On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything?
> 
> Easy. If you are convinced that you can not know if God exists or not 
> (which is what agnosticism is about, all your other examples are 
> irrelevant here), it means that you have to build an ethics that will 
> work in both cases. You can not assume there is someone else that knows 
> better (a god or her representative on earth), nor can you be certain 
> that you won't be judged after death on what you did in your entire 
> life. That means that you have to think about what you are doing and you 
> will have to make the right choice everytime by yourself. With 'right' 
> defined by a much broader spectrum of ethics than that of a single 
> religion. E.g. simply defining another group as non-human won't work. 
> (i.e. if your current social environment allows you to recognize this as 
> an item, but that is a whole different discussion.)
> 
> Believe me, simply being one in a crowd of atheists or believers is much 
> more simple. (BTW I am not an agnostic, in case you are wondering).

Uh.. But, in that case, you are not basing it on the "unknowability", 
your doing it the same way that you would if no one had ever presented 
the idea that one existed in the first place. You might as well claim 
that you are, "building your system of ethics on a lack of being able to 
know if there is a tea pot in orbit." Its a meaningless statement. Well, 
unless you where describing it to someone that insists that all of 
creation is defined by how many invisible tea pots are orbiting life 
bearing planets, but, then its only meaningful in context of 
"attempting" to explain it to the person making that assertion, which is 
basically the same thing as saying, it is meaningless. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God 
> exists to design it.

So, complexity indicates intelligent design?  That doesn't make sense.

A result of Occam's Razor would be that unnecessary complexity is 
evidence of unknown influences... but that's hardly the same thing.

> Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now 
> it just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.

Yes, this is the one I was referring to.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with 
>> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the 
>> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd 
>> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's 
>> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>>
> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results? 
> Anyone can find that reference?

It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never 
referenced in papers.  I've heard countless stories of such things, but 
never seen a reputable reference to it.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
> > to respond.
>
> If he isn't responding, he's still negligent.
>


you hava a contract with a SLA?

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
> >> Darren New wrote:
> >> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
> >> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
> >> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
> >> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's
> >> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
> >>
> > Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
> > Anyone can find that reference?
>
> It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never
> referenced in papers.  I've heard countless stories of such things, but
> never seen a reputable reference to it.
>

But it is mentioned in papers. Is that not what faith healing and juju/Obeah is
all about?
Well maybe not *all*

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God 
>> exists to design it.
> 
> So, complexity indicates intelligent design?  That doesn't make sense.

I'm just telling you what it says.  I don't think it's so much the 
complexity - soap foam is complex - as it is the complex usefulness.

Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and 
natural selection, you get watches evolving too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message