 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4751e72a$1@news.povray.org>,
nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom says...
> >> I think "tl;dr" about most of Patrick's posts; no offense intended...
> > none taken
>
> I meant no offense to Patrick...
>
No offense taken. I get a bit carried away some times when trying to be
complete in what I am saying.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4752219e$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Let's approach it from yet another angle: Another commandment says
> > that you must respect your parents. Yet if your father commits a horrib
le
> > crime should you respect him or should you report it to the authorities
?
> > Even though the answer is the latter, that doesn't make the commandment
> > any less relevant.
>
> You're presuming that the answer is the latter, tho. How does one know?
> Is it because one's religion told you so? Or is it because one has been
> taught it's really the right thing, and then one adds non-existent
> exceptions to the rule to adjust the religion to match the existent
> morality?
>
> If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more
> moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
>
And of course, the single biggest problem is its them saying that, and
then insisting that because its true, everyone else's morality is either
a) inferior, even if it appears superior, or b) non-existent, since any
act that appears to be equal or superior to their is either mimicry, or
derived from God anyway, in which case the person in question just isn't
being honest about *where* its coming from.
If an absurd rationalization exists for why their tendency to seem
immoral, unethical, actively evil, or just blind to the harm they cause
exists, someone, some place, and used it to try to explain why the
observer has it all wrong and it *was* moral, ethical, good and or
harmless. But trying to point out why none of the rationalizations make
sense will cause you to spend time in a rubber room from trying "long"
before they will ever see the inside of one.
I like this, which shows just how far back "some" people where looking
at the whole mess and going, "Does this really make any bloody sense?":
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/02/winning_athiests.jpg
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47530e65$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more
> >> moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
> >
> > That depends on the definition of morality. Who says your definition
is
> > better than someone else's?
>
> I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start
> talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then
> you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones
> to pick with that approach.
>
And lets not ignore how they constantly insist that the rules "are"
universal and not up for interpretation, while imho being some of the
biggest moral relativists in the known universe, since you kind of have
to be to cherry pick bits of scripture to follow, then explain away how
the other bits don't count, while simultaniously *ignoring* the bits you
insist are right, by doing things to other people that those parts
actually prohibit (or which are prohibited by other parts they insist
they are also following). One needs a mind like a pretzel just to
comprehend some of the arguments made by such people.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4753710d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>> How could it not be context-dependent?
> >
> >> I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!? ;-)
> >
> > I honestly don't understand. Because the one who sends the message is
God,
> > then there cannot be context of the message anylonger?
>
> No. Because the one who sends the message is God, the message should be
> understandable to anyone alive. Especially when there are only two
> people alive.
>
> You haven't explained to me what context there was in the garden of eden
> that wasn't taken into account.
>
> > Because the one who
> > sends the message is God it should be possible to rip off a few words o
f
> > the message and still maintain the whole meaning of the message?
>
> What "few words"? What context do you think "thou shalt not kill" has
> that isn't embodied in the old testament?
>
Hmm. The world "kill", given that its use is **entirely** modern, the
original text was Hebrew and ****they**** use a completely different
word, just like we do, for kill vs. murder? I mean, that would kind of
matter wouldn't it, that kill and murder, at least technically, mean
different things, and that the *oldest* version of the text uses the
world for murder, not the generic "kill" that most Christians insist was
meant? But, that opens a whole can of worms, because it becomes a bit
problematic how you determine who legitimately gets to define the
difference, and how, if God is the one defining the difference, you can
*prove* that God actually told them, instead of them just claiming he
did, even if they perform some silly card trick to try to prove it.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4753afe9@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > 1) Studying the ten commandments with everything the Bible has to off
er
> > would require an entire book.
>
> So, part of the context of the ten commandments is the stuff that came a
> couple thousand years after they were written? I guess God can get away
> with that.
>
Umm, just to be clear, which of the four *versions* of the commandments
are we talking about anyway? You know, its kind of helpful to know where
you are starting from, before you go wandering off trying to figure out
what bits and pieces enforce or undermine it. lol
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4753d58b@news.povray.org>, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at
vtSPAM.edu"> says...
> Atheists can fall into the same trap, the difference being that the
> perceived sin is a lack of scientific reasoning. I forget if it was
> Dawkins or someone else who made a statement that amounted to religion
> being a genetic hold over or even a mental illness.
>
Just for the sake of argument, show me any case where blind faith that
something is true has every turned out to be right, save by pure
accident, and more to the point, how any other case has *not* been based
on seeing evidence, forming a theory based on that evidence, and then
testing, in some fashion, if that conclusion was *actually* correct, or
needed modification... We start out with science, experimenting with our
world and figuring out what works and doesn't work, and forming
**justified** opinions about why and how. Then, about the point where we
start talking people start telling us that some things are better
explained by the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Jesus. I can't imagine
*why* atheists would think scientific thinking was the corner stone of
rational thought... Snort!
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4753b011$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Tim Cook wrote:
> > Ethics is almost entirely
> > arbitrary, aside some fundamental survival derivatives.
>
> I would disagree, but that's OK.
>
I would disagree too. You don't learn ethics by someone *telling* you
that its bad, you do so by testing the boundaries of what, first, you
parents allow, then society, and concluding, based on evidence, that
there are **consequences** for acting unethically. Its only arbitrary in
the sense that "sometimes" the rules are based on irrational projections
of imaginary consequences, or misinterpretations of the magnitude,
nature, existence or even the actual cause of real consequences.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> What "few words"? What context do you think "thou shalt not kill" has
>> that isn't embodied in the old testament?
> Hmm. The world "kill", given that its use is **entirely** modern, the
> original text was Hebrew and ****they**** use a completely different
> word, just like we do, for kill vs. murder?
I already granted that I was reading an English translation and
therefore was several steps removed. That "kill" isn't what it says in
the old testament isn't really the point - the point is that Jesus, for
example, can't reasonably be said to provide context for the meaning of
the ten commandments, nor can Pope John Paul III, or etc etc etc.
If you're going to say "you're taking it out of context", and the
context I'm taking Genesis in is Genesis, then you need to explain how
something that happened after Adam died can provide context for what
happened to Adam in the garden.
> But, that opens a whole can of worms, because it becomes a bit
> problematic how you determine who legitimately gets to define the
> difference, and how, if God is the one defining the difference, you can
> *prove* that God actually told them, instead of them just claiming he
> did, even if they perform some silly card trick to try to prove it.
It also makes you wonder, if God had these 10 important rules, he would
allow them to be mistranslated. But all that's old arguments.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I can't imagine
> *why* atheists would think scientific thinking was the corner stone of
> rational thought... Snort!
Here's the other thing: Atheists can generally provide a long list of
"here's things that would convince me to be religious." Theists can
rarely provide a single answer to "what would convince you you're wrong?"
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start
>> talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then
>> you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones
>> to pick with that approach.
>
> Ethics is not science.
Actually, to clarify, what I was talking about was science. If you ask
why certain morals are better than others, you can actually make
hypotheses and measure it.
You can say "Greed is better than altruism, because it creates more
wealth". Or "altruism is better than greed, because it distributes
wealth better."
What one has to take on "faith" is that happiness is a good thing, i.e.,
that there's an actual ability to measure which morals result in
"better" outcomes than others. Even this, however, can be debated, since
obviously some people will say "obedience to God's will is far more
important than life or happiness."
So in that sense, yes, it's not scientific. But then, science doesn't
answer *why* elementary particles can have half-spin values also. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
