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

Patrick Elliott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/03 20:31:

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();
}

I like that revised version ;)


-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Islam: If shit happens, blame Israel.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:41:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/02/winning_athiests.jpg

That image is just as ignorant waltzing to the victory as
are many of the arguments of christians.

God is able, but whether he's willing is a matter more
complex than of "yes" and "no". It is a "yes", because
he will do it at his own pace, and it is a "no", because
he will do it at his own pace.
Saying that he is malevolent because of that is just ignorant,
and neglects the possibility that God's reasoning can be
something no human can even comprehend.

Humans tend to overestimate their own ability. It is the same
regardless of how intelligent one is. A cat cannot comprehend
the simple concept of "pointing at something with the finger",
no matter how you try to teach it. (Well, at least I haven't succeeded.)
Similarly, it stands reason to assume that there may be a similar,
but even greater gap between the mental capabilities of a human
and the God. A human cannot be made to comprehend some concepts
that are trivial to God, without extraordinary measures.
And if you take omnipotency to the issue -- God could possibly
do it, but would the human still be a human after that? And what's
the point? The human only needs to have faith in God. God doesn't
need the human's approval in his actions.

-- 
Joel Yliluoma - http://iki.fi/bisqwit/

Post a reply to this message