 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Joel Yliluoma wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> Sorry. We've eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only
>> difference between us and God is that we haven't eaten from the Tree of
>> Eternal Life.
>
> This gives us the same reasoning powers as God has. Right.
No, it gives us the same ability to deduce what is good and what is evil
as god has. That's what he said in the garden. Read your bible.
To say "Starving babies isn't *really* evil, because God has a plan" is
a cop-out, if it's possible to determine on your own what is *really* evil.
> I have to say, you usually act all scientifical and logical, but it seems
> that when your motivation is to attack religion, you put logical thinking
> to the side and use whatever convoluted argument you can come up with (or
> which you have read somewhere) regardless of how logical or relevant it is,
> just for the sake of argument.
Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T
WORK. They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep
on trying, right?
You can make a scientific debate about whether evolution is true. You
can't make a scientific logical debate about how much God knows. If Joel
can assert that the reason evil exists is because God knows it's good
for us, then I can assert that we know what's good for ourselves,
without having to make a logical argument beyond citing the Bible (which
I not Joel didn't even do).
I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I
do? How come when Joel tells me that I don't understand, I don't get to
point out the parts of the Bible where God says yes, I *do* understand.
Isn't that logical?
> Of course I'm not surprised. The vast majority of people who otherwise
> are logical and rational become irrationally fanatic when the topic is
> religion.
Well, sure, because if everyone was logical and scientific in a
discussion, there wouldn't be any religion being discussed. Religion is
based on faith, which isn't science or logic. It's not really possible
to discuss religion with a religious person and stay logical and
scientific about it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious
> way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical
> says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can
> from here on deduce anything.
> [snipped some invalid conclusions].
>
> I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I
> hope not).
>
I quote: "As just another atheist I'd like to point out that atheism is
a religion too."
That hardly sounds like a vague assertion that its sort of kind of like
one, in some ways. All my conclusions lead from this assertion of yours.
Oh, and just to be clear. I am using the definition for religion that
***religious*** people most often claim it is, and the definition of
atheism that is most common among atheists. That your definition
deviates from those isn't all that relevant, especially since it also
deviates from most dictionary definitions too, which pretty clearly do
not include anything other than disbelief in gods in one, and list a
whole mess of stuff you have to believe to be the other. But, what ever
definition or denial floats your boat. ;)
--
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 <47562832$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> I fail to see the relevance.
>
> I was speaking of the ten commandments, as given to Moses. Certainly,
> something that comes later can dispute or clarify such commandments. But
> I don't know what context God's words to Adam could have that isn't in
> Genesis, given there was nobody else in the entire world at the time.
>
> Jesus says which of the commandments are more important. How does that
> help Moses interpret them? How does that help anyone before Jesus
> interpret them?
>
Didn't your hear, according to one big talk show lady, Jesus came before
"everything" else, and like got stapled to the cross before then too.
Oh, and the earth *might* be flat, but she hasn't ever really thought
about it much. 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 <47575d93$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause
> > cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is
> > something that would not be disproven over time.
>
> We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
> You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things
> don't have certain properties.
>
> > In a purely logical sense,
>
> Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also.
> There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic
,
> almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a
> universally-quantified negative that can be proven.
>
> > Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logicall
y
> > and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God? Or th
at
> > Moses didn't? I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't
> > fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as
I
> > know you know).
>
> I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they
> truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.
>
> > The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could'v
e
> > been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a
> > communications device.
>
> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without
> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)
>
> > Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
> > didn't happen? Not really, no.
>
> That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that
> things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example,
> it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what
> genesis says (iirc).
>
You don't even need to do that. All you have to do is read the bloody
thing and realize that, much like some of the events in the later
supposed resurrection nonsense, there are **3** distinctly different
explanation of how it all started in there, which things got created
first, second, etc., including when man showed up in the story. When you
can't even derive *one* consistent time line from the work, it hardly
matters if **all** of the time lines you might derive from it are
gibberish.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T
> WORK.
So that means that even if someone wants to explain in a completely
rational fashion some detail of the Bible, it's a perfectly valid form
of counter-argumentation to throw back irrational straw men?
"Science", in a broad term, is not always about hard science, about the
mechanics of the universe. Science can also refer to the study of sociology,
culture, psychology, philosophy and logic. Something can be argumented
logically even if it doesn't necessarily refer to an actual physical
phenomenon.
You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even want to
have a rational conversation about different points of view. You just want
to be right, and you will not concede anything. You have decided that your
arguments are the only valid arguments, you don't want to listen nor
understand what the other is trying to say, except to see how you could
come up with yet another counter-argument. That's not listening.
It's not always the religious people who make rational conversation
impossible.
> They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep
> on trying, right?
That's a perfect example of a straw man in this context. You are trying
to make my arguments (and my point that some of these Bible things can be
approached in a rational basis) look more ridiculous by comparing them to
something extreme.
> I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I
> do?
Yes. Show your righteous indignation. You must be right, who has the
right to even claim that you might be wrong?
Listening to other people is very, very hard sometimes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Those of us who fit that "otherwise logical and rational" description get
> frustrated when the counter to logical and rational points is "because
> God said so" or "because God made it so" or "Because it's God's will".
And thus it's completely rational for them to use their irrational
counter-argumentation even against people who are trying to converse
about the topic in a calm, rational basis?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4756dd54@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> My mom also has a fairly strong faith; the Lutheran church (which I was
> brought up in) convinced me that organized religion was largely bunk
> because I saw the infighting between the pastoral staff (I worked the
> sound booth, and a lot of time when they were around those of us doing
> the sound, they were very unguarded in their comments). When you see
> clergy acting like "normal people", they lose their mysticism (if it can
> be called that). I also saw a lot more of the financial side than I
> probably should have - and here in Utah, it's hard to ignore the large
> section of local (and larger) businesses that are not merely LDS-owned,
> but owned by the LDS church. TIME magazine did a story a few years back
> on the church's financial holdings, and the number and types of
> businesses they own is truly staggering.
>
> ...
>
> Yet at the same time, I cannot ignore the things the church has done to
> help her through some pretty difficult issues. So for her, her faith
> works and has made her happier. Who am I to argue with the result?
>
Well, this is one common argument. That the good outweighs the bad of
it. But, you just described in pretty clear terms above that it *isn't*
doing them all that much good at all, even if they spend a lot of times
telling themselves it is, and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how
everyone agrees with them on the matter. But no, arguing with someone
too far gone isn't productive at all. One is forced to simply hope that
something happens to jar them into questioning matters, and hope that it
is, how ever much you would prefer otherwise, painful enough that they
truly question why it happened. Some people never escape, such as the
people in one church recently that where betrayed completely by their
priest, and didn't just leave, they closed the church. Some of them
might take a real hard look at their beliefs. The rest will just dive
head first into some nearby church with the same sort of leader, the
same double standards, the same comfortable lies, and 10-20 years down
the road it will happen all over again.
The most serious problem isn't trying to convince a lot of fools to open
their eyes to the truth, the problem is convincing them that that their
gullibility ***is*** being used to promote the ideas and beliefs of
people that think there is no difference between Christians that are not
from the *right* church and atheists, and whose three biggest arguments
are: 1. The persecution of their *minority* of true believers by a vast
cabal of evil, satan worshipping, atheists (heh, its religion, nothing
about it needs to make any sense, and the entire argument makes as much
sense as trying to use a solar powered calculator, to determine the
positions of stars, while spelunking). 2. That science is part of this
vast conspiracy (except when they can find some vague, meaningless,
statement they can claim showed that some scientist was a believer) and
3. Everything that isn't Biblical is atheist (which leads to the
inevitable insane attempts to prove that everything from Microwave ovens
to antibiotics where **somehow** hidden in Bible passages).
The danger, and is *always* the case isn't that a huge number of
gullible, ignorant, fools will rise up and replace sane and rational
people with nuts, who will drag us into the dark ages. The danger is
that the huge number of gullible, ignorant, fools won't realize what a
tiny number of nuts are really doing, until its too late for the sane
and rational people to stop them. Texas just fired its *only* pro-
science representative from their board responsible for determining what
science standards should be, and they previously tried to get their pro-
creation text books accepted as the national standard for all schools.
The only good thing about it being that they **apparently** either don't
understand, or inexplicably missed, that tiny, barely noticeable trial,
where *precisely* the same BS they are trying to pull was thrown out as
unconstitutional. But, now that Texas is at it again, some morons in
Florida are grunting and snorting too, in hopes that if Texas falls,
they can get what they want in Florida too.
And, when 48% of the country thinks that evolution "is" invalid and
creationism makes more sense, trying to point out to the gullible masses
that the DI doesn't intend to stop with that, but to undermine
***everything***, just goes right over their heads.
That is the real problem. Not whether or not your mother goes to some
church that sounds about the same as damn near every LDS or other church
I have personally had experience with, or heard other atheists (and to
some extent, almost every Christian I know) describe as one they have
come from, currently attend and/or know about from other 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 <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Mine wasn't a definition. It was a procedure to arrive at a set of
> morals. If you follow ethics through the ages you will see that in most
> cases ethics are passed down from one generation to another with or
> without minor changes. There are however discontinuities as a result of
> people (prophets) that follow my recipe.
>
Then, you just described precisely one of the biggest problems with
religions. You need to have *personal* definitions and *logical*
constructs to derive real ethics. Ethics that are passed down merely as
traditions can perpetuate injustice, immorality, etc., by any definition
that those who question would, in general, come up with. And that is
precisely what often happened. The people willing to question found
themselves invariably asking *if* the ethics they where taught made
sense in the context they where told to apply them, or even if they ever
did. The truly cynical ones invariably didn't live long, because they
had a bad habit of pointing out that just arbitrary, non-rational,
definitions invariably helped those that *taught them* than the people
that where supposed to follow them.
--
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 <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Note to Patrick: you might think that if I tell you I am an atheist that
> you know what I think and how I should behave. Believe me, you haven't
> got a clue.
>
Odd. And here I thought I mentioned the whole "herding cats" concept at
some point. lol But seriously, as long as you are not one of those, "If
we are nice to the wackos, then eventually we will win!", types, we
might get along. If you are, then I would remind you that we have been
trying that for the last 150 years and they **still** think we are the
spawn of Satan, out to destroy them, and too militant, strident, close
minded and/or confused and ignorant of the truth as they did 150 years
ago. At best, the fact that nothing they have claimed to be true, or
tried as an alternative to secular solutions, has worked as well (or
some times at all), is the only reason we are winning the battle. And as
fun as it is to watch fools throw water balloons at the castle wall,
while disdaining the open gate, which merely requires that they agree to
play by the rules to get in legitimately, I have to start to wonder how
effective playing nice still is, when they stop using water balloons and
start trying, however poorly, to construct ladders and primitive
catapults. The fact that 90% of the time the ladders fall apart and the
catapults are aimed in random directions doesn't matter much if they
manage to accidentally launch enough priests over the wall. Sadly, some
fools on our side of the wall are just as susceptible to some types of
woo as the people standing around outside.
--
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 <47576014$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Well, sure, because if everyone was logical and scientific in a
> discussion, there wouldn't be any religion being discussed. Religion is
> based on faith, which isn't science or logic. It's not really possible
> to discuss religion with a religious person and stay logical and
> scientific about it.
>
Or, as one fictional character phrased it:
You can't use logic on religious people, if you could, there wouldn't be
any religious people. -Dr. Gregory House
Read an interview with the actor, and either he was **still** in
character while doing it, or he really is like this, and given that the
article writer was a friend of his that *said* that he really is like
that, I got the love the guys style even more than I did already. Just
wish I didn't keep forgetting to tape the show. :(
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
