Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could've
> been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a
> communications device.

It could've been only in his own mind, indeed.  His very personal experience of
the divine.  Still, it has led us today where we are.  Believers or
non-believers all drawn into the same whirlwind of events chained by the Jewish
Christian sect being adopted and spread by the Roman Empire and decidedly
influencing the course of human history...

> Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
> didn't happen?  Not really, no.

see?  In the end, it's all a matter of faith, either believing or not.

> I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would really
> have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must have
> meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that happens
> in the world (and that happened to them).

The bad that happens in the world is a fact of physical existence, just as the
good.  So, of course it's all part of God's plan, which we witness in very tiny
pieces and doesn't make any sense at all.

> I do know some
> atheists whose list consists of things like "God can do something that's
> impossible" - and with that, there's a certain degree of faith that that
> will never happen - and it's that faith in the impossible not happening
> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

of course, that faith is always broken whenever a new physical law is
discovered.

> > (There's actually a number of interesting SF books I've read wherein
> > God's existence is scientifically proven.)
>
> I like what Adams (an avowed atheist) wrote about it, as a conversation
> between man and God:
>
> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without
> faith, I am nothing.
> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and so
> therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)

I love the HHGT books too!

But sure, the babel fish here is the instant translator fish that lives in your
brain, a very unlikely and useful creature.  Thus, I wouldn't call it exactly
"scientifically proven", more like "fictionally proven".  Still, this is such a
big universe that anything is possible,  :)

> Put another way, if there's
> evidence, you don't need faith.

if you saw God opening the river in two, yes, you wouldn't need faith: you are
then a direct witness, like there were many in those early days of the
covenant.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> In other words, you not only would have to have the same message 
> delivered, but you'd have to have identical interpretations.  Given how 
> many ways people interpret something that many consider to be as 
> important as the Bible, I think that's unlikely. 

Well, yeah. Unless it's *GOD* delivering the message. See my point?

Of *course* anything that would convince me of the existence of God is 
going to be unlikely. That's why I'm an atheist. :-)

> Why does it have to be Christians, though?  How's about Buddhism?

That's fine. I don't think Buddhists are theists, tho. Or, at worst, 
they worship someone who said "don't worship me."  However, I'll happily 
admit I know very little about buddhism.

> Again, though, there would be interpretive questions.  Word for word in 
> what language, for example?  

The language of the Torah, of course.

You ask me what would convince me some God is real. I give a list of 
miracles that do it. You complain that the miracles are too unlikely. 
Well, yeah, that's why they're miracles.

> There is apparently some debate about this still, but just the idea that 
> we can't come to a common understanding of what the words even mean in 
> the Bible makes this increasingly unlikely, because in order to do "word 
> for word identical" or even "getting events in the same order" we have to 
> have a common definition to start from on Earth, and we don't even have 
> that.

Yeah, it would be quite miraculous, wouldn't it?

>> The real kicker is that if *humans* came from some other world, you have
>> a lot of explaining how evolution made that happen to do.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
>> (See the "Giant's Star" novels.)
> 
> Will have to look them up.

Brief plot starter: Explorers on the moon find a 50,000 year old human 
skeleton in a space suit in a cave on the moon, with alien life forms in 
ration packs in the backpack. Much hilarity ensues while trying to 
figure out how that could have happened.

The first book was the best, but the two sequels aren't too bad.


>>>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
>>> There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The
>>> Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North
>>> America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of
>>> Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the
>>> LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would
>>> constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?
>> Rapture? People *actually* coming up out of graves to greet him? Demons
>> with giant scales weighing you and dragging you off to pits of hell in
>> shackles, as depicted on churches all over europe?
> 
> There again, you defined it as a return, not the Rapture, armageddon, or 
> whatever word fits.  "Return to earth" is exactly what the Mormons 
> believe happened.  So again, it's a question of definition and details.

Yes. Granted. And while the Mormons think he already returned, all the 
Christians think he already came back to life, too. Note I didn't say 
"Jesus having returned to earth in the past."  I said "Jesus returning 
to Earth."

> Didn't Jim Jones claim that he was Jesus?  How would one prove that 
> someone claiming to be Jesus was in fact Jesus?

Miracles. Rapture. All the stuff that's supposed to happen when Jesus 
returns to earth.

>>>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer,
>>>> and spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs
>>>> shortly after.
>>> That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good
>>> people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we
>>> are not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.
>> Yeah. "You're too stupid to understand. But *we* understand why you're
>> too stupid to understand. *We* understand God well enough to know that
>> His grand plan requires suffering now."
> 
> I don't think it's "We understand" but "we have faith that there's a 
> reason for it".  There's a big difference there.

That's fine. But then don't accuse me of being irrational, if I don't 
agree with the faith.

>> Of course, Jesus disagrees, and says you shouldn't go to doctors, but
>> just trust in God, and all your medical problems will disappear. Funny
>> how that doesn't happen either.
> 
> Some people believe that, yes.  And I think that's nuts, and in 
> situations where someone puts their child's health at risk for that 
> belief, that's when society needs to step in.  It's one thing for an 
> adult to make that decision for themselves; quite another IMO for them to 
> decide that about someone else.  Falls under my "as far as my nose" (or 
> perhaps "others' noses" is a better analogy) rule for letting people 
> believe what they like.

I'll personally disagree on this one. Sometimes, you're just f'ed, and 
that's necessary for a free society.

> Well, yes and no.  But the situation set up is one that requires the 
> question be asked, because religion is defined in so many different ways 
> to different people.  It need not be organised, 

Fair. Again, I'm talking miracles. You're not going to convince me by 
saying "See, those three people who believe in FangleMork, the god of 
blue tomatoes, all share this wonderful trait in common."

> and I don't think I've ever met two who defined their beliefs in the same 
> way.  But they certainly can be very religious people, too.

Sure. But you just lumped them all together, right?

>>> I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is
>>> arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough
>>> that you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter
>>> was made.
>> See above.
> 
> Well, the devil *is* in the details, no? ;-)

Not really. When something like this actually happens, show it to me. 
Then we'll worry about the details. If it's not statistically unlikely, 
then no, it won't be too convincing.

>>>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>>>> disaster or even lightning.
>>> There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already
>>> happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church
>>> (for that matter).
>> Again, it has to be big enough to be statistically unlikely. If you're
>> going to say *this* church is the only church for its entire religion,
>> then sure, that can happen.
> 
> See, that's the problem with it.  Big enough to be statistically unlikely 
> becomes difficult to quantify consistently.

Not especially. That's what statistics are for.

There was a volcanic eruption a few years ago in Hawaii. The flow came 
down, burned out a small town, carefully split and went around the 
shrine to Pele (the volcano goddess), and came back together and trashed 
the rest of the town.  I found that pretty convincing.

If this happened with every eruption, I'd start to wonder if there's 
something more to it.

>  10 churches?  20?  a 
> hundred?  What constitutes a disaster?  There's a lot of wiggle room 
> there for "that doesn't count".

Yes. So?

>> I think you know what I'm getting at. You're just arguing that I haven't
>> provided enough details.
> 
> I do know what you're getting at - and my list actually would be very 
> similar.  I just know, though, that the response from someone who is 
> truly religious is going to poke those kinds of holes in the required 
> proof.

Uh, you know something? I don't really care. In my experience, trying to 
describe the scientific basis for your beliefs to someone trying to 
convince you their religion is right just doesn't work. The logic isn't 
there.

> We're not so different in points of view, Darren - I hope you do see 
> that.  

Sure.

> I hope this has been an enjoyable conversation for you, it has been so 
> for me.  This sort of discussion gets me thinking and analyzing about 
> what I think and believe, and I enjoy that immensely for some reason.

Sure.

There's also the other fun kinds of conversations:
"Do you believe in Life After Death?"
    "Sure."
"Then you *are* religious."
    "No, why would you say that? Can't there be LaD without God?"

"Do you believe in UFOs?"
    "Sure. They just aren't alien space ships. They're unidentified."

And it constantly amazes me the number of people who try to support 
religion by pretending organization of structure is unimportant. That 
there must be some physical "thing" that represents the difference 
between a live person and a dead person, beyond how the parts are 
positioned.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Huh?  The 10 Commandments needed clarification?  I thought God was
> supposed to be infallible?  Omnipotent, Omniscient, and all that?

they need to be clarified for stupid humans who, even then, may not get it.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> 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
> 
>   I think that's a prime example of flawed atheist thinking. It strongly
> makes the assumption that:
> 
> 1) All religious people who believe in God are unable to think rationally
>    and logically.

No. They are unable to support their religious believes logically. That 
has been my experience. It's also pretty much the definition of faith. 
Most people of faith that I've met are unable to think rationally and 
logically *about their faith*. Note I said most - a fair number can 
manage it, but when pressed, fall back to the same arguments in support 
that I've already found unconvincing to me.

> 2) No rational person who things logically and scientifically can seriously
>    believe in God.

Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe 
in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because* 
religion is illogical that this is possible.

> 3) Any logical-sounding statement defending religion made by a religious
>    person must be flawed. It's not possible to approach religion in any
>    logical and rational way. Religion always equals irrationality and
>    illogical thinking.

I don't think that's the case, no. Religion usually is illogical and 
unscientific, but to the extent that there's evidence, I think it's no 
longer faith. I.e., if you could logically convince someone of religion, 
I'm not sure it would be religion any more. When people got convinced 
that Thor wasn't real, it wasn't replaced with a different religion.

I'm pretty sure many atheists have read DeCartes, too.

>   Usually atheist thinking also has strong prejudices, like:
> 
> 4) Any religious person telling something in defense of religion in a
>    calm and rational way is trying to convince me that God exists and
>    that his religion is the truth, and thus I must fight against him
>    with counterargumentation.

Well, it's not so much prejudice as stereotype, methinks. I don't think 
you're trying to convince me to be religious. You seem to think I'm 
attacking you, or insulting you, by denying that I'm convinced.

>   It seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of a completely
> normal, intelligent and rational person, perhaps one with a degree in a
> scientific area of expertise, talking about something like religion in a
> more or less philosophical way, without trying to "convert" anyone to his
> religion. "He is defending his own religion" always equals "he is trying
> to convert me into his religion, I must fight back".

I'd like to. Usually, tho, when one gets to the hard questions, the 
other side fall back on "you only disagree because you don't understand."

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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. :-)

why do you listen to convincing arguments about Satan but not about God?  You
seem selectively inconsistent in your atheism and logical reasoning.

> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
> was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)

God talks to us everyday in subtle ways.  Besides, if he took the form of Morgan
Freeman and talked directly to you, would you believe it?  no, of course not, He
should've take the form of a 20 meter gold talking statue for you to believe.
and even then you might think you end up wandering in a Hollywood blockbuster
set...

Now, don't you think it's too egoistical of your part, like a stubborn child, to
demand that God provides a particular show for your own enjoyment to restabilish
your faith?

> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
> always won wars of oppression against them.

not possible:  the devil won't let it happen.

> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.

what if they are not like us at all?  ie. a highly intelligent gaseous life
form?
oh, I see!   I can believe in ETs, elves or Santa, but not God...

> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.

Are you sure?  Who would attest some guy, probably humble and poor, to be Jesus?
 would you believe him?  oh, I'm betting you would only believe if he started
walking over the waters or making fish rain...

> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
> after.

that would be Jesus, right?

> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.

see original sin.

> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
> touch.

> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
> believe faith can move mountains.

Mountains of problems.  Don't read things too literally:  Jesus used parables a
lot to get his point across.  If God wanted everyone to be like Neo on the
Matrix he wouldn't have created physical laws in the first place.  Let's be
consistent, ok?

> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
> disaster or even lightning.

that's just lame.  why ten year?  Churches are human institutions and are just
as fallible and bound to the original sin.

Post a reply to this message

In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
says...
> > 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. ;)
> > 
> AFAIAC an atheist is someone who does believe no God exists. I fit that
 
> bill. Don't know what I should be ascribing to more to be a genuine one
 
> in your book.
> 
Hmm. Ok, let me change that to say, "The definition you appeared to be 
using, based on you original mistake."

Think you will love this one. Bush and Co. often love to babble about 
wars, conflict, etc. all disappearing if they got rid of those damn 
atheists. Seems as least one of these morons gets the idea from this 
quote:

"No matter what ideology they may espouse, those who perpetrate terror 
over the world are, in reality, Darwinists. Darwinism is the only 
philosophy that places a value on-and thus encourages-conflict."

It wasn't written by a 'good' Christian, like them, it was written in an 
otherwise heavily plagerized book titled, "The Atlas of Creation", 
written by one Adnan Oktar, AKA Haryun Yahya, who is one of those nasty 
radical Muslims we are supposedly so worried about. Its quite 
prominently displayed in the waiting room for Secretary of Commerce 
Carlos Gutierrez. lol

And that doesn't even include all the Muslims Bush has "appointed" to 
various positions, or hired to do everything from cut his hair to his 
secret service. Mind you, these are probably not radicals (though given 
Bush's views and what you have to think and believe to follow him...), 
but its just crazy, especially since one of their ***biggest*** whining 
complaints about Obama is that he is/was a follower of Islam too.

I think this should be chalked up to the nature of cranks that they, "do 
not to care if other cranks (and denialists in general for that matter) 
have variations on their own crazy ideas, just as long as the other 
cranks are opposing the same perceived incorrect truth."

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/unified_theory_of_the_crank.ph
p

-- 
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

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 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. :-)
> 
> why do you listen to convincing arguments about Satan but not about God? 

I don't. By "convincing argument", I meant "backed up by reasoning and 
biblical quotes."  As opposed to ranting.

Perhaps "a fairly well-supported argument" or "fairly reasonable argument".

Perhaps I should have mentioned that it seemed like a spoof site, more 
making fun of followers of JHVH than actually trying to convince you 
that it's Satan leading the chosen people. Hard to say, tho.

>> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
>> was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
>> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)
> 
> God talks to us everyday in subtle ways.

Maybe to you. Not to me.

If you think God talks to me in subtle ways, you'll have to explain how 
you know such a thing.

> Besides, if he took the form of Morgan
> Freeman and talked directly to you, would you believe it?  no, of course not,

Possibly. It worked for Jim Carrey, after all. And I imagine if God is 
actually omnipotent, he could manage to convince me even if we were 
created in his image to that extent.

 > He should've take the form of a 20 meter gold talking statue for you 
to believe.
> and even then you might think you end up wandering in a Hollywood blockbuster
> set...

Well, yes, isn't that what miracles are all about?

> Now, don't you think it's too egoistical of your part, like a stubborn child, to
> demand that God provides a particular show for your own enjoyment to restabilish
> your faith?

"Reestablish"?  (Just as an aside, I find that so presumptuous as to be 
mildly offensive. I used to be much more offended by such things, until 
I realized how many religious people are )

And no, I don't think so. I mean, after all, what did it take to 
convince the Romans? Jesus returning to life, performing all sorts of 
miracles. Why is it egotistical for me, and not for Apostle Thomas?

Of course, when you start from the axiom that God is real, present, and 
obvious, then anyone who doubts is insulting said God. When you start 
from the premise that God isn't real, the obvious question that springs 
to mind is "what, outside the Bible, should I look at to be convinced?"

Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that 
ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an 
actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's 
writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the 
1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what 
card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is 
real? If not, why not?

>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>> always won wars of oppression against them.
> 
> not possible:  the devil won't let it happen.

The devil has no free will, as well as being less powerful than God, 
yes? Or am I confused on that point? If not, then it's actually that God 
won't let it happen. At least, JHVH won't let it happen. Maybe some 
other God will.

Of course, if it's axiomatic (to you) that JHVH is the one and only God, 
then of course it seems unreasonable to expect this.

>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
> 
> what if they are not like us at all? 

Then it's not miraculous, it's just evolution. Then it's just a faith 
healer who cures headaches with a laying on of hands, as long as you 
take some asprin too. Why would you think that would convince me of the 
existence of a god any more than rabbits on earth would?

The main thrust wasn't that they show up with the Bible, but that 
they're actually human. Which would imply either that evolution 
proceeded *identically* on another planet, or that something intervened 
to make it so. The likelihood of it being God that did the intervening 
is merely increased by the identical holy book, which would tell you 
which God it was that did the intervening.

See?

> ie. a highly intelligent gaseous life
> form?
> oh, I see!   I can believe in ETs, elves or Santa, but not God...

No, I don't believe in them either. (I believe it's likely ETs are out 
there, but I don't believe it's likely they're around here now.)

I'm not sure what the relationship with what I said was, so I hope that 
the above clarification helps.

>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
> 
> Are you sure?  Who would attest some guy, probably humble and poor, to be Jesus?
>  would you believe him?  oh, I'm betting you would only believe if he started
> walking over the waters or making fish rain...

Yep. Which he probably wouldn't mind doing, if he actually returned to 
earth, see.  I mean, isn't that the next scheduled appearance? The 
miracle of the Rapture?

I'm asked for a list of events that would convince me, as an atheist, 
that there really is divine supernatural power. I provide a list of 
miracles, and your answer is "well, duh, that's not going to happen, 
that would be miraculous!"?

>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
>> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
>> after.
> 
> that would be Jesus, right?

Not sure what you mean. What would be Jesus? I don't care who it is that 
announces it, or prays for it. Whoever announces it and does the praying 
probably knows which is the right God.

Do you see how you're starting from the presumption that you know you're 
right? Do you see how each response you make implies that the God I 
would wind up believing in is the same one you believe in? That while I 
should believe in your God without miracles, believing in someone else's 
God even with miracles is wrong?

>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.
> see original sin.

Which one? The JHVH one? The Viking one? The Roman one? The Mayan one? 
How do you know that the original sin you speak of is really the 
original one?

And, somehow, the fact that Adam disobeyed God before he knew any better 
is justification for deformed babies who have done nothing wrong in this 
life? Somehow, *my* knowledge of good and evil seems to be incomplete, 
if this is true, so why am I being punished?

>> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
>> touch.

Funny how nobody seems to argue with this one, isn't it?

>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
>> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
>> believe faith can move mountains.
> 
> Mountains of problems.  Don't read things too literally:  Jesus used parables a
> lot to get his point across.  If God wanted everyone to be like Neo on the
> Matrix he wouldn't have created physical laws in the first place.  Let's be
> consistent, ok?

I am. It's called "a miracle". You're the one that's trying to ridicule 
me for stating that I'd believe in a God who can actually produce miracles.

Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego thru the power of prayer to 
*anyone*, Jesus or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, and I'll believe that God. That 
you think it's unlikely is simply your lack of faith in the power of 
your own God.

I wasn't asked "what reasonable, likely events will make you believe in 
God." That would be a much shorter list.

>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>> disaster or even lightning.
> 
> that's just lame.  why ten year?  

It seemed a reasonable number. Anything where the likelihood of it 
lasting is exceedingly unlikely will do. It could be one year, if you're 
willing to count (say) every structure with a cross on the top.

The Vatican has a lightning rod on the top. Clearly, someone believes 
prayer by the Pope is insufficient to prevent burning down St Paul's.

> Churches are human institutions and are just
> as fallible and bound to the original sin.

Even the Mayan temples? The Pele shrines? See how you assume you're right?

Would *you* believe in Pele if her followers could walk across magma 
without injury, and her shrines were never damaged by volcanoes? That's 
a serious question: If some other God started performing miracles, what 
would be your response?

In any case, now you're explaining why expecting miracles is 
unreasonable. That doesn't negate my point, however. Yes, expecting 
miracles *is* unreasonable. That you have a rationalization doesn't mean 
I should believe. I find believing in God, especially in the type of god 
you get in monotheistic religions, is unreasonable. Hence, it takes 
something unreasonable to change my mind.

In any case, I thought baptism got rid of original sin or something? Is 
the Pope really still being punished in this world for Original Sin? I 
thought believing in Jesus and/or doing the right rituals got rid of 
that original sin? That whole "Jesus died for our sins" isn't right? Is 
there anything one can do to stop being punished for Adam's "sin"?

-- 
   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 <47578a92$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:25:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> True, but when it comes to scientific proof of something "supernatural",
 
> there's always room for doubt (as there's always room for some degree of
 
> doubt in a scientific proof).  Most who ask for proof of God's existence
 
> are looking not for scientific proof, but absolute proof.  Perhaps you 
> are different from most who engage in this type of discussion.
> 
I would certainly hope so, since even using the terms "proof" or 
"proven" are an abomination in science. You can use them in math, 
because they means something very specific in that context, which isn't 
the same as the general use of them. In general use, for **virtually** 
everyone, the term "proven" implies that you have the right answer, and 
its impossible for further evidence, discussion or data to change the 
result. While I am sure some scientists fall for this thinking on 
occasion, in my experience its **usually** only outside their own field 
of study that they do so. Within their own fields they are very careful 
to avoid such silly errors, and when they don't, they often find 
themselves without jobs (unless they go work for the Discovery Institute 
anyway..).

That said, I bloody well hope Darren isn't looking for "proof", just 
evidence. ***Any*** evidence, that doesn't add unneeded complications, 
isn't arbitrarily central to the person making the claim, instead of the 
claim itself, can't be better explained by far more well known things, 
or isn't so vague and unspecific that its impossible to discount 10,000 
other possibilities in favor of the one some believer insists has to be 
the answer.

Put simply, the evidence has to meet *at least* the standards used to 
imply that Big Foot exists, which despite how unlikely, unbelievable and 
probably hoax based, never the less contains enough points of 
contention, enough unknowns and enough uncertainty that it *might* be 
true, unlike pretty much **every** claim made about miracles, or other 
'evidence' ascribed to the God hypothesis. And if you can't even beat 
out Big Foot, with respect to the evidence available and likelihood of 
your existence, there is a serious problem. 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 <4758485d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Why does it have to be Christians, though?  How's about Buddhism?
> 
> That's fine. I don't think Buddhists are theists, tho. Or, at worst, 
> they worship someone who said "don't worship me."  However, I'll happily
 
> admit I know very little about buddhism.
> 
I don't know a *lot* about it either, but strictly speaking there are 
two reasons you don't see them as powerful as Christianity (though 
technically Islam is at least twice as large as Christianity and more 
cohesive, so...), or as prone to kill/conquer and/or convert people to 
make them Buddhists. 1. Most of them are not theists. Some are, but that 
is a fairly recent issue that imho arose when some of them decided to 
try to consolidate Jesus with Buddha, and figured the only way it worked 
was to make Buddha a new version of Jesus. The fact that almost none of 
the silly woo woo stuff Buddha insisted enlightened people could do 
didn't work any more than anyone else's woo probably didn't help to 
prevent it. 2. They *tend* to be pacifistic and inclusive, taking an 
almost new age woo view of enlightenment, by which you can get their by 
many paths, even the silly and stupid ones, so there isn't much point to 
killing off a bunch of people that opt for some other path.

It should be noted that some of them *have* gotten violent in recent 
years, but unless I am mistaken, the ones that did so are the same ones 
that chose to follow Buddha as a god, not the ones that followed his 
original teachings. The original version is little more than atheism 
with alchemy and magic pasted over it. The *new* Buddhism is basically 
the same BS as every other religion, and just as prone to defends its 
"God" via violence as all of the rest of 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 <web.4758434f922777ebf48316a30@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> > 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.

> It could've been only in his own mind, indeed.  His very personal experie
nce
> of the divine.  Still, it has led us today where we are.  Believers or
> non-believers all drawn into the same whirlwind of events chained by the
> Jewish Christian sect being adopted and spread by the Roman Empire and
> decidedly influencing the course of human history...
 
So it influenced human history. So what. So did a lot of things. That 
doesn't mean it didn't influence it *wrongly*, or that its prevalence, 
mostly via violence, war, subversion, threats, torture and assassination 
(directly or via its acceptance by those that both believed it and used 
such tactics), makes it somehow better than other alternatives that 
*could* have happened.

Its not a valid defense of its value, its existence or if the invisible 
friend behind it is real. For thousands of years China managed to make 
the "Christian" world look like complete fools, while believing that 
their Emperor was a god and descended from dragons. By your logic, had a 
few key moments in history been different, you would now be sitting here 
arguing that our Emperor really is a God, and that he is a direct 
descendant of dragons, because it can't be otherwise and there still be 
a Chinese empire.

Its even worse, given the fact that you can trace virtually **every** 
story in the Bible back to some prior religion, and that not one of 
those religions believed in the same God that the Jews eventually 
insisted was the real one, and many of them believed in ***multiple*** 
gods. What, the real one wandered around among a hundred different 
tribes pretending to be multiple gods, then one day got bored and 
decided to tell them not to believe in any of them other than the one he 
decided to stick with?

-- 
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