 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:22:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net>
wrote:
>
>Its sometimes enough to make one weep for the supposed ethical capacity
>of humanity, or physically sick at the acts committed.
Well I think that we are of a mind on this only I am exposed to much
less of it on this side of the pond. Have you ever considered
emigrating? :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well I think that we are of a mind on this only I am exposed to much
> less of it on this side of the pond. Have you ever considered
> emigrating? :)
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
*I* have. I'd hop across The Pond in an instant if I had a job and a reasonably
quick path to citizenship waiting for me when I got there. I've also thought
about New Zealand. How do you not love a country with a National Shaman? :o)
G'day Mates,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:37:12 EST, "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail>
wrote:
>
>*I* have. I'd hop across The Pond in an instant if I had a job and a reasonably
>quick path to citizenship waiting for me when I got there. I've also thought
>about New Zealand. How do you not love a country with a National Shaman? :o)
Unfortunately you generally need to do it the other way around. Go
somewhere and then find a job.
A National Shaman I didn't know that. But then Kiwi's are even
stranger than Roo's :) They say "fish and chips" properly.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <6vumu35ooi9ivj8fqubl7o9q8pulj0qmjp@4ax.com>,
mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom says...
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:22:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Its sometimes enough to make one weep for the supposed ethical capacity
> >of humanity, or physically sick at the acts committed.
>
> Well I think that we are of a mind on this only I am exposed to much
> less of it on this side of the pond. Have you ever considered
> emigrating? :)
>
Would put me too close the Muslims when they decide to reenact the pre-
crusades invasion that had them, temporary, in control over everything
in Europe to, France I think it was? lol Seriously. As nuts as my nuts
are, there are worse, and my nuts *won't* succeed in the long run. They
have lost the one tactic that makes success a certainty, the willingness
to kill, instead of just marginalize, everyone that disagrees with them.
Now, if you had some place I could move to where a) no one was likely to
invade/riot over the same sort of BS, and there was vastly fewer nuts...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, someone on one of the threads at PZ described the problem
pretty well:
"The intolerant, religious and otherwise, have, through their
stranglehold on much of society, redefined "respectful" so that anything
less conciliatory than "well, I don't agree with you on that *apologetic
smile, shrug*" - including calmly giving reasons WHY one disagrees - is
considered "disrespectful." And unfortunately they've done it so
efficiently that many of us unconsciously use words the way they've
redefined them."
The ones that opt not to unconsciously use those words, get called every
sort of negative thing possible, even if the words where contained in
one sentence, and there are 10 paragraphs of scientific facts and
explanations for just *why* the crazy BS they claimed is in fact wrong.
That is the usual content of stuff on PZ's site. The stuff that involves
just pointing out stupidity, and calling it such, *still* tend to link
to the story or event, and explain why PZ thought it was crazy and
stupid.
Now, the other side.. They can't even link to, or accurately give
citations, of stuff they insists "proves" their point. Worse, half the
points they come up with have no basis in fact, but are reposts of
someone else's blog, quoting someone's book, which quoted a page of
professes quotes, of things copied from someone claiming to have quoted
a paper, which was once written by some famous person, but for which
**no** evidence exists to suggest that the quote is representative of
anything they would have said or did, nor that the supposed letter,
document or book had ever existed. And if that sounds confusing, imagine
the frustration of the people trying to track down where the hell they
get some of their supposed "quotes from the founding fathers"... Most of
them can be traced back, via links, searches and chronology of when the
pages first appeared (according to archiving sites), to one web site.
And that one, doesn't even pretend to give any references, links and/or
citations of the sources of them.
It is like someone quoting historical details from the TV show Sliders,
as evidence. made even more absurd when some people dig up the "real"
origins of some of the tales. One example. A hugely famous one of theres
describes Jefferson going to a church and having a military band play
for the congregation. The actual events involve 1) a pastor quoting
something he claimed, back when he was ten, that his friend had heard
Jefferson say about religion, while that friend supposedly saw Jefferson
going to a church. There is no evidence the event wasn't just made up,
and lots of evidence to suggest that Jefferson wasn't social enough to
have been seen going around to churches, or that he would have said
anything positive about them. 2) a news article posted by a women who
visited the capitol for the paper she worked for. Her article made it
clear that a) while some pastor occasionally spoke at the start of the
meeting, no one paid much attention, b) it was more of a mens club, to
talk about their day, issues, etc. and c) Jefferson did have the
military band play there, not as something linked to the vague service
that they allowed, but to impress the reporter.
I mean, how dumb do you have to be to make up an event based on third
hand hearsay + events in a news article, which **anyone** can look up in
the national archives? Apparently, not very, since its posted as fact,
and repeated on almost every site that attempts to claim that the
founders wanted Christians to run things. :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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:44:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet>
wrote:
>Would put me too close the Muslims when they decide to reenact the pre-
>crusades invasion that had them, temporary, in control over everything
>in Europe to, France I think it was? lol Seriously. As nuts as my nuts
>are, there are worse, and my nuts *won't* succeed in the long run. They
>have lost the one tactic that makes success a certainty, the willingness
>to kill, instead of just marginalize, everyone that disagrees with them.
You had better stay at home, then
>
>Now, if you had some place I could move to where a) no one was likely to
>invade/riot over the same sort of BS, and there was vastly fewer nuts...
>lol
What about that manned flight to Mars :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I actually found this page pretty interesting:
http://www.joethepeacock.com/2008/03/how-to-actually-talk-to-atheists-if.php
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47ed44c8@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> I actually found this page pretty interesting:
>
> http://www.joethepeacock.com/2008/03/how-to-actually-talk-to-atheists-if.
php
>
Yeah. The guy talks a lot of sense, *then* dives off the deep end by
presuming that witnessing by example will get you any place, unless your
example is **far** superior than, say, someone that doesn't believe in
any of it but does more charity work, is more helpful, spends more time
doing good, etc.
Mind you, there may be some small possibility of that being improbable,
but more due to other factors: 1. Not *needing* to do those things to
justify themselves, 2. Recognizing that there is a difference between
doing good and doing what *seems* good, and 3. People that don't
believe, may, do in part to 1 and 2, have more time to do stuff "other"
than trying to go around making themselves look good, to witness for
their position.
Besides, its also rather unclear how showing that your church, following
one of hundreds of thousands of variations in rules, can be good people
and do good things, somehow leads to the main premise they would like it
to.
In other words, while 90% of the stuff on the page is quite true, the
other 10% represents assumptions that do not logically follow from
either his own position, or any presumption that might be made about how
that action would be interpreted *by* the people they want to talk to
about it. Its still presuming that there is some core difference between
"their" acts of charity and virtue, and others, and that this should be
so obvious to anyone, that witness by action would mean anything at all,
other than, "Well, yeah, you manage to be a good person, despite the
*reason(s)* you have for doing so, but how does that prove that it was
in any way related to what you believe in?" Oops!
Anyway, PZ, or someone in one in the comments section, once posted the
link to that page before, and we had a fairly interesting discussion of
both why people that would act that way wouldn't bug us quite as badly
as those that don't, as well as why their where serious disconnects
between the action proposed and the outcome they thought would naturally
derive from it (not the least being that you would have to shred the
Bible and invent a whole new religion, to make such behavior *not*
contradict most existing religion's own writings).
--
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 <MPG.2257742ce7c7959298a133@news.povray.org>,
sel### [at] rraznet says...
> In article <47ed44c8@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > I actually found this page pretty interesting:
> >
> > http://www.joethepeacock.com/2008/03/how-to-actually-talk-to-atheists-i
f.php
> >
> ...
Interestingly, while the post header says it was posted this month, I am
*sure* I have both seen this argument, and much of the text, other
places, which is why I said it was linked to before. Maybe the guy is
just channeling some of out discussions. The, "I am atheist about
unicorns too", statement is fairly common on PZ's site. More than a few
times its been stated that we wouldn't be bothered by people that led by
example, instead of by obnoxiousness. And, we *have* discussed why this
approach is still not going to work. One of his own post responders even
said why, that appealing to our logic isn't going to work, when logic
doesn't support the underlying presumption being defended, from any
perspective that doesn't, on some level, presume it to start with.
I was absolutely sure I had seen that post linked to before... Hmm.
Maybe it appeared in some form some place else.
--
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:
> Yeah. The guy talks a lot of sense, *then* dives off the deep end by
> presuming that witnessing by example will get you any place,
Well, yes. If there was *actually* something in religion that you could
*actually* point to as leading to consistently superior behavior, then
you wouldn't need to convince other people of your faith, as that would
be scientific evidence.
All you're saying is "living the example" won't work, because religion
doesn't actually make you live noticably differently.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
