 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:29:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> alphaQuad wrote:
>> Stay the hell out of threads when you have nothing on-topic to offer.
>
> Welcome to p.off-topic! Enjoy your stay.
It does seem he needs to go back and internalize what he wrote in his
first post in this thread about how to deal with anger issues, doesn't it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't say all people who believe in a God (NB difference from
> "supernatural explanations") refuse to see things that don't support that
> position. There are quite a few people in the scientific community who
> believe in "god(s)" and who acknowledge that there is a bit of a strange
> dichotomy there. They generally rationalize this by saying that what
> they believe in is that there is more to the universe than we know, and
> that there may well be something (or indeed someone) there that (who) has
> a bigger view.
>
Its also a bit of a cop out. One that my niece held on to for a long
time, until she finally decided, "You know, many of these people are
just plain nuts." There is a difference between, "there may be
something", which even the majority of atheists will acknowledge as at
least "possible", if not plausible, and the result you often get from
even theistic scientists, like Francis Collins (I think it was), who
actually makes the argument that he realized that the "right" religion
and "true" god was the made up trinity, from Christianity, based on
seeing a frozen waterfall. A number of people, reasonably, asked, "What
would have happened if it hadn't been three parts, but nine, or
something? lol Its a fairly well documented fact that, in such people,
the level of evidence to even "start" to form a theory about how
something in science works, is several hundred decimal places "larger"
than what theistic/borderline scientists, sadly, apply when guessing
about the existence of some sort of god. Its a bit like talking to
someone about chemistry, and kind of half following along, but knowing
they are talking about "real things", only to have them suddenly babble
out, "So, to prove it I created a temporal anomaly using tachyons, from
a deflector dish, powered by Trilithium." Its fairly obvious to
everyone, other than, apparently, the guy that said it, that they just
took a left turn at reality road, and wandered instead into twilight
zone alley, because most of it ends up gibberish, and the rest
contradicts "every" standard of research in their field, and instead
started applying technobabble to someone else's. lol No mind is so
focused, or strictly logical, that it cannot simultaneously encompass
things like Star Wars, and at the same time, star formation, but some
people manage to build so secure a wall between the two realms that they
"literally" suffer something not unlike multiple personality disorder,
when shifting from one internal universe to the other. The apparent
(even if only to themselves) logic of "one" doesn't even "touch" the
other, *especially* when, if it did, it would invalidate everything
science knows, if true, on one hand, or rip all arguments made in the
other "alternate universe" in their heads to shreds. The more drastic
the difference in views, the thicker the walls. Which is why you can get
both "mildly" odd people, that think "god may be around", to the Collins
of the world, who are "sure" he is, while oddly never applying them as
an explanation for anything in science, to the real nuts, like the Disco
Institute's Casey Luskin, who has never met a stupid argument for
design, god or the "truth" of Christianity being the right religion,
which he hasn't believed. Like the most recent one. Because *we* can
look at natural membranes, like formed by soup bubbles, and make that
into a potential new color TV technology, and due to certain types of
squid can "bend" their own, to change color quickly, our "designing"
TVs, means that both squid's ability to change color, and by extension,
if the twit bothered to think at all, soup bubbles, must be "designed"
too...
http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/1129
>> Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything
>> you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise
>> anyway.
>
> Now that I have seen, time and again.
>
> Jim
--
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();
}
<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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Go back a little over 2,000 years and you will find people already
>> shooting holes in this idea that "god" has anything to do with piety,
>> love, or other such things. Even then "some" of them where able to
>> figure out that either god's ideas where arbitrary, and therefor
>> claiming that good came from them was absurd, or that good existed
>> without them, and therefor all the gods where really doing was
>> stealing it, then claiming that they made up the whole idea
>> themselves. You are not proving to anyone by such assertions that
>> love, never mind justice, or other similar concepts *only* exist do to
>> any god, instead of all the other "reasonable" explanations that
>> exist, most of which can be pointed out to exist in "any" social
>> animal, simply because, well, its "social".
>>
>> So, sorry, but if you are actually claiming that you "must" have a god
>> for love to exist somehow, and that good derives from that, then you
>> **are** in fact claiming on some level, that belief in something
>> "godly" makes you good, even if you are willing to waffle a lot more
>> than most theists about if you have to believe in Mr. Robes too.
>
> Maybe there's some social reason that any mention of
> God makes otherwise rational people angry and confrontational?
> If you don't believe in God, why do you blame him for so much?
> I really wasn't trying to prove anything.
> I just figured AQ needs a hug.
>
WTF? Where do I blame god for anything. God doesn't exist. Everything
ever done in his "name" has been done by "people", usually claiming
that, "He told me to do it!" I might as well blame the tooth fairy for
having to get medical checkups, for all that the claim that always seems
to come up that I, or any other atheist, blames god for anything makes
sense at all.
But seriously, a thing doesn't need to "exist" for it to cause
something. Racial purity is BS that "never" existed, but, it has been
used to supposed lots of conflicts and genocide, even in the Bible.
Tribalism/Nationalism are both pure inventions. Sure, you can have
tribes, and even nations, but they are as artificial as race. Simply a
made up distinction, which says, "We get to make up these rules, and you
get to make up yours." Problem is, they are also often used to say,
"But, since we don't like your rules, we get to shoot you for not
following ours!" Concepts are real in the sense that they can be used to
"justify" things, or create them. But, it doesn't make them suddenly
"appear", as tangible, distinct, non-arbitrary, and entirely "invented"
things, like some turtle in the middle of the desert, because some dude
got stoned and decided there was a "god" named Om wandering around.
I blame who is responsible. The very human fools that invented a system
of inequity, injustice, tribalism, outsider fear/hatred, then, when they
got tired of most of the wars, tried to, "make it nicer", and failed,
because most people didn't want to love their neighbor, they still
wanted exclusive rights to their neighbor's land, women, riches, and/or
those same people's obedience, and acceptance of the idea that they
"should" have those rights. And, even the people that wrote the NT
couldn't completely avoid "suggesting" that some of the localized ideas,
about kings, rulership, rights of ownership, justice, and "who you
*must* obey, hadn't really changed all that much, just the person(s)
"demanding" them.
--
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();
}
<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:
> http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/1129
Who wants to try to make that background image into a POV macro? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:03:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Truth is, there isn't a "nice" liberal Christian alive that doesn't
>> fundamentally deny nearly 100% of the OT, and gloss over parts of the
>> NT.
>
> That's a bit of a straw-man as well, since an example could be provided,
> but when provided it would be easily refuted by "no, I said
> *liberal*". ;-)
>
> Jim
Hmm. First word I came up with. Sadly, its pretty much, in the
vernacular of the people that use it most often in this day and age,
synonomous with, "Mostly sane, unlike us 'real believers, who hate all
the communist, liberal, atheists." Atheist, in their vernacular,
meaning, "Anyone not like themselves." Sure, there are "nice" people,
who don't fall into that category. Sort of... The one I know is an
evangelical, married multiple times to "rich" men, always borrowing
money she never pays back (she even declared bankruptcy in the middle of
one such "loan" on my parents), and never seems to have any reason to
even 'talk to' her "friends", unless they are a) buying something from
her, like dance classes, or she needs money. But, otherwise, she is a
very nice, relatively open minded, mild, person. The rule seems to be,
it doesn't matter how nice they are, they either a) secretly hate
everything about your life choices, but won't say anything "to you", or
b) they are se
--
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();
}
<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 Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:37:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, I wouldn't say all people who believe in a God (NB difference
>> from "supernatural explanations") refuse to see things that don't
>> support that position. There are quite a few people in the scientific
>> community who believe in "god(s)" and who acknowledge that there is a
>> bit of a strange dichotomy there. They generally rationalize this by
>> saying that what they believe in is that there is more to the universe
>> than we know, and that there may well be something (or indeed someone)
>> there that (who) has a bigger view.
>>
> Its also a bit of a cop out.
Well, maybe, but what's wrong with that? Religion has always been used
to explain that which can't be explained. The ancient Romans used a
polytheistic system to explain various scientific phenomena that they
couldn't understand. There's a well-established historical precedent for
using it that way.
This isn't a binary option - ie it's not "either you believe the whole
bible is the truth as written or you believe the whole thing is
fiction". Mythologies don't evolve that way.
I'm not a believer, but I do see how it is that some people can believe,
and I can't begrudge them their beliefs if they work for them.
(BTW, you really need to break your writings up into paragraphs - your
post was incredibly difficult to read)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:01:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sure, there are "nice" people, who don't fall into that category. Sort
> of...
You really need to meet more people - if your sample is so small that you
believe that all believers aren't nice (etc.), then you don't have a
sufficiently large sample size to understand the POV of someone who does
believe.
I live in Utah. I have many friends who are true believers. They've
helped me move house, they understand that I don't believe what they do,
and they don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, maybe, but what's wrong with that?
Nothing, if you accept irrationality.
> Religion has always been used
> to explain that which can't be explained. The ancient Romans used a
> polytheistic system to explain various scientific phenomena that they
> couldn't understand.
Is this really true? Did romans *really* think Zeus threw lightning bolts,
or was it that Zeus was in their stories and he just got assigned the blame?
I mean, did they really think Apollo was towing the sun with his chariot, or
was it "we don't know why the sun moves, but babies come from storks" kind
of things? Nobody believes that the wolf would dress up like grandma, but
it's a good story because it keeps young kids from wandering into the woods
and getting eaten.
> This isn't a binary option - ie it's not "either you believe the whole
> bible is the truth as written or you believe the whole thing is
> fiction". Mythologies don't evolve that way.
I don't think the concern is with people who only believe some parts. I
think the concern is with people who only believe some parts, but then want
to force you to follow their interpretation of those parts because it's from
God.
> (BTW, you really need to break your writings up into paragraphs
Or even sentences. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I have many friends who are true believers. ...
> they don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
And often the true believers who don't try to convince you you're wrong are
as "invisible" to such things as a quiet atheist. If they never talk about
it, you never know if they're true believers, so they don't modify your "all
believers are loud" experiences.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:33:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, maybe, but what's wrong with that?
>
> Nothing, if you accept irrationality.
Exactly. There's no dictum that states that humans have to be 100%
rational 100% of the time. Some scientists (and quite well known
scientists, at that) believe there may be a higher power.
Some also, I understand, look at the universe and consider it possible
that there was a "supreme being" that set things in motion, but the
natural laws of the universe are such that once things are set in motion,
they're in motion. Kinda like playing "Mousetrap" and enforcing a rule
that once you hit the trigger to start the whole thing off, you can't
interfere with it until it's done.
Some also consider that there might have been a "creation" event, but
that evolution is the means by which life progresses.
I'm not saying I agree with any of these things, but there are ways to
interpret things that do not make these two ideas incompatible.
>> Religion has always been used
>> to explain that which can't be explained. The ancient Romans used a
>> polytheistic system to explain various scientific phenomena that they
>> couldn't understand.
>
> Is this really true? Did romans *really* think Zeus threw lightning
> bolts, or was it that Zeus was in their stories and he just got assigned
> the blame?
>
> I mean, did they really think Apollo was towing the sun with his
> chariot, or was it "we don't know why the sun moves, but babies come
> from storks" kind of things? Nobody believes that the wolf would dress
> up like grandma, but it's a good story because it keeps young kids from
> wandering into the woods and getting eaten.
Could be, but it seems to me that the idea of Apollo pulling the sun
across the sky in his chariot is an explanation that was used for quite a
long time - so there are likely some who took it seriously.
>> This isn't a binary option - ie it's not "either you believe the whole
>> bible is the truth as written or you believe the whole thing is
>> fiction". Mythologies don't evolve that way.
>
> I don't think the concern is with people who only believe some parts.
And yet it seems that many who don't believe in a deity point to
Christianity and the related religions and say "one thing in this is
ridiculous/provable to be incorrect, therefore the whole thing is" - and
then go on to ridicule those who believe any of it.
> I
> think the concern is with people who only believe some parts, but then
> want to force you to follow their interpretation of those parts because
> it's from God.
There are extremists on both sides of the fence in this one.
>> (BTW, you really need to break your writings up into paragraphs
>
> Or even sentences. :-)
True. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
