Saul Luizaga wrote:

Hmm. Ok, like I was saying to someone earlier today, most of the 
principles of Western civilization are Roman, not Biblical. Same more or 
less goes for Jesus. We have basically:

1. 3 Gospels, which actually contradict each other on a number of 
points, all of them written starting 50 years after the fact, then the 
others *after* that, and none of them, apparently, at the same time, or 
even by people we can verify ever met each other. Revelations is even 
written by someone that "admits" never meeting anyone else.

2. Strong parallels between some events in Titus Flavius' campaigns 
against the Jewish people, which happened... 50 years after Jesus. There 
is some implication that he intended to be declared the "second coming", 
but things didn't work out right. I find it plausible, given that 
members of his families close cousins declared themselves the first 
Christians, that they opted to use their new "invented" religion to hold 
onto some power, even though their line no longer held the empire.

3. The only secondary, and usually the "most important" source, for many 
believers, is... a short section at the start of the works of Josephus, 
which "chronicles" those wars against the Jewish people. Problem is.. 
they are almost certain, based on style, content, its disconnect from 
the rest of the contents, etc., that it was added, probably 100+ years 
*after* the NT itself was written.

Basically, the reality is, we don't even have as much evidence of Jesus 
actually existing as we have to Noah, and we are pretty sure Noah was 
borrowed from the much older story of Gilgamesh.

That said.. What you get is a conglomeration of ideas. Much like the 
constitution of the US isn't all 100% original ideas, but a combination 
of many bits of prior thinking. Everything Jesus said was, in one form 
or another, existent in other faiths, social systems, etc. But, 
fragmentary. The same group teaching you about the value of treating 
servants well would also tell you to kill foreigners. The same ones 
telling you to valid truth, would also tell you to value human 
sacrifices. The Greek and Roman gods where all over the map, but even 
their own followers, like Plato and Aristotle where looking at things 
and asking, "How much of this makes sense, and shouldn't be just keep 
the stuff that does, and get rid of what doesn't?"

So, then you have to ask, "Ok, so what did he teach, really?" Well... If 
a modern Christian believes he did, they are probably wrong. Not always, 
but often. He had *some* good ideas, mangled, like all others who have 
had them, by the nature of his time, and assumptions about how the world 
was "supposed" to work, like rule by kings, slavery as so common he used 
it in parable, without condemning it, etc. Even telling people that they 
can't be disciples, unless they hate everyone they know, including 
themselves. One may as well try, as some did, to follow the teachings of 
Karl Marx, as though nothing he said had flaws, or condemn it all, 
because it was naive and incomplete. Difference is, we don't presume 
that his ideas are a religion, or refuse to change them, the way 
religions pretty much demand people treat their ideas (while slowly 
changing anyway, just in a tooth and nail fight to try to prevent it).

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> And I don't know what the 
> Mormon stance on loving each other, but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch 
> of caveats in there too, given they dislike their gay members loving 
> their neighbors, for example.

If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then 
the Mormons preach it quite literally.

If you mean romantic or sexual, then it's quite restricted.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that

Sorry, I stopped reading right there.  I thought about making a comment 
about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far 
too tempted to go too far and offend someone...

I think I'd better stop now ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then 
> the Mormons preach it quite literally.

Well, I guess unless you're gay. Or black.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that
> 
> Sorry, I stopped reading right there.  I thought about making a comment 
> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far 
> too tempted to go too far and offend someone...
> 
> I think I'd better stop now ;)
> 
> ....Chambers

Hehe, that attitude... "I'm so good writing that I'm offensive, 
especially on unprepared people".

IMO people that offends when communicating has weak character and spirit 
plus, and finds shelter and shield on their intellectual vanity. I'm not 
interested in these kind of people or what they have to say, mainly 
because because that vanity won't let them be humble to learn or accept 
some flaws or different POVs or even part of them, these kind of people 
live in denial, defensive, self-centered and narrow minded worlds, so 
what's the point?

I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to 
find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be 
given the reason on everything they think they have.

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

You have said probably many truths here, but my point of view about the 
Bible I think is still valid and the same as I wrote in my previous 
post. A guide gets outdated and sometimes have some erroneous facts but 
have to cope with that and take the good and the truth and apply it to 
our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions, 
governments and society in general strives for, right? unless you deal 
in absolutes, which I think this is a serious character flaw, and just 
take the flaws of the Bible or any other text as a pretext to deny them 
entirely; and AFAIK trying to follow a "perfect" path in life is just 
utopia, I think at the contrary we have to make constant but gradual 
changes in our life doing our very best.

And I don't re member well but I think that the Bible/Jesus don't say we 
have to hate everyone including ourselves, but to deny ourselves meaning 
detach from intellectual, personal or any other kind of pride that will 
disable our capability of being ourselves: be in touch with our feeling, 
flaws, virtues, etc and won't allow us to be humble to learn, improve, 
find the better part of ourselves and greater good than what we think 
we're capable of. In short is a meditation not a literal advice.

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is 
>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each 
>> other the best way possible, you get me?
> 
> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
> 
> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly 
> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted you 
> to kill each other.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather 
> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't 
> actually show up in the old testament as well.
> 
> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed only 
> the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is overblown.
> 

Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you 
believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write: 
what ever you say...

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is 
>>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love 
>>> each other the best way possible, you get me?
>>
>> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
>>
>> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly 
>> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted 
>> you to kill each other.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather 
>> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't 
>> actually show up in the old testament as well.
>>
>> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed 
>> only the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is 
>> overblown.
>>
> 
> Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you 
> believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write: 
> what ever you say...

Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is 
based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any 
statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other 
is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is 
crap", because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly 
every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way 
possible" is flawed.

That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition 
(how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your 
posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga schrieb:

> I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to 
> find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be 
> given the reason on everything they think they have.

Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?


BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh... 
does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity 
solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted 
at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?

already explained in previous post.

> 
> BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh... 
> does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity 
> solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted 
> at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"

It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about 
Christianity so yeah that would be a good argument to change your 
believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think 
is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is 
> based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any 
> statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other 
> is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is 
> crap"

His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for 
example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this 
among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he 
will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude 
from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of 
time.

> , because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly 
> every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way 
> possible" is flawed.

No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. And even if the 
quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible 
way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.

> That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition 
> (how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your 
> posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).

since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga schrieb:

> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about 
> Christianity

Oh yeah? Does it? What makes you so sure?

 > so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think 
> is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.

Note that I may doubt the alleged truths in "The DaVinci Code", and at 
the same time also doubt the alleged truths in the bible.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it 
>> is based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make 
>> any statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each 
>> other is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any 
>> religion is crap"
> 
> His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for 
> example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this 
> among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he 
> will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude 
> from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of 
> time.
> 
See, if you want to be this quote-mining and cherry picking, then you 
are correct, every religion in existence suggests some concept of this, 
once you cut out the other 90% of it, which turns around and says the 
exact opposite. And I do include Christianity in that statement. Even 
Jesus, if you bother to read something close to the original, which 
almost no modern Bible contains, and certainly **not** the most popular 
one, manages to come up with some things that we find, today, to be 
absolutely stupid, and seem somewhat contradictory to what everyone 
insists is his theme. One of the really big ones is the argument over 
whether the, "Believe in him and serve him, and you will be saved.", is 
the true message, or its what some of the apocryphal texts, early 
writings from some of the church, etc. suggest, which is, "You are never 
going to get any place, unless you keep trying to be good, because 
simple belief isn't sufficient."

And again, the definition of "good" here includes a whole hosts of 
things some people presume he didn't condemn, or did, wouldn't have 
accepted, or did accept in his own parables, etc. The trick here being, 
all of this assumes he *is* a god. If he isn't, then you have a much 
bigger problem, because his own god was the Jewish one, and that god, 
what ever he may have said on the subject, has his own record, and its 
one of mass murder, schizophrenia, hate, prejudice, classism, etc. The 
closest I have ever seen anyone managing to resolve this is to state, 
"Its quite possible that the Old Testament god and the New Testament god 
are not the *same* god." Ok.. So, does that mean the "no god but me" 
rule applies at all anymore? And if it did, doesn't it mean a lot of 
people are pissing off one nasty, evil, sociopathic, lunatic, who gets 
real annoyed when people don't worship him? lol

So, Christianity, at least 90% NT versions of it, may be semi-unique in 
managing to talk about a lot of nice things. Big deal. Its still a 
bloody poor excuse for people to go around looking for inspiration from 
the NT, while *claiming* to also follow and believe in the OT. They are 
not Christians, which entail following all of it (and you would have to 
have a serious mental disorder or chemical imbalance to even attempt 
that), but Jesuits. Even that much of an admittance to the truth of the 
matter would both a) garner them more respect from non-believers, who 
could tell the fracking difference on sight between them and the 
lunatics then, and b) clearly indicate who the brain damaged are, who 
actually think they can "roll your own religion" from both parts of the 
Bible, to create, "It says I can hate the people that creep me out, but 
to love the ones I like, or just don't care much about. Its the perfect 
book!" This being what you actually get, when people try to take Jesus, 
who had some fair ideas, if borrowed from a few centuries worth of 
philosophers, and shoe horn on the raving idiocy of a war mongering 
loon, who might decide tomorrow that he didn't like cheese, and order 
his followers the kill all the cheese makers in the world. Be honest, 
the OT god **is** that crazy (or at least his priests have been, over 
the years of inventing excuses for who they wanted conquered or killed).

-- 
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

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You have said probably many truths here, but my point of view about the 
> Bible I think is still valid and the same as I wrote in my previous 
> post. A guide gets outdated and sometimes have some erroneous facts but 
> have to cope with that and take the good and the truth and apply it to 
> our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions, 
> governments and society in general strives for, right? unless you deal 
> in absolutes, which I think this is a serious character flaw, and just 
> take the flaws of the Bible or any other text as a pretext to deny them 
> entirely; and AFAIK trying to follow a "perfect" path in life is just 
> utopia, I think at the contrary we have to make constant but gradual 
> changes in our life doing our very best.
> 
So.. If a guide has errors, you print a new guide, without the errors in 
it. You don't do the equivalent, which is what religion does, of taking 
a map that showed Antarctica as an island in the middle of the ocean, 
between Africa and South America, complete with rivers and lakes, which 
someone made up, then reprint the *same* map, complete with location, 
size, and shape, errors, while just removing the lakes, and some of the 
rivers, sticking the word "ice" in the middle, then making some 
notations along the edge, "not to scale". You print a new frakking map. 
You don't, to use an actual guide (sort of) as an example, take a book 
published by people who get nearly *all* of it wrong, then keep 
reprinting new copies, with things like, "Oh, actually Hillery Clinton 
wasn't the anti-Christ, it was Michael Jackson, or wait, no, it was Bozo 
the Clown, or no, sorry, oops! It was Obama."

If a guide is *drastically* wrong, you sit all the bits that are 
irrelevant on a shelf under "mythology", and laugh at people that used 
to believe it, while printing your "guide" with *only* the stuff that 
actually is relevant to what people are being guided to.

Religion does the opposite. It cherishes the mythology so much that they 
just keep reprinting the same guide, over and over, sometimes changing a 
word, or two, and maybe tacking on a whole mess of foot notes to 
"explain" why the literal meaning of the words are not true, but they 
really mean something else, **sometimes** the exact bloody opposite.

Lets be clear here. If someone sold you a "guide" to the wonders of the 
world, and it said the pyramids of Egypt where in South America, the 
Eiffel Tower was in New York, and that Micheal Jordan's shoes where one 
of the great worders, and then someone came along and "fixed it", by 
adding footnotes that said, "Actually, the first one is in Egypt, but is 
actually toothbrushes, the second one is in England, and we made a 
mistake on the later one, we meant Jordan Williams.", you would throw 
the damn thing in the trash. The closest you get to "fixing" the Bible 
is the Jeffersonian one, which deleted most of the OT, and anything 
supernatural, and even then, you would still have to revise it to fix 
all the stuff that archeology says is wrong place, wrong time, etc.

As a guide, its not the sort of guide anyone would look for, when trying 
to find *accurate* information about *any* other subject. Rather, it 
would be sitting on the shelf, next to the TAPS, FATE and Phact 
magazines, and people would be looking in "referece" for the real guides.

> And I don't re member well but I think that the Bible/Jesus don't say we 
> have to hate everyone including ourselves, but to deny ourselves meaning 
> detach from intellectual, personal or any other kind of pride that will 
> disable our capability of being ourselves: be in touch with our feeling, 
> flaws, virtues, etc and won't allow us to be humble to learn, improve, 
> find the better part of ourselves and greater good than what we think 
> we're capable of. In short is a meditation not a literal advice.
> 
> Cheers.
This is modern day interpretation, and *not* what the words of the book 
actually *say*. And that is the problem really. You don't get to have it 
both ways, not and then turn around and even *attempt* to say someone 
got it wrong, since all they have to do is say, "Yes, but the literal 
wording says the exact opposite." If you are right, you need to fix the 
wording, but then you would just have one more "incorrect" translation, 
which doesn't reflect the original wording, and people could, 
reasonably, argue doesn't reflect the intent of the author. If you are 
wrong, well, then its a damn stupid thing to look to for "guidance", 
since it doesn't say what you insist it does in the first place. Either 
way, you can't shrug off 2,000 years of idiocy, if right about it, or 
keep it, while insisting that everyone else is a bloody fool for 
continuing to read it *as written*. In neither case does it rise to the 
level of being a useful guide to creating anything other than an 
infinite amount of bloody confusion.

-- 
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

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
>> Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?
> 
> already explained in previous post.
> 
>>
>> BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh... 
>> does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity 
>> solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted 
>> at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"
> 
> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about 
> Christianity so yeah that would be a good argument to change your 
> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think 
> is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
Isn't this a bit like saying that The Exorcist presents true facts about 
what took place in someone's house, at least in the sense that they all 
sat down and said to the professional paranormal con artist, "Heh, if we 
have her float over the bed, how much more money do you think we will 
make off selling this too you? I mean, we payed off the house with what 
you already offered us for the rather weak story we started with, but I 
want a bigger house!"

-- 
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

clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> 
>> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about Christianity
> 
> Oh yeah? Does it? What makes you so sure?
> 
>  > so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
>> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think 
>> is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
> 
> Note that I may doubt the alleged truths in "The DaVinci Code", and at 
> the same time also doubt the alleged truths in the bible.
Doubt.. I doubt the Bible because there isn't evidence of most of the NT 
happening at all, from any source but itself, and the old bits due to 
the fact that much of it is wrong, and what it did get right is a bit 
like taking Bugs Bunny cartoons as an accurate representation of the 
history of WWII. The Da Vinci Code, is simply reject, on the grounds 
that the few bits that are plausible are... well, not any more supported 
than the NT itself, which isn't saying a whole lot, and the rest of what 
its based off of is ***well documented*** as made up BS. I doubt it in 
roughly the same way I doubt the events in Starship Troopers. lol

-- 
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

Chambers wrote:
> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text,

My bad, I meant *fictional* text ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text,
> 
> My bad, I meant *fictional* text ;)
> 
> ....Chambers

Haha, sure dude, what ever you say...

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
>>
>>> It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about 
>>> Christianity
>>
>> Oh yeah? Does it? What makes you so sure?
>>
>>  > so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
>>> believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you 
>>> think is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
>>
>> Note that I may doubt the alleged truths in "The DaVinci Code", and at 
>> the same time also doubt the alleged truths in the bible.
> Doubt.. I doubt the Bible because there isn't evidence of most of the NT 
> happening at all, from any source but itself, and the old bits due to 
> the fact that much of it is wrong, and what it did get right is a bit 
> like taking Bugs Bunny cartoons as an accurate representation of the 
> history of WWII. The Da Vinci Code, is simply reject, on the grounds 
> that the few bits that are plausible are... well, not any more supported 
> than the NT itself, which isn't saying a whole lot, and the rest of what 
> its based off of is ***well documented*** as made up BS. I doubt it in 
> roughly the same way I doubt the events in Starship Troopers. lol

Hahaha, I hope you're joking because this is one of the most 
outrageously ignorant statement about it. Believe me, there is a lot 
much more to it than you state here.

Post a reply to this message

Man, you don't even understand what I mean by mentioning the movie, your 
appreciation is too shallow and deny complexity, plus is not well 
informed about the History about Jesus: what non-religious experts 
(Paleontologists, Historians, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, etc.) 
have discovered and documented about it.

I suggest you see: Banned from the Bible, History Channel documentary.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Man, you don't even understand what I mean by mentioning the movie, your 
> appreciation is too shallow and deny complexity, plus is not well 
> informed about the History about Jesus: what non-religious experts 
> (Paleontologists, Historians, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, etc.) 
> have discovered and documented about it.
> 
> I suggest you see: Banned from the Bible, History Channel documentary.
Sigh.. You are missing the point. First you have to prove the man even 
existed at all. The problem with all the people you list here is that 
not **one** of them can present history, (Uh.. just why would 
paleontologists be involve with this???), artifacts, or writings 
**earlier** than the known date of publication of the parts of the NT 
they are using as primary sources. This is a bit like claiming that you 
found evidence at a convention site, showing that people actually 
dressed up as Jedi last year, and therefor you concluded that George 
Lucas merely "recorded" events, instead of making them up. After all, 
too many people have, at this point, by such logic, written about, 
dressed up as, joined a fake religions based on, or otherwise treated as 
semi-real, Jedis, for them to have been made up in the 1970s...

It doesn't work that way. You first have to establish that **someone** 
actually new the guy existed "prior" to 50-100 years after the fact. You 
have to find actual records of the person, of his family, a 
**convincing** reason why anyone would believe he was born in a town 
that didn't **exist** when he is supposed to have been born and raised 
there, etc.

So what if "some" of the stuff in the movie was glommed off of people 
looking at things written 200, or 300 years after the fact? You first 
have to convince people that the stuff written only 50-100 years after 
describes a real person, and ***no one*** has done so, despite 2,000 
years of following the religion, and probably 50 years of the most 
intense study of records, artifacts, and records, all **dedicated** to 
proving that he actually existed in the first place.

This, for skeptics, and even for *many* Biblical scholars, is a 
**serious** problem, and makes the movie (and I laugh at the idea that 
you pick the movie as a better authority than the book it is based 
on..), basically a Biblical equivalent of, "The illustrated encyclopedia 
of more stuff people made up, to fit into the Harry Potter universe." In 
short, its interesting, but you have to prove the central point *before* 
you start getting excited about other stuff people made up even later 
on, to support the original story. It makes no more sense than if you 
tried to defend the validity of the gospel of Judas, by pointing out the 
existence of the KJV Bible (which doesn't, as none of them do, contain 
it). You can only prove that people that believed in the original story 
told other stories about the central character, until/unless you can 
prove the existence of the character *first*, and that requires more 
than, "So and so thought X was true about him, but we have no record 
linking that belief to *any* original document, from his own time."

-- 
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

An interesting aside to this discussion:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html

Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the 
literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its 
made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe 
anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is 
watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some 
things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other believers, 
or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any belief in it at all.

-- 
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

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it 
>> is based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make 
>> any statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each 
>> other is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any 
>> religion is crap"
> 
> His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for 
> example teaches the purity of God's love  and that we most promote this
> among us, 

Yet it also teaches war, killing, stoning, etc, not love. So, no, I don't 
believe that.

> exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude 
> from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of 
> time.

Certainly. That's precisely my point. The followers of a religion pick and 
choose the parts they want to hear. If you haven't read the *whole* Koran 
yourself, arguing about what it says is kind of silly, don't you think?

"Hey, Darren's wrong, because some people who may or may not have read the 
Koran themself tell me he's wrong."

What about the other dozen religions you just *ignored*, compared to which 
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are essentially identical?

> No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. 

My attitude is that I call BS on people who tell me what my god wants me to 
believe without ever having read my holy books, let alone don't believe 
them. I find it an amazing amount of hubris for you to speak for the basic 
premise of every religion in the entire world, don't you?

 > And even if the
> quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible 
> way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.

I'm not arguing the truth of the assertion for people. I'm disagreeing with 
your assertion that every religion wants you to love everyone.

Do you even know what the basic premise of the mayan religion is?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> take the good and the truth and apply it to 
> our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions, 
> governments and society in general strives for, right? 

This is again an overgeneralization. Clearly Mugabe isn't running a 
government which strives for good and truth. You could probably go through 
history and list dozens if not hundreds of governments that don't even 
strive for the welfare of their citizens let alone goodness and truth.

You overgeneralize too much, which is one of the fatal flaws of monotheism.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.

BTW, I don't think we missed the point of your post.

I have also noticed it's very *very* common for the faithful to think anyone 
who disagrees with any of their statements to be attacking, and anyone who 
disagrees with their faith just "doesn't understand" it. Right up there with 
"if only you asked sincerely enough, you'd be answered."

So, yeah, typical "debating" tactic: "You're wrong, because you don't 
understand what you meant, and you don't understand what *I* meant, and what 
I meant isn't what I said but that doesn't matter because you're wrong, and 
I know you're wrong because you disagree with me, because I know what *your* 
god wants *you* to do."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> An interesting aside to this discussion:
> 
>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html

> 
> 
> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the 
> literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its 
> made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe 
> anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is 
> watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some 
> things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other believers, 
> or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any belief in it at all.

You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if 
someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?

I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an 
independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and 
conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the US 
did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it 
influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature, 
because his religion teaches that man was independently created to rule 
the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there because 
God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in getting 
even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very relevant 
indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points there are other 
Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)

What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that 
believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer 
and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same time 
implying that he/she is not really a true human. They may not mean it 
that way and even vigorously deny it, but that is the effect of the remark.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> An interesting aside to this discussion:
>>
>>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html

>>
>>
>> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the 
>> literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its 
>> made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe 
>> anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is 
>> watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some 
>> things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other 
>> believers, or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any 
>> belief in it at all.
> 
> You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if 
> someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?
> 
Annoyed maybe, but for the same reason that you would get annoyed at an 
adult coming up to you and saying, "I believe in the tooth fairy, its 
just too bad my teeth don't fall out anymore, I need the money." We 
don't get all that upset about people believing it BS. If that was all 
they did, there are thousands of stupid things people believe that would 
upset us. What upsets us is that those people immediately think that 
declaring belief in it means that they can, in the next sentence, start 
talking bullshit about others, condemning things they don't understand, 
undermining science, undermining freedom of expression, undermining 
cultures they don't like, etc. They don't stop with just "believing", 
most of them, on some level, think that the next logical step is to 
start pissing people around them off by telling everyone how evil those 
people are for not attending the same church, or how evil someone else 
they never met is, because they don't abide by X random rule, which may 
not even exists, as stated, in their silly book.

> I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an 
> independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and 
> conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the US 
> did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it 
> influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature, 
> because his religion teaches that man was independently created to rule 
> the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there because 
> God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in getting 
> even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very relevant 
> indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points there are other 
> Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)
> 
Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right around 
and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their decision 
was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" led them to 
the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** that is an 
intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly compartmentalize 
things enough to still think about it, to humanists, to atheists, the 
outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many "believers" to 
believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking and how they 
reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not just claim they 
reached the result "without" something, but the turn right around and 
declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right 
after frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe 
in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...

> What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that 
> believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer 
> and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same time 
> implying that he/she is not really a true human.
WTF? Project much? I have never heard on single person on my side of 
this matter ***ever*** make such a statement. Oddly enough, we do get 
accused of a shit load of things that we never actually do, while the 
other side has been caught actually saying them on national TV. Oh, no.. 
Believers are all too human, which is why rejection of any process or 
means to assess their own belief system is so frustrating to some 
people. If you can't verify your own conclusions, you can and will fall 
for any stupid idiocy that comes along, which seems to confirm what you 
refused to examine. And sometimes, as I stated above, this can lead to 
some truly insane cases where someone, for example, gets a degree in 
some science, has a mediocre and nearly 100% unproductive carrier, only 
to turn around and blame it, not one their own failure to examine their 
own premises, but a refusal of all the other people in the field to 
accept them. After all, their unexamined ideas where right, while the 
rest of the entire field where being "dogmatic".

One of the absolute key things that some of us find corrosive and 
dangerous about religions is that, with the exception of some modern 
believers, who have also given up *most* of the ritual and silly BS, is 
the idea, pervasive in 99% of all of them, with few exceptions, that: 
"If the world contradicts religion, you are not understanding the world 
properly, therefor the fault lies in your understanding of the world, 
and scripture, not in a failure of the scripture to describe it." The 
same principle can be, as I said, found in nearly ***all*** religions. 
Its pure idiocy. Even some of the Christian thinkers, like Aquinas 
almost managed to get this, and recognize that something was horribly 
wrong about the view. Yet, they failed to realize how wrong, and 
persisted in rejecting things that, even in their own time, where 
obvious bloody fact, because.. it didn't reflect their belief, and they 
where willing to examine anything, and everything, in the world 
***except*** those beliefs. It has nothing at all to do with how human 
someone is.

We recognize that we cannot, on our own, reach a sane conclusion about 
the world, because ***humans*** are seriously flawed, and that, more to 
the point, a group is often "worse", because groups, generally, have 
rules that say, "don't upset the group". Actually questioning the 
central premise of "anything" they believe is a near certain way to a) 
not be in the group any more, b) lose a lot of friends, and c) become 
hated and despised. When it happens, most people find it easier to 
fracture the church, which is why you have 10,000+ versions, rather than 
examine "all" of it, and conclude that none of it is worth it. That is 
why you will find tens of thousands of people in the US calling 
themselves "agnostic", or "no religion", or admitting, "I am not sure I 
believe in god", and yet, ***they all still attend churches***.

But, heh.. Keep insulting people with accusations of accusations they 
never would make themselves. We are frakking used to it at this point.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> take the good and the truth and apply it to our life for constructive 
>> benefice which is basically what religions, governments and society in 
>> general strives for, right? 
> 
> This is again an overgeneralization. Clearly Mugabe isn't running a 
> government which strives for good and truth. You could probably go 
> through history and list dozens if not hundreds of governments that 
> don't even strive for the welfare of their citizens let alone goodness 
> and truth.
> 
> You overgeneralize too much, which is one of the fatal flaws of monotheism.
> 
It also depends on your definitions of "goodness" and "truth". Many 
consider "goodness" to mean, "Upholding the natural order of their gods 
world.", and "truth" to be, "The truth of what this order is." The 
leader of the wackos that Bush & Co. sent to Iraq to "help" us, 
Blackwater, literally believes that this "truth" is that some people 
really do have a divine right to rule, that poor people are poor because 
god made them that way, and that the natural order of things, and thus 
the greatest "goodness" is to kill anyone that won't convert to 
Christianity, then create a Utopia which follows the above pattern. A 
significant number of the right wing, who are apposed to health care 
reform, have stated similar beliefs, if not quite so empirial in nature. 
They quite literally think that, if you can't afford health care, its 
because god wants you sick and dying. As quite a few people have stated, 
the only difference between radical Christianity and radical Islam is 
one less prophet, and the Christians being too chicken shit to blow 
themselves up for the cause.

Kind of one of the problems with the term "good". Believers think it 
comes from god, and so, what ever they think god thinks is good, must 
be, whether that is helping other people, at their own expense, or 
making themselves rich, at everyone else's expense. "Truth" is an even 
bigger mess, since, for most believers, what ever "truth(s)" their 
religion teaches automatically trumps ***everything*** else, including 
facts. Like the wacko a while back that decided the most effective 
solution to his cities drought problem was to "pray" for rain that a) 
hasn't fallen outside of expected amounts, and b) was past do to fall 
anyway, but insists, along with a lot of other fools there, that his 
prayers where answered. Almost reminds me of a scene near the end of the 
movie "Year One"... Ooh! It rained for 30 seconds, I must be the chosen one!

-- 
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 25-10-2009 19:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> An interesting aside to this discussion:
>>>
>>>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html

>>>
>>>
>>> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not 
>>> the literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, 
>>> "its made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really 
>>> believe anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while 
>>> anyone is watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought 
>>> about some things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to 
>>> other believers, or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up 
>>> any belief in it at all.
>>
>> You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if 
>> someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?
>>
> Annoyed maybe, but for the same reason that you would get annoyed at an 
> adult coming up to you and saying, "I believe in the tooth fairy, its 
> just too bad my teeth don't fall out anymore, I need the money." We 
> don't get all that upset about people believing it BS. If that was all 
> they did, there are thousands of stupid things people believe that would 
> upset us. What upsets us is that those people immediately think that 
> declaring belief in it means that they can, in the next sentence, start 
> talking bullshit about others, condemning things they don't understand, 
> undermining science, undermining freedom of expression, undermining 
> cultures they don't like, etc. They don't stop with just "believing", 
> most of them, on some level, think that the next logical step is to 
> start pissing people around them off by telling everyone how evil those 
> people are for not attending the same church, or how evil someone else 
> they never met is, because they don't abide by X random rule, which may 
> not even exists, as stated, in their silly book.

That was covered by the next two sentences, yes.

>> I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an 
>> independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and 
>> conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the 
>> US did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it 
>> influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature, 
>> because his religion teaches that man was independently created to 
>> rule the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there 
>> because God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in 
>> getting even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very 
>> relevant indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points 
>> there are other Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)
>>
> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right around 
> and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their decision 
> was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" led them to 
> the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** that is an 
> intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly compartmentalize 
> things enough to still think about it, to humanists, to atheists, the 
> outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many "believers" to 
> believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking and how they 
> reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not just claim they 
> reached the result "without" something, but the turn right around and 
> declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right 
> after frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe 
> in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...

Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.

>> What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that 
>> believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer 
>> and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same 
>> time implying that he/she is not really a true human.
> WTF? Project much? I have never heard on single person on my side of 
> this matter ***ever*** make such a statement. 

You never noticed it, that is not the same. And if I had reversed the 
roles that would not have changed the meaning, though you would probably 
not have reacted this way. I though it would be instructive to view the 
matter from the other side, and it was ;)

[snipped a lot more open doors]

> But, heh.. Keep insulting people with accusations of accusations they 
> never would make themselves. We are frakking used to it at this point.

Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you missed.

BTW as you might remember I am an atheist living in Europe. Saul isn't 
living in the US either. What you express is, I think, mostly anger with 
the situation in the US. In an international newsgroup always remember 
that some things are rather peculiar to the US.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It also depends on your definitions of "goodness" and "truth". Many 
> consider "goodness" to mean, "Upholding the natural order of their gods 
> world.", and "truth" to be, "The truth of what this order is."

Yes, that too. Islam preaches goodness *and* murder if you leave Islam, 
because that's the goodness of truth!  But you know, it's a book about goodness.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

I suggest you read more History and look for what is accepted as History 
and Jesus is, not the Biblical one but the actual carpenter who married 
Mary Magdalene, yeah, Jesus never existed is just so convenient, finally 
is just the same you as any another Materialist only find safety in 
material stuff, any doubt will give you the perfect excuse to deny it.

Man, is up to you, spiritual things because of you POV will never be as 
a sign of anything, to start understanding you need to broader it and 
focus it in the direction of: maybe there is something spiritual that is 
not clear but it has it's own world of existence that intersects with 
ours in a blurred way for some reason, because this is apparently the 
truth about it.

Also, looks like you have seen documentaries that support your material 
POV, not the ones that look truly to clear as much as possible spiritual 
mysteries.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it 
>>> is based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make 
>>> any statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each 
>>> other is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any 
>>> religion is crap"
>>
>> His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for 
>> example teaches the purity of God's love  and that we most promote this
>> among us, 
> 
> Yet it also teaches war, killing, stoning, etc, not love. So, no, I 
> don't believe that.
> 
>> exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude from the 
>> many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of time.
> 
> Certainly. That's precisely my point. The followers of a religion pick 
> and choose the parts they want to hear. If you haven't read the *whole* 
> Koran yourself, arguing about what it says is kind of silly, don't you 
> think?
> 
> "Hey, Darren's wrong, because some people who may or may not have read 
> the Koran themself tell me he's wrong."
> 
> What about the other dozen religions you just *ignored*, compared to 
> which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are essentially identical?
> 
>> No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. 
> 
> My attitude is that I call BS on people who tell me what my god wants me 
> to believe without ever having read my holy books, let alone don't 
> believe them. I find it an amazing amount of hubris for you to speak for 
> the basic premise of every religion in the entire world, don't you?
> 
>  > And even if the
>> quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible 
>> way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.
> 
> I'm not arguing the truth of the assertion for people. I'm disagreeing 
> with your assertion that every religion wants you to love everyone.
> 
> Do you even know what the basic premise of the mayan religion is?

Really, you think Maya religion is something people do now? maybe some 
Mexicans,  but anyway yes I honestly believe Love is the answer and if 
it's not what every religion says it should; for what I have understand 
every religion teaches how to love better according to the philosophy of 
a certain deity, love takes many shapes but is love in the end. And I 
didn't ignored the other religions, you just thought I did.

You have say many wrong assuptions here but you don't care about it and 
you wrote that I BS, right, dude, I'm sure you don't have a clue what 
Islam is about, just because some Islam members attacked you Country, 
there are extremist in every religion, that do stupid things in the name 
of their God, that don't make those religions useless, just wrongly 
followed, I have even chat in a Dalnet #Islam IRC channel, so you and 
your closed minded certainties are your own.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong 
>> assumption.
> 
> BTW, I don't think we missed the point of your post.
> 
> I have also noticed it's very *very* common for the faithful to think 
> anyone who disagrees with any of their statements to be attacking, and 
> anyone who disagrees with their faith just "doesn't understand" it. 
> Right up there with "if only you asked sincerely enough, you'd be 
> answered."
> 
> So, yeah, typical "debating" tactic: "You're wrong, because you don't 
> understand what you meant, and you don't understand what *I* meant, and 
> what I meant isn't what I said but that doesn't matter because you're 
> wrong, and I know you're wrong because you disagree with me, because I 
> know what *your* god wants *you* to do."

Everyone is saying the same but you think the problem is everyone, and 
don't even care to reflect on it, yeah, that must be it...

Very mature...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> So, yeah, typical "debating" tactic: "You're wrong, because you don't 
> understand what you meant, and you don't understand what *I* meant, and 
> what I meant isn't what I said but that doesn't matter because you're 
> wrong, and I know you're wrong because you disagree with me, because I 
> know what *your* god wants *you* to do."

         ^
         |
This ---|   was never my tactic, but you just assumed it was, again, 
what ever you say man...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> take the good and the truth and apply it to our life for constructive 
>> benefice which is basically what religions, governments and society in 
>> general strives for, right? 
> 
> This is again an overgeneralization. Clearly Mugabe isn't running a 
> government which strives for good and truth. You could probably go 
> through history and list dozens if not hundreds of governments that 
> don't even strive for the welfare of their citizens let alone goodness 
> and truth.
> 
> You overgeneralize too much, which is one of the fatal flaws of monotheism.

I don't think I'm writing 'in general' not 'every single person & 
entity', OF COURSE there are people that do the wrong thing and 
misuses/betrays what ever was trusted to them, but the general 
philosophy of organizing ourselves in governments and institutions, and 
in turn in our homes and our lives is all for good, all for love to 
ourselves, all based on the truth (at least originally), tendency to 
good in general, at least there are people that try to be as good as 
they can.

I just knew you were going to go... but, there are people that don't 
comply with this so therefore you're completely wrong, etc. you just me 
to be always wrong since I'm a God believer... and you have "the POV" on 
everything... hehehe, you're so biased about denying everything 
religious, that you don't see what everyone on a religion is saying to 
you, OPEN YOUR EYES, there are a spiritual world out there maybe all 
religious are wrong but they're based on sort of spiritual base that you 
comfortably try to deny, but OK, I leave you alone.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It also depends on your definitions of "goodness" and "truth". Many 
>> consider "goodness" to mean, "Upholding the natural order of their 
>> gods world.", and "truth" to be, "The truth of what this order is."
> 
> Yes, that too. Islam preaches goodness *and* murder if you leave Islam, 
> because that's the goodness of truth!  But you know, it's a book about 
> goodness.

You being an expert on the Koran, right?

Post a reply to this message

On 25-10-2009 22:57, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> It also depends on your definitions of "goodness" and "truth". Many 
>>> consider "goodness" to mean, "Upholding the natural order of their 
>>> gods world.", and "truth" to be, "The truth of what this order is."
>>
>> Yes, that too. Islam preaches goodness *and* murder if you leave 
>> Islam, because that's the goodness of truth!  But you know, it's a 
>> book about goodness.
> 
> You being an expert on the Koran, right?

Just a word of warning: Darren *has* read a lot about religion, both 
holy books and secondary literature, so don't try to out-sarcasm him 
without having done your share of reading.

I think this discussion might have been more fruitful if you all tried 
to learn from one another in stead of trying to be nasty and sticking to 
your point. But that may be just me.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-10-2009 22:14, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I suggest you read more History and look for what is accepted as History 
> and Jesus is, not the Biblical one but the actual carpenter who married 
> Mary Magdalene, yeah, Jesus never existed is just so convenient, finally 
> is just the same you as any another Materialist only find safety in 
> material stuff, any doubt will give you the perfect excuse to deny it.
> 
> Man, is up to you, spiritual things because of you POV will never be as 
> a sign of anything, to start understanding you need to broader it and 
> focus it in the direction of: maybe there is something spiritual that is 
> not clear but it has it's own world of existence that intersects with 
> ours in a blurred way for some reason, because this is apparently the 
> truth about it.
> 
> Also, looks like you have seen documentaries that support your material 
> POV, not the ones that look truly to clear as much as possible spiritual 
> mysteries.

POV is not the best abbreviation to use in this forum, especially if you 
pair it with 'material'. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You being an expert on the Koran, right?

Have *you* read it?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I don't think I'm writing 'in general' not 'every single person & 
> entity', OF COURSE there are people that do the wrong thing and 
> misuses/betrays what ever was trusted to them, but the general 
> philosophy of organizing ourselves in governments and institutions, and 
> in turn in our homes and our lives is all for good, all for love to 
> ourselves, all based on the truth (at least originally), tendency to 
> good in general, at least there are people that try to be as good as 
> they can.

Sure. But when you talk about "every government" you're still 
overgeneralizing. You're taking how you want the world to be, saying "this 
is how it is, any any variance is unimportant."  I, on the other hand, find 
the variance from what we want to be the important part to concentrate upon, 
as that's the only way to improve the world.

> I just knew you were going to go... but, there are people that don't 
> comply with this so therefore you're completely wrong, etc. you just me 
> to be always wrong since I'm a God believer...

Not at all. You can be entirely wrong about religion without believing in 
any of them either. Indeed, when atheists say "every religion" and then go 
on to refer to "God, the creator of the universe", I correct them also. It's 
far from every relgion where there was one god that created the universe.

> you're so biased about denying everything religious, 

I do not deny everything religious. In this particular conversation, I'm 
simply denying that there is one blanket commandment from God that applies 
to every religion regardless of how many Gods they have or don't have.

> that you don't see what everyone on a religion is saying to 
> you, OPEN YOUR EYES, there are a spiritual world out there maybe all 
> religious are wrong but they're based on sort of spiritual base that you 
> comfortably try to deny, but OK, I leave you alone.

What makes you think I'm not "spiritual"? What makes you think I'm not 
hearing, understanding, and even agreeing with you about how people should 
behave? What makes you think I don't love my neighbor? Simply because I deny 
that you should be able to impose that on others, or that there's some giant 
cosmological intelligence that wants it that way?

The very fact that you don't think someone can be loving and spiritual 
without God is exactly the fact I'm saying you have wrong when you claim 
every religion is based on God's love, including the host of religions where 
there isn't even a god.

Really, I don't think you have any idea what I believe or don't. You've said 
what you believe, but I've never told you any details of what I believe.

I don't disagree with you in terms of being nice to others etc. I am just 
disagreeing that when you say "every government" it really means what you 
say, and I am disagreeing that when you say "every religion's God wants you 
to love people", that's just plain factually incorrect regardless of how you 
try to spin it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Really, you think Maya religion is something people do now? 

I'm saying you're talking BS when you say every religion wants love from 
God. Most religions don't have one God. Most religions have nasty or 
uncaring gods. The only religions that have one God and that God is loving 
are Christianity (some versions) and Islam (some versions). And perhaps 
Judaism.

> Really, you think Maya religion is something people do now? 

Yes. Your ignorance is staggering. The Mayan culture and religion has lasted 
somewhat longer than Christianity. Why would you think it would disappear 
any faster?

Maybe you should do some research before claiming you know the desires of 
deities that you don't even think are worshiped any more.

> but anyway yes I honestly believe Love is the answer and if 
> it's not what every religion says it should; for what I have understand 
> every religion teaches how to love better according to the philosophy of 
> a certain deity, 

No. No no no. *Every* religion doesn't even *have* a deity. There's really 
only *one* religion that has only one deity, with three divisions depending 
on how many prophets that came later you think there are.

> And I didn't ignored the other religions, you just thought I did.

You ignored the Norse religions, Wicca (which has many modern practitioners 
and doesn't believe in the love of a deity), the Fred Phelps version of 
Christianity, etc.

You're basically saying "My religion says God loves me and I should love 
others, and that's a good thing, so obviously every religion must agree with 
mine."  *That* is what I'm disputing.  You are categorically, undeniably 
incorrect in this assertion. It's not even a matter of interpretation, given 
that most religions either have no deity or lots of competing deities, so it 
doesn't even make sense to use the word "God" in that religion.

> You have say many wrong assuptions here but you don't care about it and 
> you wrote that I BS, right, dude, I'm sure you don't have a clue what 
> Islam is about, just because some Islam members attacked you Country, 

You are so funny. Now that I mentioned Islam, you think I'm reading evil 
into every muslim? No. You don't know about Islam, having never read the 
book. However, *you* and not I are the one making assertions about Islam.

> there are extremist in every religion, that do stupid things in the name 
> of their God, that don't make those religions useless, just wrongly 
> followed, 

So, you know much better than the people dying for their religion what it is 
their religion says? Right, OK.

> your closed minded certainties are your own.

OK, what about Wicca? What about the Norse religions? What about Satanism? 
Do you have any idea what those religions even teach?

I'm not close minded just because I point out your close-mindedness. If you 
make blanket assertions about religion, including assertions that are 
trivial to disprove (like "Every religion's God does X" when there are quite 
popular religions that don't have gods at all), you're wrong in that statement.

It doesn't mean you're wrong about everything. You're just wrong about 
overgeneralizing how you *think* people should behave into "this is what 
every person's religion commands them to do."  It's that sort of 
close-mindedness and overgeneralization that *causes* the problems that 
religion causes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I suggest you read more History and look for what is accepted as History 
> and Jesus is, not the Biblical one but the actual carpenter who married 
> Mary Magdalene, yeah, Jesus never existed is just so convenient, finally 
> is just the same you as any another Materialist only find safety in 
> material stuff, any doubt will give you the perfect excuse to deny it.
> 
> Man, is up to you, spiritual things because of you POV will never be as 
> a sign of anything, to start understanding you need to broader it and 
> focus it in the direction of: maybe there is something spiritual that is 
> not clear but it has it's own world of existence that intersects with 
> ours in a blurred way for some reason, because this is apparently the 
> truth about it.
> 
> Also, looks like you have seen documentaries that support your material 
> POV, not the ones that look truly to clear as much as possible spiritual 
> mysteries.
Sigh.. And I suggest you stop reading stuff published by total hacks and 
liars, which ****none of the scholars and historians agree with***. 
Nearly everything in the book was made up. This has been proven by 
"real" historians. The only people disputing that are people who all 
wrote books since the movie came out, and based it on made up BS. Its 
not more factually correct than the claims made, almost daily, by some 
people, about all the fake documents and statements they "claim" 
actually exist, from the founders. Its well documented as to who, when, 
and how all of it was made up, and **none** of it comes from a time 
period even **close** to when Jesus was supposed to exist. Some of it 
may be few centuries old, but no where near 2,000+, and is no more 
believable, as historical evidence of anything other than its use to 
promote some political positions by a few royal lines, than the legends 
of Dracula represent an accurate version of the history of Vlad the 
Impaler. History doesn't work like that. If you want evidence that X 
person married Y person, you find evidence from ***when they lived***, 
not some obscure reference, which was politically convenient for 
someone, 1,000 years later. At best, it might be true, if you can 
provide proof the people existed at all, which you can't. At worst, it 
may be, as is nearly everything ever done by royals in the last 2,000 
years, playing on the story, but not based on a damn thing that is 
actually true.

You have to have a plausible grounds to consider it fact, not made up, 
and that still goes to, "Where is the proof from his own time?" There 
isn't any.

Oh, and worse than all of that. What fragments do exist are not 
connected to each other in any plausible way, by any line of evidence, 
to suggest they at all support each other, **unless** you take the book 
as a valid explanation. In other words, you might as well be arguing for 
the existence of an historical King Arthur, based on the same sort of 
evidence - Commonality of some places in the story, a few references to 
people with similar names, and some stuff placed here and that, 
centuries later, by people trying to promote the legend, none of them 
rising to the level of "historically provable fact".

-- 
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

andrel wrote:
>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their 
>> decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" 
>> led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** 
>> that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly 
>> compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to humanists, 
>> to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many 
>> "believers" to believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking 
>> and how they reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not 
>> just claim they reached the result "without" something, but the turn 
>> right around and declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one 
>> should need X", right after frakking using X to reach their original 
>> conclusions. You honestly think that what we get annoyed at is mere 
>> "statement" that they believe in something? Man do you have a 
>> distorted view of the issue...
> 
> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
> 
Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked me 
out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe in 
modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended I take 
for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, where 
someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something out, then 
turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, and rejecting 
the very thing they just used to get there. ID is another good example. 
Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** reached by performing the 
science, yet a demand and insistence that they need science to prove 
their own interpretations right, which the laughable result that nothing 
they present ever resembles either real science, valid conclusions, or 
even and understanding of how science works at all.

-- 
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 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because 
>>> "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent inability, 
>>> of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or recognize, their 
>>> own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, and all too often, 
>>> actually not just claim they reached the result "without" something, 
>>> but the turn right around and declare, "And since I never need, or 
>>> use X, no one should need X", right after frakking using X to reach 
>>> their original conclusions. You honestly think that what we get 
>>> annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe in something? Man do 
>>> you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>
>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>
> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked me 
> out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe in 
> modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended I take 
> for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, where 
> someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something out, then 
> turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, and rejecting 
> the very thing they just used to get there. ID is another good example. 
> Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** reached by performing the 
> science, yet a demand and insistence that they need science to prove 
> their own interpretations right, which the laughable result that nothing 
> they present ever resembles either real science, valid conclusions, or 
> even and understanding of how science works at all.

yes?....and?...

sorry, what was the context and what is your point?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, 
>>>> because "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent 
>>>> inability, of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or 
>>>> recognize, their own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, and 
>>>> all too often, actually not just claim they reached the result 
>>>> "without" something, but the turn right around and declare, "And 
>>>> since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right after 
>>>> frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
>>>> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they 
>>>> believe in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>>
>>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>>
>> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked 
>> me out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe 
>> in modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended I 
>> take for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, 
>> where someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something 
>> out, then turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, and 
>> rejecting the very thing they just used to get there. ID is another 
>> good example. Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** reached by 
>> performing the science, yet a demand and insistence that they need 
>> science to prove their own interpretations right, which the laughable 
>> result that nothing they present ever resembles either real science, 
>> valid conclusions, or even and understanding of how science works at all.
> 
> yes?....and?...
> 
> sorry, what was the context and what is your point?
> 
> 
Hmm. Would it help you to know that an entire political party in the US, 
and one news station seems to now function in this kind of fantasy land 
of ignorance and blind stupidity? Oh, and that in the state that buys 
the *largest* number of text books in the country, and thus tends to 
drive what everyone else has to select from, has been systematically 
replacing everything they can with precisely these sorts of people since 
well before George Bush represented them, never mind before they got him 
elected to be commander in chimp. We are, at the moment, watching the 
rather disturbing trend that, on one hand, they might actually "keep" 
their power base, and make things even worse, while at the same time 
watching a civil war break out in their own party, over whether or not 
certain members are crazy, stupid, ignorant, or religious, enough to 
deserve to *be* members of the party. Its like watching a train wreck, 
form the uneasy position of someone tied to the train track.

Understandably, in such a context, what seems like "minor" wackiness, 
which only effects a few morons that believe it, to you, is a tad more 
serious to *everyone* viewing it from the same room, as it where.

-- 
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 28-10-2009 9:49, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, 
>>>>> because "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent 
>>>>> inability, of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or 
>>>>> recognize, their own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, 
>>>>> and all too often, actually not just claim they reached the result 
>>>>> "without" something, but the turn right around and declare, "And 
>>>>> since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right after 
>>>>> frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
>>>>> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they 
>>>>> believe in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>>>
>>>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>>>
>>> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked 
>>> me out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe 
>>> in modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended 
>>> I take for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, 
>>> where someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something 
>>> out, then turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, 
>>> and rejecting the very thing they just used to get there. ID is 
>>> another good example. Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** 
>>> reached by performing the science, yet a demand and insistence that 
>>> they need science to prove their own interpretations right, which the 
>>> laughable result that nothing they present ever resembles either real 
>>> science, valid conclusions, or even and understanding of how science 
>>> works at all.
>>
>> yes?....and?...
>>
>> sorry, what was the context and what is your point?
>>
>>
> Hmm. Would it help you to know that an entire political party in the US, 
> and one news station seems to now function in this kind of fantasy land 
> of ignorance and blind stupidity? Oh, and that in the state that buys 
> the *largest* number of text books in the country, and thus tends to 
> drive what everyone else has to select from, has been systematically 
> replacing everything they can with precisely these sorts of people since 
> well before George Bush represented them, never mind before they got him 
> elected to be commander in chimp. We are, at the moment, watching the 
> rather disturbing trend that, on one hand, they might actually "keep" 
> their power base, and make things even worse, while at the same time 
> watching a civil war break out in their own party, over whether or not 
> certain members are crazy, stupid, ignorant, or religious, enough to 
> deserve to *be* members of the party. Its like watching a train wreck, 
> form the uneasy position of someone tied to the train track.
> 
> Understandably, in such a context, what seems like "minor" wackiness, 
> which only effects a few morons that believe it, to you, is a tad more 
> serious to *everyone* viewing it from the same room, as it where.

There are some things that I wouldn't say that way, but the big picture 
is something I am very familiar with. I still fail to see why you are 
telling me, pretending I don't know. As far as I can see there was and 
is no reason for that.
Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
anywhere.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> There are some things that I wouldn't say that way, but the big picture 
> is something I am very familiar with. I still fail to see why you are 
> telling me, pretending I don't know. As far as I can see there was and 
> is no reason for that.
> Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
> discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
> anywhere.
> 
Well, the point of the discussion was the whole 2012 thing, and some 
people's issues with the stupidity of the belief in it. The point some 
of us are trying to make is, well, I suppose there are two points:

1. Its probably profitable, but maybe not wise to keep/make the country 
stupid, by promoting the most absurd and mind numbingly idiotic ideas 
all the time, while, apparently, failing to really grasp how many fools 
will believe it is real, even after the date comes and goes, and nothing 
happens. Most of the modern world seems to have advanced from the days 
when Orson Wells scared people with a sci-fi radio broadcast. The US... 
not so much, and that is a problem.

2. Part of the problem, imho, of promoting the idea that some of these 
things are real, and I do think that running a web site talking about 
the lottery to get seats on the boat *is* getting too close to doing 
that, is that it feeds into a serious problem we already get. Its one 
things to generate an seeming real world, which people interact with, 
for something like the AI movie, which everyone "knew" was made up, a 
bit more of a problem when its something that their might be 10,000 
wackos some place that think it "is" real, and maybe a million people 
that are sort of thinking, "Ah, well, maybe all the rapture people are 
nuts, but I know, from my Bible, the world will end, and if the Mayan's 
said so, why not?" The problem is, too many people want to be fed 
"facts", but don't want to learn how to think with them.

There was an example of this, from a class on religions, where a student 
is trying to sue over, "Being presented with something he didn't study 
on the final!" This is shear BS, since a) he did study the religion in 
question, b) he was given the full quote he was supposed to analyze, and 
c) the expectation was not that he just *memorize* shit and regurgitate 
the information, but actually understand it well enough to say, "Based 
on that set of quoted lines, X, Y and Z would be the interpretation a 
believer in that religion would apply to it." Its telling that, as a 
comment in the thread discussion this silly situation, someone 
mentioned, "Every year, before I start teaching the *very specific* 
field of science, I have to tell my students, "If you just want the 
facts, go home and read books. You are here to learn how to think too.", 
and yet, a percentage of their students **still** fail, because they 
can't grasp the basic idea that they are supposed to be able to *derive* 
conclusions from the facts, not just barf the original details up, on 
command, like some sort of damn game show. There is an entire segment of 
the population that actually seems to think that this is what 
constitutes "learning", and "thinking". Its the same one that will 
imagine that movies like 2012 are "predictive" of what will happen, not 
just entertainment, and have, quite likely, been showing up in the 
thousands to sign up for the "lotto" to get their place on the super 
ships that will "save them all".

The problem isn't that people make such movies, its that they are more 
interested in making money off of the idiots that believe all of it, and 
those that merely get entertained by them, than they are at making more 
than vaguely superficial attempts to point out that its *not* factual. 
In fact, Disney, and their "Atlantis" special, and other similar 
stupidities, which have appeared over the last 10+ years, show the exact 
opposite trend. Don't just ignore the fact that some people think its 
real, count on the fact, and create an entire damn marketing campaign, 
based on promoting it ****as**** 100% real. You can see what happens 
when an entire political party falls for its own constant distortion of 
fact, with the mess we have in the Republicans. They can spin fictions, 
and as is being unsuccessfully argued right now on PZ's blog, their own 
news agencies can even get caught promoting, funding, or even creating, 
the news they want to report on, and the end result is:

a) They start basing policy not on the facts, but the BS they have been 
promoting.

b) When they find their BS conflicting with what the rest of the world 
is doing, they can't do anything at all, except whine about how the rest 
of the world is wrong, and work to undermine the opposition (even to 
their own blindly sad detriment).

The problem isn't a when a few hundred morons follow some wacko, like 
Lazar, the UFO conspiracy theorist. The worst you might expect from them 
is a lot of shouting at a space convention. But, what would thousands of 
believers in the end of the world do, if something happened that looked 
"even vaguely" like rapture, and they all thought they where "left 
behind", like in their damn worthless computer game and books? There is 
more than one kind of crazy, and some of them have the potential to be 
very dangerous, with the right push, further into the delusion. And that 
is without even bothering to deal with the result of (b) above, which is 
1) why so many manage to survive in the US, compared to other places, 
and 2) continues to undermine efforts, along with the promotion as 
semi-/total true- fact, of made up BS, for movies, TV shows, Discovery 
special, Ad promotion campaigns, and even political campaigns.

The tide isn't going to change, until the water stop receding, and only 
someone totally clueless fails to grasp what it means when the water 
**keeps** receding, instead of sloshing up and down the beach. Something 
bad is almost certainly following, and the best you can hope for is that 
the disappearance of the water is the result of a large "sink hole", not 
an approaching tsunami.

-- 
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

Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
anywhere.

Post a reply to this message

Amazing how far one can go just to counter a blockbuster flick made to 
capitalize on a recent urban legend... religion, philosophy, 
psychosocial analysis...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Amazing how far one can go just to counter a blockbuster flick made to 
> capitalize on a recent urban legend... religion, philosophy, 
> psychosocial analysis...
> 
True. Its only one movie, well.. except for the dozens of Discovery 
Channel non-specials, shows like Ghosthunters, etc.. Oh yes.. And, when 
do you ever see something, "based on the true story", where "true" in 
this context means, "we actually bought someone's story", and, "based 
on", means, "we didn't think it had enough stupid BS in it, so we 
rewrote half of it, to make it even dumber." And, that is without even 
getting to the fact that most books these things are based on *fail* to 
make the distinction that they are "based" on someone else's story, or, 
if they do, they already spent months embellishing the absurd stuff 
someone told them, so it would sell as a book.

That problem isn't the movie. It looks like its going to be a real 
interesting romp into a silly idea, with lots of stuff getting 
devastated, like everything else the guy films. The issue is that its 
being promoted to people who have more in common with the aliens of 
"Space Quest", who thought the "documentary" about people lost on 
"Gilligan's Island" was terribly, terribly sad. lol Some of us would 
like to at least **attempt** to live in a word with a few less mental 
patients.

-- 
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