 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: GUEST,donuel Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM With all sincerity Nick, the televangelists of today are far worse than the money lenders of yore. Today they just keep your money and wouldn't dream of lending you any of theirs. Here here John of Weldon, your features are a fine introduction into even more specific and fun filled issues. I have been known to do a few cartoons myself. I for one was cast into public Jr. High School hell and sent to the principal's office for writing an essay on evolution in which I began "Man and other animals..." Although I was punished further by being castigated to the coat closet my spirit was not dampened. When they passed out clay for art class I did an anatomically corret female nude. I was cast out of art class yet I still do art. In English class I was given an F for a poem I had written because it was so good, the teacher determined it must have been plagerized. There was a piling on by teachers that I remember to this day. It seems I was never directly punished for any scientificly held belief but rather punished for beliefs disrespectful to Christianity. Last year I wrote 'a comedy of errors' based on the premise that the dead sea scrolls included deciphering copper scrolls that brought the whole bible into its true intended focus. For example many names were changed to protect decendents. Noah's ark was really Jonas ark and the flood was merely a global warming effect. The book of Levidicus when deciphered with the copper scrolls was really are really funny joke thread. Even the ten Commandments when deciphered were indeed as Mel Brooks guessed, The 10 condiments...etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM People using spiritual desire as a means for controlling or defrauding others goes all the way back before your Gilgamesh was a twinkle in anyone's eye, back to the first guy wo discovered if he could do the Voodoo Hoodoo well enough he could eat without hunting. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Donuel Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM Well there had to be the first charlaton, but often the Spritual leader of the tribe was a medicine man based on his knowledge of healing plants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Jan 08 - 09:39 PM "the first guy wo discovered if he could do the Voodoo Hoodoo well enough he could eat without hunting." And more importantly, he was left home alone with all the women. Which might explain why there's so many of them, assuming Darwin might have been onto something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM The moment you measure the dance... you have interjected some distortion - Not to the dance, though. The fish won't differ from being looked at or not. Your representation OF that dance will be distorted from "reality" by your perceptual system, expectations, etc. - but the fish just dances on. There are many 'religionists' who are perfectly capable of discussing their beliefs calmly and in a rational way. - Sure - but their faith itself is NOT rational. (Almost by definition.) And the growing evidence is that the Darwinian advantages of religion accrue to the PRIESTHOOD (loosely speaking), not to the believers upon whom they prey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Bee Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM I read, elsewhere, an interesting conversation someone was having with a Creationist. Usually, creationists make ill advised efforts to square their beliefs with reality by making up their own 'science' or distorting known scientific facts, or just stating that goddidit and that's that. Not this fellow, who seemed like a pretty clear thinking person otherwise. He had read his Bible carefully and literally, and pointed out that the god of the Bible is described as impatient, jealous, even fearful of his own created beings (after all, there was that angelic rebellion). His reasoning is that god is neither omnipotent or omniscient, at least not as we would define those qualities. He noted that God said, after creating the planet, that it was 'good', not 'perfect', and that in his impatient haste to 'get it done', mistakes were made, steps were skipped, and a few bad decisions crept in. He thinks the universe was a separate creation from the earth, maybe even always there, and that God formed earth out of that only 6000 years ago, explaining all the appearances of age we see. Of course, it's a completely off the wall notion, and I doubt any theologian would agree with him, but it interested me that in order to salvage the 'young earth' belief, this fellow was willing to take at least two 'omnis' out of his god's bag of tricks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:26 AM I would submit that there are benefits to having groups formed around nominally spiritual and benevolent principals. In other words, churches are good groups, perhyaps in spite of any intellectual predation or spiritual distortion they include in there metaphysics. But this is because they are really more social groups than religious ones. Some churches, that is. The problem enters when they inject mind-crippling assumptions into the thinking of their young, rendering them stupid in certain areas of thought. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Donuel Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM MRRZY I know what you said about the fish not being effected is rational but it isn't true/ The weird and bizrre fact is they are changed. Even the light we look at is changed. It is changed right down to the quantum level. I would ask you to look up split beam experiment. I Put it to you that in this universe something CAN even be in two places at the same time. It is observable fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Donuel Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:39 AM I have seen with my own eyes how a benevolent group of people in a buddist sect gradually became reactionary, exclusive and took on aspects of Nazi party. After an attitude of "specialness" was introduced an exclusivity began to subvert inclusiveness with rules like "a true beliver must remove books from their dwelling that could sour the words of wisdom in our holy texts". The proximity of items became a threat. Then questions became a threat and finally the people who asked the questions became the threat. Every club has dues. Some dues are evil dressed in angelic clothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: GUEST,Keinstein Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM Even the light we look at is changed. It is changed right down to the quantum level.>/i> Only at quantum level, though. If you look at higher levels- molecule size and above- quantum effects average out. I would ask you to look up split beam experiment. I Put it to you that in this universe something CAN even be in two places at the same time. It is observable fact. Only quantum scale objects. Not fish or cats, even Schroedinger's. Though I've heard it argued that, as they travel at the speed of light, time doesn't exist for photons, and that there could be just the one in the whole universe. Now what would happen if Schroedinger's cat met Pavlov's dog? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:35 AM He would drool, or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:12 AM "The problem enters when they inject mind-crippling assumptions into the thinking of their young, rendering them stupid in certain areas of thought." True, Amos, but don't blame it all on religion--check this Bad Science |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:29 AM The Pathetic Fallacy "The pathetic fallacy is the name given the specious attribution of emotions --- which is to say, pathos --- to the inanimate. Thus, when NASA tells children that, Òthe moving object, due to its mass, wants to keep going,Ó it misleads them with the pathetic fallacy. For, to the best of anyoneÕs knowledge, an inanimate mass doesnÕt have any wants. Well, there is a belief system which posits that everything contains a spirit which motivates and directs its actions, and that system is called animism. But, animism is not science. So, apparently we have NASA promoting animism among our children under the guise of promoting science. This is scary. (One then wonders if NASA thinks this way, or it only wants children to do so). " Jolly good stuff... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM My point exactly, in general, MT -- I do not blame all the stupefaction on religion, just that which centers around the areas of thought in which religion injects its data -- you know, the nature of the universe, the nature of ethics, the best methods of right action, stuff like that. When it comes to thinking about science, of course, religion has nothing to say that could possibly confuse a person wanting to learn. Oh, except in matters of anthropology, archaeology, biology, geophysics, cosmology, and sociology. The damage imposed by religious teachings is more in areas of individual comeptency to think clearly, and in sociological areas like ethics, human interdependence, the nature of decency and so on. Other subjects, of course, inject false data into student's wits. A major example, of course, is the video gaming industry and the entertainment industry. False emotions, false precepts, false values, false analysis, false news, mis-evaluation of importances, distorted views of sequence and consequence... no wonder kids end up in apathetic confusion. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 25 Jan 08 - 12:18 PM Yes, the fish dance would change at the quantum level from being perceived - but not at any level WE live on. Who asked the following questions or posed the conundrum: Evil exists. If God can't stop it, he isn't omnipotent. If he can stop it and doesn't, he isn't benevolent. And there is more to it but I can't recall, help, someone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Donuel Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM Yes it seems irrational and at odds with what we are taught but The fish dance does change. It may even change at great distance from the observer. The next dimension up from our percieved 4 dimensions has the unimaginable ability to be in contact with all points of 3D space at once. (but don't ask me to show you) ;< } The molecular dances are keenly influenced by quantum changes and molecular changes keenly effect the larger systems of a nervous system. Rarely do we really take in this reality... One DOES see with the naked eye a macro partical in two places at the same time so it is not strickly at the quantum level. The cloud chambers in which you can see this effect are at several university labs. Yes size matters but it only effects the probabilities. Indeed once things get sufficiently large the potential for bizarre quantum effects becomes potentially small. For example pushing your hand through a pane of glass without breaking the glass is possible but becomes somthing like 10 to the 20th power unlikely. Of the billions of moments you have lived it is probable you have seen or sensed something "impossible". When this happens we usually don't see it since we have no context to put it in, or we don't believe our eyes. Of course believeing ones eyes is a whole different story. PS the cat may or may not have died prior to scratching the hungry dog's nose. I do not know however if the cat scratched the dog's nose after it died. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM Well, if it changes from the unobserved, we'll never know anyway, since we can't observe the unobserved, so why worry? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM Getting back to the task of finding gods, I think it might pay to look at the process of cleaning carpets. Muslims, you'll notice, roll their carpets out on a stone floor and spend hours and hours, five times a day, banging those carpets with their foreheads. In the west, of course, we throw the carpet over a clothes line, and beat the dust out of it with a worn out old tennis racket. In the west, I suspect we end up with cleaner carpets, but it's not hard to understand why no one has discovered a god. In the Middle-East, however, one would think, with those Muslims beating their carpets over and over--by the millions in all parts of west Asia and Northern Africa--pounding and pounding with their foreheads, they would surely have chased up some kind of a god by now. That is, if there'd been any kind of a god to find anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: bobad Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:05 PM Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:06 PM You can stop any time, Riginslinger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM Epicurus spoke well, but the steps have a false middle in the statement that if he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent. It conflates allowance with causation. It is possible he is not willing for perfectly benevolent reasons, like allowing humans to work out their own destiny. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:16 PM "You can stop any time, Riginslinger." Sorry! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:35 AM Thanks, bobad. I hadn't realized it was THAT old. And you can avoid Amos' pitfall by just saying "then he isn't benevolent." And my Why Worry thing works for the theory that god is outside/beyond the universe, or that s/he started the Big Bang but that's all, etc. It's the same as no god, then, for humans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:52 AM No prob, Riginslinger, that's what friends are for;-) And Mrrzy, atheism actually preceded the existance of Christianity--there were lots more gods to object to back then- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 08 - 12:38 PM The point must be, then, that for all human purposes, God is actually an infinite Zero, a nothing of no location, no energy, no mass, no location in space-time, eh? That makes mne feel much better, I am sure. Mrrzy, your re-wording does not respond to the point I raised -- his non-interference policy COULD be a benevolent one for reasons not taken into account. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Jan 08 - 08:54 PM Yes, Amos, but it's less of a jump. And M.Ted, I don't recall claiming that Christianity came first? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:44 AM I was just pointing it out, as a convenient reference, like the cups to tablespoons conversions on matchbook covers-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM Joseph Campbell said it best. "We need our myths". The pacifist myth of Jesus is a good one. The other guy that the Theocons produce is a fraud. Nothing wrong about feeding the poor, caring for the less fortunate, and turning the other cheek instead of ginning up for NATO's new program for mass destruction. (Nuclear pre-emptive first strike to "protect" us. What bullshit!) I think the Pacifist Jesus is the sane part of Christianity. I don't care if he existed or not. I care more about what people "do" than what the profess to believe. Talk is cheap. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM I tried this once before, but it seemed to have gotten erased, miraculously. But I'll try it again. There is another thread running on the "ins and outs of colonoscopy." Okay, here's the dilemma: What if they were giving somebody a colonoscopy, and they discovered a god? What if it was a member of the Genovese crime family? Should they order up and exorcism, use massive amounts of Milk of Magnesia, ignore it...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:40 PM The subject is becoming "thread-bare". Next! Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM I don't know why you tried it even once, Rig!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: autolycus Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM If this is getting threadbare, I posted and got no response. So if you don't want me to sulk like a true Cancerian........ Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:17 PM Just trying to liven things up :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM How would you know it WAS a god, r? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Bill D Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:43 PM Indeed...perhaps it was a tapeworm. Gods are clever - they can assume all sorts of shapes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM I'm not sure, never having stumbled across one myself, but I suppose it would have to identify itself as such. At that point, I suspect there would be rigorous testing, but... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:47 PM When you think how many disappointing claims have been filed for godhood -- from THogmagog the lazy Neanderthal to reincarnations of L. Ron Hubbard -- it seems unlikely that such an assertion owld be genuine, and certain that it would not be accepted as such on first blush. Of course a couple of world-enhancing miracles would work a quick sea-change in that. "Shazaam!! The dollar is robust!! Sha-booom!!! Iraq is at peace internally and fullly conscious of individual responsibility. Bzazzzz!! The green glass Coca-Cola bottle is back in use....". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Stringsinger Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:29 PM Here's the deal. I agree with Pat Condell. You can't argue with dogma. There is no civilized conversation that can take place here. You can make jokes and ridicule the ridiculous ideas of religion but it serves no purpose season. So if you get politicians like Obama, Hillary, Huckabee, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Paul or any one of them who starts their political religious crap, I agree with Katha Politt, tell them to stuff a cork in it. Keep their religious babble out of the public discourse in politics. It's a violation of the Separation of Church and State and it's unAmerican. I don't want to hear about their sex lives or personal religious beliefs. In the meantime why beat the proverbial dead horse? I'm feeling ornery this morning so don't talk to me about your religious beliefs. Again, actions speak louder than words and if what you believe informs your good intentions toward concentrating on the genuine issues that face our country, OK, but stow the dogma. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:51 PM YEah, Frank!! "By their fruits, ye shall know them." I think Bob Dylan said that.... ;>) Hope you have an uplifting day in any case!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 28 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM If you want to get people really upset, Frank, judging people by what they do, instead of what they say will do it-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM And what if you see them going to church? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:20 AM Back to Amos - if you're doing something for a good reason, it isn't evil, so you defined yourself out of what Epicurus was talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:57 AM I thought we were talking about divine intercession in evil generated by humans. So even if he tolerates it out of deep Divine Wisdom, it is still evil, not of His doing but ours. You could argue, in counterpoint, that If God tolerates it and God is benevolent, then it isn't evil, we just don't see where the good will come from (for example in the slaughters of the Tutsi or Darfur) being much less knowing than Him. But this sounds downright Bushian, and vaguely sickening, given the bizarre premises embedded int he terminology. It's spinny stuff inventing a term with as much and many meanings as "God" and then having discussions about it. Real wheel-spinning. I'd rather discuss similar but more bounded faith-based terms, such as "caloric", "phlogiston", and "aether". A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:59 AM Gee, Amos...if I had a dollar for every time I've noted the linguistic fallacy that assumes that if something has a name, it somehow acquires 'reality', I could at least have a good meal in a restaurant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:18 AM Does that mean, BillD, that without a dollar for every time you've had to note the "linguistic fallacy" that you describe, that you cannot have a good meal in a restaurant? I don't see the logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM Ted, you missed the implicit predicate, "..on that money alone". Bill: I know, I know. You have long fought the good fight, alone against the barbaric hordes, struggling on through the lonely night, wielding the sword of Reason, wading through the blood of your enemies, unthanked and unsung. But, I believe (unless I am mistaken) that it was your choice so to do, no? :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:42 AM Yup, Amos! I spend a week or two tilting at windmills, then when Pancho starts grumbling, I come home and clarify important issues for Mudcat. ☺ Now, as to whether I 'freely' chose this adventurous life....that's another long debate...I can only say, "it felt like it". So, I take responsibility for foisting uncomfortable truths on the populace, knowing it is much like teaching pigs to sing..."it wastes my time, and it annoys the pig" But Max swears this will all be here for...like...ages! Maybe I'll be famous in 30-40 years! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: M.Ted Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:31 PM But Amos, he says "I could at least have a good meal in a restaurant.", which means that he can't have a good meal in a restaurant now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM Well, maybe he can't, because he spends all his time correcting logic on the internet instead of tending to sales and production at home. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued) From: Bill D Date: 29 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM There are people who occasionally invite me out to restaurants just for the scintillating and stimulating conversation....but elderly, retired curmudgeons who whiled away their youth without mastering a remunerative trade don't go out often on their own dime. Those potential donated $$$$$$$$ for cumulative reiteration of relevant nuances of points in philosophical linguistics could, in time, allow me to indulge in a rare experience with Ethiopian cuisine....with Tej! ..."...spends all his time correcting logic on the internet instead of tending to sales and production at home." tsk...Nicht wahr, mein freund! in addition to. Wanna buy some Torrey vauquelinia? |
