BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:25 AM

First off, it's hilarious to watch people try to shove a thread about respect into their own personal scripts on their pet hates.

Second, as long as we're here, Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The really interesting thing that's happening here is that "God" has been translated from the world "Elohim" which is a PLURAL noun. God is apparently talking to some other beings which he includes with the use of "our".

The Other People is interesting.

Lastly (probably): while I can respect a person as a human being, and I can respect their non-provable beliefs to a certain extent, anyone who thinks science and religion are equivalent are stupid. I don't blame them. I blame an education system that doesn't adequately explain the difference.

Yes, I "believe" in evolution. I believe in physics and chemistry. I believe in astronomy and that there is a universe that the Earth is not the center of. I believe in things that have been scientifically proven, right up until they are not. Science draws conclusions from the available proof. If the proof changes, so may the conclusions, and science is continuously challenging itself.

Religion, not so much. It doesn't change, EVER for the literal-minded, brittly rigid, and anything that doesn't fit is dismissed. I know very few religious people who fit that description, because they've found how everything can fit together.

Those of rigid beliefs aren't really worth arguing with, IMO. You can't argue with a person who won't accept reality and makes up rules as they go. You're never going to prove anything to them, and onlookers either don't give a shit or think you're as dense as the person you're arguing with: "Oh, let me try this again today, because it wasn't effective the last 352 times."

Sometimes, the only "respectful boundary" involves not engaging...as if.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM

Anyone around here read Tolkien's 'Silmarilion'? I read it a long time back but my lasting impression was that if we picked someone who know nothing of religion or literature he would be very hard pushed to tell which was the book that millions of people treated as the basis for their faith. They should probably both be in the same section of the library :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

It is evident that in some areas assumptions he made do need modifying, notably his ideas about 'the tree of life'.

Incidentally, saying that this was an assumption is a complete misrepresentation. He was speculating. He wrote "I think" next to his famous tree diagram. He was assuming nothing. He was always exceptionally honest and diffident about notions that occurred to him that he couldn't sufficiently support with evidence. Read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:24 AM

steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.

Well, you see, I don't accept "authority" of any kind unless I've checked its authenticity. In order to do that, I need evidence. The only evidence I have about the Bible (and gosh, I have read it, you know, good Catholic boy that am) is that it is incomplete, often of dubious authorship, cherrypicked (gospels of Mary Magdalen and Thomas, anyone?), occasionally rather suspiciously interpreted or translated and, in parts, somewhat replete with strange forms of magic. Along, of course, with healthy doses of misogyny and chosen people. I'm afraid it falls a little short of my "validated authority" test. On the other hand, as a biologist I have also read On The Origin Of Species (unlike you). Over a hundred years after it was published, a time of huge advances in genetics and biochemistry and evidence accumulation, I studied evolution at university. I know all about the evidence, a huge body it is too, and the disputes and corrections and new discoveries made since Darwin. I've done field studies involving natural selection. Taught the stuff in schools for 25 years, keeping myself updated. I know the difference, unlike you, between solid facts supported by evidence and pure speculation. So the reason I treat Darwin with such respect is that I've read him, studied him and watched the follow-up. Done a fair bit of thinking. Unlike you, the lazy master of predigested, prejudiced, received "wisdom" that is actually nothing of the kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:07 AM

He made no assumptions about natural selection that are wrong in any substantive way. In fact, the beauty of natural selection is that we have all the facts to hand. Very few assumptions are needed, unlike any "explanations" involving God. You see what you've done here. You've got poodle pete jumping on your bandwagon - even after I'd explained why your remark was so silly. Beware of unintended consequences. Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 08:36 AM

No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that.

It is evident that in some areas assumptions he made do need modifying, notably his ideas about 'the tree of life'. That is hardly surprising, we know a great deal more about some things than he possibly could - and there is still a great deal to learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 08:27 AM

God bless us, everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

His bible teaches him to keep slaves, subjugate women and kill people for being gay. Luckily, every single Christian is a hypocrit with a pick and mix attitude to the conviction they spout in the face of the rest of us.

Nobody asks or is asked to"believe" in Darwin as his observations are not a belief system. Shallow idiots call it thus as it interferes with their historic place in society, having power over others.

There's more than just evolution to question the factual basis of superstition. There's common sense and educated people too. Are they faulty constructs too pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:34 AM

So the bible teaches you not to swear? It also says do not kill or steal but some religions seem to ignore those things provided they are done to members of other sects or non-believers. Why is that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM

I,ve been here long enough to gauge that steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.
one difference is my book teaches me not to be foulmouthed ! - bless him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

And what about dark matter?

It is known that the matter we learned about in school, and still teach in schools, forms only about 10% of the Universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM

I'm not going on about quantum theory, I merely state that if anything questions the fundamentals of the principia that is it, not general relativity. The beauty of general relativity is that it can apply in the quantum place as well as the observable universe to a degree, mass calculations can't.

I don't wish to start a tedious argument about this but your remark that general relativity supercedes the principia requires challenge. They relate, not differ. The absolutism was removed by Einstein but not the fundamental relationship, which was relativity anyway. ...

Regarding ether and dark matter. Good point but ether was just a convenient way of wondering how anything can propagate in a vacuum. Dark matter raises the question sgain, but not as a convenient hypothesis for vacuum propagation as I see it. Although it isn't and never was my field. My earlier professional interest in force and mass no longer exist since selling up 10 years ago for that matter. I remain fascinated but leave the advances to others.   Enough on with beer, pickled eggs and The NHS...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 PM

Sorting out what is impossible from what is extremely improbable is of course not an easy thing to do. And nor is deciding which is which.

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.






.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM

Unless you're looking in the wrong place.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:55 PM

If you start from a definite assumption, that's where you end up. That applies if your assumption is that God exists or that the very idea of God is meaningless rubbish.

Basically it comes down to what Sherlock Holmes said "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

Well they wouldn't have much about 'em if they went that way. Beyond saving, I should think. And there's nothing "questionable" about creationism, etc. It's arrant nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM

Well we don't know enough about the origin of life. "Random" worries me a bit. I can imagine differential survival of compounds, or associations of compounds in droplets, in a process not far removed in nature from natural selection (which I prefer to reserve for non-random survival of heritable traits so as not to gainsay Darwin). There might have been millions of potential sites, but one got lucky. A bit like your millions of universes, or planets in Goldilocks zones. A million times, the right compounds were around but it just didn't happen. Then one day, in one puddle of warm soup...? I do love to speculate. But at least I'm speculating about the highly-improbable, not the damned impossible. After that, we have nucleic acids and alleles and mutation as givens - no need for speculation there. Natural selection is such a brilliant explanation for all of life because we need to make next to no assumptions. We have the materials and the mechanisms and we can see how it works. Bang for bucks a-plenty. Creationism makes massive assumptions before it can run at all, and burdens itself with having to do far more explaining that it explains. Useless!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM

Arguing like that Steve you are never going to engage with anyone who is undecided about those things, and in fact you are only too likely to push them into accepting the questionable arguments of advocates of "intelligent design".

They are "questionable", and that implies being ready to question and challenge them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:05 PM

"intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence

You legitimise it too easily. Intelligent design pretends to "consider" scientific evidence, but it doesn't really. It plucks examples of what it views as irreducible complexity (which are never true examples) and invests them with completely unscientific notions. Darwin anticipated this and dealt with it beautifully and comprehensively (with a gently fatal blow), but, of course, that isn't the kind of evidence that intelligent design merchants want to hear about. Intelligent design is the pseudo-intellectual wing of creationism, no more, no less. Two cheeks of one rather smelly arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

Dark energy is a term used by scientists who are trying to make sense of evidence that things are even more complicated than they thought. Basically it's a marker saying, "watch this space." The word "notion" doesn't imply casting doubt on the observations, but recognising the degree of uncertainty which scientists feel tabout how to make sense of them.

.............
"Creationism" and "intelligent design" both share a belief in "God" as the shaper of the world. But formally they start from different places. "Creationism" starts from a belief in God, and from a literal belief in an interpretation of ancient writings, whereas "intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence, and draws from
this the conclusion that the explanation for this is an intelligent designer, in other words "God".

So far as issues around life is concerned the counter explanation is that with sufficient time, random association of molecules is adequate to explain the development of pre-life to life, and natural selection sufficient to account for everything else. So far as issues around the "fine-tuning" of the universe one suggested explanation is the existence of an enormous number of universes, so that the unlikely things that allow a life-bearing universe have the chance to occur. And others argue that the "fine-tuning" is a misunderstanding. There is no consensus.

The point is, this is about interpretation of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:47 PM

Dark energy is more than a notion.
The expansion is speeding up, and that requires energy.
There is a little doubt that it really is speeding up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

Musket again

Not too sure of your point regarding sat nav. The corrections are built in.

Corrections? What corrections? The programmes in your sat nav use General Relativity to calculate your position because it gives a far more accurate result than if they had used Newton's Theorys.

The extraterrestrial trajectory to Mercury has such a low velocity in terms of c,, time dilation is irrelevant. Earth control time delay is a factor but Newtonian calculations will land you where you need to be. You have to reach 0.8c before time and mass start getting interesting.

Yes, I know. From my previous post - It isn't about time dilation due to high velocity, it's about the curvature of space in the presence of massive bodies.

But in the observable realistic achievement stakes

Yes of course. In the observable realistic achievement stakes Newtonian mechanics works just fine (most of the time). It is a very useful tool for calculating how long it will take you to hit the pavement and how fast you will be going if you jump off a tall building or for working out how to navigate a spaceship to Mars. (It might have a bit more trouble with a game of billiards but, in principle, it can be done.) That isn't enough for a scientific theory. If a theory makes a prediction and it doesn't match the experimental results. it ain't a theory no more. Mercury doesn't go where it should and clocks in orbit don't run on time.

Interstellar distances with high acceleration, I grant you, we need to take time and mass as variables that would alter the target had we stuck with Newtonian calculations, but even then we would be introducing variables, not superseding.

What are you saying? That General Relativity is just Newtonian Mechanics with fudge factors? I think there may be more to it than that.

Why do you keep on about Quantum Theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:08 PM

Please understand that I'm not promoting Creationism. Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing.

You've been misled. They are two cheeks of the same ugly, unwashed arse.

Evolution is not some worthless theory.

It is if you believe in intelligent design/creationism. The two are entirely incompatible. If you don't see it, you don't understand evolution. Not only does evolution not need a God/creator/designer, there is no room in evolution for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

Thank you, Don. You see? Absolutely nothing at all to do with Charles Darwin, the gentle naturalist whose great idea concerned only the non-random survival of heritable attributes within species. Not a bandwagon ever to be jumped on to be abused in other spheres of human endeavour, unless you're a charlatan. Darwin himself was at pains to point out the dangers of the misuse of natural selection outside the context of his work.

Read the book. You can't beat it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM

Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to perish.

The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.

The number of people who have embraced social Darwinism is quite revealing. One of the most prominent was no less than Adolf Hitler.

Social Darwinism tries to justify the oppression and suppression of the weak by the strong and the powerful, claiming that it improves the human race in general if the strong succeed and the weak just die off. Thus, the human race leapfrogs ahead and becomes the "übermensche," or Superman, envisioned by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Although she would never have admitted it, this was the very philosophy that was espoused by Ayn Rand.

And she proudly proclaimed herself to be an atheist.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM

Steve, I'm stopped! Please understand that I'm not promoting Creationism. Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing. We'll probably never agree on that. And I'm well aware that religious people do good stuff, for example, the Quakers have probably done more than any other religious group to bring about social justice. But I stand by my assessment of the religious right. This is how I see them.

Like it or not, there is a connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. The timeline looks like this:



In 1848, August Comte published "A General View of Positivism." In he argued that the same methodology used in the natural sciences should be applied to "social science." He is considered the father of sociology.
In 1859, Darwin published the "Origin of Species." In 1862, Herbert Spencer published "The Social Organism" which began a new philosophical trend that came to be known as Social Darwinism. It was he who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest."

Of course the ethical quandary inherent in Social Darwinism is that it releases one from any obligation whatsoever, social, economic or otherwise, toward one's fellow man.

I'm sorry you can't see ID as anything but a stepping stone to Creationism. Evolution is not some worthless theory. ID doesn't say that either. It just isn't the whole ball of wax.

Steve, are you a science teacher? This seems to be a topic that you're passionate about.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:06 PM

It doesn't mean it doesn't stink. Darwin would turn in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM

The speculation around the notion of 'dark energy" has a lot in common with that around the notion of "ether".
............................
While Social Darwinism was a misapplication of a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory, it definitely drew its inspiration from Darwinism, and also gained a lot of the respect paid to it, and its ability to be effective, from that connection. It seemed scientific. And it hasn't ever really gone away.

The idea that that "progress" is a meaningful metaphor for human society, rather than, say, growth, or simply change, is one that bears examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket again
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 01:02 PM

Not too sure of your point regarding sat nav. The corrections are built in.

The extraterrestrial trajectory to Mercury has such a low velocity in terms of c,, time dilation is irrelevant. Earth control time delay is a factor but Newtonian calculations will land you where you need to be. You have to reach 0.8c before time and mass start getting interesting.

General relativity was profound and upset a key tenet of the Principia, that of absolute space, absolute time,absolute position. The conundrum is explained with Newton's bucket. But in the observable realistic achievement stakes, f=ma can help plot your trajectory with gravitational slingshot to such a local target quite easily. Interstellar distances with high acceleration, I grant you, we need to take time and mass as variables that would alter the target had we stuck with Newtonian calculations, but even then we would be introducing variables, not superseding.

It is disingenuous to suggest removal of the need for fixed state supersedes the gravity, force and mass concepts. The concepts are there, the mathematical relationships are there, the ratios between them represent his clarification.

Relativity did remove other sacred cows such as the ether, but we need to look at the work of Planck, through to Heisenberg onwards to begin to dismantle the Principia, as we look at the quantum world. Space probes are in the physical word though...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:19 PM

I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.

Society does not advance by evolution via natural selection. Some of you guys really need to find out what evolution actually means. This bloke I've heard of published a great book about it in 1859. Get thee off to Amazon.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM

You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to.

No I wouldn't. The two things have got absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

What a delightful series of posts! I think that all the mudcat posters have a brilliant ability to look at the 'big picture', analyze, it, and challenge each other's analysis.   

What gets in the way? It's almost like something internal becomes triggered, and both the big picture and our own self-insight becomes (at least temporarily) obliterated.   Then all semblance of respect goes out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

Steve, I sensed that you perceive religion as this threat to the advance of civilization...

Well you can just stop right there. I have not said anything like that. I was referring to those with extreme views who deny evolution, which is good science, and who try to replace it with creationism, which is a pack of lies based on superstition and no evidence. Religious people have been in the forefront of civilisation in many fields. Carrying one delusion doesn't stop people from doing good stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM

Ah yes, and then there's the truth. Politics is a strategy of divide and conquer. Religion punishes heretics. One thing is certain, the elite of either side of a political or religious divide will not be subject to the rules they lay down for you.

Anthropologically speaking, the first class apart from the community was the "priesthood." (more on this when I locate my notes). The state is nothing more or less than a secular priesthood.

GfS and Little Hawk, both of you are really in the zone! Don't know why anyone would call GfS Goofus. It really doesn't fit.

Muskrat, I need a new name. You really can't do much with SJL. Someone mentioned Suzy Sock Puppet but I don't know. I'll have to get back to you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM

SJL: "Instead, it is the political left who seem more inclined to hold values that reflect Christ's teachings. That is why I commented that it is ironic that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic policy while overtly rejecting science in favor of religion. You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to."

I don't think either the 'right or left' adhere to Christ's teachings as a fundamental platform for their religious views. The 'right' while using 'religion' to further their agenda, seems more inclined to adhere to 'survival of the fittest'....ask any corporate/banking/political head!..While the 'left' seems to favor state control, over self control, and yet they run for cover, and fear the very thing the press on toward!

Truth of the matter is, the propaganda by both, 'right and left', is meant to confuse the subscribers of both, to mask their intentions, motives, means and agendas. 'Religion' is to 'spirituality' as 'politics' are to the 'truth'. BOTH are exclusive of each other. People confuse the terms 'religion' as having ANYTHING to do with the Spirit, and 'politics' with Freedom and Liberty. Both politics and religion are the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race to control masses of people....whereas being tuned into the Spirituality, defies control of either.

This from the 'Thinkerator' thread...Little Hawk NAILS IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Defective Thinkerator Syndrome (DTS)...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 AM

"God made me to know him, love him and serve him"

You hear that from some people....but it seems to propose a separate God. That is, there's God...."over there"...wanting to be known, loved, and served by this person, that person, etc...

But God is supposed to be infinite.

And what is infinite is not just "over there", it's everywhere.

And it doesn't need to be loved or appreciated by anyone because it is already complete, therefore it needs nothing.

What if we are God (but not all of God) just like a drop of water is a part of the ocean, but isn't all of the ocean? And what if a drop of water thought it had to worship the ocean? And feared that the ocean would judge it and find it wanting? But didn't realize that it IS the ocean? In microcosm. Just as each one of us is life itself...individualized...the entirety of life being what some people refer to as "God"?"

Now if God is love, and all of it's properties of physics, both seen and unseen, what a vain attempt, by both 'religion' and 'politics'(either side), it is to try and control 'It', make its dictates, or deny the existence, and offer 'solutions' that are mere excuses to hold onto a temporal 'power' and 'control' over people's lives!

BTW, the end result of ALL politics is tyranny!
Then end result of all religions is conformity for control!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

Steve, I sensed that you perceive religion as this threat to the advance of civilization because most of the people who reject evolution are, well, fanatically religious. So then, is it really the science you are concerned with here or is it the politics of the religious right that is correlated with non-belief in evolution? If it's the latter then I can see your point.

I believe in the separation of church and state and I think it is well supported by scripture. I do not believe that the religious right respects this separation. They obsess on "social issues," which they narrowly define as issues relating to sexual (and reproductive) morality in a very Victorian way, even though Christ had very little to say about such matters because they were simply not his priority. Love, charity, not judging others were his priority. The religious right shows very little evidence of following Christ's teachings in their political maneuverings. So happy to spend on "defense" while unconcerned with whether people go sick or hungry.

Instead, it is the political left who seem more inclined to hold values that reflect Christ's teachings. That is why I commented that it is ironic that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic policy while overtly rejecting science in favor of religion. You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

""The clock in your sat nav is deeper in the Earth's gravitational well than the clock in the satellite so runs slower. If the programme didn't allow for this there would be an error of something like ten miles. Newton's theories are very, very good but there are real life situations where they give the wrong answer.

As a theory of pure science, General Relativity gives an entirely different description of how the Universe works. It supersedes Newton.""

I never knew that.

One of the joys of Mudcat is learning most unexpected things from people of whose knowledge and skills one was unaware.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:39 AM

""I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.""

I don't know McG, I see that as mixing two arguments.

Evolution has little to do with the development within a species in the period during which it exists, other than having led to that species and determined its longevity or otherwise.

What that species achieves during its lifespan is a matter of ability, not evolution.

The concept that evolution has an agenda, or concern for an end game is false.

It is not a reasoning entity and lacks any capability to care about the end results of its operation. The first species to develop true self awareness happened perchance to be mankind, and self awareness permits the existence of an agenda.

IMHO, of course! YMMV.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:37 AM

Musket missing something

Right. I've worked out that it is me you're calling a "Dozy sod". You've been spending too much time with Steve Shaw.

The relative position between three objects and allowance for movement through time is pure three dimensional.

Not under General Relativity it isn't. It isn't about time dilation due to high velocity, it's about the curvature of space in the presence of massive bodies.

In applied science, Newtonian mechanics is fine for all ordinary, everyday purposes like playing billiards, jumping off tall buildings or sending a spaceship to Mars. It might give you problems with Mercury because, being so close to the Sun, its orbit does not follow Newton's predictions but it does follow Einstein's.

The clock in your sat nav is deeper in the Earth's gravitational well than the clock in the satellite so runs slower. If the programme didn't allow for this there would be an error of something like ten miles. Newton's theories are very, very good but there are real life situations where they give the wrong answer.

As a theory of pure science, General Relativity gives an entirely different description of how the Universe works. It supersedes Newton.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 06:33 AM

Dispelling ignorance, in which I include persuading people to accept evidence instead of magic and superstition, has made a massive contribution to civilisation. Maintaining ignorance, as executed by the saintly Mother Teresa and every pope for centuries, simply works the other way. Your personal brand of ignorance, which you are only too happy to convey to us, is simply at one extreme on the spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM

well maybe the world we live in has got worse.
it certainly aint got no better.
and why should purveyers of violence and crime worry if we are only re=arranged pond scum and they think the law wont expose them , and there is no final judgment either.
and of what practical use is Darwinism, other than dispelling suppossed ignorance - but then we are back to begging the question are we not?!
I can tell you again where it has hindered practical science.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:50 AM

"His views" go well beyond denying evolution. He takes a literal view of the Bible and would probably like to see us all living by it. He has demonstrated illiberal views on abortion. His eyes are shut to solid scientific evidence and wide open to quackery of the worst kind. On his own he is just a silly and deluded man. But he isn't on his own. His spirit is shared by a fair number of charismatic fundamentalists (not only Christians, either) whose certainties have convinced them that it's right to foist their views forcibly on others and to deny good science. Witness attempts to get equal billing for creationism with evolution in schools, or, worse still, to prevent the teaching of evolution altogether. Now if you think that a world significantly influenced by people like that wouldn't be less civilised even than the one we have now, well I'm not with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:45 AM

Don's story.
"Where I live, there is a maze of footpaths offering shortcuts through the estate, which frankly are a death trap for pedestrians, especially the elderly, disabled or blind, since the local cycling fraternity don't seem to know what the word "footpath" means

I have to use one of those to get to my GP's surgery and about two years ago stepped into the end of it to be confronted by a cyclist doing about 20mph.

This halfwit yelled "Get out of the way, you fucking useless old cripple". I flattened myself against the fence in this 3 foot wide alley, and my walking stick unfortunately hooked his handlebar. It was a complete accident, but I have neither sympathy nor regret for his trip to the hospital in an ambulance, nor for the £80 fine he got for "furious riding"."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:31 AM

""I'm mildly curious what Keith and Don are on about, with all this Furious Posting.""

Kevin,

On threads where I dare to disagree with know-it-all Keith, if I post about any personal experience, he accuses me of making it up.

The clown doesn't know anything about me, so he makes it up as he goes along, then claims that I am the liar.

There are numerous examples in threads about Muslims, cyclists and many others.

He doesn't want his pet likes to be shown up in a bad light, so no true examples will be accepted.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:23 AM

""You stated that the fine was for Furious Riding.
Are you changing that?""

The initial charge was furious riding, the conviction was for lesser offences including riding on a footpath and failure to show due consideration.

You have accused me of making things up on several occasions, including some for which I have been able to supply proof.

In every case your accusation was a lie.

Of all the posters on this site you are the most biased, the most bigotted, the most xenophobic and the most dishonest.

You have no business being present at a discussion of respect, a concept of which you have no knowledge.

In future, no post from you will receive a response from me.

To me, you do not exist.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

Hi, SJL...As an addendum to your post, you wrote, "Advance of civilization" I interpret to mean progress, social progress to be precise."
I just wanted to underline, that 'social progress' without the spiritual aspect, is an impossibility....

OK, now back to your question posed to Steve.

GfS