a good person is a person who...
$Zero
now, how one finishes this statement depends on a combination of your
religious beliefs, your politics, your intelligence, your ignorance,
your net worth, your sense of humor, and many other such factors often
just beyond your control.
but go ahead, give it a try.
(no bonus points for originality).
a good person is a person who...
...
-$Zero...
the way words work
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9f37a3d1b1d8a631
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
A good person is a person who does not have to think to be good; they
just are.
Pies de Arcilla
How can you be good without thinking? Isn't a great deal of evil done
by people who don't think about what they're doing? Aren't we
constantly being told that things that we have done innocently for a
long time, are in fact very bad, like emitting carbon dioxide? Isn't
this wildly inconsistent with the existence of "good people" as you
define them? Or maybe that's your point, that there _are no_ good
people.
boots
>a good person is a person who...
Pick one:
(a) ...does as he is fucking told.
(b) ...does what he thinks is right.
(c) ...cooks up tender and juicy and is never thereafter missed by
friends or relatives.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Goodness in a person is like genius in a person. You don't become a
genius, you just are.
boots
>Goodness in a person is like genius in a person. You don't become a
>genius, you just are.
So non-good people never become good? Shame then that so many of us
are fucked for the duration, assuming of course that good is less
fucked than non-good.
Are you sure of that analogy, John?
Or maybe we're all good. Whatever, you can test for "good" and
execute the failures for all o'me, or the successes for that matter;
not being a genius either, I'm accustomed to just being halfassed.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Well, everyone can strive to be "good" just as everyone can strive to
gain more knowledge. But there are those who walk among us who are
just plain "good" just as there are those who are genius. You can call
them saintly if you like. Being "good" and doing "good" is way
different than just not doing or being "bad". It is a frame of mind.
Some are just born in that frame of mind.
boots
I think I'll bow out of this morality discussion before some angel
smacks me on the head with its wings.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
"some angel"= Mrs. Boots?
sammy
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> boots wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does that mean you can "be good" (have that frame of mind) and "do
bad"? Just curious.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
If you were good whay would you want to do bad?
boots
With the proper dispensation, certainly. Or after the fact with the
proper pennance.
Pies de Arcilla
> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Goodness in a person is like genius in a person. You don't become a
> >genius, you just are.
A good person is someone who doesn't let any moral rules prevent them
from doing what's right.
boots
<grin>
<troll> What about legalities? </troll>
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >a good person is a person who...
>
> Pick one:
>
> (a) ...does as he is fucking told.
>
> (b) ...does what he thinks is right.
>
> (c) ...cooks up tender and juicy and is never thereafter
> missed by friends or relatives.
a good person is a person who is doing something good.
-$Zero...
a good person is a person who...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/6169bb41bc2341d2
boots
>On Dec 1, 7:48?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >a good person is a person who...
>>
>> Pick one:
>>
>> (a) ...does as he is fucking told.
>>
>> (b) ...does what he thinks is right.
>>
>> (c) ...cooks up tender and juicy and is never thereafter
>> missed by friends or relatives.
>
>
>a good person is a person who is doing something good.
Doing something you approve of comes quite close to (a).
sammy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you found anyone that fits this description yet?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I don't know if "found" is the right word.I don't go looking for them.
I have come across people who do a lot of good. I'm happy with that.
sammy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The answer is no. The people you have described (if I was to take it
literally--maybe I shouldn't) do not exist. Everyone is inherently
evil, no matter how you try to condone it. The fact is evident: every
human on the face of this earth is capable ot the darkest evil you can
imagine. Even though some of us commit more evil than others, we all
have the capacity to do it.
The fact is, nobody is "good" until one allows God to make them good.
You also must realize that there is no gray area between good and
evil. It is either good, or it is bad. It is convenient to forgive
one's own doings as "not as bad as robbing a bank," etc., and when man
creates these theories, a little thought will reveal that their
intention is to formulate some vacation from the reality of their own
sin.
sammy
> The fact is, nobody is "good" until one allows God to make them good.
Bad pronoun agreement.
Sorry.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
sammy wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:49 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if "found" is the right word.I don't go looking for them.
> > I have come across people who do a lot of good. I'm happy with that.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The answer is no. The people you have described (if I was to take it
> literally--maybe I shouldn't) do not exist.
Bull. Does that mean that genius does not exist?
Everyone is inherently
> evil, no matter how you try to condone it.
Says who? They may be inerently selfish but that is an evolved
response of the human animal.
The fact is evident: every
> human on the face of this earth is capable ot the darkest evil you can
> imagine. Even though some of us commit more evil than others, we all
> have the capacity to do it.
>
> The fact is, nobody is "good" until one allows God to make them good.
Which god?
>
> You also must realize that there is no gray area between good and
> evil. It is either good, or it is bad.
Bad is not evil.
It is convenient to forgive
> one's own doings as "not as bad as robbing a bank," etc., and when man
> creates these theories, a little thought will reveal that their
> intention is to formulate some vacation from the reality of their own
> sin.
That's rationalization. You're thinking "lesser of two evils".
sammy
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> sammy wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 3:49 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know if "found" is the right word.I don't go looking for them.
> > > I have come across people who do a lot of good. I'm happy with that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The answer is no. The people you have described (if I was to take it
> > literally--maybe I shouldn't) do not exist.
>
> Bull. Does that mean that genius does not exist?
Can't compare genius with being good person, sorry. Moral fiber and
intellect differ greatly.
> Everyone is inherently
>
> > evil, no matter how you try to condone it.
>
> Says who? They may be inerently selfish but that is an evolved
> response of the human animal.
That's my point: even though being selfish doesn't seem as bad as, say
murder, it's all sin to God. It's either sin or not sin, remember.
> The fact is evident: every
>
> > human on the face of this earth is capable ot the darkest evil you can
> > imagine. Even though some of us commit more evil than others, we all
> > have the capacity to do it.
>
> > The fact is, nobody is "good" until one allows God to make them good.
>
> Which god?
We've been through all this before, haven't we Mr. John?
> > You also must realize that there is no gray area between good and
> > evil. It is either good, or it is bad.
>
> Bad is not evil.
Eh?
> It is convenient to forgive
>
> > one's own doings as "not as bad as robbing a bank," etc., and when man
> > creates these theories, a little thought will reveal that their
> > intention is to formulate some vacation from the reality of their own
> > sin.
>
> That's rationalization. You're thinking "lesser of two evils".
I can't quite detect your point here...
But my point is that a man will try to find ways to condone their own
sin. By thinking that one's sin is not bad is doing just that.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
sammy wrote:
> On Dec 4, 7:24 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > sammy wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 3:49 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > I don't know if "found" is the right word.I don't go looking for them.
> > > > I have come across people who do a lot of good. I'm happy with that.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > The answer is no. The people you have described (if I was to take it
> > > literally--maybe I shouldn't) do not exist.
> >
> > Bull. Does that mean that genius does not exist?
>
> Can't compare genius with being good person, sorry. Moral fiber and
> intellect differ greatly.
I don't think so.
>
> > Everyone is inherently
> >
> > > evil, no matter how you try to condone it.
> >
> > Says who? They may be inerently selfish but that is an evolved
> > response of the human animal.
>
> That's my point: even though being selfish doesn't seem as bad as, say
> murder, it's all sin to God. It's either sin or not sin, remember.
>
> > The fact is evident: every
> >
> > > human on the face of this earth is capable ot the darkest evil you can
> > > imagine. Even though some of us commit more evil than others, we all
> > > have the capacity to do it.
> >
> > > The fact is, nobody is "good" until one allows God to make them good.
> >
> > Which god?
>
> We've been through all this before, haven't we Mr. John?
What if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can't possibly be
good? Are all Muslims evil because they do not believe in your kind of
God?
>
> > > You also must realize that there is no gray area between good and
> > > evil. It is either good, or it is bad.
> >
> > Bad is not evil.
>
> Eh?
A child who speaks out in class may be bad but is speaking out in
class evil?
>
> > It is convenient to forgive
> >
> > > one's own doings as "not as bad as robbing a bank," etc., and when man
> > > creates these theories, a little thought will reveal that their
> > > intention is to formulate some vacation from the reality of their own
> > > sin.
> >
> > That's rationalization. You're thinking "lesser of two evils".
>
> I can't quite detect your point here...
>
> But my point is that a man will try to find ways to condone their own
> sin. By thinking that one's sin is not bad is doing just that.
"lesser of two evils"
sammy
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> sammy wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 7:24 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > sammy wrote:
> > > > On Dec 4, 3:49 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't know if "found" is the right word.I don't go looking for them.
> > > > > I have come across people who do a lot of good. I'm happy with that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > The answer is no. The people you have described (if I was to take it
> > > > literally--maybe I shouldn't) do not exist.
>
> > > Bull. Does that mean that genius does not exist?
>
> > Can't compare genius with being good person, sorry. Moral fiber and
> > intellect differ greatly.
>
> I don't think so.
To be "good" is something that must happen through actions of a Being
superior to yourself. Genius, as you have said, is something you are
born with.
> > > Everyone is inherently
>
> > > > evil, no matter how you try to condone it.
>
> > > Says who? They may be inerently selfish but that is an evolved
> > > response of the human animal.
>
> > That's my point: even though being selfish doesn't seem as bad as, say
> > murder, it's all sin to God. It's either sin or not sin, remember.
>
> > > The fact is evident: every
>
> > > > human on the face of this earth is capable ot the darkest evil you can
> > > > imagine. Even though some of us commit more evil than others, we all
> > > > have the capacity to do it.
>
> > > > The fact is, nobody is "good" until one allows God to make them good.
>
> > > Which god?
>
> > We've been through all this before, haven't we Mr. John?
>
> What if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can't possibly be
> good? Are all Muslims evil because they do not believe in your kind of
> God?
Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
> > > > You also must realize that there is no gray area between good and
> > > > evil. It is either good, or it is bad.
>
> > > Bad is not evil.
>
> > Eh?
>
> A child who speaks out in class may be bad but is speaking out in
> class evil?
So it's the condemning strength of the term you are uncomfortable
with?
> > > It is convenient to forgive
>
> > > > one's own doings as "not as bad as robbing a bank," etc., and when man
> > > > creates these theories, a little thought will reveal that their
> > > > intention is to formulate some vacation from the reality of their own
> > > > sin.
>
> > > That's rationalization. You're thinking "lesser of two evils".
>
> > I can't quite detect your point here...
>
> > But my point is that a man will try to find ways to condone their own
> > sin. By thinking that one's sin is not bad is doing just that.
>
> "lesser of two evils"
Ok. The "lesser of two evils" is not any less evil then the greater
evil in God's sight. There's no gray area.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ultraviolet
<utilizat...@gmail.com> in
news:195ea030-9c23-4ec8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
:
> On Dec 5, 4:28 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> sammy wrote:
<>
>> What if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can't
>> possibly be good? Are all Muslims evil because they do not
>> believe in your kind of God?
>
> Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
I'm glad I don't have to believe in such fucknuttery.
--
UV
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://paula-light.blogspot.com
************************************
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Here Sammy.
Knock yourseld out.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686832,00.html
Alan Hope
>A screaming comes across the froup. It's sammy
><utilizat...@gmail.com> in
>news:195ea030-9c23-4ec8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>:
>> On Dec 5, 4:28 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> sammy wrote:
><>
>>> What if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can't
>>> possibly be good? Are all Muslims evil because they do not
>>> believe in your kind of God?
>> Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
>I'm glad I don't have to believe in such fucknuttery.
This is him further up-thread: You can only be good through the action
of God making you good. Fuckinell, I thought, this is the twat who was
arguing with me a couple of weeks ago about God giving us free will.
But you know what? They don't care if one side of their brain is going
"black" while the other side is going "wibble". That's just fine,
because God moves in mysterious ways innit.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
a good person is someone who often wonders whether they're a good
person or not.
-$Zero...
follow the bouncing google sig links (Part I)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0fd2ff32e9686809
sammy
> Ultraviolet goes:
>
> >A screaming comes across the froup. It's sammy
Very good point. When God "makes us good" He isn't actually
controlling our actions and behavior to be good. He (1) gives us a
desire to do good, and (2) forgives our sin making us sinless in his
sight (giving us passage to Heaven). So no, he's not controlling our
behavior, even though our behavior changes after accepting Christ.
sammy
That article seemed to prove my point. Man has a sense of morality to
him, yet does it anyway; this is indicative of the fact that man has a
desire to sin.
sammy
> A screaming comes across the froup. It's sammy
> :
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:28 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> sammy wrote:
>
> <>
>
> >> What if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can't
> >> possibly be good? Are all Muslims evil because they do not
> >> believe in your kind of God?
>
> > Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
>
> I'm glad I don't have to believe in such fucknuttery.
>
> --
> UV
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*http://paula-light.blogspot.com
> ************************************
Do you believe in right and wrong, Paula?
boots
It's odd how humans work, and I use the term "work" loosely because
for the most part we don't. We're inculcated with some set of beliefs
as children, and we make up the most egregious lies to defend them,
when if we could just let them fall away or not as they should, we'd
perhaps be able to see things as they are. But we mayn't.
boots
Man has a desire to do whatever he desires.
Man has the ability to make up lies to justify his beliefs.
Man holds God at arms length to justify his beliefs.
Man gets what he deserves.
God giggles.
Ultraviolet
<utilizat...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:aa851e02-aada-45fa...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> Do you believe in right and wrong, Paula?
No.
boots
>It was a dark and stormy night when sammy
><utilizat...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:aa851e02-aada-45fa...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> Do you believe in right and wrong, Paula?
>
>
>No.
That's just so wrong.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Ultraviolet goes:
>>>A screaming comes across the froup. It's sammy
>>><utilizat...@gmail.com> in
>>>news:195ea030-9c23-4ec8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>:
>>>> On Dec 5, 4:28 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>> sammy wrote:
>>><>
>>>>> What if you don't believe in god? Does that mean you can't
>>>>> possibly be good? Are all Muslims evil because they do not
>>>>> believe in your kind of God?
>>>> Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
>>>I'm glad I don't have to believe in such fucknuttery.
>>This is him further up-thread: You can only be good through the action
>>of God making you good. Fuckinell, I thought, this is the twat who was
>>arguing with me a couple of weeks ago about God giving us free will.
>>But you know what? They don't care if one side of their brain is going
>>"black" while the other side is going "wibble". That's just fine,
>>because God moves in mysterious ways innit.
>It's odd how humans work, and I use the term "work" loosely because
>for the most part we don't. We're inculcated with some set of beliefs
>as children,
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is.
>and we make up the most egregious lies to defend them,
SFY
>when if we could just let them fall away or not as they should, we'd
>perhaps be able to see things as they are. But we mayn't.
Some of us do.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> On Dec 2, 7:54�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 8:36 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> > > "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > >Goodness in a person is like genius in a person. You don't become a
> > > >genius, you just are.
>
> > A good person is someone who doesn't let any moral rules prevent them
> > from doing what's right.
possibly replace "often" with "sometimes":
> a good person is someone who often wonders
> whether they're a good person or not.
possibly revise to:
a good person is person who cares
whether they're a good person or not.
(good sense of humor likely)
ba'dum, chsh!
shelve for further possible study.
-$Zero...
who, for no practical reason, types only with his pinky fingers.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ce39b0c0696d1aa8
boots
Everyone is, Hope. I'm talking general beliefs here, not beliefs
about which God-idol is the ruler of the heavens and has the coolest
beard and the most awesome trident. You have beliefs you learnt as a
child, and if you think about it a moment you'll realize it. Shit
like "be honest and work hard and you'll succeed" which is the most
ridiculous twaddle since success has little to do with either and is
of doubious value anyway. We're all inculcated with that shite, by
parents, teachers, society in general.
>>and we make up the most egregious lies to defend them,
>
>SFY
Little point responding to this since you assumed I was talking about
strictly religious beliefs.
>>when if we could just let them fall away or not as they should, we'd
>>perhaps be able to see things as they are. But we mayn't.
>
>Some of us do.
Yes, some of us do.
sammy
> It was a dark and stormy night when sammy
>
> > Do you believe in right and wrong, Paula?
>
> No.
>
> --
> UV
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*http://paula-light.blogspot.com
> ************************************
Well that explains it, I guess.
Josh Hill
Survival value: it allowed our parents to reproduce. Besides,
speciation depends in part on a reluctance to hybridize, on the
maintenance of genetic diversity.
> But we mayn't.
Some of usn't.
--
Josh
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals.
We know now that it is bad economics." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
boots
Fucksake Josh, I just realized what a loon you are. You still think
"survival" has "value". Jayzus. No wonder we can't get on the same
wavelength.
Alan Hope
>>>>><>
Depends what you mean by "beliefs". Is "don't fuck people over" a
belief? Is "murder is wrong" a belief?
See, you could keep moving those goalposts of yours until you've
captured everything. That wasn't the point of the discussion.
>>>and we make up the most egregious lies to defend them,
>>SFY
>Little point responding to this since you assumed I was talking about
>strictly religious beliefs.
That's what the conversation is about. Sorry if you didn't grasp that.
>>>when if we could just let them fall away or not as they should, we'd
>>>perhaps be able to see things as they are. But we mayn't.
>>Some of us do.
>Yes, some of us do.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
God made her that way. Therefore, you can't explain it. Unless you
think you can explain God. Is that what you think? God is smaller than
your mind so that your mind can encompass Him? Is that what you think,
heretic-boy?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
The idea that not fucking people over is to your benefit is a belief,
yes; one that you and I seem to share, but which Bill Gates for
example probably does not share, given the past actions of his
company.
The idea that murder is wrong is a belief, yes; one that I think we
both share. A real atheist on the other hand could easily be totally
bereft of such beliefs and have a completely different set that might
include "anything you can get away with is okay because there is no
god and men are objects to be used if you can".
The way we are taught that the universe works is full of beliefs, some
of which are true and some are probably not. We know dropped objects
fall and we have a concept of gravity to account for it, but to say
that is absolutely the reason things fall is stretching into belief,
belief that we understand it if nothing else. We don't understand
gravitational attraction, we can account for it but that doesn't mean
we understand it.
>See, you could keep moving those goalposts of yours until you've
>captured everything. That wasn't the point of the discussion.
Well, sorry then, I keep forgetting that a thread is supposed to stay
perfectly on target until it dwindles several thousand contributions
down the way. Nevermind that they've usually mutated by about the 5th
post, that's irrelevant to your desires at the moment. Carry on then.
sammy
Good grief. Because I cannot explain UV, I cannot explain God, which
means that He doesn't exist? Weak reasoning, I must say!
Alan Hope
Not very good at reading, are you Sammy?
No wonder the Bible looks good to you.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
sammy
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I said is what your post would insinuate. No, you didn't say
exactly that, but if I was to explore your reasoning, that's what it
is essentially communicating. Here it is again:
"God made her that way. Therefore, you can't explain it. Unless you
think you can explain God. Is that what you think? God is smaller
than
your mind so that your mind can encompass Him? Is that what you
think,
heretic-boy?" --Alan Hope
When I wrote, "that explains it," I did not say, "that explains HER".
See the difference?
Her disbelief in right and wrong explains why she posted this:
> > Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
>
> I'm glad I don't have to believe in such fucknuttery.
Understand now?
Alan Hope
That's not what I said.
>yes; one that you and I seem to share, but which Bill Gates for
>example probably does not share, given the past actions of his
>company.
I disagree. I think he adheres to the rule as much as I do, but we
disagree on what constitutes fucking someone over. Actually you and he
do, I don't have a problem with his business practices, as long as the
world is such that nobody needs to buy anything made by Microsoft.
>The idea that murder is wrong is a belief, yes; one that I think we
>both share.
How is that a belief? It's not the sort of belief we started out
talking about, like "There is a God".
>A real atheist on the other hand could easily be totally
>bereft of such beliefs and have a completely different set that might
>include "anything you can get away with is okay because there is no
>god and men are objects to be used if you can".
Why would you need to be an atheist? The people you find holding such
positions these days all seem to be avowed Christians.
>The way we are taught that the universe works is full of beliefs, some
>of which are true and some are probably not.
You're bandying the word "belief" about as if it means anything you
want it to.
>We know dropped objects
>fall and we have a concept of gravity to account for it, but to say
>that is absolutely the reason things fall is stretching into belief,
>belief that we understand it if nothing else. We don't understand
>gravitational attraction, we can account for it but that doesn't mean
>we understand it.
That's fucking nonsense.
>>See, you could keep moving those goalposts of yours until you've
>>captured everything. That wasn't the point of the discussion.
>Well, sorry then, I keep forgetting that a thread is supposed to stay
>perfectly on target until it dwindles several thousand contributions
>down the way. Nevermind that they've usually mutated by about the 5th
>post, that's irrelevant to your desires at the moment. Carry on then.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Dec 6, 6:11 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sammy goes:
>> >On Dec 6, 11:21 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> sammy goes:
>> >> >On Dec 6, 3:09 am, Ultraviolet <viole...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> >> It was a dark and stormy night when sammy
>> >> >> <utilizational...@gmail.com> wrote innews:aa851e02-aada-45fa...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> > Do you believe in right and wrong, Paula?
>> >> >> No.
>> >> >Well that explains it, I guess.
>> >> God made her that way. Therefore, you can't explain it. Unless you
>> >> think you can explain God. Is that what you think? God is smaller than
>> >> your mind so that your mind can encompass Him? Is that what you think,
>> >> heretic-boy?
>> >Good grief. Because I cannot explain UV, I cannot explain God, which
>> >means that He doesn't exist? Weak reasoning, I must say!
>> Not very good at reading, are you Sammy?
>> No wonder the Bible looks good to you.
>What I said is what your post would insinuate.
Rubbish.
>No, you didn't say
>exactly that,
Quite.
>but if I was to explore your reasoning, that's what it
>is essentially communicating.
You haven't the skills to explore my fucking dog's reasoning, Sammy.
>Here it is again:
>"God made her that way.
Do you agree?
>Therefore, you can't explain it.
You have previously stated that we cannot understand God's ways.
>Unless you
>think you can explain God. Is that what you think?
Do you?
>God is smaller
>than
>your mind so that your mind can encompass Him? Is that what you
>think,
>heretic-boy?" --Alan Hope
In order for your mind to comprehend something, that something must be
smaller than your mind. That seems fairly uncontroversial. It follows
that you therefore cannot comprehend the God in whom you believe,
since he is omnipotent and omnipresent, whereas your mind is not. You
have in any case stipulated to this, that you cannot comprehend God.
>When I wrote, "that explains it," I did not say, "that explains HER".
>See the difference?
There is no difference. If Paula is a creation of God, and God cannot
be comprehended by you, it follows necessarily that you cannot
comprehend Paula.
>Her disbelief in right and wrong explains why she posted this:
No it doesn't. It could be God moving in a mysterious way.
>> > Yes. Allah cannot make one good, but God can.
>> I'm glad I don't have to believe in such fucknuttery.
>Understand now?
She's quite right. I don't believe in your fucknuttery. But you do.
I'm not bound by your nut-logic. But you are.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
sammy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The fact is, I never never said that I could "comprehend Paula". I
said that her belief explains *one of her posts*, not *her*.
Josh Hill
Er, "survival value" means "value for survival," not "the value of
survival." It's a subtle distinction in much the same way that "up"
and "down," "dead" and "alive," and "right" and "wrong" are.
Which being said, if you don't think survival has value you're either
clinically depressed and anhedonic or suffering from an exquisitely
painful cancer. Because all survival needs to have positive value is a
happy emotional bounty, and as long as we have sex and Beethoven, it
most assuredly will.
Josh Hill
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Depends what you mean by "beliefs". Is "don't fuck people over" a
>>belief? Is "murder is wrong" a belief?
>
>The idea that not fucking people over is to your benefit is a belief,
>yes; one that you and I seem to share, but which Bill Gates for
>example probably does not share, given the past actions of his
>company.
>
>The idea that murder is wrong is a belief, yes; one that I think we
>both share. A real atheist on the other hand could easily be totally
>bereft of such beliefs and have a completely different set that might
>include "anything you can get away with is okay because there is no
>god and men are objects to be used if you can".
That, however, doesn't seem to happen among atheists with greater
frequency than it does among the religious. In part, I think, because
religion serves as a handy excuse and facilitator for every kind of
beastliness. Religious people own slaves, religious people drop bombs,
religious people condemn women to 200 lashes for being raped. And no
atheist ever sacrificed a child to Baal.
boots
Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
Towse
> Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
> gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
Actually not, seems to me.
You (boots), however, seem to be wrapped around the usenet posting
points issue.
Eh?
Or whatever.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
boots
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:18:18 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:53:51 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's odd how humans work, and I use the term "work" loosely because
>>>>for the most part we don't. We're inculcated with some set of beliefs
>>>>as children, and we make up the most egregious lies to defend them,
>>>>when if we could just let them fall away or not as they should, we'd
>>>>perhaps be able to see things as they are.
>>>
>>>Survival value: it allowed our parents to reproduce. Besides,
>>>speciation depends in part on a reluctance to hybridize, on the
>>>maintenance of genetic diversity.
>>>
>>>> But we mayn't.
>>>
>>>Some of usn't.
>>
>>Fucksake Josh, I just realized what a loon you are. You still think
>>"survival" has "value". Jayzus. No wonder we can't get on the same
>>wavelength.
>
>Er, "survival value" means "value for survival," not "the value of
>survival." It's a subtle distinction in much the same way that "up"
>and "down," "dead" and "alive," and "right" and "wrong" are.
You can play word games with it if you like Josh, but the two are
inextricably linked. If there is no value to survival there is no
value for survival, likewise if there is value for survival the
implication is that there is value to survival.
>Which being said, if you don't think survival has value you're either
>clinically depressed and anhedonic or suffering from an exquisitely
>painful cancer.
Perhaps I have learned that what lies beyond ennui is freedom.
> Because all survival needs to have positive value is a
>happy emotional bounty, and as long as we have sex and Beethoven, it
>most assuredly will.
You're silly. On one hand you go on at length about how various
behaviours or characteristics have value from an evolutionary point of
view, they help the subspecies with those characteristics to survive
as a stronger part of the race. On the other hand you think survival
has value. If survival has value, evolutionary theory is bunk, or
there would only be one immortal species; it is the inclusion of death
in the process of life that makes evolution work, if it does work.
As long as hedonism can be practiced survival has value, according to
what I read you to say. What a shallow view that is. I must be
misunderstanding you.
Survival does not have value, it is temporary, circumstantial, and
ultimately beyond our control. There are many people who believe that
the most important thing they can do is to prolong their own life.
You seem to be one of them. Feelgoodies, people who consider life to
be worth continuing as long as they can squirt one more orgasm and
listen to the music of their choice? It seems sad to me, the idea of
being stuck forever within an existence without meaning beyond sex and
Beethoven.
Here is a quotation from roughly 500bc, it's found in the Tao Te Ching
in chapter 75:
"Why do the people think so little of death?
Because the rulers demand too much of life.
Therefore the people take death lightly.
Having little to live on, one knows better than to
value life too much. "
So you see, my madness is not a new invention, it has been around
longer than Jeezus. It's a matter of values and beliefs Josh, I
believe it is better to live well for a short time than to live badly
forever. But I don't believe in evolution either, or creationism, at
least as they seem commonly understood.
Luckily for me it's a free world. Not just a free country. Anywhere
in the world you can think according to algorithms as mad as you
choose, so long as you remain functional. It is when you mark
yourself as dysfunctional that they come and take you away, and then
it doesn't matter whether your thinking is conformant or not.
Whatever, I'm just running on here waiting for your inevitable flounce
back to wherever it is that you find excitement in being threatened by
convicted murderers. Which of course I find silly because the
convicted ones aren't the ones that a person should be worried about.
boots
>boots wrote:
>
>> Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
>> gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
>
>Actually not, seems to me.
Huh! If you think not, I'll re-read his post and see if I can get a
different take on it.
>You (boots), however, seem to be wrapped around the usenet posting
>points issue.
>
>Eh?
I recognize that being one-up is more important than saying something
to what seems like many people. <shrug>
>Or whatever.
Indeed. Lots of whatever going around. Usually.
I'll take another look at Hope's post, maybe I've misinterpreted him
somehow. He seems to be harping on the idea that I've committed some
heinous sin by posting a response that shifted the topic slightly from
the one he wanted to keep his teeth in.
Like you said, whatever.
boots
All right then, Sal pointed out that I seem to have mistaken your
meaning, and on second reading it seems to me that she was correct.
"don't fuck people over" is not a belief, it is a command.
"murder is wrong" is not a belief, it is a value-judgement.
"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
available data.
If someone was told that "God exists" and just accepted it
unthinkingly, or perhaps to make the teller shut up, I'd call it a
belief. If someone decided that "God exists" because that was his
judgement based on life's experience, I supposed that having accepted
it as a viable working hypothesis one could be said to have taken it
as a "belief".
People "believe" all sorts of things, sometimes based on nothing
beyond being told it very loudly, sometimes based on an accumulation
of data. The belief that atomic particles exist is an example of a
belief based on accumulated data; it is a reasoned belief, but no less
a belief than that God exists.
I may be wrong, but to me the belief-boundary is the point at which
one simply accepts a thing as being unquestionably true, for whatever
reasons. It is probably useful, if we constantly questioned
everything we know, not much would get done; but the fact that we
believe something does not make it true, it simply makes it less
likely to be revealed as false.
Alan Hope
>Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
>gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
Score!
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>He seems to be harping on the idea that I've committed some
>heinous sin by posting a response that shifted the topic slightly from
>the one he wanted to keep his teeth in.
Shift the topic all you want, but don't do it while still pretending
to address the point I was making.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
>>gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
>
>Score!
So what do you think now, Sal?
I think the man's a fucktard, but that's beside the point; depending
on when he was born he may also be a leotard.
Alan Hope
>"don't fuck people over" is not a belief, it is a command.
>"murder is wrong" is not a belief, it is a value-judgement.
>"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
>available data.
No. It's a belief for the very reason that it is not based on the
available data, or indeed any data at all. This is precisely why the
religious place so much store in faith: because you need some reason
to believe in God other than that which Reason demands.
>If someone was told that "God exists" and just accepted it
>unthinkingly, or perhaps to make the teller shut up, I'd call it a
>belief.
Well that's how people do accept it, unthinkingly.
>If someone decided that "God exists" because that was his
>judgement based on life's experience, I supposed that having accepted
>it as a viable working hypothesis one could be said to have taken it
>as a "belief".
My point is that it's a position that's just not evidence-based. In
some respects it ignores the evidence, and in others it flat-out
contradicts "life's experience". It's for that reason we can
categorise it as a belief.
>People "believe" all sorts of things, sometimes based on nothing
>beyond being told it very loudly, sometimes based on an accumulation
>of data.
Well no. A conclusion based on evidence is not a belief. It would be
absurd to say you believe in rain, or the power of electricity to
illuminate a lamp. That's a flagrant misuse of the language. It is, on
the other hand, a belief to state that the power of the human heart
will get us through our troubles, either because there is no evidence
it will, or because the evidence clearly shows it will not.
>The belief that atomic particles exist is an example of a
>belief based on accumulated data;
Nonsense. There's no belief involved.
>it is a reasoned belief, but no less
>a belief than that God exists.
The two are diametrically different. It's simply idiotic to argue as
you do. You're making a mockery of the words you're relying on. If
acceptance of the existence of God is what a belief is, as I say, then
acceptance of the existence of atomic particles is the very opposite.
They simply cannot both be the same thing.
>I may be wrong, but to me the belief-boundary is the point at which
>one simply accepts a thing as being unquestionably true, for whatever
>reasons.
Quite utterly wrong: the "whatever reasons" are absolutely crucial. If
there is a reason based in evidence, on the one hand, then we are
dealing with a rational conclusion. If not, as in the case of God,
then we are dealing with faith, and with belief. It's all to do with
that word "unquestioningly". You cannot belief in atoms without taking
account of the evidence, at which point you cannot not believe. In the
case of God, by contrast, you have to start off by disregarding the
evidence, and then if you like carry on by considering arguments that
are not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.
>It is probably useful, if we constantly questioned
>everything we know, not much would get done; but the fact that we
>believe something does not make it true, it simply makes it less
>likely to be revealed as false.
It's not my conviction that makes atomic theory true. It's the
evidence that leads to my conviction. In the case of God, it's the
other way round. You need to have faith in order to believe in the
first place (because the proposition is so preposterous) and you need
it even more to carry on believing in the face of every scrap of
evidence there is.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>You can play word games with it if you like Josh, but the two are
>inextricably linked. If there is no value to survival there is no
>value for survival, likewise if there is value for survival the
>implication is that there is value to survival.
If there's a word game going on, it's not his. Survival value is the
accepted term in evolutionary discussions. It means a particular
thing, as explained.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
>boots goes:
...
>>"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
>>available data.
>
>No. It's a belief for the very reason that it is not based on the
>available data, or indeed any data at all.
You do not know that to be the case and I know it to be false.
I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when we use the
same word, "God".
I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
be that stupid.
And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
see little point in worrying at it.
boots
Yes, well, you go ahead and have your evolutionary discussions, and
I'll wager you end up the same unevolved cretin you were at their
start.
Josh Hill
Not only are you wrong, you're gloriously wrong. Science doesn't
pretend to prove; it's therefore patently silly to compare the
rationalist to the believer, for whom certitude grows in proportion to
the absence of evidence. But even if we're speaking of the workaday
assumptions we make about the world around us, there's a world of
difference between belief in pixies and sprites and a healthy working
respect for Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation -- namely, that
there's no evidence whatsoever for the first, and lots for the other.
So glaring -- so blindingly obvious -- is this difference that I'm
beginning to wonder whether those who can't see it aren't missing one
of the genes that have separated our species from the pongidae. Once a
certain level of education, intelligence, and cultural sophistication
have been attained, belief depends on the suppression of reality, on
psychodynamic rationalization; it's little different in essence from
the conviction of a hysteric that her leg won't move.
The existence of hysteria and similar conditions is a good indication
of the power of the subconscious to overrule reason in some
individuals. I wonder if there's a correlation between this primitive
attribute and suggestibility.
Josh Hill
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots goes:
>...
>>>"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
>>>available data.
>>
>>No. It's a belief for the very reason that it is not based on the
>>available data, or indeed any data at all.
>
>You do not know that to be the case and I know it to be false.
Where's the evidence, then, Boots?
>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when we use the
>same word, "God".
>
>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
>be that stupid.
>
>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
>see little point in worrying at it.
If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
have to assume that you have none.
Josh Hill
There is no word game here, Boots: the two meanings are in an
important regard diametrically opposed.
"Survival value" simply means "increases the likelihood of survival."
>>Which being said, if you don't think survival has value you're either
>>clinically depressed and anhedonic or suffering from an exquisitely
>>painful cancer.
>
>Perhaps I have learned that what lies beyond ennui is freedom.
What's so good about freedom?
>> Because all survival needs to have positive value is a
>>happy emotional bounty, and as long as we have sex and Beethoven, it
>>most assuredly will.
>
>You're silly. On one hand you go on at length about how various
>behaviours or characteristics have value from an evolutionary point of
>view, they help the subspecies with those characteristics to survive
>as a stronger part of the race. On the other hand you think survival
>has value. If survival has value, evolutionary theory is bunk, or
>there would only be one immortal species; it is the inclusion of death
>in the process of life that makes evolution work, if it does work.
Evolution is just a natural process. I don't necessarily value
something because it is highly evolved, and I don't necessarily value
something because it's conducive to evolution. I mention evolution
only as a fact.
In that regard, evolution is like gravity. And just as gravity is a
mixed bag, on one hand keeping us stuck to the ground and on the other
leading to aching joints and lumbago, evolution does nice things for
us like allowing us to exist and not-so-nice things like programmed
death.
>As long as hedonism can be practiced survival has value, according to
>what I read you to say. What a shallow view that is. I must be
>misunderstanding you.
Only insofar as hedonism, as you put it, is only one component of the
drives, emotions, and understandings that determine what we do.
Mouth at one end, anus at the other. Genitals maybe 2/3 down. A few
neurons to increase the probability of eating and lower that of being
eaten. That's the essence of it (though for some here it's anus at
both ends).
>Survival does not have value, it is temporary, circumstantial, and
>ultimately beyond our control. There are many people who believe that
>the most important thing they can do is to prolong their own life.
>You seem to be one of them. Feelgoodies, people who consider life to
>be worth continuing as long as they can squirt one more orgasm and
>listen to the music of their choice? It seems sad to me, the idea of
>being stuck forever within an existence without meaning beyond sex and
>Beethoven.
"Meaning?" What is the meaning of "meaning"?
>Here is a quotation from roughly 500bc, it's found in the Tao Te Ching
>in chapter 75:
>
> "Why do the people think so little of death?
> Because the rulers demand too much of life.
> Therefore the people take death lightly.
>
> Having little to live on, one knows better than to
> value life too much. "
I'll remember that when next I'm an oppressed peasant.
>So you see, my madness is not a new invention, it has been around
>longer than Jeezus. It's a matter of values and beliefs Josh, I
>believe it is better to live well for a short time than to live badly
>forever.
That seems to me rather hedonistic. In any case, what makes you think
I, or most people, disagree? It's just that you don't have to booze,
smoke, or stuff yourself with pie to be happy or lead a good life.
Those are pleasures, yes, and therefore to be encouraged in those who
are young enough and robust enough to enjoy them. But there are lots
of pleasures -- the press of flesh, the laughter of children,
schussing down a slope, diving a reef, reading a book -- and I hope to
be around for a while longer to partake of them.
To me, life is like a smorgasbord with far more good things than one
can possibly eat. That a few of the platters are now empty is of only
passing concern. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that my
real concern is with different impediments, either self-imposed or
external. An empty platter is no great shakes, but the inability to
eat a full one is a shame.
>But I don't believe in evolution either, or creationism, at
>least as they seem commonly understood.
That you equate the two suggests that you understand neither.
>Luckily for me it's a free world. Not just a free country. Anywhere
>in the world you can think according to algorithms as mad as you
>choose, so long as you remain functional. It is when you mark
>yourself as dysfunctional that they come and take you away, and then
>it doesn't matter whether your thinking is conformant or not.
>
>Whatever, I'm just running on here waiting for your inevitable flounce
>back to wherever it is that you find excitement in being threatened by
>convicted murderers. Which of course I find silly because the
>convicted ones aren't the ones that a person should be worried about.
I'm not going back to AAPC, Boots: though the occasional denizen
revisits the wreckage for old time's sake (check out Dale Houstman's
luminous prose in the poetry troll thread), most of us long ago moved
on.
You seem to have neglected the possibility that there are still groups
that haven't been infested by trolls and flamers. It's MW that's the
abnormality.
Most people have little interest in hanging out on a group infested by
adults who behave like twelve-year-olds at recess. The criteria by
which people are judged in such a group are deformed. To succeed at
them is to lessen oneself.
Josh Hill
I take exception to that. We're highly evolved cretins.
$Zero
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:44:10 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
[...]
> >Perhaps I have learned that what lies beyond ennui is freedom.
>
> What's so good about freedom?
and people still wonder how Shrub and the boys took over America.
-$Zero...
if pot became legal...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e797b0b281cb4d56
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>boots goes:
>>>Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
>>>gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
>>Score!
>So what do you think now, Sal?
>I think the man's a fucktard, but that's beside the point; depending
>on when he was born he may also be a leotard.
You don't get to choose.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
Pies de Arcilla
Josh Hill wrote:
> So glaring -- so blindingly obvious -- is this difference that I'm
> beginning to wonder whether those who can't see it aren't missing one
> of the genes that have separated our species from the pongidae.
What evidence is there that apes are more religious than the average
human?
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>boots goes:
>
>>>>Hope, you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in
>>>>gaining usenet posting points. Piss off.
>
>>>Score!
>
>>So what do you think now, Sal?
>
>>I think the man's a fucktard, but that's beside the point; depending
>>on when he was born he may also be a leotard.
>
>You don't get to choose.
Ah, but Hope, that's the only thing I really do get to do.
boots
>On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:32:01 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>boots goes:
>>...
>>>>"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
>>>>available data.
>>>
>>>No. It's a belief for the very reason that it is not based on the
>>>available data, or indeed any data at all.
>>
>>You do not know that to be the case and I know it to be false.
>
>Where's the evidence, then, Boots?
Why can't you see it, Josh? You don't know where to look? Look for
unexpected events of the "statistical happenstance" variety, look at
what was going on in your head at the horizon of their occurrence, and
look for correlations. They're there to be found, but if you find
them they'll drive you mad from your present perspective because your
paradigm cannot extend itself far enough to encompass what you will
find, so best just not look, you're happy enough as you are.
>>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when we use the
>>same word, "God".
>>
>>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
>>be that stupid.
>>
>>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
>>see little point in worrying at it.
>
>If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
>have to assume that you have none.
It is not something I can trot out and point at, it's evidence within
your own everyday life that you overlook, because on a level that
knows best, you don't want to know.
$Zero
> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
boots:
> >>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when
> >>we use the same word, "God".
>
> >>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
> >>be that stupid.
>
> >>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
> >>see little point in worrying at it.
>
> >If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
> >have to assume that you have none.
>
> It is not something I can trot out and point at, it's evidence within
> your own everyday life that you overlook, because on a level that
> knows best, you don't want to know.
one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
that's why atheists can never stop debating it.
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
boots
How kind of you to bestow your supreme knowledge upon lowly me.
> you're gloriously wrong.
Well fucking-ay, at least there's a bit of flair in that!
> Science doesn't pretend to prove;
Really. Is this like, something new? I must be getting older sooner
than I thought, I have these (admittedly vague) recollections of
various proofs of things. Gravitational constants, speed of light,
silly trivial shit like that. Silly me. Oh yeah, I remember now,
those "laws" like the thermo ones, those are only "theories" which
absolves them of the hypocrisy of pretending to "prove" something.
> it's therefore patently silly to compare the
>rationalist to the believer, for whom certitude grows in proportion to
>the absence of evidence.
Whoa, now that's a new one to me. Believers become more certain as
the lack of evidence grows? Kewel, do they have orgone engines in
their cars? Are they being persecuted by space aliens? No, I got it,
it's the fucking Illuminati again innit!
> But even if we're speaking of the workaday
>assumptions we make about the world around us, there's a world of
>difference between belief in pixies and sprites and a healthy working
>respect for Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
I have lots of respect for the Law, so like, is this Law proven or is
it just another theory so people don't have to pretend that it's
proven? Cause you know, science doesn't pretend to prove.
>-- namely, that
>there's no evidence whatsoever for the first, and lots for the other.
Who is it that keeps bringing up pixies and sprites and Godz with
great fluffy beards sitting on thrones and similar shit anyway? Good
greef man, do you need an intensive dose of cargo-cult therapy? Stick
your crystal pyramid where it'll do the most good and get back to
something at least resembling the common reality!
>So glaring -- so blindingly obvious -- is this difference that I'm
>beginning to wonder whether those who can't see it aren't missing one
>of the genes that have separated our species from the pongidae. Once a
>certain level of education, intelligence, and cultural sophistication
>have been attained, belief depends on the suppression of reality, on
>psychodynamic rationalization; it's little different in essence from
>the conviction of a hysteric that her leg won't move.
As Hope said, that may depend on how you define "belief". If you mean
the unthinkingly accepting as truth something one has no cause to
believe true, then it seems probabilistically likely that the
suppression of reality would be necessitated at least half the time,
oh my gawd what a realization!
>The existence of hysteria and similar conditions is a good indication
>of the power of the subconscious to overrule reason in some
>individuals. I wonder if there's a correlation between this primitive
>attribute and suggestibility.
Fucking humans, you just never know what they'll choose to manifest
right on your front goddamn lawn.
boots
The only thing that increases the likelihood of survival is survival.
>>>Which being said, if you don't think survival has value you're either
>>>clinically depressed and anhedonic or suffering from an exquisitely
>>>painful cancer.
>>
>>Perhaps I have learned that what lies beyond ennui is freedom.
>
>What's so good about freedom?
So like, are you heavily into slavery? Into having to care about
things, worry about them, do what you should? Have you done all the
things you should, Josh? Or are you playing here to postpone their
doing? How can you be a goodboy if you avoid your duties? Or maybe
you'd rather be free to do whatever you choose and tell the shoulders
to shove their shoulds up their asses?
>>> Because all survival needs to have positive value is a
>>>happy emotional bounty, and as long as we have sex and Beethoven, it
>>>most assuredly will.
>>
>>You're silly. On one hand you go on at length about how various
>>behaviours or characteristics have value from an evolutionary point of
>>view, they help the subspecies with those characteristics to survive
>>as a stronger part of the race. On the other hand you think survival
>>has value. If survival has value, evolutionary theory is bunk, or
>>there would only be one immortal species; it is the inclusion of death
>>in the process of life that makes evolution work, if it does work.
>
>Evolution is just a natural process. I don't necessarily value
>something because it is highly evolved, and I don't necessarily value
>something because it's conducive to evolution. I mention evolution
>only as a fact.
"only as a fact", is that one of those facts that Science "doesn't
pretend to prove" and if so what makes it a fact?
>In that regard, evolution is like gravity. And just as gravity is a
>mixed bag, on one hand keeping us stuck to the ground and on the other
>leading to aching joints and lumbago, evolution does nice things for
>us like allowing us to exist and not-so-nice things like programmed
>death.
>
>>As long as hedonism can be practiced survival has value, according to
>>what I read you to say. What a shallow view that is. I must be
>>misunderstanding you.
>
>Only insofar as hedonism, as you put it, is only one component of the
>drives, emotions, and understandings that determine what we do.
>
>Mouth at one end, anus at the other. Genitals maybe 2/3 down. A few
>neurons to increase the probability of eating and lower that of being
>eaten. That's the essence of it (though for some here it's anus at
>both ends).
>
>>Survival does not have value, it is temporary, circumstantial, and
>>ultimately beyond our control. There are many people who believe that
>>the most important thing they can do is to prolong their own life.
>>You seem to be one of them. Feelgoodies, people who consider life to
>>be worth continuing as long as they can squirt one more orgasm and
>>listen to the music of their choice? It seems sad to me, the idea of
>>being stuck forever within an existence without meaning beyond sex and
>>Beethoven.
>
>"Meaning?" What is the meaning of "meaning"?
You need an ennuinema.
>>Here is a quotation from roughly 500bc, it's found in the Tao Te Ching
>>in chapter 75:
>>
>> "Why do the people think so little of death?
>> Because the rulers demand too much of life.
>> Therefore the people take death lightly.
>>
>> Having little to live on, one knows better than to
>> value life too much. "
>
>I'll remember that when next I'm an oppressed peasant.
[Shhh, quiet people, he doesn't know.]
>>So you see, my madness is not a new invention, it has been around
>>longer than Jeezus. It's a matter of values and beliefs Josh, I
>>believe it is better to live well for a short time than to live badly
>>forever.
>
>That seems to me rather hedonistic.
That's because you're a hedonist and you choose to interpret the word
"well" as "enjoyably" rather than "virtuously" or "with integrity" or
"freely" or any other way that doesn't pamper your paunch or your
pecker.
> In any case, what makes you think
>I, or most people, disagree? It's just that you don't have to booze,
>smoke, or stuff yourself with pie to be happy or lead a good life.
>Those are pleasures, yes, and therefore to be encouraged in those who
>are young enough and robust enough to enjoy them. But there are lots
>of pleasures -- the press of flesh, the laughter of children,
>schussing down a slope, diving a reef, reading a book -- and I hope to
>be around for a while longer to partake of them.
The question is, in order to stay around to partake of them, how many
"yes"es will you spout when you'd say "NO" in truth, how many asses
will you kiss, how many cocks will you suck?
>To me, life is like a smorgasbord with far more good things than one
>can possibly eat. That a few of the platters are now empty is of only
>passing concern. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that my
>real concern is with different impediments, either self-imposed or
>external. An empty platter is no great shakes, but the inability to
>eat a full one is a shame.
If you're always a little bit hungry you can eat when food becomes
available, if you're always a little tired you can sleep in an
instant.
>>But I don't believe in evolution either, or creationism, at
>>least as they seem commonly understood.
>
>That you equate the two suggests that you understand neither.
Perhaps I understand both to be bogus. One must after all consider
all possibilities, mustn't one. To whom should we deliver your water?
>>Luckily for me it's a free world. Not just a free country. Anywhere
>>in the world you can think according to algorithms as mad as you
>>choose, so long as you remain functional. It is when you mark
>>yourself as dysfunctional that they come and take you away, and then
>>it doesn't matter whether your thinking is conformant or not.
>>
>>Whatever, I'm just running on here waiting for your inevitable flounce
>>back to wherever it is that you find excitement in being threatened by
>>convicted murderers. Which of course I find silly because the
>>convicted ones aren't the ones that a person should be worried about.
>
>I'm not going back to AAPC, Boots: though the occasional denizen
>revisits the wreckage for old time's sake (check out Dale Houstman's
>luminous prose in the poetry troll thread), most of us long ago moved
>on.
>
>You seem to have neglected the possibility that there are still groups
>that haven't been infested by trolls and flamers. It's MW that's the
>abnormality.
I've moved on from many groups when it became time to move on, Josh.
>Most people have little interest in hanging out on a group infested by
>adults who behave like twelve-year-olds at recess. The criteria by
>which people are judged in such a group are deformed. To succeed at
>them is to lessen oneself.
Then we must fail, clearly! Or perhaps simply piss off, with or
without a flounce.
Or conceivably resurrect the dead so as to give meaning to the act
when we piss on their feet.
Ultraviolet
<>
> one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
Unlike some of my fellow atheists, I agree with this. It all depends on
the mindset you choose. (Or maybe you don't really get to choose.) You
can also find "evidence" of not-God everywhere you look for it, or at
least evidence of not-a-good-God.
> that's why atheists can never stop debating it.
Maybe, but most of the time online I find theists are the ones to bring
up religion. Perhaps again you see what you look for.
$Zero
> It was a dark and stormy night when $Zero wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
>
> Unlike some of my fellow atheists, I agree with this. It all depends on
> the mindset you choose. (Or maybe you don't really get to choose.) You
> can also find "evidence" of not-God everywhere you look for it, or at
> least evidence of not-a-good-God.
or a slacker God.
> > that's why atheists can never stop debating it.
>
> Maybe, but most of the time online I find theists are the ones to
> bring up religion.
trolls for the omnipotence.
fishers of men.
> Perhaps again you see what you look for.
i never did get around to addressing Zen's posts in the bickerfest.
i suppose i just couldn't work up the gumption knowing that he
wouldn't be responding to my riffs and whatnot.
i probably should have just plowed on anyway, for the rest of you
bickerfesters, but i had my sights on Zen for that one.
Glynne Gilmore
> one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
That's because God is subjective, doncha know.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>boots goes:
>...
>>>"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
>>>available data.
>>No. It's a belief for the very reason that it is not based on the
>>available data, or indeed any data at all.
>You do not know that to be the case and I know it to be false.
Then present your evidence. The whole world awaits.
>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when we use the
>same word, "God".
>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
>be that stupid.
Make your fucking case, you cheeky cunt. Spare me the smart remarks
and present your evidence.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:32:01 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>boots goes:
>>>...
>>>>>"God exists" may be a belief, or it may be an assessment of the
>>>>>available data.
>>>>
>>>>No. It's a belief for the very reason that it is not based on the
>>>>available data, or indeed any data at all.
>>>
>>>You do not know that to be the case and I know it to be false.
>>
>>Where's the evidence, then, Boots?
>
>Why can't you see it, Josh? You don't know where to look? Look for
>unexpected events of the "statistical happenstance" variety, look at
>what was going on in your head at the horizon of their occurrence, and
>look for correlations.
Oh fuck. That sort of evidence. Is it your belief that by dressing it
up in ten-dollar words it somehow becomes more credible?
Stupid bollix.
>They're there to be found, but if you find
>them they'll drive you mad from your present perspective because your
>paradigm cannot extend itself far enough to encompass what you will
>find, so best just not look, you're happy enough as you are.
>>>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when we use the
>>>same word, "God".
>>>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
>>>be that stupid.
>>>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
>>>see little point in worrying at it.
>>If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
>>have to assume that you have none.
>It is not something I can trot out and point at, it's evidence within
>your own everyday life that you overlook, because on a level that
>knows best, you don't want to know.
If it's not something you can trot out, then you have nothing. What a
surprise.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Alan Hope
>On Dec 9, 5:29?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>boots:
>> >>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when
>> >>we use the same word, "God".
>> >>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
>> >>be that stupid.
>> >>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
>> >>see little point in worrying at it.
>> >If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
>> >have to assume that you have none.
>> It is not something I can trot out and point at, it's evidence within
>> your own everyday life that you overlook, because on a level that
>> knows best, you don't want to know.
>one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
Precisely. It's all in the mind of the believer.
>that's why atheists can never stop debating it.
What's to debate? There's no there there. EOFS
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Dec 9, 5:29?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >boots:
> >> >>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when
> >> >>we use the same word, "God".
> >> >>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
> >> >>be that stupid.
> >> >>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
> >> >>see little point in worrying at it.
> >> >If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
> >> >have to assume that you have none.
> >> It is not something I can trot out and point at, it's evidence within
> >> your own everyday life that you overlook, because on a level that
> >> knows best, you don't want to know.
>
> >one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
>
> Precisely. It's all in the mind of the believer.
what sort of evidence did you expect to find?
what sort of evidence would you believe?
the "evidence" that science "confirms" is far flimsier than the
evidence for God.
the evidence for God is everywhere you look.
look at the sky.
look at a flower.
look at your loved ones.
look at a microscope.
get yourself under a microscope.
> >that's why atheists can never stop debating it.
>
> What's to debate? There's no there there.
there's God there. everywhere you look.
> EOFS
atheists are mostly just disappointed with their expectations of what
God should be.
they suffer from Santa Claus Syndrome.
...
do you want God to exist?
if not, why not?
if so, how would you want God to be?
what's God doing wrong, in your opinion?
...
Glynne Gilmore
Jeezus, Z, just look around!
$Zero
nobody is less satisfied with the state of this world than i.
but i don't blame any of it on God.
not even when i was an atheist.
Glynne Gilmore
Hey Z. Scratch that. Holiday stress is taking its toll.
Glynne Gilmore
Quick to reply. See my next post.
$Zero
holiday stress is man's creation.
free will gone berserk.
Glynne Gilmore
So is expectation.
> free will gone berserk.
Free will is such a cop out. Every choice we make is the direct result
of our genetic code and environmental influences over which we have no
control.
It's not nature vs. nurture. It's nature AND nurture that determine all
choice. Now if those choices are CONSCIOUS choices as in, "I am totally
aware that I am making this choice right now as I am making it," then,
yes, I would have to admit that free will does come in to play.
How many of us can say that we have conscious awareness of our choices
as we are making them?
I choose to get stressed out during the holidays!!!
There. A conscious choice. I am aware of it. I have power! I have
control! Whoopee!
Glynne Gilmore
> genetic code
What we are born with duh.
> environmental influences
How we grew up. Who are parents were. How they treated us. Lack of
parents. Abuse. Whatever. Everything that happened TO us.
$Zero
yep.
> > free will gone berserk.
>
> Free will is such a cop out.
it's the complete opposite of a cop out.
but i wasn't suggesting that you created the holiday madness all by
yourself, Glynne.
> Every choice we make is the direct result
> of our genetic code and environmental influences
> over which we have no control.
our choices are not the _direct_ result of anything other than our
free will.
and we have much more control over our environmental influences than
we've been led to believe.
as an inventor, i know this all too well.
but i won't deny that both nature and nurture are extremely
influential.
the point is, they have no direct control over our choices.
only we do. individually.
> It's not nature vs. nurture. It's nature AND nurture that determine all
> choice.
influence all choice, maybe, but not determine.
> Now if those choices are CONSCIOUS choices as in, "I am totally
> aware that I am making this choice right now as I am making it," then,
> yes, I would have to admit that free will does come in to play.
you're faced with your natural and nurtured influences.
but free will always comes into play, no matter what.
you may not be conscious of it all of the time, due to the extreme
influences that both nature and nurture have over your life to date,
but your free will is what makes your choices for you. every single
time.
the more you understand this inescapable fact, the more conscious you
become of it.
thus, the more free you are.
> How many of us can say that we have conscious awareness of our choices
> as we are making them?
i can.
i may not be aware of all of the possible consequences of my choices,
such is life, but i'm always consciously aware of making most all of
my choices.
i can't think of any that i'm not aware of anymore.
> I choose to get stressed out during the holidays!!!
yes, you do.
> There. A conscious choice. I am aware of it. I have power!
> I have control! Whoopee!
heh.
welcome aboard.
$Zero
> Glynne Gilmore wrote:
>
> �> genetic code
>
> What we are born with duh.
hairy arms and a yearning for pasta and wine.
> �> environmental influences
>
> How we grew up. Who are parents were. How they treated us. Lack of
> parents. Abuse. Whatever. Everything that happened TO us.
yes. we all have histories. and genes.
but these histories and genetics never force any of our choices.
if they did, we would never have any choices at all.
i make choices every single day.
every single hour.
somethimes, every single second.
like right now, for instance, as i choose these words.
my genetics might "determine" an upper limit on my intelligence or
typing speed.
my experiences might "determine" which analogies or observations i'm
most likely to make.
but nothing other than my free will "determines" which words i choose
to type.
or which threads i choose to participate in.
Alan Hope
>On Dec 9, 6:28?pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 5:29?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> >> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >boots:
>> >> >>I wonder if we're even talking about the same concept when
>> >> >>we use the same word, "God".
>> >> >>I prefer to doubt that we are, it's uncomfortable to think you might
>> >> >>be that stupid.
>> >> >>And since you are so dogmatically convinced of your own rightness, I
>> >> >>see little point in worrying at it.
>> >> >If you have an argument, I suggest that you make it. Otherwise, I'll
>> >> >have to assume that you have none.
>> >> It is not something I can trot out and point at, it's evidence within
>> >> your own everyday life that you overlook, because on a level that
>> >> knows best, you don't want to know.
>>
>> >one will find the evidence of God everywhere one looks for it.
>>
>> Precisely. It's all in the mind of the believer.
>
>what sort of evidence did you expect to find?
>
>what sort of evidence would you believe?
>
>the "evidence" that science "confirms" is far flimsier than the
>evidence for God.
Bollocks.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
$Zero
> On Dec 9, 11:28�pm, Glynne Gilmore <glyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Glynne Gilmore wrote:
>
> > > genetic code
>
> > What we are born with duh.
>
> hairy arms and a yearning for pasta and wine.
>
> > > environmental influences
>
> > How we grew up. Who are parents were. How they treated us. Lack of
> > parents. Abuse. Whatever. Everything that happened TO us.
>
> yes. we all have histories. and genes.
>
> but these histories and genetics never force any of our choices.
>
> if they did, we would never have any choices at all.
>
> i make choices every single day.
>
> every single hour.
>
>
> like right now, for instance, as i choose these words.
>
> my genetics might "determine" an upper limit on my intelligence or
> typing speed.
>
> my experiences might "determine" which analogies or observations i'm
> most likely to make.
>
> but nothing other than my free will "determines" which words i choose
> to type.
actually, now that i think about it, sometimes my subconscious has a
hand in what i think about and/or write about, etc. -- i notice it
sometimes when i reread stuff that i wrote -- but i still consider my
subsconscious part of my free will, though i suppose i could be wrong
about that.
writing, painting, composing music, -- all that creativity stuff can
be a pretty mysterious thing sometimes.
maybe it's the subsconscious mixture of our genetics and experiences
that are influencing our conscious minds and/or actions somewhat, or
maybe it's even a higher power sometimes, but mostly i'd guess that
it's our free will dealing with the now (and our perceptions of the
future).
-$Zero...
after awhile, you figure out why nothing ever changes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d10e71396a9d48db
$Zero
are you claiming that God is impossible?
what sort of evidence of God would you believe?
and how would it differ from the evidence you believe that science
offers you?
anyway, you avoided all the questions above and snipped the rest.
there's a "reason" for that.
Glynne Gilmore
Let me try again. Free will gives us the illusion that we control our
choices. Our individual natures and nurtures do not "force" the
choices we make. The individual choices that we make are just that --
individual -- BECAUSE of our unique gene pools and upbringings. Nature
and nurture determine who we are. Nature and nurture set the stage for
the choices we make -- good and bad.
If you are aware of your subconscious mind at the same moment in time
that you are aware of making a conscious choice, I would say you have
the most control over making that choice as you can.
I don't think it's possible to be aware of your subconscious mind except
under hypnosis. Or through meditation. Free will implies control over
your choices. But free will isn't all free because you have no control
over the subconscious part of your mind that's helping you to make those
choices.
Does any of this make sense?
(Hey, it's a first draft.)
boots
Opening a lump of coal just makes a guy pissy, y'know?
>...
>
>do you want God to exist?
>
>if not, why not?
>
>if so, how would you want God to be?
>
>what's God doing wrong, in your opinion?
Ask for a new Mercedes and get a lump of coal, how can that be right?
Exactly.
boots
>On Dec 9, 8:25 pm, Glynne Gilmore <glyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
We'd need to wrassle to decide that one.
>but i don't blame any of it on God.
Kid whines for a new toy, thinks he isn't getting it, stomps his foot
petulously, oops, smashed toy, daddy's fault, waaah!
boots
>On Dec 9, 8:35 pm, Glynne Gilmore <glyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Glynne Gilmore wrote:
>> > $Zero wrote:
>>
It's a natural result of everybody trying to gear up for Worldwide
Merchant's Day (aka "Christmas") all at once. Get the fuck outa my
way, I got shopping to do here, hey that's my parking spot you fuck,
don't cut into my lane like that, BANG! deadguys, happy fucking
holidays.
>free will gone berserk.
>
>
>-$Zero...
>
> the greatest thing about freedom is...
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4