Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Creation and Evolution Reconciled: have you heard this one before
84 views
Skip to first unread message
Quadibloc
May 15, 2013, 4:02:26 PM5/15/13
to
Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal nature and human
failings.
In other writings of Tolkien connected with The Lord of the Rings, we
have an account of the world changing from flat to round in response
to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance of God's command.
Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
says;
2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
John Savard
failings.
In other writings of Tolkien connected with The Lord of the Rings, we
have an account of the world changing from flat to round in response
to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance of God's command.
Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
says;
2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
John Savard
Greg Goss
May 15, 2013, 4:18:55 PM5/15/13
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>
>1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
>says;
>
>2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
>that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>
>Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
>Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
I like the hypothesis, but I've never heard it before. I'm an atheist
>Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>
>1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
>says;
>
>2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
>that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>
>Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
>Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
married to a Pentecostal, but her friends from the church never seem
to think anything through. I've frequently made references to bible
events that just draw blank stares from her or her friends (other than
the pastor, who often draws me into a conversation that completely
loses the rest of the crowd.)
Anyhow, thanks for proposing it. The concept is not scientifically
testable (since the new reality is retroactive and self-consistent),
but it's still interesting to an atheist.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
May 15, 2013, 4:19:36 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:02:26 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal
> nature and human failings.
>
> In other writings of Tolkien connected with
> _The Lord of the Rings_, we have an account of the
> Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal
> nature and human failings.
>
> In other writings of Tolkien connected with
> world changing from flat to round in response
> to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance
> of God's command.
>
> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested
> the following:
>
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden
> just as the Bible says;
>
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then
> transformed retroactively - he caused himself and
> Eve to have fallen natures at that point -
> *and to have evolved from apes*.
>
> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared.
> Maybe Adam and Eve "quantum jumped" into another of
> the "many-worlds" by sinning!
The group talk.origins is over yonder. I participate.
> to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance
> of God's command.
>
> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested
> the following:
>
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden
> just as the Bible says;
>
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then
> transformed retroactively - he caused himself and
> Eve to have fallen natures at that point -
> *and to have evolved from apes*.
>
> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared.
> Maybe Adam and Eve "quantum jumped" into another of
> the "many-worlds" by sinning!
Just saying.
The Roman Catholic church recognises the legitimacy of
the theory of evolution as an explanation of how human
beings came to be, physically, but that doesn't mean that
Adam and Eve aren't mentioned any more. AIUI the church
says that every single human soul is sent separately
from Heaven to be incarnated, unless Jesus for instance
is an exception.
Elsewhere, I think one writer for the magazine and web site
_Answers in Genesis_ proposed that in what seems to be his
version of relativity, the universe may be 13.7 or so
billion years old but the Earth is about 6000 years old,
like you get when you add up the numbers of years between
generations in the bible.
Brian M. Scott
May 15, 2013, 4:52:02 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:fb1e040b-cc83-42ca...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as
> the Bible says;
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then
> transformed retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to
> have fallen natures at that point - *and to have evolved
> from apes*.
> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe
> Adam and Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the
> "many-worlds" by sinning!
This is just a more elaborate version of Gosse's Omphalos
hypothesis, commonly known as Last Thursdayism.
Brian
And Queen Maeve the Cat is Not Amused.
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:fb1e040b-cc83-42ca...@a9g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as
> the Bible says;
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then
> transformed retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to
> have fallen natures at that point - *and to have evolved
> from apes*.
> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe
> Adam and Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the
> "many-worlds" by sinning!
hypothesis, commonly known as Last Thursdayism.
Brian
And Queen Maeve the Cat is Not Amused.
lal_truckee
May 15, 2013, 4:54:24 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/13 1:02 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
> says;
>
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
> that point -*and to have evolved from apes*.
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
> says;
>
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
That implies creation by a fickle god is more desirable than to be the
sum results of all your ancestors to survive and thrive.
A prima facie false assumption.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 15, 2013, 5:03:09 PM5/15/13
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:avi8ta...@mid.individual.net:
> The concept is not
> scientifically testable
Like religion ever is (or should be).
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:avi8ta...@mid.individual.net:
> The concept is not
> scientifically testable
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 15, 2013, 5:28:03 PM5/15/13
to
On 2013-05-15 16:18:55 -0400, Greg Goss said:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>>
>> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
>> says;
>>
>> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
>> that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>>
>> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
>> Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
>
> I like the hypothesis, but I've never heard it before. I'm an atheist
> married to a Pentecostal, but her friends from the church never seem
> to think anything through. I've frequently made references to bible
> events that just draw blank stares from her or her friends (other than
> the pastor, who often draws me into a conversation that completely
> loses the rest of the crowd.)
I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't actually
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>>
>> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
>> says;
>>
>> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
>> that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>>
>> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
>> Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
>
> I like the hypothesis, but I've never heard it before. I'm an atheist
> married to a Pentecostal, but her friends from the church never seem
> to think anything through. I've frequently made references to bible
> events that just draw blank stares from her or her friends (other than
> the pastor, who often draws me into a conversation that completely
> loses the rest of the crowd.)
read it.
I set out to read the whole thing as a teenager; got as far as (I
think) Jeremiah in the Old Testament and then got too bored to
continue. Then I tackled the New Testament and got halfway through
Acts, skipped ahead and read parts of the Epistles and Revelation;
never went back to finish it. Skimmed some of the Apocrypha.
But that's a lot more than most folks ever seem to manage. When i
lived in Kentucky I used to quote the Bible (most often Ecclesiastes,
Matthew, or I Corinthians, not even the obscure stuff) and get asked
(by devout Southern Baptists) "Is that Shakespeare?"
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/
Shawn Wilson
May 15, 2013, 5:51:24 PM5/15/13
to
Eve are a *myth*, because the bronze age writers of the Old Testament
were just these guys, trying to explain the world as best they could.
Valuable lessons in morality and ethics and such things? No problem.
But the Bible isn't a science textbook.
Don't mistake Catholics for the wackier Protestants. All that "the
Bible is literally true!" and "Revelations tells us the future!" crap
is heretical nonsense. Revelations was just thinly velied criticism
of the Roman Empire, 'cause they had ways of dealing with their overt
critics that didn't rhyme with 'comfy chair'...
There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
and it isn't because we're stupid.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 15, 2013, 6:06:34 PM5/15/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:kn0uds$20m$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 2013-05-15 16:18:55 -0400, Greg Goss said:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>>>
>>> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the
>>> Bible says;
>>>
>>> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>>> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen
>>> natures at that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>>>
>>> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe
>>> Adam and Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the
>>> "many-worlds" by sinning!
>>
>> I like the hypothesis, but I've never heard it before. I'm an
>> atheist married to a Pentecostal, but her friends from the
>> church never seem to think anything through. I've frequently
>> made references to bible events that just draw blank stares
>> from her or her friends (other than the pastor, who often draws
>> me into a conversation that completely loses the rest of the
>> crowd.)
>
> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
> actually read it.
They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the cult-of-
personality of their local preacher.
anything that doesn't include what proof (as in, acoholic content)
the contents are.
news:kn0uds$20m$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 2013-05-15 16:18:55 -0400, Greg Goss said:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>>>
>>> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the
>>> Bible says;
>>>
>>> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>>> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen
>>> natures at that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>>>
>>> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe
>>> Adam and Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the
>>> "many-worlds" by sinning!
>>
>> I like the hypothesis, but I've never heard it before. I'm an
>> atheist married to a Pentecostal, but her friends from the
>> church never seem to think anything through. I've frequently
>> made references to bible events that just draw blank stares
>> from her or her friends (other than the pastor, who often draws
>> me into a conversation that completely loses the rest of the
>> crowd.)
>
> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
> actually read it.
personality of their local preacher.
>
> I set out to read the whole thing as a teenager; got as far as
> (I think) Jeremiah in the Old Testament and then got too bored
> to continue. Then I tackled the New Testament and got halfway
> through Acts, skipped ahead and read parts of the Epistles and
> Revelation; never went back to finish it. Skimmed some of the
> Apocrypha.
>
> But that's a lot more than most folks ever seem to manage. When
> i lived in Kentucky I used to quote the Bible (most often
> Ecclesiastes, Matthew, or I Corinthians, not even the obscure
> stuff) and get asked (by devout Southern Baptists) "Is that
> Shakespeare?"
>
In my experience in Missouri, Southern Baptists rarely read
> I set out to read the whole thing as a teenager; got as far as
> (I think) Jeremiah in the Old Testament and then got too bored
> to continue. Then I tackled the New Testament and got halfway
> through Acts, skipped ahead and read parts of the Epistles and
> Revelation; never went back to finish it. Skimmed some of the
> Apocrypha.
>
> But that's a lot more than most folks ever seem to manage. When
> i lived in Kentucky I used to quote the Bible (most often
> Ecclesiastes, Matthew, or I Corinthians, not even the obscure
> stuff) and get asked (by devout Southern Baptists) "Is that
> Shakespeare?"
>
anything that doesn't include what proof (as in, acoholic content)
the contents are.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 15, 2013, 6:08:04 PM5/15/13
to
Holy shit. Somebody who isn't a drooling retard has hijacked
Shawn's account.
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f68b38bc-2a9f-4698...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.c
om:
Shawn's account.
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f68b38bc-2a9f-4698...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.c
om:
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 6:12:37 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The concept is not
>> scientifically testable
>
>Like religion ever is (or should be).
Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The concept is not
>> scientifically testable
>
>Like religion ever is (or should be).
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 15, 2013, 6:24:14 PM5/15/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The concept is not
>>> scientifically testable
>>
>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
philosophy?
news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The concept is not
>>> scientifically testable
>>
>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
philosophy?
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 7:10:16 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:24:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
commandments would it still be a miracle?
If you got in a time machine and went back to Eden and found Eve
talking to that serpent - would that make it not a religion?
Or if you could prove the existence of a soul and reincarnation? Or
of Satan?
Or if you climbed up Mount Olympus and talked with the Greek gods?
Faith became a big religious issue after the scientific method said
things should be tested.
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The concept is not
>>>> scientifically testable
>>>
>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
>philosophy?
If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The concept is not
>>>> scientifically testable
>>>
>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
>philosophy?
commandments would it still be a miracle?
If you got in a time machine and went back to Eden and found Eve
talking to that serpent - would that make it not a religion?
Or if you could prove the existence of a soul and reincarnation? Or
of Satan?
Or if you climbed up Mount Olympus and talked with the Greek gods?
Faith became a big religious issue after the scientific method said
things should be tested.
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 7:12:51 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:06:34 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
>> actually read it.
>
>They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the cult-of-
>personality of their local preacher.
Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended from
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
>> actually read it.
>
>They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the cult-of-
>personality of their local preacher.
the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values wrong - not
to mention their kids.
And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in the
temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or warning about
how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven -
He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy churches.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 15, 2013, 7:18:32 PM5/15/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:9f58p8lr6h68lnatb...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:06:34 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
>>> actually read it.
>>
>>They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the
>>cult-of- personality of their local preacher.
>
> Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended
> from the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values
> wrong - not to mention their kids.
>
> And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in
> the temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or
> warning about how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the
> kingdom of heaven - He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy
> churches.
>
Rebplicans?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 15, 2013, 7:23:20 PM5/15/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:c058p8d4t2urkj88o...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:24:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The concept is not
>>>>> scientifically testable
>>>>
>>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>>
>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>>not philosophy?
>
> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set
> of commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
> If you got in a time machine and went back to Eden and found Eve
> talking to that serpent - would that make it not a religion?
>
> Or if you could prove the existence of a soul and reincarnation?
> Or of Satan?
>
> Or if you climbed up Mount Olympus and talked with the Greek
> gods?
falsifiablity of those things, they would be scientific beliefs.
Since you can't, not now, and not ever, they are not.
> Faith became a big religious issue after the scientific
> method said things should be tested.
>
*Science* should be tested, and the scientific method doesn't even
say *that*. It merely provides a framework for doing the testing,
and perhaps by implication, telling if testing is being done in a
scientific way.
But don't feel ashamed, it's a very common mistake. Lots of people
make it. There's nothing to feel ashamed about. Your parents
probably gave you bad DNA, or something, but it's obviously not
*your* fault.
Wayne Throop
May 15, 2013, 8:08:36 PM5/15/13
to
:: Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
You can't find anything He *couldn't* do to base your test on,
you can't find anything He wouldn't know *how* to do [tbyto],
and you can't predict what He *would* do [tbyto] (what with
He moves in mysterious ways and whatnot).
Anything you find that you think conficts with the hypothesis,
it could still be true, but God seamlessly made it look otherwise
for some reason you can't understand onaccounta God is infinitely clever.
Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
You can't find anything He *couldn't* do to base your test on,
you can't find anything He wouldn't know *how* to do [tbyto],
and you can't predict what He *would* do [tbyto] (what with
He moves in mysterious ways and whatnot).
Anything you find that you think conficts with the hypothesis,
it could still be true, but God seamlessly made it look otherwise
for some reason you can't understand onaccounta God is infinitely clever.
Wayne Throop
May 15, 2013, 8:15:19 PM5/15/13
to
:: I've frequently made references to bible events that just draw blank
: I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
But it's so bloody boring, I can't really remember much of it now.
I doubt my memory of it exceeds lwe's, and it's probably worse despite my
"finishing" it. And even though my memory doesn't work such that I can
quote verses verbatim, most folks seem to lack even what I got out of it.
Oh, and also, I read Asimov's Guide to the bible, which was much less
boring (but I only remember a fraction of that, too, also).
Um... by "the whole thing" I mean pretty much the kjv10 as
on gutenberg, so no apocrypha.
"No capes!" --- Edna Mode
:: stares from her or her friends (other than the pastor, who often
:: draws me into a conversation that completely loses the rest of the
:: crowd.)
: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
:: draws me into a conversation that completely loses the rest of the
:: crowd.)
: I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
: actually read it.
:
: I set out to read the whole thing as a teenager; got as far as (I
: think) Jeremiah in the Old Testament and then got too bored to
: continue. Then I tackled the New Testament and got halfway through
: Acts, skipped ahead and read parts of the Epistles and Revelation;
: never went back to finish it. Skimmed some of the Apocrypha.
:
: But that's a lot more than most folks ever seem to manage
True. I set out very similarly, and finished it... and finished it.
:
: I set out to read the whole thing as a teenager; got as far as (I
: think) Jeremiah in the Old Testament and then got too bored to
: continue. Then I tackled the New Testament and got halfway through
: Acts, skipped ahead and read parts of the Epistles and Revelation;
: never went back to finish it. Skimmed some of the Apocrypha.
:
: But that's a lot more than most folks ever seem to manage
But it's so bloody boring, I can't really remember much of it now.
I doubt my memory of it exceeds lwe's, and it's probably worse despite my
"finishing" it. And even though my memory doesn't work such that I can
quote verses verbatim, most folks seem to lack even what I got out of it.
Oh, and also, I read Asimov's Guide to the bible, which was much less
boring (but I only remember a fraction of that, too, also).
Um... by "the whole thing" I mean pretty much the kjv10 as
on gutenberg, so no apocrypha.
"No capes!" --- Edna Mode
Quadibloc
May 15, 2013, 9:04:21 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 2:52 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> This is just a more elaborate version of Gosse's Omphalos
> hypothesis, commonly known as Last Thursdayism.
Indeed. Adam might have gotten his navel after eating the apple too.
> This is just a more elaborate version of Gosse's Omphalos
> hypothesis, commonly known as Last Thursdayism.
John Savard
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 9:06:47 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:23:20 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>>>not philosophy?
>>
>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set
>> of commandments would it still be a miracle?
>>
>> If you got in a time machine and went back to Eden and found Eve
>> talking to that serpent - would that make it not a religion?
>>
>> Or if you could prove the existence of a soul and reincarnation?
>> Or of Satan?
>>
>> Or if you climbed up Mount Olympus and talked with the Greek
>> gods?
>
>The moment that you can provide a method for testing the
>falsifiablity of those things, they would be scientific beliefs.
>Since you can't, not now, and not ever, they are not.
You say that if it is science, then it's not religion. I disagree.
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>>>not philosophy?
>>
>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set
>> of commandments would it still be a miracle?
>>
>> If you got in a time machine and went back to Eden and found Eve
>> talking to that serpent - would that make it not a religion?
>>
>> Or if you could prove the existence of a soul and reincarnation?
>> Or of Satan?
>>
>> Or if you climbed up Mount Olympus and talked with the Greek
>> gods?
>
>The moment that you can provide a method for testing the
>falsifiablity of those things, they would be scientific beliefs.
>Since you can't, not now, and not ever, they are not.
Your supporting argument is that if it is science, then it is not
religion.
Sure, if we could test it it would be science. But it would not
stop people from worshiping. If we could demonstrate the truth of
any religion - that would not make it not a religion.
>The scienfific method never said *things* should be tested.
>*Science* should be tested, and the scientific method doesn't even
>say *that*. It merely provides a framework for doing the testing,
>and perhaps by implication, telling if testing is being done in a
>scientific way.
>
>But don't feel ashamed, it's a very common mistake. Lots of people
>make it. There's nothing to feel ashamed about. Your parents
>probably gave you bad DNA, or something, but it's obviously not
>*your* fault.
Carl Dershem
May 15, 2013, 9:05:22 PM5/15/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> typed in news:kn0uds$20m$1@dont-
email.me:
Yup.
The lengths some will go to to be able to say *I am right* are to me
absurd.
I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's Guide) as part of
my history and anthropology studies, as well as the Koran, the Golden
Bough, the Elder Eddas, the Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha,
the Iliand and the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
only one with much self-consistency, and few have much literary merit.
But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
cd
email.me:
The lengths some will go to to be able to say *I am right* are to me
absurd.
I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's Guide) as part of
my history and anthropology studies, as well as the Koran, the Golden
Bough, the Elder Eddas, the Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha,
the Iliand and the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
only one with much self-consistency, and few have much literary merit.
But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
cd
Quadibloc
May 15, 2013, 9:10:15 PM5/15/13
to
Adam needed evidence of past existence in order to be a complete
normal adult when created. It's not clear that dinosaur fossils are
really essential to the world being a home for current life.
So it seems like God created a collosal lie.
But this way, it ties evolution to the Fall, giving God a reason to
switch the world over when it ceased to be worthy of being His direct
creation.
John Savard
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 9:12:36 PM5/15/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 00:08:36 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
Not every religion has that particular belief (especially primitive
religions). And lots of SF religions don't have that particular
belief.
Let's say you live in Bujold's Chalion universe. Would finding ways
to test its beliefs make it not a religion?
What if your religion was Buddhism. Would coming up with a test that
showed reincarnation worked as advertised stop it from being a
religion?
wrote:
religions). And lots of SF religions don't have that particular
belief.
Let's say you live in Bujold's Chalion universe. Would finding ways
to test its beliefs make it not a religion?
What if your religion was Buddhism. Would coming up with a test that
showed reincarnation worked as advertised stop it from being a
religion?
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 9:13:32 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:18:32 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the
>>>cult-of- personality of their local preacher.
>>
>> Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended
>> from the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values
>> wrong - not to mention their kids.
>>
>> And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in
>> the temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or
>> warning about how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the
>> kingdom of heaven - He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy
>> churches.
>>
>So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
>Rebplicans?
No, but that is a fun hypothesis/conclusion to bring to the
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the
>>>cult-of- personality of their local preacher.
>>
>> Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended
>> from the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values
>> wrong - not to mention their kids.
>>
>> And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in
>> the temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or
>> warning about how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the
>> kingdom of heaven - He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy
>> churches.
>>
>So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
>Rebplicans?
discussion.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 15, 2013, 9:16:22 PM5/15/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The concept is not
>>> scientifically testable
>>
>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
Because it's so embarrassing when it fails. They should stick to
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The concept is not
>>> scientifically testable
>>
>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
talking about things they know something about, and if they can't manage
that, at least stick to things that are untestable.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
May 15, 2013, 9:17:09 PM5/15/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:24:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The concept is not
>>>>> scientifically testable
>>>>
>>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>>
>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
>>philosophy?
>
> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
> commandments would it still be a miracle?
How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke, or some other
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:24:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The concept is not
>>>>> scientifically testable
>>>>
>>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>>
>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
>>philosophy?
>
> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
> commandments would it still be a miracle?
organic disfunction?
J. Clarke
May 15, 2013, 9:44:47 PM5/15/13
to
In article <13686...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
I had the common problem of getting to the begats and giving up. A
friend of mine who has read it through many times in several languages
tells me that the begats aren't important, which may be true but he
proposed no alternative plan of reading other than starting at the
beginning and grinding through to the end.
Nonetheless it amazes me how little the most ardent Bible-thumpers seem
to know about its contents. When somebody like me can correct them they
should be really ashamed.
friend of mine who has read it through many times in several languages
tells me that the begats aren't important, which may be true but he
proposed no alternative plan of reading other than starting at the
beginning and grinding through to the end.
Nonetheless it amazes me how little the most ardent Bible-thumpers seem
to know about its contents. When somebody like me can correct them they
should be really ashamed.
J. Clarke
May 15, 2013, 9:51:07 PM5/15/13
to
In article <ylfk7giz...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
a little careful ceramic work, a gas pipe, and a speaker. Hmm--that
would actually be a good setup for Candid Camera. In Biblical times it
would have been more difficult to setup, I suspect, but on the other
hand the illusions that stage magicians can do with limited technology
are quite surprising. Now who would do it and why is another story.
>
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:24:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> >>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> >>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The concept is not
> >>>>> scientifically testable
> >>>>
> >>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
> >>>
> >>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
> >>>
> >>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
> >>philosophy?
> >
> > If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
> > commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
> How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke, or some other
> organic disfunction?
And what's the era? Today a talking burning bush should be doable with
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:24:14 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> >>news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> >>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The concept is not
> >>>>> scientifically testable
> >>>>
> >>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
> >>>
> >>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
> >>>
> >>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
> >>philosophy?
> >
> > If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
> > commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
> How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke, or some other
> organic disfunction?
a little careful ceramic work, a gas pipe, and a speaker. Hmm--that
would actually be a good setup for Candid Camera. In Biblical times it
would have been more difficult to setup, I suspect, but on the other
hand the illusions that stage magicians can do with limited technology
are quite surprising. Now who would do it and why is another story.
J. Clarke
May 15, 2013, 9:53:58 PM5/15/13
to
In article <kn0ser$mpn$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com says...
Whether it's "more desirable" or not doesn't really affect whether
religious people believe that it happened.
religious people believe that it happened.
Robert Carnegie
May 15, 2013, 10:00:10 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 23:24:14 UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The concept is not
> >>> scientifically testable
> >>
> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
> >
> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
> philosophy?
Not losing sight of whom I'm addressing, but would that matter?
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The concept is not
> >>> scientifically testable
> >>
> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
> >
> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
> philosophy?
I'm reading Richard Dawkins' _The God Delusion_ currently
in bathroom breaks, and it addresses and puts away most
of the points raised here, although for fake dinosaur
fossils there is also early Terry Pratchett's _Strata_.
My feeling, which the book /hasn't/ got to yet, is that
arguments about God divorced from specifics such as
the bible as evidence are imprecise because people have
vague, unclear, and sometimes self-contradictory views
about what a god is, partly because God's friends
like to say nice things about him that are not necessarily
true, such as, he watches me, um, reading Dawkins.
I can't see God there, but he is. Well, I say phooey
to that, for a start. And to the rest, too.
Wayne Throop
May 15, 2013, 10:05:21 PM5/15/13
to
: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: Not every religion has that particular belief (especially primitive
omnipotent/omniscient/omnimysterious version of God just
on the basis of its own content. I suppose He might be no
powerful than a middle-eastern genius loci, as portrayed in
several parts of Genesis, but still...
: Not every religion has that particular belief (especially primitive
: religions). And lots of SF religions don't have that particular
: belief.
Sure, but the hypothesis pretty much implied the whole
: belief.
omnipotent/omniscient/omnimysterious version of God just
on the basis of its own content. I suppose He might be no
powerful than a middle-eastern genius loci, as portrayed in
several parts of Genesis, but still...
Robert Carnegie
May 15, 2013, 10:15:01 PM5/15/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 02:51:07 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <ylfk7giz...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
> In article <ylfk7giz...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
> > How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke,
> > or some other organic disfunction?
>
> And what's the era? Today a talking burning bush should
> be doable with a little careful ceramic work, a gas pipe,
> and a speaker. Hmm--that would actually be a good setup
> for Candid Camera. In Biblical times it would have been
> more difficult to setup, I suspect, but on the other
> hand the illusions that stage magicians can do with
> limited technology are quite surprising. Now who would
> do it and why is another story.
My main th‰ought here is either Carl Sagan's or Clive James's
> > or some other organic disfunction?
>
> And what's the era? Today a talking burning bush should
> be doable with a little careful ceramic work, a gas pipe,
> and a speaker. Hmm--that would actually be a good setup
> for Candid Camera. In Biblical times it would have been
> more difficult to setup, I suspect, but on the other
> hand the illusions that stage magicians can do with
> limited technology are quite surprising. Now who would
> do it and why is another story.
or both, I think - that stage magicians who claim to have
supernatural powers can fool a lot of scientists, because
scientists aren't necessarily trained in fooling and not
getting fooled, including by frauds amongst scientists.
My other thought is of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi>
but on this telling I've been misinformed - I thought he was
a real-life ancient Egyptian magic trick performer. Well,
that happens in the bible, too, when the king's magicians
can duplicate God's miracles.
Robert Bannister
May 15, 2013, 10:34:16 PM5/15/13
to
On 16/05/13 7:18 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:9f58p8lr6h68lnatb...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:06:34 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
>>>> actually read it.
>>>
>>> They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the
>>> cult-of- personality of their local preacher.
>>
>> Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended
>> from the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values
>> wrong - not to mention their kids.
>>
>> And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in
>> the temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or
>> warning about how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the
>> kingdom of heaven - He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy
>> churches.
>>
> So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
> Rebplicans?
>
He was much more left-wing than that.
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:9f58p8lr6h68lnatb...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:06:34 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't
>>>> actually read it.
>>>
>>> They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the
>>> cult-of- personality of their local preacher.
>>
>> Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended
>> from the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values
>> wrong - not to mention their kids.
>>
>> And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in
>> the temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or
>> warning about how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the
>> kingdom of heaven - He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy
>> churches.
>>
> So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
> Rebplicans?
>
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 15, 2013, 10:40:32 PM5/15/13
to
On 16/05/13 5:51 AM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 15, 1:02 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal nature and human
>> failings.
>>
>> In other writings of Tolkien connected with The Lord of the Rings, we
>> have an account of the world changing from flat to round in response
>> to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance of God's command.
>>
> On May 15, 1:02 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal nature and human
>> failings.
>>
>> In other writings of Tolkien connected with The Lord of the Rings, we
>> have an account of the world changing from flat to round in response
>> to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance of God's command.
>>
>> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>>
>>
>> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
>> says;
>>
>> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
>> says;
>>
>> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
>> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
>> that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>>
>> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
>> Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
>
>
>>
>> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
>> Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
>
>
> Well, I'm (basically) Catholic. The official view is that Adam and
> Eve are a *myth*, because the bronze age writers of the Old Testament
> were just these guys, trying to explain the world as best they could.
> Valuable lessons in morality and ethics and such things? No problem.
> But the Bible isn't a science textbook.
>
> Don't mistake Catholics for the wackier Protestants. All that "the
> Bible is literally true!" and "Revelations tells us the future!" crap
> is heretical nonsense. Revelations was just thinly velied criticism
> of the Roman Empire, 'cause they had ways of dealing with their overt
> critics that didn't rhyme with 'comfy chair'...
>
> There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
> and it isn't because we're stupid.
>
One of the reasons was that for centuries only Catholic priests were
> Eve are a *myth*, because the bronze age writers of the Old Testament
> were just these guys, trying to explain the world as best they could.
> Valuable lessons in morality and ethics and such things? No problem.
> But the Bible isn't a science textbook.
>
> Don't mistake Catholics for the wackier Protestants. All that "the
> Bible is literally true!" and "Revelations tells us the future!" crap
> is heretical nonsense. Revelations was just thinly velied criticism
> of the Roman Empire, 'cause they had ways of dealing with their overt
> critics that didn't rhyme with 'comfy chair'...
>
> There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
> and it isn't because we're stupid.
>
able to read the bible and translations were prohibited. That's why the
weirdest beliefs come from protestant sects who believe that the bits
they have read in the bible constitute the only truth.
--
Robert Bannister
Don Bruder
May 15, 2013, 10:54:38 PM5/15/13
to
In article <f72f5d98-1012-4a08...@googlegroups.com>,
Yep, that would be two of us...
Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some religious
nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So far as I can tell
from observable evidence, both are equally real.
Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
<sigh> Another fine plan down the crapper...
--
If the door is baroque don't be Haydn. Come around Bach and jiggle the Handel.
Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some religious
nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So far as I can tell
from observable evidence, both are equally real.
Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
<sigh> Another fine plan down the crapper...
--
If the door is baroque don't be Haydn. Come around Bach and jiggle the Handel.
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 11:20:16 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:17:09 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:
>>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
>>>philosophy?
>>
>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
>> commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
>How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke, or some other
>organic disfunction?
I don't know (I suppose I could have organic dysfunction to fool me
about most anything). But if there was a way to scientifically test
a religion - that would not invalidate it as a religion.
wrote:
>>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
>>>philosophy?
>>
>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
>> commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
>How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke, or some other
>organic disfunction?
about most anything). But if there was a way to scientifically test
a religion - that would not invalidate it as a religion.
Shawn Wilson
May 15, 2013, 11:23:49 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 7:34 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
> > Rebplicans?
>
> He was much more left-wing than that.
Was he? 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' did not include
> > So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
> > Rebplicans?
>
> He was much more left-wing than that.
moral authority or responsibility. Jesus was clearly a Republican.
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 11:25:54 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:16:22 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The concept is not
>>>> scientifically testable
>>>
>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
>Because it's so embarrassing when it fails. They should stick to
>talking about things they know something about, and if they can't manage
>that, at least stick to things that are untestable.
However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
religion that is tested and found to be true.
My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
testable? I don't see any reason why not.
The "No religion ever is" not the clause I was questioning above.
wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The concept is not
>>>> scientifically testable
>>>
>>>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
>Because it's so embarrassing when it fails. They should stick to
>talking about things they know something about, and if they can't manage
>that, at least stick to things that are untestable.
religion that is tested and found to be true.
My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
testable? I don't see any reason why not.
The "No religion ever is" not the clause I was questioning above.
Howard Brazee
May 15, 2013, 11:28:21 PM5/15/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Carl Dershem
<der...@cox.net> wrote:
>I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's Guide) as part of
>my history and anthropology studies, as well as the Koran, the Golden
>Bough, the Elder Eddas, the Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha,
>the Iliand and the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
>only one with much self-consistency, and few have much literary merit.
>But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
I'm curious - have you read any of the Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth
<der...@cox.net> wrote:
>I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's Guide) as part of
>my history and anthropology studies, as well as the Koran, the Golden
>Bough, the Elder Eddas, the Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha,
>the Iliand and the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
>only one with much self-consistency, and few have much literary merit.
>But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
Sahib? That major religion doesn't get much press around here, and
I have to admit I know next to nothing about it.
Shawn Wilson
May 15, 2013, 11:29:30 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 7:54 pm, Don Bruder <D...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
I simply cannot express how much you missed Jesus' point by...
> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
The problem is YOU, not Christianity. You do not have to believe in
'magic' to be a Christian, nor does believing in 'magic' make you a
Christian.
Shawn Wilson
May 15, 2013, 11:33:35 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 7:40 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
> > and it isn't because we're stupid.
>
> One of the reasons was that for centuries only Catholic priests were
> able to read the bible and translations were prohibited.
The Vulgate IS a translation (Hebrew/Greek > Latin). And in the time,
> > There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
> > and it isn't because we're stupid.
>
> One of the reasons was that for centuries only Catholic priests were
> able to read the bible and translations were prohibited.
and for a long time, to be able to read didn't mean 'read english/
french/german/italian/whatever, it meant being able to read LATIN.
So, the written Book was written in the languange everyone who could
read, could read. Not really an issue.
That's why the
> weirdest beliefs come from protestant sects who believe that the bits
> they have read in the bible constitute the only truth.
Shawn Wilson
May 15, 2013, 11:40:49 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 8:25 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>
> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>
> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
directly by God. (btw, the Flood was real*)
* not worldwide - but the people who experienced it would have
reasonably thought it was. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 11:04:29 PM5/15/13
to
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in message
news:aviv94...@mid.individual.net...
> That's why the weirdest beliefs come from protestant sects
around the earth, from that collection of fairy storys.
The old testament stuff is MUCH weirder than anything
any protestant sect has ever come up with.
> who believe that the bits they have read in the bible constitute the only
> truth.
Rod Speed
May 16, 2013, 1:03:29 AM5/16/13
to
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09f7c10a-d287-474f...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 7:34 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> > So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
>> > Rebplicans?
>>
>> He was much more left-wing than that.
> Was he?
Yep, much more left than either of those.
>
>> > So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
>> > Rebplicans?
>>
>> He was much more left-wing than that.
> Was he?
> 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'
> did not include moral authority or responsibility.
> Jesus was clearly a Republican.
Rod Speed
May 16, 2013, 1:07:11 AM5/16/13
to
news:cf667057-2be5-4560...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> So, the written Book was written in the languange
> everyone who could read, could read.
Even sillier.
> Not really an issue.
Wrong, as always.
>> That's why the weirdest beliefs come from protestant sects who believe
>> that the bits they have read in the bible constitute the only truth.
> Uh, kind of a non-sequiter there.
Nope, just wrong.
> On May 15, 7:40 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> > There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
>> > and it isn't because we're stupid.
>>
>> One of the reasons was that for centuries only Catholic priests were
>> able to read the bible and translations were prohibited.
>
>
> The Vulgate IS a translation (Hebrew/Greek > Latin). And in the time,
> and for a long time, to be able to read didn't mean 'read english/
> french/german/italian/whatever, it meant being able to read LATIN.
Bullshit.
>
>> > There's a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years,
>> > and it isn't because we're stupid.
>>
>> One of the reasons was that for centuries only Catholic priests were
>> able to read the bible and translations were prohibited.
>
>
> The Vulgate IS a translation (Hebrew/Greek > Latin). And in the time,
> and for a long time, to be able to read didn't mean 'read english/
> french/german/italian/whatever, it meant being able to read LATIN.
> So, the written Book was written in the languange
> everyone who could read, could read.
> Not really an issue.
Wrong, as always.
>> That's why the weirdest beliefs come from protestant sects who believe
>> that the bits they have read in the bible constitute the only truth.
> Uh, kind of a non-sequiter there.
Rod Speed
May 16, 2013, 1:09:50 AM5/16/13
to
news:e034ba1b-7a91-4ba3...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> (btw, the Flood was real*)
Bullshit.
> * not worldwide - but the people who experienced
> it would have reasonably thought it was.
Even sillier. No flood that ever happened was
ever like that with the highest mountains alone.
> See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Doesn't say anything like that silly shit of yours.
> On May 15, 8:25 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
>> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>>
>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
>
>
> Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
> faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
> Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> directly by God.
Yes, but it is about whether there is any god or not.
>
>> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
>> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>>
>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
>
>
> Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
> faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
> Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> directly by God.
> (btw, the Flood was real*)
> * not worldwide - but the people who experienced
> it would have reasonably thought it was.
ever like that with the highest mountains alone.
> See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Doesn't say anything like that silly shit of yours.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 16, 2013, 1:33:17 AM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-15 22:15:01 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
>
> My main th�ought here is either Carl Sagan's or Clive James's
> or both, I think - that stage magicians who claim to havesupernatural
> powers can fool a lot of scientists, becausescientists aren't
>
> My main th�ought here is either Carl Sagan's or Clive James's
> or both, I think - that stage magicians who claim to havesupernatural
> necessarily trained in fooling and notgetting fooled, including by
> frauds amongst scientists.
I thought that was the Amazing Randi.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 16, 2013, 1:35:08 AM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-15 22:54:38 -0400, Don Bruder said:
> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some religious
> nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So far as I can tell
> from observable evidence, both are equally real.
>
> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
>
> Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
Philip Dick said, "Reality is the stuff that doesn't go away when you
> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some religious
> nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So far as I can tell
> from observable evidence, both are equally real.
>
> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
>
> Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
stop believing in it." I think that's a pretty good definition.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 16, 2013, 1:40:54 AM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-15 21:05:22 -0400, Carl Dershem said:
> I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's Guide) as part of
> my history and anthropology studies, as well as the Koran, the Golden
> Bough, the Elder Eddas, the Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha,
> the Iliand and the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
> only one with much self-consistency, and few have much literary merit.
> But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
The Koran's even more boring than the Bible, but I enjoyed the Golden
> I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's Guide) as part of
> my history and anthropology studies, as well as the Koran, the Golden
> Bough, the Elder Eddas, the Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha,
> the Iliand and the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
> only one with much self-consistency, and few have much literary merit.
> But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
Bough and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Which Buddhist Apocrypha? There are hundreds. I really like The Life
and Teachings of Naropa; it's the funniest scripture I've ever read.
The Bhagavad Gita starts well, and then about forty pages in it starts
eating its own tail and bogs down completely; I never got much beyond
that.
David DeLaney
May 16, 2013, 3:38:17 AM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>:: Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
...that's just one interpretation of ONE religion. Are all religions forever
untestable because this one religion has this one logically impossible
combination ... well okay, you left out the usual "omnibenevolent" ...
of qualities?
If you can make hypotheses about it, then check whether they match what
actually happens, you can do Science to it. Divine qualities that actually
show up in reality aren't immune. The problem we've got at present with
scientific testing of religion is that its claimed attributes have a very
strong tendency NOT to show up in reality whenever anyone actually goes and
looks for them, or to be caused by things the religionist isn't ascribing
them to (placebo effect, low brain oxygen, stimulation of certain areas of
brain not normally stimulated, etc.).
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
>:: Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
...that's just one interpretation of ONE religion. Are all religions forever
untestable because this one religion has this one logically impossible
combination ... well okay, you left out the usual "omnibenevolent" ...
of qualities?
If you can make hypotheses about it, then check whether they match what
actually happens, you can do Science to it. Divine qualities that actually
show up in reality aren't immune. The problem we've got at present with
scientific testing of religion is that its claimed attributes have a very
strong tendency NOT to show up in reality whenever anyone actually goes and
looks for them, or to be caused by things the religionist isn't ascribing
them to (placebo effect, low brain oxygen, stimulation of certain areas of
brain not normally stimulated, etc.).
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
May 16, 2013, 3:39:57 AM5/16/13
to
actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
alie...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 8:38:44 AM5/16/13
to
On May 15, 1:02 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal nature and human
> failings.
>
> In other writings of Tolkien connected with The Lord of the Rings, we
> have an account of the world changing from flat to round in response
> to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance of God's command.
>
> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
> says;
>
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
> that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>
> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
> Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
An SF-ish story nearly comes to mind. The setting is Hell, and its
> Much of evolutionary psychology explains our animal nature and human
> failings.
>
> In other writings of Tolkien connected with The Lord of the Rings, we
> have an account of the world changing from flat to round in response
> to an attempt to sail to the True West in defiance of God's command.
>
> Has any Christian denomination ever suggested the following:
>
> 1) Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden just as the Bible
> says;
>
> 2) When Adam ate the apple, the Universe was then transformed
> retroactively - he caused himself and Eve to have fallen natures at
> that point - *and to have evolved from apes*.
>
> Thus, that's also when the fossil evidence appeared. Maybe Adam and
> Eve "quantum jumped" into another of the "many-worlds" by sinning!
underlying geometry *changes* every time living humans make
discoveries about the physical Universe. IIRC Hell starts out as an
infiinite Euclidean plane, then warps into a sphere, then Reimann et.
al. get to work. Hilarity ensues.
Mark L. Fergerson
Jorgen Grahn
May 16, 2013, 8:38:49 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 2013-05-15, Howard Brazee wrote:
...
talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
burning bush at any garden center.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
...
> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
> commandments would it still be a miracle?
Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
> commandments would it still be a miracle?
talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
burning bush at any garden center.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Robert Carnegie
May 16, 2013, 8:55:30 AM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:38:49 UTC+1, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
> talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
> cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
> burning bush at any garden center.
But can you get it to talk? Well, anyway, there are various ideas
> Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
> talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
> cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
> burning bush at any garden center.
in Wikipedia about the whole business, including that "bush" is a
misspelling of "Mount Sinai" - which probably catches the setting
sun's light nicely - that there are bushes that produce natural
inflammable oil, or that Moses was h i g h . I'm sceptical that
/any/ of "Exodus" happened, so the details are unimportant, hey?
Another reflection comes to mind, that any respectable prosperous
Roman had their own gods at home. Mostly the same ones as everyone
else, though, although one household was portrayed as venerating
the regular cast of _Doctor Who_ (that they'd met - in Pompeii).
Jorgen Grahn
May 16, 2013, 9:02:38 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 2013-05-15, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't actually
> read it.
>
> I set out to read the whole thing as a teenager; got as far as (I
> I'm always amazed how many rabid devotees of the Bible haven't actually
> read it.
>
> think) Jeremiah in the Old Testament and then got too bored to
> continue. Then I tackled the New Testament and got halfway through
I read it at the age of five or six. The children's version by Anne
DeVries, but it was still a rather thick book and the first real book
I read.
Some of the morals stuck; the religion didn't.
Howard Brazee
May 16, 2013, 10:11:54 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 8:25�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
>> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>>
>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>> testable? � �I don't see any reason why not.
>
>
>Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
>faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
>Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
>seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
>directly by God. (btw, the Flood)
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 8:25�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
>> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>>
>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>> testable? � �I don't see any reason why not.
>
>
>Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
>faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
>Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
>seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
It depends on what is being tested and what the point is. Let's say
the point is that we are reincarnated up or down depending on our
current state. And we found the ability to test where our souls end
up. Would that be missing the point of a religion that espoused
that?
Jorgen Grahn
May 16, 2013, 10:13:03 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 2013-05-16, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:38:49 UTC+1, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
>> talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
>> cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
>> burning bush at any garden center.
>
> But can you get it to talk?
I guess there would be a little bet less of Jehovah in every new
> On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:38:49 UTC+1, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
>> talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
>> cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
>> burning bush at any garden center.
>
> But can you get it to talk?
cutting, so what most people would have in their gardens would just
mumble weakly.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:01:21 PM5/16/13
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in
news:13686...@sheol.org:
>:: Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
> You can't find anything He *couldn't* do to base your test on,
> you can't find anything He wouldn't know *how* to do [tbyto],
> and you can't predict what He *would* do [tbyto] (what with
> He moves in mysterious ways and whatnot).
I believe you're treading in to "God is not a trained monkey who will
perform on command" terriroty, but I'm not sure if that makes you
look stupid or smart. Mostly because I can't actually figure out what
your point is.
>
> Anything you find that you think conficts with the hypothesis,
> it could still be true, but God seamlessly made it look
> otherwise for some reason you can't understand onaccounta God is
> infinitely clever.
>
Plus, God is not a scientific theory, and only morons (who understand
neither God nor scientific method) claim otherwise.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:13686...@sheol.org:
>:: Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
> you can't find anything He wouldn't know *how* to do [tbyto],
> and you can't predict what He *would* do [tbyto] (what with
> He moves in mysterious ways and whatnot).
I believe you're treading in to "God is not a trained monkey who will
perform on command" terriroty, but I'm not sure if that makes you
look stupid or smart. Mostly because I can't actually figure out what
your point is.
>
> Anything you find that you think conficts with the hypothesis,
> it could still be true, but God seamlessly made it look
> otherwise for some reason you can't understand onaccounta God is
> infinitely clever.
>
Plus, God is not a scientific theory, and only morons (who understand
neither God nor scientific method) claim otherwise.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:03:19 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:j9c8p81tagpl9l8lh...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 00:08:36 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
> Throop) wrote:
>
>>:: Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>>Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimysterious.
>>You can't find anything He *couldn't* do to base your test on,
>>you can't find anything He wouldn't know *how* to do [tbyto],
>>and you can't predict what He *would* do [tbyto] (what with
>>He moves in mysterious ways and whatnot).
>>
>>Anything you find that you think conficts with the hypothesis,
>>it could still be true, but God seamlessly made it look
>>otherwise for some reason you can't understand onaccounta God is
>>infinitely clever.
>
> Not every religion has that particular belief (especially
>>it could still be true, but God seamlessly made it look
>>otherwise for some reason you can't understand onaccounta God is
>>infinitely clever.
>
> primitive religions). And lots of SF religions don't have
> that particular belief.
>
> Let's say you live in Bujold's Chalion universe. Would finding
> ways to test its beliefs make it not a religion?
When a being that is immeasurably more powerful than you tells you
it is a god, that question becomes . . . irrelevant. You do what
you're told, or you explode.
>
> What if your religion was Buddhism. Would coming up with a
> test that showed reincarnation worked as advertised stop it from
> being a religion?
>
Pretty much, yeah. Though that very question is becoming philosphy
in its own right.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:06:30 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:34c8p8poaf5ttbedn...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:23:20 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>>>>not philosophy?
>>>
>>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a
>>> set of commandments would it still be a miracle?
>>>
>>> If you got in a time machine and went back to Eden and found
>>> set of commandments would it still be a miracle?
>>>
>>> Eve talking to that serpent - would that make it not a
>>> religion?
>>>
>>> Or if you could prove the existence of a soul and
>>> reincarnation?
>>> Or of Satan?
>>>
>>> Or if you climbed up Mount Olympus and talked with the Greek
>>> gods?
>>
>>The moment that you can provide a method for testing the
>>falsifiablity of those things, they would be scientific beliefs.
>>Since you can't, not now, and not ever, they are not.
>
> You say that if it is science, then it's not religion. I
> disagree. Your supporting argument is that if it is science,
> then it is not religion.
>
> Sure, if we could test it it would be science. But it would
> not stop people from worshiping. If we could demonstrate the
> truth of any religion - that would not make it not a religion.
The definitions are hard to consider to be not mutually exclusive.
One is about faith, without proof, that other is about proof.
>
>>The scienfific method never said *things* should be tested.
>>*Science* should be tested, and the scientific method doesn't
>>even say *that*. It merely provides a framework for doing the
>>testing, and perhaps by implication, telling if testing is being
>>done in a scientific way.
>>
>>But don't feel ashamed, it's a very common mistake. Lots of
>>people make it. There's nothing to feel ashamed about. Your
>>parents probably gave you bad DNA, or something, but it's
>>obviously not *your* fault.
>
> At least I'm not a troll.
>
Aside from "I'd rather be a troll than troll chow," frankly, yes,
you are, in your own way.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:07:33 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:skc8p89vqba5ga2bq...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:18:32 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>They're not devotees of the Bible. They're devotees of the
>>>>cult-of- personality of their local preacher.
>>>
>>> Who promise them that their way is Right - and what God intended
>>> from the beginning. Certainly their parents had some values
>>> wrong - not to mention their kids.
>>>
>>> And when the Bible shows Jesus overturning the money tables in
>>> the temple, or arguing with the religious authorities, or
>>> warning about how difficult it was for the wealthy to enter the
>>> kingdom of heaven - He was referring to Jews, not *our* wealthy
>>> churches.
>>>
>>So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
>>Rebplicans?
>
> No, but that is a fun hypothesis/conclusion to bring to the
>>So, what you're saying is, Jesus was a Democrat, and the rest were
>>Rebplicans?
>
> discussion.
>
I'm sure somebody will treat this as a YASID. Successfully. I *know*
I've seen this discussion on usenet before.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:09:33 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:o6k8p8ttmhtk2oej6...@4ax.com:
> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
real world religions) than it does about religion. Unless, of course,
you are defining "true religion" as "religion I approve of, and there
aren't any" in some way.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:11:43 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:74q9p8t1bb9e7csjg...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 15, 8:25�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> However it is on topic in rec.arts.sf.written to conceive of a
>>> religion that is tested and found to be true.
>>>
>>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>>> testable? � �I don't see any reason why not.
>>
>>
>>Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all
>>that faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and
>>Judaism and Islam aren't about whether you believe that the
>>world was created in seven days and the first human beings were
>>Adam and Eve created directly by God. (btw, the Flood)
>
> It depends on what is being tested and what the point is.
> Let's say the point is that we are reincarnated up or down
> depending on our current state. And we found the ability to
> test where our souls end up. Would that be missing the point
> of a religion that espoused that?
>
it. One needs to be very careful with unspoken assumptions, lest one
becomes the point, and that point is to point and laugh.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:19:35 PM5/16/13
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in news:58db4b3f-
da89-467c-8c4...@googlegroups.com:
> On Thursday, 16 May 2013 02:51:07 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <ylfk7giz...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
>> > How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke,
>> > or some other organic disfunction?
>>
>> And what's the era? Today a talking burning bush should
>> be doable with a little careful ceramic work, a gas pipe,
>> and a speaker. Hmm--that would actually be a good setup
>> for Candid Camera. In Biblical times it would have been
>> more difficult to setup, I suspect, but on the other
>> hand the illusions that stage magicians can do with
>> limited technology are quite surprising. Now who would
>> do it and why is another story.
out of debunking. But they are, as you note, magicians by profession,
not scientists.
>
> My other thought is of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi>
> but on this telling I've been misinformed - I thought he was
> a real-life ancient Egyptian magic trick performer. Well,
> that happens in the bible, too, when the king's magicians
> can duplicate God's miracles.
da89-467c-8c4...@googlegroups.com:
> On Thursday, 16 May 2013 02:51:07 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <ylfk7giz...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
>> > How do I distinguish between a miracle and heat stroke,
>> > or some other organic disfunction?
>>
>> And what's the era? Today a talking burning bush should
>> be doable with a little careful ceramic work, a gas pipe,
>> and a speaker. Hmm--that would actually be a good setup
>> for Candid Camera. In Biblical times it would have been
>> more difficult to setup, I suspect, but on the other
>> hand the illusions that stage magicians can do with
>> limited technology are quite surprising. Now who would
>> do it and why is another story.
>
> My main th�ought here is either Carl Sagan's or Clive James's
> or both, I think - that stage magicians who claim to have
> supernatural powers can fool a lot of scientists, because
> scientists aren't necessarily trained in fooling and not
> getting fooled, including by frauds amongst scientists.
Jaems Randi (and Penn & Teller, to a lesser extent) has made a career
> My main th�ought here is either Carl Sagan's or Clive James's
> or both, I think - that stage magicians who claim to have
> supernatural powers can fool a lot of scientists, because
> scientists aren't necessarily trained in fooling and not
> getting fooled, including by frauds amongst scientists.
out of debunking. But they are, as you note, magicians by profession,
not scientists.
>
> My other thought is of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedi>
> but on this telling I've been misinformed - I thought he was
> a real-life ancient Egyptian magic trick performer. Well,
> that happens in the bible, too, when the king's magicians
> can duplicate God's miracles.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:27:46 PM5/16/13
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:f72f5d98-1012-4a08...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 23:24:14 UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella
>> news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> > Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> The concept is not
>> >>> scientifically testable
>> >>
>> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>> >
>> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>> not philosophy?
>
> Not losing sight of whom I'm addressing, but would that matter?
>> not philosophy?
>
Only to people who care about what words to use more than what's
being said.
>
> I'm reading Richard Dawkins' _The God Delusion_ currently
> in bathroom breaks, and it addresses and puts away most
> of the points raised here, although for fake dinosaur
> fossils there is also early Terry Pratchett's _Strata_.
Dawkins is a wingnut. Based on his public persona (which may or may
not accurately reflect his atual personality) he's one of the
"atheism is my religion" sorts, motivated far more by hatred of
"the man" in whatever form has caught his attention than by
anything else, including rational science.
>
> My feeling, which the book /hasn't/ got to yet, is that
> arguments about God divorced from specifics such as
> the bible as evidence are imprecise because people have
> vague, unclear, and sometimes self-contradictory views
> about what a god is, partly because God's friends
> like to say nice things about him that are not necessarily
> true, such as, he watches me, um, reading Dawkins.
> I can't see God there, but he is. Well, I say phooey
> to that, for a start. And to the rest, too.
>
Religious faith isn't subject to rationality. Either you've got it,
or you don't. Dawkins has it, in his religous belief there is no
God. It's as irrational as the belief there is one, because it is
entirely as unprovable. This will now turn in to a flamefest over
who gets to defien "atheism" for everyone else, but Dawkins clearly
believes there is not God, rather than that he doesn't (or can't)
know, and he's irrational on the subject.
I keep coming back to Eric Hoffer's True Believer, where he points
out that the best place to find zealots for your cult is among the
followers of the opposition. For the True Believer, the strength of
the beleif is the point, *what* is believes is pretty much
irrelevant.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:30:37 PM5/16/13
to
Don Bruder <D...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:kn1hhq$2ri$1...@dont-email.me:
> In article
> <f72f5d98-1012-4a08...@googlegroups.com>,
scientific testing. Your observations skills (and understanding of
the scientific methods) is pretty crappy.
any evidence as equally circular? Because, you know, absence of
evidence isn't evidence of absence, and all.
And, of course, you're still in the realm of "it's not a scientific
belief, and is not subject to scientific method" error.
news:kn1hhq$2ri$1...@dont-email.me:
> In article
> <f72f5d98-1012-4a08...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 23:24:14 UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>> > news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>> > > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> > > Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>> The concept is not
>> > >>> scientifically testable
>> > >>
>> > >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>> > >
>> > > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>> >
>> > If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion,
>> > and not philosophy?
>>
>> Not losing sight of whom I'm addressing, but would that matter?
>>
>
>> On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 23:24:14 UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella
>> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>> > news:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>> > > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> > > Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>> The concept is not
>> > >>> scientifically testable
>> > >>
>> > >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>> > >
>> > > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>> >
>> > If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion,
>> > and not philosophy?
>>
>> Not losing sight of whom I'm addressing, but would that matter?
>>
>> I'm reading Richard Dawkins' _The God Delusion_ currently
>> in bathroom breaks, and it addresses and puts away most
>> of the points raised here, although for fake dinosaur
>> fossils there is also early Terry Pratchett's _Strata_.
>>
>> in bathroom breaks, and it addresses and puts away most
>> of the points raised here, although for fake dinosaur
>> fossils there is also early Terry Pratchett's _Strata_.
>>
>> My feeling, which the book /hasn't/ got to yet, is that
>> arguments about God divorced from specifics such as
>> the bible as evidence are imprecise because people have
>> vague, unclear, and sometimes self-contradictory views
>> about what a god is, partly because God's friends
>> like to say nice things about him that are not necessarily
>> true, such as, he watches me, um, reading Dawkins.
>> I can't see God there, but he is. Well, I say phooey
>> to that, for a start. And to the rest, too.
>
> Yep, that would be two of us...
>> arguments about God divorced from specifics such as
>> the bible as evidence are imprecise because people have
>> vague, unclear, and sometimes self-contradictory views
>> about what a god is, partly because God's friends
>> like to say nice things about him that are not necessarily
>> true, such as, he watches me, um, reading Dawkins.
>> I can't see God there, but he is. Well, I say phooey
>> to that, for a start. And to the rest, too.
>
>
> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some
> religious nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So
> far as I can tell from observable evidence, both are equally
> real.
The Easter Bunny, as defined in common media, *is* subect to
> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some
> religious nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So
> far as I can tell from observable evidence, both are equally
> real.
scientific testing. Your observations skills (and understanding of
the scientific methods) is pretty crappy.
>
> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho -
> "You can't see the evidence that god exists because you don't
> believe he does".
But you don't see not believing in any God because you don't see
> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho -
> "You can't see the evidence that god exists because you don't
> believe he does".
any evidence as equally circular? Because, you know, absence of
evidence isn't evidence of absence, and all.
And, of course, you're still in the realm of "it's not a scientific
belief, and is not subject to scientific method" error.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:33:05 PM5/16/13
to
David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:I4ednaRavtzQEAnM...@earthlink.com:
> On 2013-05-16, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 15, 7:54 pm, Don Bruder <D...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho -
>>> "You can't see the evidence that god exists because you don't
>>> believe he does". As if my believing in something has any
>>> impact on its reality???? If that's the case, I believe I'm
>>> holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!! I'm now a
>>> multi-millionaire!!!
>>
>> I simply cannot express how much you missed Jesus' point by...
>>
>> The problem is YOU, not Christianity. You do not have to
>> believe in 'magic' to be a Christian, nor does believing in
>> 'magic' make you a Christian.
>
> "I'm told nailing the horseshoe up above my door works whether
> or not I actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
Weill, nailing a horseshoe up above your door *does* work. The nail
holds the horseshoe right where you put it.
Any luck that comes from that act is *testable*. The existence of the
judeo-christian diety, as commonly defined, is *not*. Religious
belief isn't a scneitific theory, and scientific method cannot be
applies to it - at all.
For someone who claims to want ot live their lives by logical and
scientific principles, you certainly have a flawed understanding of
how they work.
news:I4ednaRavtzQEAnM...@earthlink.com:
> On 2013-05-16, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 15, 7:54 pm, Don Bruder <D...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho -
>>> "You can't see the evidence that god exists because you don't
>>> believe he does". As if my believing in something has any
>>> impact on its reality???? If that's the case, I believe I'm
>>> holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!! I'm now a
>>> multi-millionaire!!!
>>
>> I simply cannot express how much you missed Jesus' point by...
>>
>> The problem is YOU, not Christianity. You do not have to
>> believe in 'magic' to be a Christian, nor does believing in
>> 'magic' make you a Christian.
>
> "I'm told nailing the horseshoe up above my door works whether
> or not I actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
holds the horseshoe right where you put it.
Any luck that comes from that act is *testable*. The existence of the
judeo-christian diety, as commonly defined, is *not*. Religious
belief isn't a scneitific theory, and scientific method cannot be
applies to it - at all.
For someone who claims to want ot live their lives by logical and
scientific principles, you certainly have a flawed understanding of
how they work.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:33:33 PM5/16/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:kn1qv4$jnq$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 2013-05-15 22:54:38 -0400, Don Bruder said:
>
>> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some
>> religious nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny...
>> So far as I can tell from observable evidence, both are equally
>> real.
>>
>> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho -
>> "You can't see the evidence that god exists because you don't
>> believe he does". As if my believing in something has any
>> impact on its reality???? If that's the case, I believe I'm
>> holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!! I'm now a
>> multi-millionaire!!!
>>
>> Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
>
> Philip Dick said, "Reality is the stuff that doesn't go away
> when you stop believing in it." I think that's a pretty good
> definition.
>
From what I recall, he'd know, too.
news:kn1qv4$jnq$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 2013-05-15 22:54:38 -0400, Don Bruder said:
>
>> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some
>> religious nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny...
>> So far as I can tell from observable evidence, both are equally
>> real.
>>
>> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho -
>> "You can't see the evidence that god exists because you don't
>> believe he does". As if my believing in something has any
>> impact on its reality???? If that's the case, I believe I'm
>> holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!! I'm now a
>> multi-millionaire!!!
>>
>> Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
>
> Philip Dick said, "Reality is the stuff that doesn't go away
> when you stop believing in it." I think that's a pretty good
> definition.
>
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 12:41:10 PM5/16/13
to
On May 15, 6:24 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote innews:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned from a religion in
to a philosophy?
pt
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote innews:l128p8daq2e5vr421...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The concept is not
> >>> scientifically testable
>
> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
> philosophy?
So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the Glory of
> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The concept is not
> >>> scientifically testable
>
> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and not
> philosophy?
the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned from a religion in
to a philosophy?
pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 12:45:30 PM5/16/13
to
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 15, 6:24�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> innews:l128p8daq2e5vr4210tejbe1l8
> u9ep...@4ax.com:
Jewish God?
news:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 15, 6:24�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
> u9ep...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> The concept is not
>> >>> scientifically testable
>>
>> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>> not philosophy?
>
> So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the Glory
> of the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned from a
> religion in to a philosophy?
>
How do those events provide a testable claim on the existence of the
>> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> The concept is not
>> >>> scientifically testable
>>
>> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
>> not philosophy?
>
> So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the Glory
> of the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned from a
> religion in to a philosophy?
>
Jewish God?
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 1:44:52 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 12:45 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote innews:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
Almighty established a Twitter feed, and used it to provide repeated
evidence of His Omniscience ('Here next week's lottery numbers....')
Omnipresence ('At 10:30 GMT, you'll see a purple elephant in front of
you. Not just you; every human will see one in front of them.'), and
Omnipotence ('I'll stop the sun in the sky for one hour; no side
effects, apart from messing up your clocks.')
If a god manifestly exists, do you still consider belief in it
religion?
pt
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote innews:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
> om:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 6:24 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
> >> innews:l128p8daq2e5vr4210tejbe1l8
> > u9ep9...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 6:24 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
> >> innews:l128p8daq2e5vr4210tejbe1l8
>
> >> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> >> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> The concept is not
> >> >>> scientifically testable
>
> >> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> >> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> >> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
> >> not philosophy?
>
> > So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the Glory
> > of the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned from a
> > religion in to a philosophy?
>
> How do those events provide a testable claim on the existence of the
> Jewish God?
I'm more curious as to why you think faith is important. If God
> >> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> >> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> The concept is not
> >> >>> scientifically testable
>
> >> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>
> >> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>
> >> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion, and
> >> not philosophy?
>
> > So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the Glory
> > of the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned from a
> > religion in to a philosophy?
>
> How do those events provide a testable claim on the existence of the
> Jewish God?
Almighty established a Twitter feed, and used it to provide repeated
evidence of His Omniscience ('Here next week's lottery numbers....')
Omnipresence ('At 10:30 GMT, you'll see a purple elephant in front of
you. Not just you; every human will see one in front of them.'), and
Omnipotence ('I'll stop the sun in the sky for one hour; no side
effects, apart from messing up your clocks.')
If a god manifestly exists, do you still consider belief in it
religion?
pt
Brian M. Scott
May 16, 2013, 1:58:49 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:05:22 +0000 (UTC), Carl Dershem
<der...@cox.net> wrote in
<news:XnsA1C1B8A84A2...@78.46.70.116> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's
> Guide) as part of my history and anthropology studies, as
> well as the Koran, the Golden Bough, the Elder Eddas, the
> Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha, the Iliand and
> the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
> only one with much self-consistency, and few have much
> literary merit. But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
_The Golden Bough_ is fairly readable. And since it's a
comparative study of religion as a cultural phenomenon, it's
plainly of a very different nature from the other works
cited. They themselves are not of one kind: the Elder Edda
is a collection of minstrel poems, so it belongs with the
Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, but not with
the Qur'ān or most of the Bible. And you can't fully judge
literary merit unless you can read them in the original
*and* have some knowledge of the relevant poetic traditions.
[...]
Brian
<der...@cox.net> wrote in
<news:XnsA1C1B8A84A2...@78.46.70.116> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I read the bible (several translations, plus Asimov's
> Guide) as part of my history and anthropology studies, as
> well as the Koran, the Golden Bough, the Elder Eddas, the
> Tale of Gilgamesh, the Buddhist Apocrypha, the Iliand and
> the Odyssey and the Lord of the Rings. The latter is the
> only one with much self-consistency, and few have much
> literary merit. But they are all *right!!!* Ask any believer.
comparative study of religion as a cultural phenomenon, it's
plainly of a very different nature from the other works
cited. They themselves are not of one kind: the Elder Edda
is a collection of minstrel poems, so it belongs with the
Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, but not with
the Qur'ān or most of the Bible. And you can't fully judge
literary merit unless you can read them in the original
*and* have some knowledge of the relevant poetic traditions.
[...]
Brian
Quadibloc
May 16, 2013, 2:03:07 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 10:01 am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
by itself, without further specifications, is not particularly
testable.
It usually comes along in a package with other assertions, though. The
basic package, though, only includes assertions that we can test
a) after we die, and/or
b) after the end of the world.
Still safely remote.
It's when you start extending this to include claims like:
a) Miracles have been performed, or
b) Miracles are still being performed
that one does get firmly into empirical territory.
John Savard
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plus, God is not a scientific theory, and only morons (who understand
> neither God nor scientific method) claim otherwise.
"There is a God" is an assertion about the real world. That assertion,
> Plus, God is not a scientific theory, and only morons (who understand
> neither God nor scientific method) claim otherwise.
by itself, without further specifications, is not particularly
testable.
It usually comes along in a package with other assertions, though. The
basic package, though, only includes assertions that we can test
a) after we die, and/or
b) after the end of the world.
Still safely remote.
It's when you start extending this to include claims like:
a) Miracles have been performed, or
b) Miracles are still being performed
that one does get firmly into empirical territory.
John Savard
Shawn Wilson
May 16, 2013, 2:07:36 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 12:39 am, David DeLaney <daviddela...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
> >> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
> >> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
> >> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
> >> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
>
> > I simply cannot express how much you missed Jesus' point by...
>
> > The problem is YOU, not Christianity. You do not have to believe in
> > 'magic' to be a Christian, nor does believing in 'magic' make you a
> > Christian.
>
> "I'm told nailing the horseshoe up above my door works whether or not I
> actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
Again, utterly missing the point of Jesus' teachings...
> >> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
> >> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
> >> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
> >> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
> >> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
>
> > I simply cannot express how much you missed Jesus' point by...
>
> > The problem is YOU, not Christianity. You do not have to believe in
> > 'magic' to be a Christian, nor does believing in 'magic' make you a
> > Christian.
>
> "I'm told nailing the horseshoe up above my door works whether or not I
> actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
Shawn Wilson
May 16, 2013, 2:09:03 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 7:11 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
> >faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
> >Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> >seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> >directly by God. (btw, the Flood)
>
> It depends on what is being tested and what the point is. Let's say
> the point is that we are reincarnated up or down depending on our
> current state. And we found the ability to test where our souls end
> up. Would that be missing the point of a religion that espoused
> that?
Woosh.
> >Becauase that completely misses the point? And I don't mean all that
> >faith crap. Religion <> Mythology. Christianity and Judaism and
> >Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> >seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> >directly by God. (btw, the Flood)
>
> It depends on what is being tested and what the point is. Let's say
> the point is that we are reincarnated up or down depending on our
> current state. And we found the ability to test where our souls end
> up. Would that be missing the point of a religion that espoused
> that?
Quadibloc
May 16, 2013, 2:14:19 PM5/16/13
to
On May 15, 9:40 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christianity and Judaism and
> Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> directly by God.
If they were *only* about not doing violence to your fellow human
> Christianity and Judaism and
> Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> directly by God.
beings, being honest in your dealings and relationships, and being
charitable to those in need, there would be fewer critics of religion.
In addition to this good stuff, though, there is other stuff.
The next thing is a belief that the Universe means something; that
there is ultimate justice; that death is not the end.
Again, so far, good or at least understandable beliefs.
But there _is_ more. There is the belief that X book contains the true
revelation from God which took place at Y time and in Z place.
And that leads to extra commands that have the force of ethics to
believers. Stuff like not eating pork.
And then, ultimately, you get to things like the 24th verse of the 4th
Sura of the Quran:
Muslims are not allowed to marry women who are already married to
someone else.
With one exception; if you see a woman who catches your eye while
you're out fighting the infidels, yes, you can take her home with you.
You can't just off and rape her though: no, you have to marry her,
feed her, and take good care of her.
How much is that infidel woman in the window...
It's unfortunate that some people doing religion the wrong way are
making life more difficult for those who follow more benign forms of
religion. But because even the benign forms involve belief in a
particular revelation as a key element, it's terribly easy to use
religion to manipulate people into doing wrong... thus, Christianity,
benign today, has turned malignant back in the Middle Ages on numerous
occasions.
John Savard
Howard Brazee
May 16, 2013, 2:22:21 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:19 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if your religion was Buddhism. Would coming up with a
>> test that showed reincarnation worked as advertised stop it from
>> being a religion?
>>
>Pretty much, yeah. Though that very question is becoming philosphy
>in its own right.
I don't know why it might do that.
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if your religion was Buddhism. Would coming up with a
>> test that showed reincarnation worked as advertised stop it from
>> being a religion?
>>
>Pretty much, yeah. Though that very question is becoming philosphy
>in its own right.
What is your definition of "religion" that excludes being
demonstratively true?
Howard Brazee
May 16, 2013, 2:27:04 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:09:33 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>news:o6k8p8ttmhtk2oej6...@4ax.com:
>
>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
>
>That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and knowledge
>real world religions) than it does about religion. Unless, of course,
>you are defining "true religion" as "religion I approve of, and there
>aren't any" in some way.
In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of the argument
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>news:o6k8p8ttmhtk2oej6...@4ax.com:
>
>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
>
>That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and knowledge
>real world religions) than it does about religion. Unless, of course,
>you are defining "true religion" as "religion I approve of, and there
>aren't any" in some way.
displays lack of imagination. There are SF novels and stories that
have deities that do show themselves. Are those written by authors
who don't have as much imagination as you have?
David Dyer-Bennet
May 16, 2013, 2:34:16 PM5/16/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> writes:
> On 2013-05-15 22:54:38 -0400, Don Bruder said:
>
>> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some religious
>> nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So far as I can tell
>> from observable evidence, both are equally real.
>>
> On 2013-05-15 22:54:38 -0400, Don Bruder said:
>
>> Never have figured out why I'm supposed to believe in some religious
>> nutbar's self-delusion, but not the Easter Bunny... So far as I can tell
>> from observable evidence, both are equally real.
>>
>> Gotta love the circular logic involved in christianity, tho - "You can't
>> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
>> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
>> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
>> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
>>
>> see the evidence that god exists because you don't believe he does". As
>> if my believing in something has any impact on its reality???? If that's
>> the case, I believe I'm holding the wining powerball ticket. HOORAY!!!!
>> I'm now a multi-millionaire!!!
>>
>> Hmmm... If that's the case, why is my wallet empty?
>
> Philip Dick said, "Reality is the stuff that doesn't go away when you
> stop believing in it." I think that's a pretty good definition.
I've described it as the thing that makes your nose hurt when you walk
>
> Philip Dick said, "Reality is the stuff that doesn't go away when you
> stop believing in it." I think that's a pretty good definition.
through the wall whose reality you deny.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 2:38:00 PM5/16/13
to
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a8f65168-613e-4c2d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 16, 12:45�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b-9624
> -98f6e...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
(It's important in that it matters to some people, enough for them
to become quite . . . aggressive in their pursuit of it.)
> If God
> Almighty established a Twitter feed, and used it to provide
> repeated evidence of His Omniscience ('Here next week's lottery
> numbers....')
Is that evidence of omniscience, or of corruption? How do you
*prove* the existence?
Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common definition
of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is impossible by
definition.
> Omnipresence ('At 10:30 GMT, you'll see a purple
> elephant in front of you. Not just you; every human will see one
> in front of them.'), and Omnipotence ('I'll stop the sun in the
> sky for one hour; no side effects, apart from messing up your
> clocks.')
That appears to be an incomplete thought. If God does xxx . . .
then what?
god it claims to be. Your question lacks meaning, being based on a
premise that A is not A. Ojective proof is impossbe by definition,
from a human persepctive.
news:a8f65168-613e-4c2d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 16, 12:45�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote
> -98f6e...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 15, 6:24�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> >> innews:l128p8daq2e5vr4210tejbe1l8
>> > u9ep9...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> >> > Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> The concept is not
>> >> >>> scientifically testable
>>
>> >> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> >> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>> >> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion,
>> >> and not philosophy?
>>
>> > So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the
>> > Glory of the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned
>> > from a religion in to a philosophy?
>>
>> How do those events provide a testable claim on the existence
>> of the Jewish God?
>
> I'm more curious as to why you think faith is important.
I'm more curious as to where you think I said that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 15, 6:24�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> >> innews:l128p8daq2e5vr4210tejbe1l8
>> > u9ep9...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> > On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:03:09 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>> >> > Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> The concept is not
>> >> >>> scientifically testable
>>
>> >> >>Like religion ever is (or should be).
>>
>> >> > Why shouldn't it be scientifically testable?
>>
>> >> If it's scientifically testable, how is it still religion,
>> >> and not philosophy?
>>
>> > So when after the dedication of King Solomon's Temple, the
>> > Glory of the Lord filled the Holy of Holies, Judaism turned
>> > from a religion in to a philosophy?
>>
>> How do those events provide a testable claim on the existence
>> of the Jewish God?
>
> I'm more curious as to why you think faith is important.
(It's important in that it matters to some people, enough for them
to become quite . . . aggressive in their pursuit of it.)
> If God
> Almighty established a Twitter feed, and used it to provide
> repeated evidence of His Omniscience ('Here next week's lottery
> numbers....')
*prove* the existence?
Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common definition
of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is impossible by
definition.
> Omnipresence ('At 10:30 GMT, you'll see a purple
> elephant in front of you. Not just you; every human will see one
> in front of them.'), and Omnipotence ('I'll stop the sun in the
> sky for one hour; no side effects, apart from messing up your
> clocks.')
then what?
>
> If a god manifestly exists, do you still consider belief in it
> religion?
>
If any mainstream god mainfestly exists, it isn't the mainstream
> If a god manifestly exists, do you still consider belief in it
> religion?
>
god it claims to be. Your question lacks meaning, being based on a
premise that A is not A. Ojective proof is impossbe by definition,
from a human persepctive.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 2:44:25 PM5/16/13
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:2a0d2092-423b-47a5...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 16, 10:01�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Plus, God is not a scientific theory, and only morons (who
>> understand neither God nor scientific method) claim otherwise.
>
> "There is a God" is an assertion about the real world. That
> assertion, by itself, without further specifications, is not
> particularly testable.
>
> It usually comes along in a package with other assertions,
> though. The basic package, though, only includes assertions that
> we can test
>
> a) after we die, and/or
> b) after the end of the world.
Which is to say, we cannot test them, despite your pretending
otherwise.
science cannot currently explain it" and "event x was performed by
deity y." That event x happened is a testable scientific claim.
That event x cannot be explained by current science is a testable
scientific claim. That it is a miracle performed by a particular
diety is an act of faith, not subject to scietnific testing (for
any mainstreat diety, that is - there are, of course, wingnut sects
that make testable claims about their deity, and said deity always
seems to fail).
it is not all that subtle a difference.
news:2a0d2092-423b-47a5...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 16, 10:01�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Plus, God is not a scientific theory, and only morons (who
>> understand neither God nor scientific method) claim otherwise.
>
> "There is a God" is an assertion about the real world. That
> assertion, by itself, without further specifications, is not
> particularly testable.
>
> It usually comes along in a package with other assertions,
> though. The basic package, though, only includes assertions that
> we can test
>
> a) after we die, and/or
> b) after the end of the world.
otherwise.
>
> Still safely remote.
>
> It's when you start extending this to include claims like:
>
> a) Miracles have been performed, or
> b) Miracles are still being performed
>
> that one does get firmly into empirical territory.
>
There is a qualitative difference between "event x happened, and
> Still safely remote.
>
> It's when you start extending this to include claims like:
>
> a) Miracles have been performed, or
> b) Miracles are still being performed
>
> that one does get firmly into empirical territory.
>
science cannot currently explain it" and "event x was performed by
deity y." That event x happened is a testable scientific claim.
That event x cannot be explained by current science is a testable
scientific claim. That it is a miracle performed by a particular
diety is an act of faith, not subject to scietnific testing (for
any mainstreat diety, that is - there are, of course, wingnut sects
that make testable claims about their deity, and said deity always
seems to fail).
it is not all that subtle a difference.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 2:47:55 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:5s8ap8l77okvcmutc...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:19 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What if your religion was Buddhism. Would coming up with a
>>> test that showed reincarnation worked as advertised stop it from
>>> being a religion?
>>>
>>Pretty much, yeah. Though that very question is becoming philosphy
>>in its own right.
>
> I don't know why it might do that.
>
> What is your definition of "religion" that excludes being
> demonstratively true?
>
(those that have deities, at least) have definitions of their deity
that are untestable. In the case of judeo-christianity, untestable by
defintion, as "all knowing" and "all powerful" are mutually exclusive
within a human perspective. It is a logical paradox. Ergo, it is not
subject to logic, or science. It *cannot* be subject to science, as
it is not a scientific claim. It is inherently irrational in nature.
That does not make it valueless. In fact, many of the most treasured
aspects of our culture are irrational. But it's not *science*. Trying
to apply science to it is silly, and juvenile.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 2:50:20 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:u29ap8pck3bvgso81...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:09:33 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>news:o6k8p8ttmhtk2oej6...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be scientifically
>>> testable? I don't see any reason why not.
>>
>>That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and
>>knowledge real world religions) than it does about religion.
>>Unless, of course, you are defining "true religion" as "religion
>>I approve of, and there aren't any" in some way.
>
> In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of the
> argument displays lack of imagination. There are SF novels and
> stories that have deities that do show themselves. Are those
> written by authors who don't have as much imagination as you
> have?
>
and "unmeasurably powerful alien" are interchangable, if you're
writing anything remotely like science fiction or science fantasy. If
you're writing some other kind of fantasy, it's fantasy, pretty much
defined as "outside the bounds of the scientific view of the world."
In other words, *not* *science*.
Believe it or not, those books you read aren't real.
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 2:50:24 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:38 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote innews:a8f65168-613e-4c2d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
So, now you're limiting what God can do. I didn't know you had that
power over Him.
> Your question lacks meaning, being based on a
> premise that A is not A. Ojective proof is impossbe by definition,
> from a human persepctive.
Crying 'but you can't actually prove *anything*' is an total copout.
I see no reason why a God couldn't prove it's reality to me or anyone
at least as convincingly as (for example) my belief in the reality of
the Eiffel Tower (which I've been up).
pt
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote innews:a8f65168-613e-4c2d...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
> om:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 12:45 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b-9624
> > -98f6ef1c6...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 12:45 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:49db8cc5-b0dd-491b-9624
power over Him.
> Your question lacks meaning, being based on a
> premise that A is not A. Ojective proof is impossbe by definition,
> from a human persepctive.
I see no reason why a God couldn't prove it's reality to me or anyone
at least as convincingly as (for example) my belief in the reality of
the Eiffel Tower (which I've been up).
pt
Howard Brazee
May 16, 2013, 2:53:19 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee
May 16, 2013, 2:52:33 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:38:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common definition
>of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is impossible by
>definition.
That's a relatively recent teaching, gathering importance after the
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common definition
>of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is impossible by
>definition.
age of science. But even so, if a specific religion or religions
defines itself as being improvable, it doesn't extend to all
religions.
In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 2:56:04 PM5/16/13
to
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2a198e9b-3bdc-4225...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 16, 2:38�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:a8f65168-613e-4c2d-925a
> -36fec...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
Not in any way. I'm limiting human ability to comprehend a logical
paradox.
that various dieties have proven their existence to, far more
convincingly than the Eiffel Tower has.
Subjective proof isn't science.
One could easily define a "god" that could objectively prove it's
exitence. Sure. But we wouldn't, collectively, call it a god, we'd
call it an alien (except when it was listening, of course, if we
thoguht it cared what we called it).
The word "god" implies a supernatural being, which is to say, a
being beyond the limits of our physical universe.
news:2a198e9b-3bdc-4225...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 16, 2:38�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote
> -36fec...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
paradox.
>
>> Your question lacks meaning, being based on a
>> premise that A is not A. Ojective proof is impossbe by
>> definition, from a human persepctive.
>
> Crying 'but you can't actually prove *anything*' is an total
> copout.
So now you're reduced to simply lying about what I said, eh?
>> Your question lacks meaning, being based on a
>> premise that A is not A. Ojective proof is impossbe by
>> definition, from a human persepctive.
>
> Crying 'but you can't actually prove *anything*' is an total
> copout.
>
> I see no reason why a God couldn't prove it's reality
> to me
> or
> anyone at least as convincingly as (for example) my belief in
> the reality of the Eiffel Tower (which I've been up).
>
Subjective proof happens all the time. There are millions of people
> I see no reason why a God couldn't prove it's reality
> to me
> or
> anyone at least as convincingly as (for example) my belief in
> the reality of the Eiffel Tower (which I've been up).
>
that various dieties have proven their existence to, far more
convincingly than the Eiffel Tower has.
Subjective proof isn't science.
One could easily define a "god" that could objectively prove it's
exitence. Sure. But we wouldn't, collectively, call it a god, we'd
call it an alien (except when it was listening, of course, if we
thoguht it cared what we called it).
The word "god" implies a supernatural being, which is to say, a
being beyond the limits of our physical universe.
Shawn Wilson
May 16, 2013, 2:57:06 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 11:14 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Christianity and Judaism and
> > Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> > seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> > directly by God.
>
> If they were *only* about not doing violence to your fellow human
> beings, being honest in your dealings and relationships, and being
> charitable to those in need, there would be fewer critics of religion.
Note: all the dead in all the religious wars ever fought are
> > Christianity and Judaism and
> > Islam aren't about whether you believe that the world was created in
> > seven days and the first human beings were Adam and Eve created
> > directly by God.
>
> If they were *only* about not doing violence to your fellow human
> beings, being honest in your dealings and relationships, and being
> charitable to those in need, there would be fewer critics of religion.
massively outnumbered by those butchered by atheists in the last
century alone.
You are in no position to criticize.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 2:58:30 PM5/16/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:4jaap8lfocg935j5g...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:38:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common
>>definition of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is
>>impossible by definition.
>
> That's a relatively recent teaching, gathering importance after
> the age of science.
> But even so, if a specific religion or
> religions defines itself as being improvable, it doesn't extend
> to all religions.
scientific claim.
>
> In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
>
SF "religions" are fiction. That means they're not real. That also
> In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
>
means the author gets to redefine words however he wants. If he wants
his religion to be called Lucy and have it dance naked on the table
with Cheetos smeared on its man-boobs, that that's what Lucy means in
that book.
Trying to carrying that in to the real world makes you look stupid
and dishonest.
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 3:31:25 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:58 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote innews:4jaap8lfocg935j5g...@4ax.com:
them. Is Scientology a 'real' religion? The IRS says so. Do the
Mormons practice a 'real' religion? Do Muslims? Do Christians? Do
Jews? Hindus?
By what criteria do you determine that a given thing called a religion
is 'real' or 'not real'?
pt
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote innews:4jaap8lfocg935j5g...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:38:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common
> >>definition of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is
> >>impossible by definition.
>
> > That's a relatively recent teaching, gathering importance after
> > the age of science.
>
> Since we are not having this conversation a thousand years ago, so?
>
> > But even so, if a specific religion or
> > religions defines itself as being improvable, it doesn't extend
> > to all religions.
>
> If it's provable, it's not a religious definition. It's a provable
> scientific claim.
>
> > In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
>
> SF "religions" are fiction. That means they're not real.
How is any religion *not* fictional? I point you at .... well all of
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:38:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common
> >>definition of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is
> >>impossible by definition.
>
> > That's a relatively recent teaching, gathering importance after
> > the age of science.
>
> Since we are not having this conversation a thousand years ago, so?
>
> > But even so, if a specific religion or
> > religions defines itself as being improvable, it doesn't extend
> > to all religions.
>
> If it's provable, it's not a religious definition. It's a provable
> scientific claim.
>
> > In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
>
> SF "religions" are fiction. That means they're not real.
them. Is Scientology a 'real' religion? The IRS says so. Do the
Mormons practice a 'real' religion? Do Muslims? Do Christians? Do
Jews? Hindus?
By what criteria do you determine that a given thing called a religion
is 'real' or 'not real'?
pt
Brian M. Scott
May 16, 2013, 3:43:04 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:50:20 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:XnsA1C2786F1A2...@69.16.186.7> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:u29ap8pck3bvgso81...@4ax.com:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:09:33 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>>news:o6k8p8ttmhtk2oej6...@4ax.com:
>>>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be
>>>> scientifically testable? I don't see any reason why
>>>> not.
>>> That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and
>>> knowledge real world religions) than it does about
>>> religion. Unless, of course, you are defining "true
>>> religion" as "religion I approve of, and there aren't
>>> any" in some way.
>> In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of
>> the argument displays lack of imagination. There are
>> SF novels and stories that have deities that do show
>> themselves. Are those written by authors who don't
>> have as much imagination as you have?
> Those are fiction, and not - obviously - real life
> religion. "Diety" and "unmeasurably powerful alien" are
> interchangable, if you're writing anything remotely like
> science fiction or science fantasy.
And there is science fiction depicting worship by some
humans of sufficiently powerful aliens. You appear to be
maintaining that such worship would not occur; given the
apparent strength of the human religious impulse, it seems
to me very likely that it would.
> If you're writing some other kind of fantasy, it's
> fantasy, pretty much defined as "outside the bounds of
> the scientific view of the world."
No, it's outside the bounds of our understanding of the
science of *our* world. It's entirely possible to write
fantasy that treats magic, for instance, from a rational,
scientific point of view; it just has to be set in a world
whose laws of nature are different from the ones that we
find. I suppose that you can then argue that in such a
world it's no longer magic, but that's mere quibbling over
terminology.
[...]
Brian
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:XnsA1C2786F1A2...@69.16.186.7> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:u29ap8pck3bvgso81...@4ax.com:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:09:33 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>>news:o6k8p8ttmhtk2oej6...@4ax.com:
>>>> My question is why shouldn't a true religion be
>>>> scientifically testable? I don't see any reason why
>>>> not.
>>> That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and
>>> knowledge real world religions) than it does about
>>> religion. Unless, of course, you are defining "true
>>> religion" as "religion I approve of, and there aren't
>>> any" in some way.
>> In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of
>> the argument displays lack of imagination. There are
>> SF novels and stories that have deities that do show
>> themselves. Are those written by authors who don't
>> have as much imagination as you have?
> Those are fiction, and not - obviously - real life
> religion. "Diety" and "unmeasurably powerful alien" are
> interchangable, if you're writing anything remotely like
> science fiction or science fantasy.
humans of sufficiently powerful aliens. You appear to be
maintaining that such worship would not occur; given the
apparent strength of the human religious impulse, it seems
to me very likely that it would.
> If you're writing some other kind of fantasy, it's
> fantasy, pretty much defined as "outside the bounds of
> the scientific view of the world."
science of *our* world. It's entirely possible to write
fantasy that treats magic, for instance, from a rational,
scientific point of view; it just has to be set in a world
whose laws of nature are different from the ones that we
find. I suppose that you can then argue that in such a
world it's no longer magic, but that's mere quibbling over
terminology.
[...]
Brian
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 4:07:57 PM5/16/13
to
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2610f172-815a-49f6...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 16, 2:58�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> innews:4jaap8lfocg935j5g96358a3he
> qa4p...@4ax.com:
claim, and falsify it.
You cannot use your assumption that it's wrong to prove it's wrong.
In other worse, your atheism is *exactly* as much an act of faith
as, say, Westboro Baptist Church's faith that God hates fags. Zero
difference whatsoever.
news:2610f172-815a-49f6...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.c
om:
> On May 16, 2:58�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
> qa4p...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:38:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common
>> >>definition of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is
>> >>impossible by definition.
>>
>> > That's a relatively recent teaching, gathering importance
>> > after the age of science.
>>
>> Since we are not having this conversation a thousand years ago,
>> so?
>>
>> > � But even so, if a specific religion or
>> > religions defines itself as being improvable, it doesn't
>> > extend to all religions.
>>
>> If it's provable, it's not a religious definition. It's a
>> provable scientific claim.
>>
>> > In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
>>
>> SF "religions" are fiction. That means they're not real.
>
> How is any religion *not* fictional?
Prove it. In a proper scientific sense. Define the falsifiable
>> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:38:00 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> > Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Your premis is inherently flawed, since, with the common
>> >>definition of the judoe-christian deity, such proof is
>> >>impossible by definition.
>>
>> > That's a relatively recent teaching, gathering importance
>> > after the age of science.
>>
>> Since we are not having this conversation a thousand years ago,
>> so?
>>
>> > � But even so, if a specific religion or
>> > religions defines itself as being improvable, it doesn't
>> > extend to all religions.
>>
>> If it's provable, it's not a religious definition. It's a
>> provable scientific claim.
>>
>> > In particular it doesn't expand itself to all SF religions.
>>
>> SF "religions" are fiction. That means they're not real.
>
> How is any religion *not* fictional?
claim, and falsify it.
You cannot use your assumption that it's wrong to prove it's wrong.
In other worse, your atheism is *exactly* as much an act of faith
as, say, Westboro Baptist Church's faith that God hates fags. Zero
difference whatsoever.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 4:11:40 PM5/16/13
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1pvwfub9tiydn.133eh4en9thob$.d...@40tude.net:
No. I am maintaining that it is not religion, in the way that we
use the word today. Such worship might well occur, especially if
we're told to by said being, and we might well call said being a
deity, if it so desired. But that would involve redefining the word
"god" from the way it is used now.
> given the
> apparent strength of the human religious impulse, it seems
> to me very likely that it would.
>
>> If you're writing some other kind of fantasy, it's
>> fantasy, pretty much defined as "outside the bounds of
>> the scientific view of the world."
>
> No, it's outside the bounds of our understanding of the
> science of *our* world. It's entirely possible to write
> fantasy that treats magic, for instance, from a rational,
> scientific point of view; it just has to be set in a world
> whose laws of nature are different from the ones that we
> find. I suppose that you can then argue that in such a
> world it's no longer magic, but that's mere quibbling over
> terminology.
>
By that same logic, you would have to defend the premise that
worshipping my ass and calling my turds angels is as legitimate an
example of religion as, say the Catholic Church, because I could
make upa fictional world where that's so.
It's called fiction because it isn't true.
news:1pvwfub9tiydn.133eh4en9thob$.d...@40tude.net:
use the word today. Such worship might well occur, especially if
we're told to by said being, and we might well call said being a
deity, if it so desired. But that would involve redefining the word
"god" from the way it is used now.
> given the
> apparent strength of the human religious impulse, it seems
> to me very likely that it would.
>
>> If you're writing some other kind of fantasy, it's
>> fantasy, pretty much defined as "outside the bounds of
>> the scientific view of the world."
>
> No, it's outside the bounds of our understanding of the
> science of *our* world. It's entirely possible to write
> fantasy that treats magic, for instance, from a rational,
> scientific point of view; it just has to be set in a world
> whose laws of nature are different from the ones that we
> find. I suppose that you can then argue that in such a
> world it's no longer magic, but that's mere quibbling over
> terminology.
>
worshipping my ass and calling my turds angels is as legitimate an
example of religion as, say the Catholic Church, because I could
make upa fictional world where that's so.
It's called fiction because it isn't true.
Cryptoengineer
May 16, 2013, 4:16:41 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 4:11 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote innews:1pvwfub9tiydn.133eh4en9thob$.d...@40tude.net:
Please tell us why you feel you can apply the word "legitimate" to the
Catholic Church. You evaded essentially the same question when I asked
what makes a religion 'not fictional' upthread.
Of course, you're going to evade the question again. Because that's
the way you roll.
Dance, puppet.
pt
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote innews:1pvwfub9tiydn.133eh4en9thob$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:50:20 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
> > Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:50:20 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Catholic Church. You evaded essentially the same question when I asked
what makes a religion 'not fictional' upthread.
Of course, you're going to evade the question again. Because that's
the way you roll.
Dance, puppet.
pt
David DeLaney
May 16, 2013, 4:25:16 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>>That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and
>>>knowledge real world religions) than it does about religion.
>>>Unless, of course, you are defining "true religion" as "religion
>>>I approve of, and there aren't any" in some way.
>>
>> In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of the
>> argument displays lack of imagination. There are SF novels and
>> stories that have deities that do show themselves. Are those
>> written by authors who don't have as much imagination as you
>> have?
>
> Those are fiction, and not - obviously - real life religion.
... Is this where I get everyone yelling from all sides by pointing out that
>>>knowledge real world religions) than it does about religion.
>>>Unless, of course, you are defining "true religion" as "religion
>>>I approve of, and there aren't any" in some way.
>>
>> In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of the
>> argument displays lack of imagination. There are SF novels and
>> stories that have deities that do show themselves. Are those
>> written by authors who don't have as much imagination as you
>> have?
>
> Those are fiction, and not - obviously - real life religion.
all known real life religions incorporate at least some fiction, oral or
written, and quite a lot of them seem to be completely based on fiction? As
far as we can tell by actually comparing them with the real world? And about
the only thing keeping them sacrosanct and immune from sneering-at about this
is a VERY powerful social standard that one HAS TO be polite to someone else
about their religion, at least to the point of taking seriously that what they
say they believe in isn't to be snickered at or logically deconstructed?
> Believe it or not, those books you read aren't real.
isn't all that connected to reality either. But you're putting them on one
side, and fantasy on another. Even historical fantasy? By authors who've
actually done their research into what the historical period was like?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
May 16, 2013, 4:30:12 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> On 2013-05-16, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "I'm told nailing the horseshoe up above my door works whether
>> or not I actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
>
> Weill, nailing a horseshoe up above your door *does* work. The nail
>> "I'm told nailing the horseshoe up above my door works whether
>> or not I actually believe in it". Name the quotee...
>
> holds the horseshoe right where you put it.
>
> Any luck that comes from that act is *testable*. The existence of the
> judeo-christian diety, as commonly defined, is *not*. Religious
> belief isn't a scneitific theory, and scientific method cannot be
> applies to it - at all.
I'm not arguing with the luck being testable, or the part about the sheer
existence of Him/He/Himself/They not being so, pretty much by their
definitions. I'm saying that to the extent that religious belief systems ARE
making testable claims, we can do Science to those claims. If a religion
isn't actually making any claims that its deity, beliefs, or practices make
any measurable changes in the world, there's nothing you can do to test it,
agreed. ... but when you get "the power of prayer heals these people!", "This
guy turned water into wine, look!", or "Humans can sustain themselves without
eating as long as they sing enough every day", those are testable-type things.
Kurt Busiek
May 16, 2013, 5:39:14 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16 12:38:49 +0000, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> said:
> On Wed, 2013-05-15, Howard Brazee wrote:
> ...
>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
>> commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
> Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
> talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
> cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
> burning bush at any garden center.
And it sings _all_ the hits.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
> On Wed, 2013-05-15, Howard Brazee wrote:
> ...
>> If you went to the wilderness and a talking bush gave you a set of
>> commandments would it still be a miracle?
>
> Nice story idea -- man goes into the desert and finds a
> talking/burning god-bush. Leaves, comes back with scientists who take
> cuttings and analyze it in labs. Five years later you can buy a
> burning bush at any garden center.
And it sings _all_ the hits.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Moriarty
May 16, 2013, 6:09:59 PM5/16/13
to
to the canonisation was a nun's cure from cancer. The fact that she
was on chemotherapy at the time the miracle occurred doesn't seem to
have influenced their decision.
-Moriarty
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 6:21:41 PM5/16/13
to
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d9026483-33c4-48d5...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.
com:
Your religious bigotry pretty much proves, beyond any doubt, that
you are literally incapable of grown up conversation on the
subject, so why should I bother *reading* you "questions," much
less answering them.
> Of course, you're going to evade the question again. Because
> that's the way you roll.
The answer to *all* your questions is "You are assuming your
premise is true, and using that assumption to prove it true (in
your own mind)." That's what's known as an error, in grownupland.
> Dance, puppet.
You will, yes, as you always do. Good little doggie. Have a cookie.
news:d9026483-33c4-48d5...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.
com:
you are literally incapable of grown up conversation on the
subject, so why should I bother *reading* you "questions," much
less answering them.
> Of course, you're going to evade the question again. Because
> that's the way you roll.
premise is true, and using that assumption to prove it true (in
your own mind)." That's what's known as an error, in grownupland.
> Dance, puppet.
You will, yes, as you always do. Good little doggie. Have a cookie.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 16, 2013, 6:31:03 PM5/16/13
to
David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:7uadnQS7XKMx3QjM...@earthlink.com:
> On 2013-05-16, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>>>That says far more about your (lack of) imagination (and
>>>>knowledge real world religions) than it does about religion.
>>>>Unless, of course, you are defining "true religion" as
>>>>"religion I approve of, and there aren't any" in some way.
>>>
>>> In a SF forum such as this, I don't see that my side of the
>>> argument displays lack of imagination. There are SF novels
>>> and stories that have deities that do show themselves. Are
>>> those written by authors who don't have as much imagination as
>>> you have?
>>
>> Those are fiction, and not - obviously - real life religion.
>
> ... Is this where I get everyone yelling from all sides by
> pointing out that all known real life religions incorporate at
> least some fiction, oral or written, and quite a lot of them
> seem to be completely based on fiction?
of rational thought on the subject.)
> As far as we can tell by
> actually comparing them with the real world? And about the only
> thing keeping them sacrosanct and immune from sneering-at about
> this is a VERY powerful social standard that one HAS TO be
> polite to someone else about their religion, at least to the
> point of taking seriously that what they say they believe in
> isn't to be snickered at or logically deconstructed?
recognize that, then you're as irrational as the jeezmoids. And, if
the history of atheists on usenet is any indications, an even
bigger asshole about it than all but the worst of their kind.
>
>> Believe it or not, those books you read aren't real.
>
> Believe it or not, a lot of the content of a lot of real-life
> sacred books isn't all that connected to reality either.
Prove it. What is the falsifiable hypothesis you are referring to?
>> Believe it or not, those books you read aren't real.
>
> Believe it or not, a lot of the content of a lot of real-life
> sacred books isn't all that connected to reality either.
How can it be falsibied? What experiments have been done to test
that hypothesis? What were the results? If the answers to those
questions are "There isn't one," "it can't," "I've been talking out
my ass," and "My ass made noise," then it's not a scientific
theory. What part of that is so difficult to understand?
> But
> you're putting them on one side, and fantasy on another. Even
> historical fantasy?
when I point it out, you refuse to acknowledge, or even admit. You
claimed before that real life, mainstream religions have no
connection to reality. I've asked for your proof. You refuse to
even acknowledge that I've done so. You are *exactly* as irratioanl
as the jeezmoid types you are calling names.
> By authors who've actually done their
> research into what the historical period was like?
>
scientific method was that it is literally impossible, at a
subatomic level, for historians to *ever* make a mistake, have an
agenda of their own, or offer the tiniest bit of history that is in
any way incomplete.
Or you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know that fiction is, by
definition, not real. Even when it's explained to you.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages