Religioustard Jour prayed for Japan after those little earthquakes last week.
Anton Berlin
Looks like your weekly shipment from the Hello Kitty Collectors Klub
will be delayed for some time.
You'll need to go here in the meantime before you get your pink
panties in a bunch.
RicodJour
>
> Looks like your weekly shipment from the Hello Kitty Collectors Klub
> will be delayed for some time.
>
> You'll need to go here in the meantime before you get your pink
> panties in a bunch.
>
I find it rather curious, considering that you have been reading my
posts for some time now, that you have somehow come to believe that I
am some flavor of religious. Au contraire, mon ferret, I simply
adhere to the Anton Is Usually Wrong school of philosophy. It's
rarely led me astray.
The only thing that I can surmise is that you either:
a). used to believe and now feel burned so have engaged in your little
anti-religion jihad to set everybody else straight;
or
b). determined at an early age (probably right around puberty), that
the whole thing was a crock, adults were stupid, and you were smarter
than any of them.
In either case, I apologize for the priest that fondled your giblets.
R
Phil H
Make that fondled your sourdough culture and you've nailed it. I find
Anton amusing but his tone would definitely get him fired in a "zero
tolerance" harassment establishment. Fine for rbr though and as
always...not to be taken seriously...he is the poster boy for the over-
the-top critic troll.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
Phil - that's the whole point. I have to be PC (for the most part )
surrounded by the yes men and half wits I work with every day.
This is just a place to have fun - I barely care about cycling anymore
but consider the people that banter about here more clever than
most.
Frederick the Great
<ad7722ff-9dac-4edc...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 11:30 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 10:57 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Looks like your weekly shipment from the Hello Kitty Collectors Klub
> > > will be delayed for some time.
> >
> > > You'll need to go here in the meantime before you get your pink
> > > panties in a bunch.
> >
> > >http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A15%257C66%253A4%257C39%2...
> >
> > I find it rather curious, considering that you have been reading my
> > posts for some time now, that you have somehow come to believe that I
> > am some flavor of religious. Au contraire, mon ferret, I simply
> > adhere to the Anton Is Usually Wrong school of philosophy. It's
> > rarely led me astray.
> >
> > The only thing that I can surmise is that you either:
> > a). used to believe and now feel burned so have engaged in your little
> > anti-religion jihad to set everybody else straight;
> > or
> > b). determined at an early age (probably right around puberty), that
> > the whole thing was a crock, adults were stupid, and you were smarter
> > than any of them.
> >
> > In either case, I apologize for the priest that fondled your giblets.
>
> Make that fondled your sourdough culture and you've nailed it. I find
> Anton amusing but his tone would definitely get him fired in a "zero
> tolerance" harassment establishment. Fine for rbr though and as
> always...not to be taken seriously...he is the poster boy for the over-
> the-top critic troll.
One small mercy is that his views do not coincide with mine.
Seeing my point of view manifest in anger driven, sexually
fueled screeds would be intolerable.
--
Old Fritz
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
Absolutely, the bike racer persona is a welcome change of pace after 8
hours of .......erm, compliance.
Now, why isn't Lafferty posting any "Lance is toast" articles? Oh, and
do you have a poster of Richard Dawkins on your bedroom wall :)
Phil H
RicodJour
...if they weren't funny. Humor is a saving grace and Anton hasn't
been pulling his weight lately on certain subjects. That's one of the
main issues I have with religion and politics - people think
(euphemism) emotionally about those topics and lose their sense of
humor. Anton can be a funny guy, but when he hits on religion he
becomes petulant and bitchy. I blame it on his giblets being
chortled.
R
Anton Berlin
otherwise we wouldn't bother.
William R. Mattil
>
> Phil - that's the whole point. I have to be PC (for the most part )
> surrounded by the yes men and half wits I work with every day.
I'd hazard a guess the people you work with feel the same way.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Anton Berlin
wrote:
> On 3/11/2011 2:30 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>
>
>
> > Phil - that's the whole point. I have to be PC (for the most part )
> > surrounded by the yes men and half wits I work with every day.
>
> I'd hazard a guess the people you work with feel the same way.
>
> Bill
You're right ...all of the yes men, team players, doorknobs and ass
kissers find me intolerable. And I like it that way.
RicodJour
> On Mar 12, 6:58 am, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> > On 3/11/2011 2:30 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>
> > > Phil - that's the whole point. I have to be PC (for the most part )
> > > surrounded by the yes men and half wits I work with every day.
>
> > I'd hazard a guess the people you work with feel the same way.
>
>
> kissers find me intolerable. And I like it that way.
Please explain how that doesn't make you a double looser.
General rule of thumb: If someone thinks they're the only clued-in
individual at their workplace, they should find another workplace, and/
or come to terms with the fact that they haven't a clue.
R
RicodJour
>
> We all get a lil preachy when talking about or against religion -
> otherwise we wouldn't bother.
I don't. I only get cantankerous when someone starts declaring
certainty in either direction.
R
A. Dumas
> I only get cantankerous when someone starts declaring
> certainty in either direction.
Johan Fucking Cruijff. Agnostic is the only valid position?
Fred Fredburger
Or perhaps keeping your mouth shut.
Anton Berlin
As soon as 'they' keep their mouths shut - out of the schools where
they want to teach creashun science - out of the wombs that don't
belong to them - out of the bedrooms they will never be invited into -
and out of the dark ages - I will never raise the subject again.
Frederick the Great
<ef00fdb1-660c-48f8...@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure sign of a religious fanatic is deciding
whom should be put to death and whom shall be spared.
--
Old Fritz
Simply Fred
> Johan Fucking Cruijff. Agnostic is the only valid position?
Jesus fucking christ seemed to have another position.
Fred Fredburger
Fair enough.
Christianity is pervasive, but most Christian talk is not actually
religious. Most of the time when people espouse religious beliefs
they're really trying to tell the world that they are a "good" person,
not that they believe in anything specific. When they say "I'll keep you
in my prayers", they're trying to tell you that they're a kind and
caring person. If you divorce words from meanings sufficiently, bombing
abortion clinics becomes just another expression of goodness.
Simply Fred
> Looks like your weekly shipment from the Hello Kitty Collectors Klub
> will be delayed for some time.
I'm sure Pat Robertson will tell you the Tsunami's happened because
Japanese are Buddhists or Shinto and all those heathen californicators
are next on his gods list.
RicodJour
I know him as Cryuff, but it's okay, you can Hollandaise it if you
want. :)~
Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
dumbass-umptions.
Please note - I find people with unshakable faith or unshakable
disbelief to be brave in a slightly stupid way. This is not to say
that I don't admire them and find it laughable at the same time.
R
* God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven. Oh
and while I have you on the line - if there's anything to that 72
virgins thing, please give me a heads up. I'm willing to convert,
revert, pervert - just about anything as long as I get me some 3 5/8
score panoonies for eternity. Thanks.
Simply Fred
>> Johan Fucking Cruijff. Agnostic is the only valid position?
>
> Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> dumbass-umptions.
So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html>
> * God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
> to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven.
Are you sure you weren't brought up in a god fearing American family and
find it hard to shake off your brainwashing ? If so the berliner's
clinic may be able to help you out.
Anton Berlin
> A. Dumas wrote:
> >> Johan Fucking Cruijff. Agnostic is the only valid position?
>
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> > something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> > that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> > dumbass-umptions.
>
> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
>
> > * God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
> > to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven.
>
> Are you sure you weren't brought up in a god fearing American family and
> find it hard to shake off your brainwashing ? If so the berliner's
> clinic may be able to help you out.
The only entrance criteria is that one must have intellectual
curiosity. It is the death of all religions.
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> > something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> > that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> > dumbass-umptions.
>
> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
And silly, non-rational people like Thomas Jefferson believed
otherwise. Are we supposed to trade poster boys/girls ad infinitum?
That's Gulliver's Travels Dumbassian. BTW, Thomas Jefferson was far
smarter than Hawking in nearly all areas.
Why do you find it difficult to believe that something is currently
impossible to prove one way or the other? I'll give you an example -
is there life on other planets? The correct answer, as I'm sure you
are aware, is, "I don't know."
> > * God, if you're reading this, please remember it's RBR I'm posting
> > to and this stuff shouldn't prevent me from getting into Heaven.
>
> Are you sure you weren't brought up in a god fearing American family and
> find it hard to shake off your brainwashing ? If so the berliner's
> clinic may be able to help you out.
Truncating to remove context is rarely effective, but as long as you
enjoy it I'm okay with it.
R
RicodJour
>
> The only entrance criteria is that one must have intellectual
> curiosity. It is the death of all religions.
In two sentences you have written the obituary for your own
intellectual death.
Intellectual curiosity without intellectual openness to the outcome is
not intellectual. As soon as someone takes sides and feels vested in
the outcome it's ego driven. The fact that 'scientific minds' _feel_
a need to have someone take sides is very odd.
Why are some people having issues with me saying, "I don't have a dog
in the fight?" Here's my side - it's pointless to debate the
existence of God. I just like pointing out why Anton - even while
he's claiming to be playing on RBR because his life/job sucks - is
still being serious, and on this topic, by claiming certitude without
any verifiable proof, is seriously wrong. I consider it a public
service to point out such errors and there's really no need to thank
me.
R
RicodJour
> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
Sigh. It's not a hypothesis as there would be little to observe
unless you believe in mundane (daily) miracles (which there are) and
in that case there's little need for a hypothesis as there would be
abundant proof (which there is and isn't depending on how you define
proof). See how neatly I can come down on both sides of the question
without waffling?
If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
Science fights religion because religion cannot fit into a scientific
world (that by present day definitions precludes the supernatural).
Anytime you communicate in this way you are no different than some
political pundit blowhard talking about Red and Blue states. You are
simply trying to engage an emotional fight/flight response. What is
not clear is why you feel it is necessary to do this.
Let's try this another way. I like Jens. Every time he goes up the
road, I want him to stay away. I cheer for him. He doesn't stay
away. Next time he goes up the road, my previous experience with his
breaks has no bearing - I still want him to stay away and I still
cheer him. Scientifically my hope and cheering make no sense at all.
Are you going to convince me or try to persuade me that I shouldn't
cheer Jens on? What's it to you, motherfucker? Religion is like
that. What's it to you, motherfucker, if someone does or does not
believe? Is it some assault on your mental health if they do
believe? Are you #winning, Charlie Sheen, if they agree with you?
Both of those stances are not #winning in any way you look at it.
More like #loosing.
R
Anton Berlin
You're mainly right except that people aren't content believing what
they choose to believe. They aren't content until you believe what
they believe and you do or don't do what they want you to.
And if Jens wins someone else's favorite loses - so they think 'fuck
Jens" - 'fuck Jesus' 'fuck Allah' etc and soon we're all in the
middle of it.
Simply Fred
> Let's try this another way. I like Jens. Every time he goes up the
> road, I want him to stay away. I cheer for him. He doesn't stay
> away. Next time he goes up the road, my previous experience with his
> breaks has no bearing - I still want him to stay away and I still
> cheer him. Scientifically my hope and cheering make no sense at all.
>
> Are you going to convince me or try to persuade me that I shouldn't
> cheer Jens on? What's it to you, motherfucker? Religion is like
> that. What's it to you, motherfucker, if someone does or does not
> believe? Is it some assault on your mental health if they do
> believe? Are you #winning, Charlie Sheen, if they agree with you?
> Both of those stances are not #winning in any way you look at it.
> More like #loosing.
Do you attempt to convert, forcibly if necessary, other cycling fans to
Believe in Jens ?
Do you think it your duty to brainwash any offspring you may bestow unto
the world to also Believe in Jens ?
Simply Fred
>>> Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
>>> something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
>>> that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
Simply Fred wrote:
>> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
>> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
RicodJour wrote:
> Why do you find it difficult to believe that something is currently
> impossible to prove one way or the other? I'll give you an example -
> is there life on other planets? The correct answer, as I'm sure you
> are aware, is, "I don't know."
A more accurate analogy would be the hypothesis by Aristotle which
persisted through Newtons time up to the early 20th century that light
travels through "aether" in space. However there is no need for ether
for light waves (or particles if you're feeling corpuscular like any
good FM) so ether is an unnecessary hypothesis just like god.
And as to life on other planets, you may not be able to say for sure (as
yet) but given the seeming abundance of planets including earthlike
rocky planets and the occurrence of carbon based amino acids even on
meteorites (oddly it seems mostly left-handed amino acids) you could
provide a probability for the existence of such life. You can't provide
any such probability for the existence of a god.
Anton Berlin
I am certain all of the worlds religions have it wrong. I am an
agnostic non-theist that also believes that the world is better off
with religion due to what's known as Skycake.
Fred Fredburger
> If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
> theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
> Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
I can stop here. If you've never even heard of Galileo, it's going to be
tough to explain how backward you've got that.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> If you meant it's a scientific theory, most present day scientific
> theory starts with the assumption that there is no God/god/dog.
> Religion fights science because science attempts to destroy religion.
> Science fights religion because religion cannot fit into a scientific
> world (that by present day definitions precludes the supernatural).
You keep talking about these things:
- human religious belief and its expression
- the existence of powerful beings (not necessarily
omniscient or all-powerful - the Greek gods were neither)
- the occurrence of supernatural phenomena or those
lacking a mechanistic explanation
as if they were the same thing. They're not the
same thing. Of course some of them are connected,
but as long as you assume equivalences, it's just
going to be pointless talking about it.
Fredmaster Ben
RicodJour
Ex-fucking-actly. It's pointless. Didn't I just say that in my last
post?
Your stating that the items on the list that you created are not the
same thing proves you have the answer. I'm glad for you. I have
doubts about all such things - including your grasp of your answer,
but that's just me. :)~
R
RicodJour
You can parse the thing anyway you want, but it's matter and anti-
matter (and my Star Trek understanding of same). One must annihilate
the other. Religion and science in most people's minds, now, are like
that. Wasn't always so. Needn't be so.
What sort of art do you like?
R
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
> >>> Is Agnostic the only valid position? Sure, if you expect to prove
> >>> something it is. I can pretty much conclusively prove that anyone
> >>> that summarily accepts or rejects a singular higher entity is making
> Simply Fred wrote:
> >> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
> >> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
> >> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Why do you find it difficult to believe that something is currently
> > impossible to prove one way or the other? I'll give you an example -
> > is there life on other planets? The correct answer, as I'm sure you
> > are aware, is, "I don't know."
>
> A more accurate analogy would be the hypothesis by Aristotle which
> persisted through Newtons time up to the early 20th century that light
> travels through "aether" in space. However there is no need for ether
> for light waves (or particles if you're feeling corpuscular like any
> good FM) so ether is an unnecessary hypothesis just like god.
What I get out of that is that a lot of really smart people, at least
as smart as you and me, were wrong. How do you know you're not? What
are you basing your certitude on?
> And as to life on other planets, you may not be able to say for sure (as
> yet) but given the seeming abundance of planets including earthlike
> rocky planets and the occurrence of carbon based amino acids even on
> meteorites (oddly it seems mostly left-handed amino acids) you could
> provide a probability for the existence of such life. You can't provide
> any such probability for the existence of a god.
Sheesh. It's like talking to a fucking wall. Please provide one
simple thing for me and I'll shut up. A simple equation explaining
why people create art. That's it. Simple.
If you can't do that than your grasp of science is as incomplete as
your grasp of art. You can not argue the completeness of something
working from imperfect knowledge, or calculate the probability that
you, or anyone else, is omniscient. We don't even know how many
fucking dimensions we live in.
Big fucking deal - you don't know something. Why does this seem to
bother you so much? It's really weird that it does. Is that going
concept somehow damaging to your brain? I seriously would like to
know.
R
PS Thanks for taking the time to edit and trim the stuff you quoted.
Little things like that go a long way.
RicodJour
>
> You're mainly right except that people aren't content believing what
> they choose to believe. They aren't content until you believe what
> they believe and you do or don't do what they want you to.
Umm, don't you find it ironic that you are doing exactly that? Trying
to get people to believe as you do?
> And if Jens wins someone else's favorite loses - so they think 'fuck
> Jens" - 'fuck Jesus' 'fuck Allah' etc and soon we're all in the
> middle of it.
Jens won?! No shit, when?! Stop teasing me.
As far as the other stuff, it's a learned trait - it's called good
sportsmanship. You have some of that hidden under the gruff
exterior. That yahoo that rolled through here a while back - that
juicing Cat 1 douchebag, triggered your sportsmanship outrage at his
bragging about juicing as an amateur.
R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Who said anything about having an answer?
It's not hard to come up with examples of religious belief
that doesn't involve all- or superhumanly-powerful beings,
or believers in omniscient deities that don't believe in
supernatural phenomena (Deists, for example).
You made blanket statements about "most present day
scientific theory starts with the assumption that there is
no God," and "science fights religion," and both of these
are statements about science more than they are about
religion, so we can argue on philosophy of science
grounds that you're bullshitting. It's not a religious
argument.
Most present day science doesn't say a damn thing about
God yes or no - only Richard Dawkins thinks that it does.
It does start with the belief that there are mechanistic
explanations for phenomena. That is why I pointed out
that you're equating religion and a belief in supernatural
events, and that implies a whole lot of unstated philosophical
baggage.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Fredburger
> You can parse the thing anyway you want, but it's matter and anti-
> matter (and my Star Trek understanding of same). One must annihilate
> the other. Religion and science in most people's minds, now, are like
> that. Wasn't always so. Needn't be so.
Oddly, the Catholic Church doesn't agree with you. They don't argue
against evolution or the big bang. But, yeah, lots of US Protestants
think like you do.
RicodJour
Arthur C. Clarke. Any sufficiently advanced science is
indistinguishable from magic. Or something like that.
Any sufficiently advanced entity is indistinguishable from God. No?
If said entity can create life, resurrect the dead, transcend space
and time, I'd think that would qualify on most scales as godlike.
It's also really bad form to call such an entity godlike instead of
god. They like the honorific.
Do you think a paramecium, if it thought about it long and hard
enough, could postulate the existence of laser light shows while on
Ecstasy with its hand down a hottie's pants? I would tend to doubt
it.
That's kind of how I think about humanity. If we're all there is it's
a pretty piss poor showing.
R
RicodJour
>
> Do you attempt to convert, forcibly if necessary, other cycling fans to
> Believe in Jens ?
>
> Do you think it your duty to brainwash any offspring you may bestow unto
> the world to also Believe in Jens ?
Do you know any parents that don't try to teach there kids what they
feel is right? I mean, besides snakes and lizards. This is the
function of parents, and yes, I realize that it is a two-edged sword.
As long as that two-edged sword is sheathed in a scabbard of civility
and acceptance of those of different appearance/beliefs/capabilities,
it's not a problem.
Do you attempt to convert people to believe there is not a God? Do
you take it personally if they do believe? Some do, and I see no
difference between the two houses of I-Have-The-Answer! - they're
both annoying.
And, yes, I do attempt to convert and welcome people to the House of
Jens. It's a noble house adrift in a sea of swine. Long Live The
Jens!
R
Brad Anders
God Delusion" by Dawkins, if you haven't already.
RicodJour
>
> Just reviewing this thread. I suggest to all of you that you read "The
> God Delusion" by Dawkins, if you haven't already.
From the Wiki article on it:
"Since there are a number of different theistic ideas relating to the
nature of God(s), Dawkins defines the concept of God that he wishes to
address early in the book. Dawkins distinguishes between an abstract,
impersonal god (such as found in pantheism, or as promoted by Spinoza
or Einstein) from a personal God who is the creator of the universe,
who is interested in human affairs, and who should be worshipped."
and
"Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty.
Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations
are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and
omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the
theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a
universe with a God."
I have no issue with any of that, except some quibbling, but it does
go to my whole point - no one can prove anything about God one way or
the other. On the other hand it is quite easy to prove that most
organized religion is about as believable as a Schwarzenegger movie.
The differentiation in my mind is whether an individual is willing to
be an asshole to promote and convert to their way of thinking. I
don't like salesmen.
R
H. Fred Kveck
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand it is quite easy to prove that most
> organized religion is about as believable as a Schwarzenegger movie.
"I vant ya close, ya boots and ya motazycle." That was believable. Not sure it was
in English, though...
Simply Fred
>> On the other hand it is quite easy to prove that most
>> organized religion is about as believable as a Schwarzenegger movie.
H. Fred Kveck wrote:
> "I vant ya close, ya boots and ya motazycle." That was believable. Not sure it was
> in English, though...
Simply Fred
> I am certain all of the worlds religions have it wrong. I am an
> agnostic non-theist that also believes that the world is better off
> with religion due to what's known as Skycake.
At least the Rastafarian's get to smoke some good shit.
Simply Fred
>> Do you attempt to convert, forcibly if necessary, other cycling fans to
>> Believe in Jens ?
>>
>> Do you think it your duty to brainwash any offspring you may bestow unto
>> the world to also Believe in Jens ?
RicodJour wrote:
> Do you know any parents that don't try to teach there kids what they
> feel is right? I mean, besides snakes and lizards. This is the
> function of parents, and yes, I realize that it is a two-edged sword.
> As long as that two-edged sword is sheathed in a scabbard of civility
> and acceptance of those of different appearance/beliefs/capabilities,
> it's not a problem.
Perpetuation of superstition, ignorance and hatred of everybody
that does not belong to your tribe must presumably be the answer
to some question.
Simply Fred
>> Simply Fred wrote:
>>>> So prove it. Most rational commentators from Laplace to Hawking have
>>>> concluded a god is an unnecessary hypothesis:
>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawki...>
>> A more accurate analogy would be the hypothesis by Aristotle which
>> persisted through Newtons time up to the early 20th century that light
>> travels through "aether" in space. However there is no need for ether
>> for light waves (or particles if you're feeling corpuscular like any
>> good FM) so ether is an unnecessary hypothesis just like god.
RicodJour wrote:
>
>> And as to life on other planets, you may not be able to say for sure (as
>> yet) but given the seeming abundance of planets including earthlike
>> rocky planets and the occurrence of carbon based amino acids even on
>> meteorites (oddly it seems mostly left-handed amino acids) you could
>> provide a probability for the existence of such life. You can't provide
>> any such probability for the existence of a god.
>
> Sheesh. It's like talking to a fucking wall. Please provide one
> simple thing for me and I'll shut up. A simple equation explaining
> why people create art. That's it. Simple.
> If you can't do that than your grasp of science is as incomplete as
> your grasp of art.
Why should humans creating art be important ? Humans living on an
utterly insignificant (and rather average star) in an out of the way
corner of an average galaxy (one of possibly between 100 and 500
billion) have this weird conceit that they have some importance in the
universe.
> We don't even know how many fucking dimensions we live in.
You mean the extra fucking dimension Magilla and Liz encountered when
the earth moved for them ?
Of course those extra dimensions make god even more superfluous as they
could also explain the big bang as a collision between p-branes.
>
> Big fucking deal - you don't know something. Why does this seem to
> bother you so much? It's really weird that it does. Is that going
> concept somehow damaging to your brain? I seriously would like to
> know.
Not knowing doesn't bother me as much as you thinking it bothers me
seems to bother you. Although what really bothers you, along with most
humans believing in a god is attempting to replace reality with a
reality in which you don't die which is really what religions are about
(and on the cheerful subject of death LIVEDRUNK would no doubt approve
of Tallulah Bankhead's last words:
Codeine . . . bourbon
or Humphrey Bogart's:
I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis).
Anton Berlin
> Just reviewing this thread. I suggest to all of you that you read "The
> God Delusion" by Dawkins, if you haven't already.
I read it like the bible.
RicodJour
> > simple thing for me and I'll shut up. A simple equation explaining
> > why people create art. That's it. Simple.
>
> > If you can't do that than your grasp of science is as incomplete as
> > your grasp of art.
>
> Why should humans creating art be important ? Humans living on an
> utterly insignificant (and rather average star) in an out of the way
> corner of an average galaxy (one of possibly between 100 and 500
> billion) have this weird conceit that they have some importance in the
> universe.
Art is isn't important? What is?
I like to make clear the difference between egotist and egoist. An
egotist believes when he does something it is of paramount importance
because he is the center of the universe. An egoist believes that
when he does something it is important because he is the one doing it.
I kind of view the universe like that. The odds of things revolving
around humanity are slight, albeit not non-existent, and it is
important to realize the importance of what we do because we are the
ones doing it. That has little to nothing to do with God.*
> > We don't even know how many fucking dimensions we live in.
>
> You mean the extra fucking dimension Magilla and Liz encountered when
> the earth moved for them ?
That transcended time and space.
> Of course those extra dimensions make god even more superfluous as they
> could also explain the big bang as a collision between p-branes.
Right. Equally right would be the belief that since we cannot sense
these other dimensions, and they are entirely theoretical constructs
at this point, we cannot even believe what our senses tell us.
Extrapolating across dimensions to confirm or deny anything, much less
the existence of other beings whatever their capabilities, is simply
absurd.
Science is often wrong, people are often wrong, shit happens, and no
one is as smart as they thing they are, including me. This is why I
do not feel qualified to put myself in a position to claim with any
certainty that there is or isn't a higher power. For all I know
microbes are God, and we're just one of the ways they get around.
> > Big fucking deal - you don't know something. Why does this seem to
> > bother you so much? It's really weird that it does. Is that going
> > concept somehow damaging to your brain? I seriously would like to
> > know.
>
> Not knowing doesn't bother me as much as you thinking it bothers me
> seems to bother you. Although what really bothers you, along with most
> humans believing in a god is attempting to replace reality with a
> reality in which you don't die which is really what religions are about
> (and on the cheerful subject of death LIVEDRUNK would no doubt approve
> of Tallulah Bankhead's last words:
> Codeine . . . bourbon
> or Humphrey Bogart's:
> I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis).
A reality in which I die? Sacrilege! I'm actually looking forward to
death, though I am not actively seeking it. It'll answer a lot of
questions...or none. I'm okay with either outcome. It's about the
journey, not the destination.
R
* BTW, I capitalize God because it's a surefire way to tell the
closed-minded masquerading as the open-minded, and not because of any
religious/spiritual belief.
Phil H
You're kidding right. Read Consilience by Edward Wilson. Its the main
reason for survival.......an over-simplification but read the book and
see if it makes sense.
Phil H
Anton Berlin
they have their own version of Skycake - the stuff jerry garcia smoked
was the messiah back in the day
Anton Berlin
>
> * BTW, I capitalize God because it's a surefire way to tell the
> closed-minded masquerading as the open-minded, and not because of any
> religious/spiritual belief.
Now we know to capitalize Ironic Jackass then.
Fred Fredburger
> Do you know any parents that don't try to teach there kids what they
> feel is right?
I actually do. I know parents who trip over themselves to gain their
children's approval.
Not meaning to sidetrack any religious threads...
Anton Berlin
In texas you'd know most of them - most parts of so cal too as I recall