Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pussy Riot...political protest in Russia
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Jul 31, 2012, 3:13:33 AM7/31/12
to
he he he...
-------------------------------------------------
The controversial trial is beginning in Moscow of members of the
Russian punk band Pussy Riot.
The three women have been in prison for five months for briefly
singing a political protest song in Moscow's main cathedral.
It is a case that has divided Russia between those who think the
women have been treated far too harshly, and those who feel their
action grossly offended the Orthodox faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19042894
-------------------------------------------------
religion is one topic we put on a pedestal...beyond fair discussions
;-)
Uncle Steve
Jul 31, 2012, 10:48:26 AM7/31/12
to
former SU.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
[On existentialism, quoting Sartre]
'The for-itself arises as the nihilization of the in-itself, and this
nihilization defines itself as a project towards the in-itself; between
the nihilized in-itself and the projected in-itself the for-itself is
nothing. Thus the end and aim of the nihilization that I am is the
in-itself. Hence the reality of man is desire to be in-itself /qua/
for-itself.' I may add that the desired state of being a for-itself-
in-itself is one which is necessarily incapable of attainment. This
is the reason why man is so unhappy.
-- Paton
Witziges Rätsel
Jul 31, 2012, 12:33:31 PM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 10:48 AM, Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:13:33AM -0700, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> The controversial trial is beginning in Moscow of members of the
>> Russian punk band Pussy Riot.
>> The three women have been in prison for five months for briefly
>> singing a political protest song in Moscow's main cathedral.
>> It is a case that has divided Russia between those who think the
>> women have been treated far too harshly, and those who feel their
>> action grossly offended the Orthodox faith.
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19042894
>>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:13:33AM -0700, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> The controversial trial is beginning in Moscow of members of the
>> Russian punk band Pussy Riot.
>> The three women have been in prison for five months for briefly
>> singing a political protest song in Moscow's main cathedral.
>> It is a case that has divided Russia between those who think the
>> women have been treated far too harshly, and those who feel their
>> action grossly offended the Orthodox faith.
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19042894
>>
>> religion is one topic we put on a pedestal...beyond fair discussion
>
>
> Funny how Stalin didn't quite manage to get rid of religion in the
> former SU.
>
Will religion be eradicated by force or by the application of logic?
> former SU.
>
Ramsman
Jul 31, 2012, 12:53:49 PM7/31/12
to
church is a Putin supporter, so he would put the harshest possible
interpretation on anything that opposes the government. Democracy in
Russia means whatever Putin wants it to mean.
The eradication of religion is about as likely as the eradication of
gullibility.
--
Peter
Uncle Steve
Jul 31, 2012, 1:39:44 PM7/31/12
to
Existing generations of idiot believers will have to pass on without
indoctrinating their children in the prejudices and unreason necessary
for it's perpetuation. As religion is generally accepted by the
masses despite its violent and destructive history, the transition to
a reasoned and reasoning culture has barely begun. In fact, religion
and its associated inanities is gaining ground against reason and
science due to the hollowing-out of public education and the work of
ignorant media pundits who themselves are incapable of understanding
the leading edge of human knowledge and its technological products.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jul 31, 2012, 3:29:49 PM7/31/12
to
David E. Powell
Jul 31, 2012, 6:05:23 PM7/31/12
to
David E. Powell
Jul 31, 2012, 6:07:40 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 1:39 pm, Uncle Steve <stevet...@gmail.com> wrote:
As opposed to the forces of reason as expressed in the ideals of the
French Revolution, Soviet Communism and Maoism, which killed how many
again?
If you put your faith only in men you find very little to put your
faith in. That's one reason religion endures.
French Revolution, Soviet Communism and Maoism, which killed how many
again?
If you put your faith only in men you find very little to put your
faith in. That's one reason religion endures.
Uncle Steve
Jul 31, 2012, 7:04:45 PM7/31/12
to
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:07:40PM -0700, David E. Powell wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:39�pm, Uncle Steve <stevet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:39�pm, Uncle Steve <stevet...@gmail.com> wrote:
are about as far from reason as you can get. But it is worth noting
that popular uprisings are spurred by great iniquities. That strongmen
take advantage of those historical moments to put themselves in charge
says nothing about reason or reasonableness.
> If you put your faith only in men you find very little to put your
> faith in. That's one reason religion endures.
no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps. The promise of an
afterlife must also be something for the poor peasants to cling to as
an attractive fantasy or dream that contrasts with the unpleasantness
of their sorry lot in life. And of course the threat of eternal
damnation serves to keep naive believers in line.
Modern belief is slightly more complex and seems to be a compensation
for the prevalence of weak literacy among the poor and uneducated who
in previous centuries would have been completely illiterate. It
introduces a mechanism by which believers can use a process of auto-
hypnosis to internalize the thought patterns and associated behaviors
that are similarly adopted by their peers. It is a group activity,
and identifies those who are "in", and those who are "other".
Needless to say, religious institutions have had centuries to
fine-tune their doctrines to improve their effectiveness and
permanence.
Father Haskell
Jul 31, 2012, 9:24:09 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 12:33 pm, Witziges Rätsel <z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote:
Marcus Aurelius
Jul 31, 2012, 9:38:46 PM7/31/12
to
I support the Pussy Riot members 100%! The Russian Orthodox Church
should forgive and forget just as Christ would!
should forgive and forget just as Christ would!
jonathan
Jul 31, 2012, 9:58:50 PM7/31/12
to
"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
> Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
> no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
> the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
Is there anything your beloved science can determine
completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
as reflected in one of your highest principles?
Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
to answer even a single question of meaning without
ending with "I don't know"?
No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
against each other, one begins where the other ends.
Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
which are obviously based on the kind of religious
stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
based on what is taught in the third grade???
Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
The Vatican defines God in this way.
If the observed properties of the Universe are
beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
then, like a painting to its original, so must be
it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
of one reflect the other.
There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
"Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
It's not a place.
However, the assumption that science or reason can
or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
Jonathan
Uncle Steve
Jul 31, 2012, 11:05:22 PM7/31/12
to
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:58:50PM -0400, jonathan wrote:
>
> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
>
>
> > Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
> > no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
> > the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
>
>
> SO you believe that science and reason will fill all those
> gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
> came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
> solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
> 2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
> ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
> Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
> a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
> Is there anything your beloved science can determine
> completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
> as reflected in one of your highest principles?
Well Jonathan, if you ever become a matrioshka brain you can work on
>
> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
>
>
> > Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
> > no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
> > the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
>
>
> SO you believe that science and reason will fill all those
> gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
> came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
> solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
> 2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
> ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
> Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
> a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
> Is there anything your beloved science can determine
> completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
> as reflected in one of your highest principles?
those problems if any of them still seem interesting to you, or even
meaningful.
> Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
> to answer even a single question of meaning without
> ending with "I don't know"?
>
> No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
> there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
> Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
> Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
> against each other, one begins where the other ends.
Religionists understand this, which is one reason they attack it. It
threatens their revenue stream and negates the basis upon which
religionists attempt to control society.
> Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
> allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
> which are obviously based on the kind of religious
> stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
> anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
> or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
>
> Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
> based on what is taught in the third grade???
> Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
> of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
so" to shore up the validity of your statements, you have proven that
you are dishonest.
> The Vatican defines God in this way.
that those dictates are aimed at the little people of faith. The
cynical religionist understands that those rules are for other people.
Their definition of deity is similarly intended for PR purposes.
Let's see what you say they say:
> If the observed properties of the Universe are
> beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
> then, like a painting to its original, so must be
> it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
> of one reflect the other.
>
> There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
> "Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
> of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
> It's not a place.
tip-toe around the issue. If you've been reading what I write, you'll
recognize that I have no trouble describing the things I am talking
about with arbitrary precision. When I say I understand what people
mean when they use the term "God", I mean precisely that. Stupid
people believe in some kind of spirit in the sky. Moderately
intelligent people may believe that there is some kind of complex,
amorphous intelligence taking a direct and detailed interest in human
affairs, although they are fuzzy on the details. Cynical Christians
believe that they and their peers _are_ God, and that their
collective, hypocritical aggregate will should be the dominant force
in the Universe. It seems to compensate for the finite, fundamental
limits of their humanity.
I don't particularly care what they say in the Vatican on this point.
What they do is much more important.
> However, the assumption that science or reason can
> or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
> and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
> far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
jonathan
Jul 31, 2012, 11:28:01 PM7/31/12
to
news:50ee43adb1...@gmail.com...
to waving the white flag of surrender. Beauty and
poetry and questions of existence are uninteresting
to you? I asked you what ...your belief system offers.
To defend your world view, but you can only
attack a strawman of your design, not debate the
topic in a serious way.
>
>> Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
>> to answer even a single question of meaning without
>> ending with "I don't know"?
>>
>> No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
>> there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
>> Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
>
> Religious philosophy is something of an oxymoron.
Prove it~ Or are high school insults and cliches the
best you can do?
>
>> Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
>> against each other, one begins where the other ends.
>
> Science, done properly, leaves no room for faith or religion.
That's an empty and meaningless statement. That's saying
there are no gaps at all with science, yet you fail to answer
even the simplest of 'gaps' which I listed above.
Amazing!
> Religionists understand this, which is one reason they attack it. It
> threatens their revenue stream and negates the basis upon which
> religionists attempt to control society.
Nice rhetoric, but there's nothing at all rational, scientific
or even mature about the above statement. It's conspiracy
minded level nonsene.
>
>> Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
>> allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
>> which are obviously based on the kind of religious
>> stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
>> anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
>> or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
>>
>> Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
>> based on what is taught in the third grade???
>> Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
>> of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
>
> You can make whatever claims you want; but if you say "because I said
> so" to shore up the validity of your statements, you have proven that
> you are dishonest.
Asking you questions about your belief system is dishonest?
Your obvious dodging all the questions is a dishonest
form of debating. I can defend what I believe, can you?
>
>> The Vatican defines God in this way.
>
> They also promote the Ten Commandments, but they and you understand
> that those dictates are aimed at the little people of faith. The
> cynical religionist understands that those rules are for other people.
>
> Their definition of deity is similarly intended for PR purposes.
> Let's see what you say they say:
PR? I see, since you can't logically refute the logic of
the belief system your attacking, you simply dismiss
it as some conspiracy.
>
>> If the observed properties of the Universe are
>> beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
>> then, like a painting to its original, so must be
>> it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
>> of one reflect the other.
>>
>> There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
>
> WTF are you smoking? A is green, B is green, therefore A = B.
Can't you even understand a simple analogy?
>
>> "Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
>> of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
>> It's not a place.
>
> It really sounds like you want to say something, but you can only
> tip-toe around the issue. If you've been reading what I write, you'll
> recognize that I have no trouble describing the things I am talking
> about with arbitrary precision.
All I see is high school taunts and completely unresponsive
replies. You haven't so much as answered a single question
of proposed a single idea. Just mindless ridicule with
no substance.
When I say I understand what people
> mean when they use the term "God", I mean precisely that. Stupid
> people believe in some kind of spirit in the sky. Moderately
> intelligent people may believe that there is some kind of complex,
> amorphous intelligence taking a direct and detailed interest in human
> affairs, although they are fuzzy on the details. Cynical Christians
> believe that they and their peers _are_ God, and that their
> collective, hypocritical aggregate will should be the dominant force
> in the Universe. It seems to compensate for the finite, fundamental
> limits of their humanity.
>
> I don't particularly care what they say in the Vatican on this point.
> What they do is much more important.
So why should I care what oh, say, universites say about science
then?
>
>> However, the assumption that science or reason can
>> or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
>> and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
>> far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
>
> Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
> us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
Oh I see, the last resort of a empty argument.
Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
science must be a bunch of hooey.
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:58:50PM -0400, jonathan wrote:
>>
>> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
>>
>>
>> > Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
>> > no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
>> > the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
>>
>>
>> SO you believe that science and reason will fill all those
>> gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
>> came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
>> solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
>> 2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
>> ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
>> Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
>> a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
>> Is there anything your beloved science can determine
>> completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
>> as reflected in one of your highest principles?
>
> Well Jonathan, if you ever become a matrioshka brain you can work on
> those problems if any of them still seem interesting to you, or even
> meaningful.
Unresponsive as expected, personal attacks are akin
>>
>> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
>>
>>
>> > Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
>> > no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
>> > the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
>>
>>
>> SO you believe that science and reason will fill all those
>> gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
>> came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
>> solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
>> 2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
>> ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
>> Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
>> a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
>> Is there anything your beloved science can determine
>> completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
>> as reflected in one of your highest principles?
>
> Well Jonathan, if you ever become a matrioshka brain you can work on
> those problems if any of them still seem interesting to you, or even
> meaningful.
to waving the white flag of surrender. Beauty and
poetry and questions of existence are uninteresting
to you? I asked you what ...your belief system offers.
To defend your world view, but you can only
attack a strawman of your design, not debate the
topic in a serious way.
>
>> Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
>> to answer even a single question of meaning without
>> ending with "I don't know"?
>>
>> No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
>> there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
>> Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
>
> Religious philosophy is something of an oxymoron.
best you can do?
>
>> Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
>> against each other, one begins where the other ends.
>
> Science, done properly, leaves no room for faith or religion.
there are no gaps at all with science, yet you fail to answer
even the simplest of 'gaps' which I listed above.
Amazing!
> Religionists understand this, which is one reason they attack it. It
> threatens their revenue stream and negates the basis upon which
> religionists attempt to control society.
or even mature about the above statement. It's conspiracy
minded level nonsene.
>
>> Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
>> allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
>> which are obviously based on the kind of religious
>> stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
>> anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
>> or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
>>
>> Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
>> based on what is taught in the third grade???
>> Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
>> of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
>
> You can make whatever claims you want; but if you say "because I said
> so" to shore up the validity of your statements, you have proven that
> you are dishonest.
Your obvious dodging all the questions is a dishonest
form of debating. I can defend what I believe, can you?
>
>> The Vatican defines God in this way.
>
> They also promote the Ten Commandments, but they and you understand
> that those dictates are aimed at the little people of faith. The
> cynical religionist understands that those rules are for other people.
>
> Their definition of deity is similarly intended for PR purposes.
> Let's see what you say they say:
the belief system your attacking, you simply dismiss
it as some conspiracy.
>
>> If the observed properties of the Universe are
>> beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
>> then, like a painting to its original, so must be
>> it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
>> of one reflect the other.
>>
>> There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
>
> WTF are you smoking? A is green, B is green, therefore A = B.
>
>> "Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
>> of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
>> It's not a place.
>
> It really sounds like you want to say something, but you can only
> tip-toe around the issue. If you've been reading what I write, you'll
> recognize that I have no trouble describing the things I am talking
> about with arbitrary precision.
replies. You haven't so much as answered a single question
of proposed a single idea. Just mindless ridicule with
no substance.
When I say I understand what people
> mean when they use the term "God", I mean precisely that. Stupid
> people believe in some kind of spirit in the sky. Moderately
> intelligent people may believe that there is some kind of complex,
> amorphous intelligence taking a direct and detailed interest in human
> affairs, although they are fuzzy on the details. Cynical Christians
> believe that they and their peers _are_ God, and that their
> collective, hypocritical aggregate will should be the dominant force
> in the Universe. It seems to compensate for the finite, fundamental
> limits of their humanity.
>
> I don't particularly care what they say in the Vatican on this point.
> What they do is much more important.
then?
>
>> However, the assumption that science or reason can
>> or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
>> and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
>> far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
>
> Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
> us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
science must be a bunch of hooey.
David E. Powell
Jul 31, 2012, 11:17:34 PM7/31/12
to
FWIW the Russian Opposition has spoken on this too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9441701/President-Vladimir-Putins-cruel-tyranny-is-driven-by-paranoia.html
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9441701/
President-Vladimir-Putins-cruel-tyranny-is-driven-by-paranoia.html>
DEP
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9441701/President-Vladimir-Putins-cruel-tyranny-is-driven-by-paranoia.html
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9441701/
President-Vladimir-Putins-cruel-tyranny-is-driven-by-paranoia.html>
DEP
Uncle Steve
Aug 1, 2012, 12:09:07 AM8/1/12
to
matter, but I'll play along for a little while if only because
impressionable youth might be watching.
Let's see. Existence is fait accompli, even if you find it
incomprehensible that "something came from nothing". My current
position on the uncaused cause argument is that space-time is
sufficiently complex that that linear human perception is insufficient
to conceptualize what the manifold (proper term?) of space-time is.
On that basis, asking when time began is essentially meaningless.
Poetry is a cultural artifact produced by finite beings, and will be
tractable either in analysis or in the writing with strong AI. Those
who have leavened their writings with complex subtext enjoy an
ephemeral security through obscurity.
the common conception of beauty is a subjective quality. The
religious concept of beauty identifies a flawed object, but more
importantly, flawed in some sense that is significant to religious
dogma.
> >> Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
> >> to answer even a single question of meaning without
> >> ending with "I don't know"?
> >>
> >> No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
> >> there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
> >> Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
> >
>
>
> > Religious philosophy is something of an oxymoron.
>
>
> Prove it~ Or are high school insults and cliches the
> best you can do?
religion. Real philosophy is an inquiry that religion denies utterly.
It is no help that some who have called themselves philosophers are
religionists in disguise. Their language generally gives up the game.
> >> Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
> >> against each other, one begins where the other ends.
> >
>
>
> > Science, done properly, leaves no room for faith or religion.
>
>
> That's an empty and meaningless statement. That's saying
> there are no gaps at all with science, yet you fail to answer
> even the simplest of 'gaps' which I listed above.
> Amazing!
and expanding its coverage as scientists work. Religion, on the other
hand is largely static (revealed from God) and only changes as
recapitulation become necessary to resolve contradictions that grow
beyond the ability theologians have to employ weasel words in defense
of their doctrines.
> > Religionists understand this, which is one reason they attack it. It
> > threatens their revenue stream and negates the basis upon which
> > religionists attempt to control society.
>
> Nice rhetoric, but there's nothing at all rational, scientific
> or even mature about the above statement. It's conspiracy
> minded level nonsene.
> >> Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
> >> allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
> >> which are obviously based on the kind of religious
> >> stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
> >> anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
> >> or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
> >>
> >> Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
> >> based on what is taught in the third grade???
> >> Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
> >> of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
> >
> > You can make whatever claims you want; but if you say "because I said
> > so" to shore up the validity of your statements, you have proven that
> > you are dishonest.
>
> Asking you questions about your belief system is dishonest?
employing a dialectic to make a point about religion and belief to
your audience.
> Your obvious dodging all the questions is a dishonest
> form of debating. I can defend what I believe, can you?
> >> The Vatican defines God in this way.
> >
> > They also promote the Ten Commandments, but they and you understand
> > that those dictates are aimed at the little people of faith. The
> > cynical religionist understands that those rules are for other people.
> >
> > Their definition of deity is similarly intended for PR purposes.
> > Let's see what you say they say:
>
> PR? I see, since you can't logically refute the logic of
> the belief system your attacking, you simply dismiss
> it as some conspiracy.
population control, which is at times violent and encourages bigotry
and racism. Meanwhile, the priests and their lackeys obtain some
wealth, security, and political influence on the basis of their
ability to brainwash the masses. Religion is not called the opiate of
the masses for nothing.
> >> If the observed properties of the Universe are
> >> beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
> >> then, like a painting to its original, so must be
> >> it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
> >> of one reflect the other.
> >>
> >> There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
> >
>
> > WTF are you smoking? A is green, B is green, therefore A = B.
>
>
> Can't you even understand a simple analogy?
> >> "Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
> >> of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
> >> It's not a place.
> >
> > It really sounds like you want to say something, but you can only
> > tip-toe around the issue. If you've been reading what I write, you'll
> > recognize that I have no trouble describing the things I am talking
> > about with arbitrary precision.
>
> All I see is high school taunts and completely unresponsive
> replies. You haven't so much as answered a single question
> of proposed a single idea. Just mindless ridicule with
> no substance.
Congratulation on your mastery of doublethink and stopthink.
> When I say I understand what people
> > mean when they use the term "God", I mean precisely that. Stupid
> > people believe in some kind of spirit in the sky. Moderately
> > intelligent people may believe that there is some kind of complex,
> > amorphous intelligence taking a direct and detailed interest in human
> > affairs, although they are fuzzy on the details. Cynical Christians
> > believe that they and their peers _are_ God, and that their
> > collective, hypocritical aggregate will should be the dominant force
> > in the Universe. It seems to compensate for the finite, fundamental
> > limits of their humanity.
>
> > I don't particularly care what they say in the Vatican on this point.
> > What they do is much more important.
>
> So why should I care what oh, say, universites say about science
> then?
and yours alone. You are an adult and presumably capable of
establishing your own standard of intellectual rigor.
> >> However, the assumption that science or reason can
> >> or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
> >> and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
> >> far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
>
> > Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
> > us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
>
> Oh I see, the last resort of a empty argument.
> Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
> is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
> claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
> able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
> of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
> science must be a bunch of hooey.
the phenomenon of child molestation occurring among the clergy. Allow
me to remind you that the behavior of the clergy directly relates to
the strength of their institution.
I did not say that religion is criminal because religious people
commit crimes. The two propositions may be independently true, and
may be dependent to some degree, but I don't make simplistic
categorical assertions of that nature, and I never have.
jonathan
Aug 1, 2012, 1:02:10 AM8/1/12
to
news:6bf9f1aa22...@gmail.com...
>>
>> > Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
>> > us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
>>
>> Oh I see, the last resort of a empty argument.
>> Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
>> is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
>> claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
>> able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
>> of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
>> science must be a bunch of hooey.
>
> It's a valid question, the answer of which would shed some light on
> the phenomenon of child molestation occurring among the clergy.
So I need to defend child molesting to defend religious
philosophy? But the answer is easy, the church is made up
of people, like any other institution. Show the church
has a greater level of crime than other similar collection
of people.
I certaintly wouldn't condemn all of science and learning
for the crimes of Penn State.
> Allow
> me to remind you that the behavior of the clergy directly relates to
> the strength of their institution.
The discussion wasn't about institutional management, but
about ideas. Your idea of creation seems to be it's too
complicated, and we're too feeble, so why bother.
"I don't know" isn't a very attractive world view, and
it certainly isn't the correct answer. So as an idea I find
that rather vacuous.
Since my hobby is math, not religion. Tomorrow I'll
show you in detail the mathematical foundations of
how...something evolves from nothing. It's not
incomprehensible at all. Quite the contrary.
The simplicity of creation, and the implications are
nothing short of magnificent.
>
> I did not say that religion is criminal because religious people
> commit crimes. The two propositions may be independently true, and
> may be dependent to some degree, but I don't make simplistic
> categorical assertions of that nature, and I never have.
So why bring it up? What does child molesting have to do
with the competing ideas concerning creation and existence?
>>
>> > Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
>> > us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
>>
>> Oh I see, the last resort of a empty argument.
>> Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
>> is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
>> claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
>> able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
>> of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
>> science must be a bunch of hooey.
>
> It's a valid question, the answer of which would shed some light on
> the phenomenon of child molestation occurring among the clergy.
philosophy? But the answer is easy, the church is made up
of people, like any other institution. Show the church
has a greater level of crime than other similar collection
of people.
I certaintly wouldn't condemn all of science and learning
for the crimes of Penn State.
> Allow
> me to remind you that the behavior of the clergy directly relates to
> the strength of their institution.
about ideas. Your idea of creation seems to be it's too
complicated, and we're too feeble, so why bother.
"I don't know" isn't a very attractive world view, and
it certainly isn't the correct answer. So as an idea I find
that rather vacuous.
Since my hobby is math, not religion. Tomorrow I'll
show you in detail the mathematical foundations of
how...something evolves from nothing. It's not
incomprehensible at all. Quite the contrary.
The simplicity of creation, and the implications are
nothing short of magnificent.
>
> I did not say that religion is criminal because religious people
> commit crimes. The two propositions may be independently true, and
> may be dependent to some degree, but I don't make simplistic
> categorical assertions of that nature, and I never have.
with the competing ideas concerning creation and existence?
Uncle Steve
Aug 1, 2012, 2:01:15 AM8/1/12
to
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:02:10AM -0400, jonathan wrote:
>
> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6bf9f1aa22...@gmail.com...
>
> >>
> >> > Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
> >> > us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
> >>
> >> Oh I see, the last resort of a empty argument.
> >> Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
> >> is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
> >> claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
> >> able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
> >> of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
> >> science must be a bunch of hooey.
> >
> > It's a valid question, the answer of which would shed some light on
> > the phenomenon of child molestation occurring among the clergy.
>
>
> So I need to defend child molesting to defend religious
> philosophy? But the answer is easy, the church is made up
Not necessarily, but any examination of "the church" must consider the
>
> "Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6bf9f1aa22...@gmail.com...
>
> >>
> >> > Since you purport to "know" lots about Christianity, why don't you tell
> >> > us about the theological significance of child-molestation.
> >>
> >> Oh I see, the last resort of a empty argument.
> >> Religious people commit crimes, therefore religion
> >> is criminal. That's pretty poor logic, for someone
> >> claiming to exalt reason, you don't seem to be
> >> able to grasp the concept. Are you claiming people
> >> of science are all saints? If not, then by ..your logic
> >> science must be a bunch of hooey.
> >
> > It's a valid question, the answer of which would shed some light on
> > the phenomenon of child molestation occurring among the clergy.
>
>
> So I need to defend child molesting to defend religious
> philosophy? But the answer is easy, the church is made up
whole church, which includes child-molesting priests and the
administration that conceals those offenses. We already know that
"the church" conceals those crimes whenver possible, so at minimum it
is perfectly reasonable to ask what other dishonesties and crimes they
conceal.
> of people, like any other institution. Show the church
> has a greater level of crime than other similar collection
> of people.
>
> I certaintly wouldn't condemn all of science and learning
> for the crimes of Penn State.
willing to abduct science and recapitulate it in terms that are
consistent with blind religious dogma.
> > Allow
> > me to remind you that the behavior of the clergy directly relates to
> > the strength of their institution.
>
> The discussion wasn't about institutional management, but
> about ideas. Your idea of creation seems to be it's too
> complicated, and we're too feeble, so why bother.
have actually said. You might do better, but for that you would have
to be honest about the religion that you hold as true.
> "I don't know" isn't a very attractive world view, and
> it certainly isn't the correct answer. So as an idea I find
> that rather vacuous.
premise in support of your argument.
> Since my hobby is math, not religion. Tomorrow I'll
> show you in detail the mathematical foundations of
> how...something evolves from nothing. It's not
> incomprehensible at all. Quite the contrary.
show that some systems can obtain structural regularity from an origin
of chaos. Old news.
> The simplicity of creation, and the implications are
> nothing short of magnificent.
it is presumptuous.
> > I did not say that religion is criminal because religious people
> > commit crimes. The two propositions may be independently true, and
> > may be dependent to some degree, but I don't make simplistic
> > categorical assertions of that nature, and I never have.
>
> So why bring it up? What does child molesting have to do
> with the competing ideas concerning creation and existence?
not mention it.
Christopher A. Lee
Aug 1, 2012, 8:53:07 AM8/1/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:58:50 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
>
>
>> Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
>> no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
>> the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
>
>SO you believe that science and reason will fill all those
>gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
>came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
>solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
>2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
>ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
>Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
>a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
>Is there anything your beloved science can determine
>completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
>as reflected in one of your highest principles?
What is it with these pathetic liars that they twist what was said
into something else and put words into people mouths they obviously
didn't say just to be argumentative when people are trying to explain
things they got wrong?
>Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
>to answer even a single question of meaning without
>ending with "I don't know"?
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
>there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
>Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
Religious philosophy is worthless in the real world imbecile.
But in any case that was another straw man.
>Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
>against each other, one begins where the other ends.
Bullshit.
Science models reality, religious philosophy rationalises fantasy.
Either demonstrate this hypothetical god in the real world or keep
your superstitious bullshit where it belongs.
>Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
>allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
>which are obviously based on the kind of religious
>stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
>anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
>or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
Just can't stop lying can you?
Religious philosophy is irrelevant in the real world.
>Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
>based on what is taught in the third grade???
Why do you pretend there is any equivalence between real world
explanations that model reality and are accepted because they work in
the real world, and religious fantasies that are only relevant inside
the religion?
>Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
>of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
If you had demonstrated this hypothetical god the same way as the
results of science you might have had a point.
But you didn't.
And you haven't.
>The Vatican defines God in this way.
Who gives a shit what the Vatican says about what remains your
pretend friend until otherwise shown to have any real world existence?
>If the observed properties of the Universe are
>beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
>then, like a painting to its original, so must be
>it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
>of one reflect the other.
Bad analogy.
>There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
Apart from being a worthless analogy.
>"Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
>of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
>It's not a place.
"Heaven" is a figment of the religious imagination.
>However, the assumption that science or reason can
>or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
>and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
>far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
It was your own straw man, liar.
>Jonathan
Idiot.
wrote:
>
>"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e16588dcc5...@gmail.com...
>
>
>> Well, for one thing, I lack the vestigial faith organ. But if one has
>> no explanation for existence and the natural processes that dictate
>> the way the Universe is, religion fills those gaps.
>
>SO you believe that science and reason will fill all those
>gaps eventually? Tell me, when will science tell us what
>came before the Big Bang....exactly? When will reason exactly
>solve ANY mathematical problem involving more than
>2 variables? Can science give us an equation for the
>ideal poem? Give me the scientific definition of beauty?
>Can science even predict the position of an air molecule
>a second in advance? Or quantify the simplest emotion?
>Is there anything your beloved science can determine
>completely, or will it always be at best ....Uncertain, one
>as reflected in one of your highest principles?
into something else and put words into people mouths they obviously
didn't say just to be argumentative when people are trying to explain
things they got wrong?
>Please tell me your beloved science will ever be able
>to answer even a single question of meaning without
>ending with "I don't know"?
>No religious philosopher of average intelligence believes
>there's some wise old man out there waving a wand.
>Or anyone to pray to, or watching over us.
But in any case that was another straw man.
>Religious philosophy and science do NOT compete
>against each other, one begins where the other ends.
Science models reality, religious philosophy rationalises fantasy.
Either demonstrate this hypothetical god in the real world or keep
your superstitious bullshit where it belongs.
>Your lack of knowledge about religious philosophy
>allows you to make completely unfounded assumptions
>which are obviously based on the kind of religious
>stories taught to ....children. Or using historical
>anecdotes where simple human ignorance, failings
>or fear are the true causes, not religious beliefs.
Religious philosophy is irrelevant in the real world.
>Would it be fair for me to judge the quality of science
>based on what is taught in the third grade???
explanations that model reality and are accepted because they work in
the real world, and religious fantasies that are only relevant inside
the religion?
>Should I point to all the wars and say it's the fault
>of science and reason, for all the technology etc?
results of science you might have had a point.
But you didn't.
And you haven't.
>The Vatican defines God in this way.
pretend friend until otherwise shown to have any real world existence?
>If the observed properties of the Universe are
>beautiful, wondrous and worthy of reverence
>then, like a painting to its original, so must be
>it's creator. Like a child to its parents the traits
>of one reflect the other.
>There's nothing at all wrong with that logic.
>"Heaven" is a state of being where one has a high degree
>of knowledge and appreciation of the observed universe.
>It's not a place.
>However, the assumption that science or reason can
>or will have all the answers eventually is entirely illogical
>and unreasonable. And displays a level of blind 'faith'
>far beyond that of any serious religious philosophy.
>Jonathan
Idiot.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Aug 1, 2012, 4:16:53 PM8/1/12
to
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>
;-)
Shanghai
Aug 1, 2012, 4:54:26 PM8/1/12
to
Martin
Aug 1, 2012, 5:00:38 PM8/1/12
to
others. Yep, it still makes a grin
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Oct 25, 2012, 12:11:28 PM10/25/12
to
;-)
0 new messages