Quote for this Sunday...

[islander]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65

[GLOBALIST]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 11:00:42 AM UTC-6, islander wrote:
> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
> false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65

'wise" in their own eyes.
Actually the devotion of the ordinary folks
is the highest form of prayer.

[Werner]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 12:00:42 PM UTC-5, islander wrote:
> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
> false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65

Faith comes in many forms. Yours are just as useful.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:00:33 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

>"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
>false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who
really thinks has to believe in God.”
... Isaac Newton

[Jim_Higgins]

Amen!

--
Hussein Obama working hard to destroy America

[mg]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:00:33 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com>
wrote:

>"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
>false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65
>

With the modern-day/U.S./Muslim situation, the common people hate
them because Muslims always want to get even. Presidents like them
because they're good for corporate profits and Americans don't care
when we kill Muslims. The wise understand what's going on, but
nobody listen to wisdom, so it doesn't matter what they say.

[Bill Bowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
news:n2ss7a$698$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
> and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65

Unfortunately, the wise haven't the slightest idea of how the universe
works. They iimagine things like dark matter and energy the same way the
common people imagine a god. So who is right?



.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[islander]

On 11/22/2015 3:40 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
> "islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
> news:n2ss7a$698$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
>> and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65
>
> Unfortunately, the wise haven't the slightest idea of how the universe
> works. They iimagine things like dark matter and energy the same way the
> common people imagine a god. So who is right?
>

Personally, I put my money on the scientists. And, it is not at all the
same way that the common people imagine a god.

[islander]

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
... Albert Einstein

Or, you may appreciate this quote even more:

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most
childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong
and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different
quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they
are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from
the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything
"chosen" about them. ... Albert Einstein

[Bill Bowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

news:n2tr3u$v98$2...@dont-email.me...

I think it is. The scientist says; "I know there is an explanation, I just
don't know what it is" The regilious person says;" I know there is a god, I
just can't describe it/him/her".Unless you are a Catholic, or Muslim, or
whatever and know all the answers. I remain agnostic.

[bfla...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 8:03:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Bowden wrote:
>... The scientist says; "I know there is an explanation,

I think that is an overstatement, Bill. While undoubtedly there are
some who would say that, most I think would say that they are willing
to search for an answer to a problem. Many times they come up
empty. A subtle but important difference.

[Bill Bowden]

"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message

news:n2tro4$1pk$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/22/2015 12:51 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:00:33 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
>>> false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65
>>
>> “He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who
>> really thinks has to believe in God.”
>> ... Isaac Newton
>>
> I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
> creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who
> is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
> individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
> such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
> ... Albert Einstein
>

But he did acknowledge there must be an origin to the laws of nature.

"God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when
I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how
does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."

- Albert Einstein

[rumpelstiltskin]

But if you answer the mystery of nature with "God did it", then
you're left with the problem of exchanging the mystery of the
inexplicable-but-visible with a mystery of something that's both
inexplicable and for which there's not even any hard evidence
that it even exists. It's hard to imagine a lousier deal than that!

My best conjecture, which satisfies me, is that religiosity
evolved for the same reason that sexual attraction evolved,
because it was a very successful way of keeping humans
together for mutual benefit. That says nothing whatsoever
about "truth" - it's all about "expediency".

As to why there is sexual attraction, that was a problem
for me until fairly recently, when I read Dawkins pointing out
that one of the principle, though underappreciated, forces
driving evolution was parasitism. Parasites (such as disease
organisms) are most successful when they have consistent
prey to which they can evolve defenses that work once
and for all against all members of their prey species.
Because of sex, our DNA keeps perpetually getting mixed
up, and also innovations in the DNA that are more successful
against parasites are also promoted by Natural Selection.

At that point, a light bulb lit up in my brain: I suddenly
realized why we have two sexes, and why exactly two. I
saw it as clearly and convincingly as Abraham was
convinced about "God" by the burning bush. Of course,
I feel that Abraham, like Joseph Smith of the Mormons,
was both a genius and a lunatic: ideal ground for the
creation of religions!

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:40:13 -0800, "Bill Bowden"
<bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:

>
>"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>news:n2ss7a$698$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
>> and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65
>
>Unfortunately, the wise haven't the slightest idea of how the universe
>works. They iimagine things like dark matter and energy the same way the
>common people imagine a god. So who is right?

The idea of Dark Matter and Dark Energy may or may not be
right, but at least we know there's something going on there.
That makes those theories different from "God", where as I
noted in another post to you today, there's not even any
evidence or reason to suppose there's even anything going on
there. "God" as an "explanation" not only has no evidence to
it but it doesn't even cast the slightest light on existence, if
that's what it was proposed to explain. The only thing that
could possibly be said in favour of "God" is that it collects
things we don't know into one bag, but that really doesn't
explain anything any better than saying that "God" created
blue and red marbles and put them in the same bag, and
that explains why I have red marbles and blue marbles in
the same bag.

It's just plain silly, as I've thought as long as I can
remember, even before I left England at age 6. I've never
heard a single argument that persuaded me otherwise.

As I also noted, there and elsewhere, there's plenty of
evolutionary reason why the idea of a "God" (in the sky or
as a "Pharaoh") took hold, because it tends to bind a
society together, and for that reason it's "expedient".
The combination of admitted expediency with lack of
evidence just makes the "God" conjecture even more
suspicious-looking than it would be if there were no
expediency to it, though.

[El Castor]

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional
conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
... Albert Einstein

[El Castor]

Good for corporate profits? Huh?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The other crucial difference is scientists put their theories to the
test and are willing to discard them when proven false.

[islander]

On 11/23/2015 1:16 AM, El Castor wrote:
> "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
> superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
> to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional
> conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
> revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
> ... Albert Einstein

Einstein is speaking in the abstract here. Throughout his life he had
an awe of nature and a deep respect for science.

You might enjoy reading an article that he wrote for the NYT in 1930:
http://www.onbeing.org/program/einstein039s-god-einstein039s-ethics/extra/einstein-religion-and-science-1930/1989

Briefly, here is the essence of the article which describes three kinds
of religion. It is reasonable to expect that he believed in the third.

1. Religion of Fear

With primitive man it is above all fear that invokes religious
notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death.


2. Moral Religion

The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the
social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who
protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the
limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the
tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in
sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead.


3. Cosmic Religious Feeling

There is a third stage of religious experience...even though it is
rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.
It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely
without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God
corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires
and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves
both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence
impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the
universe as a single significant whole.

https://www.quora.com/What-were-Einsteins-religious-beliefs

Bottom line: Einstein's belief system was not based on a vengeful God.
I have no problem with what he believed.

[mg]

As I recall . . .

*National defense spending approximately doubled with the invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq.

*Oil prices went to about $140/bbl

*Halliburton was on the brink of bankruptcy and made about $30
billion on the Iraq war.

[El Castor]

As I have often said, I'm an agnostic. I can't find sufficient reason
to believe in a God. On the other hand, I lack the arrogance to
believe that we humans are the all knowing, all understanding masters
of the universe. What was the Big Bang and what came before it?
Multiverses, parallel universes, extra dimensions, string theory, dark
matter and energy, etc. There is even a plausible theory that we are
nothing more than figments of a computer's imagination. Given all
that, I admit that I can't, and never will, know it all. Anything is
possible -- including a superior being resembling what we think of as
a God, so I'm not going to be so arrogant as to pass judgment on the
beliefs of my fellow man, particularly when those beliefs help them
deal with the vicissitudes of their lives -- unless those beliefs
threaten my existence or way of life.

You, on the other hand, are deeply religious. Your unreasoning
mindless devotion places you in the radical fringe of your religion of
liberalism. Plunk someone with your dedicated mindset down in Lenin's
Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Castro's Cuba, and I hate
to think what that person might be capable of. (-8

[El Castor]

You'll have to do better than that. The Golden Gate Bridge, I5 which
stretches the length of California, and WWII, all made some people or
corporations a lot of money. Doesn't mean that they happened because
they were good for corporate profits.

[islander]

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially a personal God or gods.

No, liberalism is not a religion, nor is atheism.

[Bill Bowden]

"rumpelstiltskin" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:bqb55bt9esg70krld...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:25:38 -0800, "Bill Bowden"

So God doesn't exist? How about evil? Does evil exist?

"The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did
God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil
since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who
we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer.
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students
that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question
professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been
cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the
laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.
Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits
energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.
Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter
becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not
exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no
heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist
either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but
not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into
many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot
measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness
and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure
the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by
man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said.
We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.
It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does
not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like
darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of
God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist
just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes
when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name - Albert Einstein."

[mg]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:22:39 -0800, El Castor

One can never prove this kind of thing. You just have to look at the
evidence with an open mind.

The Golden Gate Bridge is apples and oranges, though. That's about
the same thing as saying we build highways because we want to make
highway builders rich, or I bought a new car because I wanted to
make an automobile manufacturer rich, or I bought a new house
because I wanted to make the builder rich.

[mg]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:03:12 -0800, "Bill Bowden"
<bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:

>
>"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>news:n2tr3u$v98$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/22/2015 3:40 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>> "islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n2ss7a$698$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
>>>> false,
>>>> and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the wise haven't the slightest idea of how the universe
>>> works. They iimagine things like dark matter and energy the same way the
>>> common people imagine a god. So who is right?
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I put my money on the scientists. And, it is not at all the
>> same way that the common people imagine a god.
>>
>
>I think it is. The scientist says; "I know there is an explanation, I just
>don't know what it is"
>

Don't you think that there has to be an explanation for everything?

Or, do you believe that there are some things in the universe that
defy explanation and can never be understood no matter how long they
are studied, or how intelligent a being is?

[Bill Bowden]

"mg" <no...@none.nl> wrote in message
news:npl75b1086o3rvlg4...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:03:12 -0800, "Bill Bowden"

> wrote:
>
>>
>>"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>>news:n2tr3u$v98$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 11/22/2015 3:40 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, the wise haven't the slightest idea of how the universe
>>>> works. They iimagine things like dark matter and energy the same way
>>>> the
>>>> common people imagine a god. So who is right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I put my money on the scientists. And, it is not at all the
>>> same way that the common people imagine a god.
>>>
>>
>>I think it is. The scientist says; "I know there is an explanation, I just
>>don't know what it is"
>>
> Don't you think that there has to be an explanation for everything?
>
> Or, do you believe that there are some things in the universe that
> defy explanation and can never be understood no matter how long they
> are studied, or how intelligent a being is?
>

Yes, that's what I believe. Some things will never be explained. Please pass
the ketchup.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Only in the minds of people. As Shakespeare wrote,
"There's nothing either bad or good, but thinking makes
it so."

I don't know where you got that from, but I don't
believe, if the incident happened at all, that the student
was Einstein. The student's arguments seem
amateurish and contrived to me. The smugness with
which the professor is supposedly defeated, on very
thin grounds indeed, makes me think the whole thing
is just some religious person's wild fantasy - or
deliberate deception to which religious people are
prone, justified in their minds because it's for the
"greater good" as they see it - but didn't happen at all,
with Einstein or anybody else.

Ah good, what is good, is it good
To leave in scripture the spurious verses and not print
A footnote saying they are spurious, an erratum slip?
-- Stevie Smith, from "How do you see?"
http://www.ferretgerbil.com/howdoyousee.html

Islander has pointed out, and the quotations
are readily available, that Einstein said that if
there was anything in him that could be
called "religious", it was awe at the universe
insofar as our science is able to discern it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

That's not to say that no scientists have ever
been conventionally religious. Newton was,
and so was my birthmate Galileo (Feb. 15). I
greatly admire both those dudes. It would
probably be hard to find a first-class physical
scientist or evolutionary biologist who's
conventionally religious these days, though.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:26:02 -0700, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:03:12 -0800, "Bill Bowden"
><bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:
>
>>
>>"islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>>news:n2tr3u$v98$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 11/22/2015 3:40 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>>> "islander" <no...@priracy.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:n2ss7a$698$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
>>>>> false,
>>>>> and by the rulers as useful." Seneca 4 BC - AD 65
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the wise haven't the slightest idea of how the universe
>>>> works. They iimagine things like dark matter and energy the same way the
>>>> common people imagine a god. So who is right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I put my money on the scientists. And, it is not at all the
>>> same way that the common people imagine a god.
>>>
>>
>>I think it is. The scientist says; "I know there is an explanation, I just
>>don't know what it is"
>>
>Don't you think that there has to be an explanation for everything?
>
>Or, do you believe that there are some things in the universe that
>defy explanation and can never be understood no matter how long they
>are studied, or how intelligent a being is?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm firmly convinced that we
will never know "Why is there something instead of nothing"
because our understanding is based on putting things together
logically, but the fact of existence itself cannot be the logical
consequence of anything. (If one postulates a "God", then
that god cannot be the logical consequence of anything, so
one has merely added an extraneous element for which there
is no evidence at all, that wouldn't make the slightest dent in
the problem of existence even if it were true.)

>
>>
>>The regilious person says;" I know there is a god, I
>>just can't describe it/him/her".Unless you are a Catholic, or Muslim, or
>>whatever and know all the answers. I remain agnostic.

Agnosticism is for pussies. I'm an atheist. (No offense
intended). If Saint Peter gives me a call, as I've
mentioned before, I might change my mind. I'm not
holding my breath though. Even if I thought Saint Peter
had called me, I'd be more likely to check myself into
the loonie bin on the assumption it must be time for that.

[mg]

That's interesting. I don't know whether I've ever heard anyone say
that before.

Do you believe that only applies to Earthlings in the next few
billion years, or so. Or, do you believe that applies to every being
in this universe, or any other universe, for all time stretching
into infinity?

[Bill Bowden]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:n2v35g$o31$1...@dont-email.me...

Religions also discard theories when proven false.

People did not understand volcanoes, so they created Vulcan, but later we
found out about the earth's molten core.
People did not understand earthquakes and tsunamis, so they created
Poseidon, but later we found out about continental drift and tectonic
plates.
People did not understand why the tides were so regular, but they realised
that the moon had something to do with it, so they created Izanami the moon
goddess to control the tides, but later we found out about gravitational
pull.
People did not understand lightning and thunder, so they created Thor, but
later we found out about static electricity.

[Bill Bowden]

"mg" <no...@none.nl> wrote in message

news:boq75bhhngp54638o...@4ax.com...

I look at infinity in the past and can't comprehend it. How did we get here
from an infinite time in the past? Time is a human invention. based on
relative movement. If there is no movement, there is no time. And time is
relative to speed and gravity as Eienstien proved, so what your clock says
today has no meaning to what is really going on..And nobody will ever
understand it. Now, would you please pass the salt and pepper.

[mg]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:41:51 -0800, "Bill Bowden"

Oooooh! You're one of them. :-)

Never mind, then. Forget I asked. :-)

[mg]

"Why" questions are always difficult. If my wife had hit me on the
head with a frying pan, for instance, and then I asked her why she
did it and she said, "I don't know". Then where do we go from there?
"Why" questions might belong more in the philosophical/theological
realm than in the science realm. Or, do they? What do scientists say
about that particular question? What do you suppose that scientists
might say in a galaxy far, far away in a million trillion years from
now?

Speaking of theology, why isn't there a God? Will scientists ever
know the answer to that question?

>>
>>
>>>
>>>The regilious person says;" I know there is a god, I
>>>just can't describe it/him/her".Unless you are a Catholic, or Muslim, or
>>>whatever and know all the answers. I remain agnostic.
>
>
> Agnosticism is for pussies. I'm an atheist. (No offense
>intended).
>

How do you define the word atheist?

[El Castor]

>r??lij?n/

>noun
>noun: religion
>
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
>especially a personal God or gods.
>
>No, liberalism is not a religion, nor is atheism.

Semantics. I heard a rabbi explain that religion is a philosophy that
explains where you came from, what you should do while you are here,
and what happens to you when you die. Liberalism fits the bill, and so
does the fanatical devotion of some liberals.

[El Castor]

I think I have, and we have not come to a meeting of the minds. (-8

>The Golden Gate Bridge is apples and oranges, though. That's about
>the same thing as saying we build highways because we want to make
>highway builders rich, or I bought a new car because I wanted to
>make an automobile manufacturer rich, or I bought a new house
>because I wanted to make the builder rich.
>

Or we have a war because we want to make certain corporations rich?

[chatnoir]

So death comes when when man does not have God's love present in his heart? Therefore they can't go through Jesus (God) to get to heaven. Therefore nobody who dies goes to heaven

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 08:11:57 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 11/23/2015 1:16 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
>> superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
>> to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional
>> conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
>> revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
>> ... Albert Einstein
>
>Einstein is speaking in the abstract here. Throughout his life he had
>an awe of nature and a deep respect for science.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it
clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it
is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as
our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in
Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen
Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm



Lying is so habitual within sky-monster worship that it's too
much of a habit to break, IMV. Sky-monsterism is based on
a lie right at the very beginning, so it's natural enough that it
be sustained by more lies.






<snip>

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Each one of those beliefs is not subject to falsification. For example,
Vulcan could still be considered the god of the molten core.

One of the defining characteristics of deism is God (or the gods) can
always be claimed to have created the furthest that science can explain.
To that point, how does one falsify creationism (God created the
universe)?

[mg]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 01:23:18 -0800, El Castor

One of the differences is that the decision isn't made by Big
Brother in Washington. In the case of a new car or a new house, for
instance, the individual makes the decision. Here, in the U.S., many
people believe that individuals make better decisions than
bureaucrats. When an individual makes a decision, he also has a
choice of who he buys it from. The individual consumer might even
decide to buy the product from a manufacturer in a foreign country.
With war, the federal government not only decides for you that you
need it, it also decides which companies are going to get the money.
In the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, the decision wasn't made by
individuals, but it was made on the local level by voters who went
to the polls to approve a bond issue.

There are other differences that we could discuss also, but the
bottom line is that it is an apples and oranges comparison.

[islander]

Semantics does not include assigning any meaning that suits your fancy
to a word or phrase. That is why we have dictionaries.

[El Castor]

Apparently that rabbi had a copy of Merriam Webster:

Merriam Webster:
noun re·li·gion \ri-'li-j?n\
": an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a
person or group"
"Examples of RELIGION"
"Politics are a religion to him."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

[El Castor]

The government decided to build the GG Bridge and fight WWII.
Corporations profited, but without more evidence, the effect of an
activity should not be interpreted as the cause. You can blame the
Iraq war on Big Oil, but I have yet to see any proof. Hillary's
motives in running for president may be, and probably are, less than
noble, but I have seen no proof that she is doing it solely to get
rich. Lighten up. Always assuming the worst is bad for the psyche.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:34:07 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/2015 1:19 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:33:43 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>> re·li·gion
>>> r??lij?n/
>>> noun
>>> noun: religion
>>>
>>> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
>>> especially a personal God or gods.
>>>
>>> No, liberalism is not a religion, nor is atheism.
>>
>> Semantics. I heard a rabbi explain that religion is a philosophy that
>> explains where you came from, what you should do while you are here,
>> and what happens to you when you die. Liberalism fits the bill, and so
>> does the fanatical devotion of some liberals.
>>
>Semantics does not include assigning any meaning that suits your fancy
>to a word or phrase. That is why we have dictionaries.

How on Earth does "liberalism" explain where we came
from or what will happen to us when we die? El is really
losing it, if he ever had any of it.

As Ecclesiastes said, before the bible got kidnapped by
all that silliness about eternal life and heaven and hell,
"Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return."

[mg]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:00:22 -0800, El Castor

The Golden Gate bridge was very much a state and local project, not
a federal project.

[El Castor]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:19:58 -0800, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:34:07 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>>On 11/24/2015 1:19 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:33:43 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>
>>>> re·li·gion
>>>> r??lij?n/
>>>> noun
>>>> noun: religion
>>>>
>>>> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
>>>> especially a personal God or gods.
>>>>
>>>> No, liberalism is not a religion, nor is atheism.
>>>
>>> Semantics. I heard a rabbi explain that religion is a philosophy that
>>> explains where you came from, what you should do while you are here,
>>> and what happens to you when you die. Liberalism fits the bill, and so
>>> does the fanatical devotion of some liberals.
>>>
>>Semantics does not include assigning any meaning that suits your fancy
>>to a word or phrase. That is why we have dictionaries.
>
>
> How on Earth does "liberalism" explain where we came
>from or what will happen to us when we die? El is really
>losing it, if he ever had any of it.

[islander]

Apparently you had to stoop to the third definition in MW:

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship
a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a
person or group

In any case, I'll stick with the most commonly accepted definitions.

[bfla...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 1:02:19 PM UTC-7, islander wrote:

> Apparently you (EC) had to stoop to the third definition in MW:

I had to LOL at your indelicacy to point this out to EC. Scoundrel
EC is, one must admit he is clever in his evasive thinking.

When up against the wall, I admit to the same thing! <grin> I've been
known to take a meaning of a word that was current prior to King
Alfonso of Pangaea just to bolster a point I was attempting to foist.
This is a sin and, one pays the wages of sin at the Pearly Gate. I think
it is 35 cents.

[El Castor]

In any case, liberalism is still your religion. I, the rabbi, and
Merriam Webster all agree. You are outnumbered 3 to 1. (-8

[islander]

In that company, I'll still stick with the most commonly accepted
definitions.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:56:24 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/2015 1:37 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:02:05 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/24/2015 10:44 AM, El Castor wrote:

<snip>

>>>> Merriam Webster:
>>>> noun re·li·gion \ri-'li-j?n\
>>>> ": an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a
>>>> person or group"
>>>> "Examples of RELIGION"
>>>> "Politics are a religion to him."
>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
>>>>
>>> Apparently you had to stoop to the third definition in MW:
>>>
>>> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
>>>
>>> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship
>>> a god or a group of gods
>>>
>>> : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a
>>> person or group
>>>
>>> In any case, I'll stick with the most commonly accepted definitions.
>>
>> In any case, liberalism is still your religion. I, the rabbi, and
>> Merriam Webster all agree. You are outnumbered 3 to 1. (-8
>>
>In that company, I'll still stick with the most commonly accepted
>definitions.

75% of myself plus three rabbits think that lettuce
is the most desirable food. I do like spinach and I
don't like to eat rabbits, so maybe we can compromise.

[Bill Bowden]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:n31sgo$fsc$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/24/2015 12:13 AM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

>>> The other crucial difference is scientists put their theories to the
>>> test
>>> and are willing to discard them when proven false.
>>>
>>
>> Religions also discard theories when proven false.
>>
>> People did not understand volcanoes, so they created Vulcan, but later we
>> found out about the earth's molten core.
>> People did not understand earthquakes and tsunamis, so they created
>> Poseidon, but later we found out about continental drift and tectonic
>> plates.
>> People did not understand why the tides were so regular, but they
>> realised
>> that the moon had something to do with it, so they created Izanami the
>> moon
>> goddess to control the tides, but later we found out about gravitational
>> pull.
>> People did not understand lightning and thunder, so they created Thor,
>> but
>> later we found out about static electricity.
>
> Each one of those beliefs is not subject to falsification. For example,
> Vulcan could still be considered the god of the molten core.
>
> One of the defining characteristics of deism is God (or the gods) can
> always be claimed to have created the furthest that science can explain.
> To that point, how does one falsify creationism (God created the
> universe)?

Well, I would imagine to falsify creationism one would need to propose an
alternate explanation. Do you have an alternate proposal?

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:16:23 -0800, "Bill Bowden"
<snip>

>Well, I would imagine to falsify creationism one would need to propose an
>alternate explanation. Do you have an alternate proposal?

I choose Lemuel and the Gryphons as my alternate proposal for
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, if we have to replace them
with something, anything.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Nope. That is not how science works. You test your theory, without
reference to an alternative, using experiments. For example, Newton's
theories were tested in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and found to
fail. Only then, was an alternative proposed.

[Bill Bowden]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:n34i28$pml$1...@dont-email.me...

So creationism is an accepted theory until proven false? What sort of
experiments would prove it false? As far as I know, science has never
created life in the laboratory. They probably need more time, like a few
billion years.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Creationism is a theory that can't be proven false, and is hence not a
scientific theory.

[El Castor]

What's the difference? Are only federal politicians crooks?

[El Castor]

String Theory is a theory that has yet to be proven true or false, and
yet it is a theory, is it not?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I don't know much about it, but If it cant be falsified by experiment,
it isn't a scientific theory. A quick Google search:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/what-experiment-would-disprove-string-theory

[El Castor]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:34:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

I'm not a proponent of creationism, and wouldn't spend a lot of time
defending it, but just for the sake of argument, I consider the your
experiment proposition to be weak. Scientists working on the fringe of
knowledge propose a lot of interesting ideas that are so far removed
from the current state of science that proposing an experiment to
disprove them may not be practical. That does not mean that those
scientists should be ridiculed and discouraged from pursuing their
ideas.

In the case of creationism, there might be an experiment. Some propose
that our reality is a computer simulation, in which case there would
not necessarily have been an evolution -- simply a silicon "God" that
"created" our reality. Various theoretical experiments have been
proposed to prove or disprove this notion.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Anyhow, there have been numerous theories and studies aimed at
disproving your rather socialist views. Your time would be better
spent studying those, rather than needling Christians.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I agree, but the theory is useless until it can be tested.

> In the case of creationism, there might be an experiment. Some propose
> that our reality is a computer simulation, in which case there would
> not necessarily have been an evolution -- simply a silicon "God" that
> "created" our reality. Various theoretical experiments have been
> proposed to prove or disprove this notion.
> http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

I don't follow how this paper experimentally tests that our reality is a
computer simulation. And even assuming the theory could be tested, I
don't see the relevance of a silicon "God" to my comments.

> Anyhow, there have been numerous theories and studies aimed at
> disproving your rather socialist views. Your time would be better
> spent studying those, rather than needling Christians.

I don't needle Christians. I merely responded to Bowden, explaining how
science differs from religion.

[Bill Bowden]

"Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:n35n2n$ee6$1...@dont-email.me...

How about the theory of global warming? Can that be proven false? Why do
politicians ignore the proof?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

"Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting
climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately
catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have
already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already
been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue
to decline for another two decades or more."

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 11/27/2015 12:06 AM, Bill Bowden wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:n35n2n$ee6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/25/2015 4:39 PM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n34i28$pml$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 11/25/2015 12:16 AM, Bill Bowden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I would imagine to falsify creationism one would need to propose
>>>>> an
>>>>> alternate explanation. Do you have an alternate proposal?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That is not how science works. You test your theory, without
>>>> reference to an alternative, using experiments. For example, Newton's
>>>> theories were tested in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and found to
>>>> fail. Only then, was an alternative proposed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So creationism is an accepted theory until proven false? What sort of
>>> experiments would prove it false? As far as I know, science has never
>>> created life in the laboratory. They probably need more time, like a few
>>> billion years.
>>
>> Creationism is a theory that can't be proven false, and is hence not a
>> scientific theory.
>>
>
> How about the theory of global warming? Can that be proven false? Why do
> politicians ignore the proof?

Yes, global warming is falsifiable. So is the theory presented in the
article. We shall see who is correct over the next 20 years, although
the three years in the books since the article support global warming
(islander knows more about this than me).

[islander]

On 11/27/2015 7:17 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Yes, global warming is falsifiable. So is the theory presented in the
> article. We shall see who is correct over the next 20 years, although
> the three years in the books since the article support global warming
> (islander knows more about this than me).

I don't really know more. I just have a good source.
http://skepticalscience.com/

This one site does an amazing job of both presenting the science at
multiple levels for beginners through experts, but also provides a
discussion forum that gets pretty heavily into the pros and cons of
topics related to the science.

There is also a search capability that can quickly take you to pretty
much anything that is published on the topic, both pro and con.

But, for debunking all the crap that is out there, this site is pretty good.

[islander]

On 11/26/2015 12:32 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> I'm not a proponent of creationism, and wouldn't spend a lot of time
>> defending it, but just for the sake of argument, I consider the your
>> experiment proposition to be weak. Scientists working on the fringe of
>> knowledge propose a lot of interesting ideas that are so far removed
>> from the current state of science that proposing an experiment to
>> disprove them may not be practical. That does not mean that those
>> scientists should be ridiculed and discouraged from pursuing their
>> ideas.
>

On 11/26/2015 7:17 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> I agree, but the theory is useless until it can be tested.

Strictly speaking, string theory is actually the string hypothesis, but
theoretical physicists are notably not very rigorous in labeling their
work consistent with the distinction between a hypothesis (untested) and
a theory (tested).

The popular use of the word "theory" is only made more confusing to the
general public by this sloppy use of scientific terminology.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 08:24:58 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

>
>On 11/26/2015 12:32 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> I'm not a proponent of creationism, and wouldn't spend a lot of time
>>> defending it, but just for the sake of argument, I consider the your
>>> experiment proposition to be weak. Scientists working on the fringe of
>>> knowledge propose a lot of interesting ideas that are so far removed
>>> from the current state of science that proposing an experiment to
>>> disprove them may not be practical. That does not mean that those
>>> scientists should be ridiculed and discouraged from pursuing their
>>> ideas.
>>
>On 11/26/2015 7:17 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> I agree, but the theory is useless until it can be tested.
>
>Strictly speaking, string theory is actually the string hypothesis, but
>theoretical physicists are notably not very rigorous in labeling their
>work consistent with the distinction between a hypothesis (untested) and
>a theory (tested).

Many-worlds is still regarded as an "Interpretation", not even
as a "Hypothesis", since the principle support for so far is
philosophical. Some of the phenomena for which it's invoked
as an explanation, such as Quantum Entanglement and the
Two-Slit phenomenon, are so baffling that no explanation for
them other than many-worlds seems plausible though, which
almost raises Many-Worlds to the status of "Hypothesis".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation