At Last! Scientific Proof Supporting Intelligent Design! (oh yes, Mama)
Road Glidin' Don
superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." (Albert Einstien)
Hmmm. Einstein was able to percieve (though feebly, he admits) the
slight details of an "illimitable, superior spirit" in nature... (a
spirit he is even so bold to refer to as a "himself")
Okay, listen up Jenner, Charles, et al. This one's for you. <g>
I've said before that people are taking too narrow a view of science
and this is an example of why. The critical error made by many (here)
is that they (seem to) view science as a fait de compleat - without
understanding how the process of discovery functions.
But I got news: Being able to understand scientific theories is not
the same thing as being able to understand science.
You may not need notions about an Intelligent Designer to understand
(and use) Einstein's theories. This is an important point to keep in
mind (and maybe also the source of the confusion here).
BUT... leave an Intelligent Designer out of the discussion, and you
cannot really understand how Einstein came up with his theories. Call
me silly, but I would say that getting the theories is kind of
important (or else we'd have nothing to study in high school!).
Einstein was obviously considering the implications of an Intelligence
at work in the design of nature - that is what lead him to suppose
certain things.
Not sure knowledge; it gave him hints. Based on Intelligent Design,
he had hunches on what things would be like if an intelligence had
been involved with making things. That's much more important than
people often realize Einstein expressed this many times, in many
ways. One that I remember as striking was him saying (roughly), "The
most amazing thing is that physics works at all!".
As such, the clues provided by supposing an intelligent design
provided a real paradigm for Einstein to work within.
That's the real value of theories too. Scientists just don't go,
whilly-nilly, making measurements and experimenting on all things at
random. They just wouldn't get anywhere that way. Scientists use
theories to guide them in determining which question (or experiment)
to conduct next. The choices of experiments to make are made in order
to strengthen (or weaken) the theory they are currently operating
under.
So, if the paradigm Einstein was using was Intelligent Design, the
proof (or disproof) of the propositions he made were (in essence) ways
of testing the validity of that paradigm, were they not? Of course.
And that's just how science works.
So - as a side-bar - for those who don't know what the scientific
proofs of Intelligent Design are... There you are, if you must have
them.
No, there's no smoking gun and it's not written in 10 foot tall, bold
letters on billboards. But for other theories as well, there's no
smoking gun either. Confidence in a theory simply builds and builds
as more experiments agree with its projections. This isn't CNN -
where you get a single, sound-bite moment that says, "The existence of
God was proved today!"
In the case of Einstein, you might want to regard the supposition of
Intelligent Design as a paradigm (bigger than a theory), but that's a
minor distinction, since paradigms are a part of science as well.
Call it what you will. It is not possible to pretend this idea does
not play a part in the ongoing search for knowledge - especially in
the theoretical aspects of science. Cutting it out (for the purposes
of political correctness) leaves you with just a disembowled cadaver -
not the breathing, living thing that real science is.
Science is more than understanding the theories. It's also
understanding how theories are arived at. And how theories compete.
And how they weaken and how they are overthrown and replaced
periodically.
Maybe, if your only exposure to science has been via the teaching
received within a high school classroom, you might have been tempted
to think that the few assumptions needed for *understanding* the
theories is all there is. That's understandable, but there's more to
it than that.
--
Instead of weaving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)
98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk
Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
Bike videos: http://xidos.ca/VideoView.asp
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/
FLT Tech Info: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Bikes/tech.html
Beth
Strange Things(tm),
there were a lot of scientists who truly believed and believe that the
truths they were finding via the rigorous scientific method were the
mind workings of God. anything less than proving rigorously via the
scientific method would be an insult to God as God is happy that we are
discovering What Really Is. What Really Is is beyond most people right now.
many of the great mathematicians and scientists felt a great privilege
to be able to find the Truths as GOd had made them. many of them were
priests. there are the Truths of God that God wanted us to find as we
matured as a species. there's nothing wrong with thinking this, as long
as the scientist is dedicated to the Truth, the truth via the scientific
method (induction) or Truth via deduction (mathematical proofs). this is
why scientific theories are found and then discarded for more accurate
theories. we are striving toward a perfect model of the universe. our
Mathematicians are building the tools. our physicists are using the
tools. it's amazing work. some are adamant atheists and that's fine. a
true thinking person of faith would see it as merely finding out the
workings of the Supreme Being or Beings. it is all the same.
so, this is all very metaphysical and i think is a valid discussion. we
just have to remember that science and meta-mysticism go hand in hand.
at least, in my universe. the Truth is What Is. What Is is Ultimate Reality.
6 days or 6 gazillions years? it doesn't matter. if there is a larger
conscience out here, it's able to allow us to evolve and learn about
ourselves. it is a being beyond everything we can imagine. or, possibly,
it's something we could cup in our hand. we don't know. that's the
mystery of it all and it's exciting, frankly.
ever study naturally occurring numbers? the Fibbonacci sequence? the
Golden Mean? how they are linked? how Fermant's last theorem's proof
linked together many, many fields of mathematics when that wonderful
mathematician found the proof in 1992?
i go to a Catholic university now. a Brother who i quite admire agrees
fully that the mathematics is the language of God. what is God? i do not
know.
QED.
-Beth
Dog Exhaust
"Road Glidin' Don" <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3dd840f3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> "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 mind." (Albert Einstien)
>
> Hmmm. Einstein was able to percieve (though feebly, he admits) the
> slight details of an "illimitable, superior spirit" in nature... (a
> spirit he is even so bold to refer to as a "himself")
>
> Okay, listen up Jenner, Charles, et al. This one's for you. <g>
>
> I've said before that people are taking too narrow a view of science
> and this is an example of why.
In what context is his discussion? You need to be able discern between the
scientist and science.
The critical error made by many (here)
> is that they (seem to) view science as a fait de compleat - without
> understanding how the process of discovery functions.
The critical error here is you.
>
> But I got news: Being able to understand scientific theories is not
> the same thing as being able to understand science.
>
Being able to understand that when I push the gas pedal the car goes
VVVARRROOOM is not the same thing as being able to understand the internal
combustion engine. So what!
> BUT... leave an Intelligent Designer out of the discussion, and you
> cannot really understand how Einstein came up with his theories.
You've got to be kidding? Ever hear of observation? Ever hear of
hypothesis. Ever hear of testing a hypothesis?
>Call
> me silly,
That would be the most polite thing I could call you. Give it up and stick
to something that doesn't require critical thinking!
jim rozen
>Einstein was obviously considering the implications of an Intelligence
>at work in the design of nature - that is what lead him to suppose
>certain things.
Intelligent design? Heck the Creator sure is a dunderhead then,
all you have to do is look at the myriad cases of animals like
snakes (without legs) that are equipped with vestigial hip bones,
to realize that. Why would you leave out the legs but put in
the hip bones?
Bertrand Russel once said, 'if there *was* a god it would be
necessary to abolish him!'
My favorite einstein/bohr interchange is:
E: "God does not play dice!"
N.B: "Albert, don't tell god what do do."
Jim
===================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at watson dot ibm dot com
===================================
Beth
> My favorite einstein/bohr interchange is:
>
> E: "God does not play dice!"
> N.B: "Albert, don't tell god what do do."
remember, Einstein altered his designs to support a steady state
universe, which was contrary to his other findings. later on in life, he
admitted that he was wrong.
it's all about finding the Truth. and understanding when you're
Wrong(tm). there's nothing wrong with that either! for a while there, we
through the Earth was flat and the Center of the Universe. it was
blasphemy to think otherwise.
-Beth
Road Glidin' Don
Yes. That's the bold, wide embrace of science I've been taught to
appreciate as well. Not the tentative, meaningless version that some
definitions restrict it to.
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>In article <3dd840f3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, langkd_...@shaw.ca says...
>
>>Einstein was obviously considering the implications of an Intelligence
>>at work in the design of nature - that is what lead him to suppose
>>certain things.
>
>Intelligent design? Heck the Creator sure is a dunderhead then,
>all you have to do is look at the myriad cases of animals like
>snakes (without legs) that are equipped with vestigial hip bones,
>to realize that. Why would you leave out the legs but put in
>the hip bones?
It sounds like you're still stuck on a more specific (Christian)
example, when I am clearly talking about a very general, Intelligent
Design concept (one that could easily allow for evolution).
jim rozen
>
>jim rozen wrote:
>
>
>> My favorite einstein/bohr interchange is:
>>
>> E: "God does not play dice!"
>> N.B: "Albert, don't tell god what do do."
>
>
>remember, Einstein altered his designs to support a steady state
>universe, which was contrary to his other findings. later on in life, he
>admitted that he was wrong.
IIRC the interchange above was not cosmological in nature - it
had more to do with bohr's ideas about quantum mechanics. And
I have the impression that he (einstein) never did feel quite
right about this, ever.
keith s.
OH look that fucking dogfart pissed on the floor again...once again not doing a
fucking thing worthwhile. Like every worthless dogfart before him, keeping up
his family tradition...
Nefarious Necromancer 42nd class
The human language is like a cracked kettle on which we beat out a tune
for a dancing bear, when we hope with our music to move the stars.
- Gustave Flaubert
systems can be subverted but virgins can be cured.
StephG
and out came news:ar1jc...@drn.newsguy.com:
> Intelligent design? Heck the Creator sure is a dunderhead then,
> all you have to do is look at the myriad cases of animals like
> snakes (without legs) that are equipped with vestigial hip bones,
> to realize that. Why would you leave out the legs but put in
> the hip bones?
If you remember the biblical story, snakes once had legs. God punished the
snake by making it and all its descendants crawl on its belly.
Oddly enough, it turns out that evolutionary scientists have shown that this
is kinda what happened.
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/printtopic.asp?ItemId=565
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk971003/istory.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
Of course, it's entirely possible that even ancient men might have found the
bones of some of these fossil snakes, given their location, and sort of put
two and two together. I suspect that finding fossils was not unknown to
ancient man, they just didn't exactly know what to make of them. Dinosaur
bones might have been wrongly interpreted as the bones of giants. Partial
Pterosaur bones might have been interpreted as that of angels. Or demons. Who
knows?
There are currently lizards with no legs, which may be the same adaptation
repeating itself, though these lizards are not related to snakes except in
the most generalized way.
--
~---(_) Steph Greenberg
(>/ "It's all fun and games until someone
)/ starts gathering statistics."
(_)
Alan Moore
>look, dude, i'm gonna say this as a scientist and a believe in many
>Strange Things(tm),
<snip>
I was working in the lab, late one night
When I heard the gugle of a water pipe.
There was my monster, engulfed in smoke, he said
"This shit aint bad, man, have a toke."
(We smoked some hash) We smoked some Monster Hash.
(We smoked some hash) It was his personal stash
(of monster hash) We got completel trashed
(on monster hash) We smoked som monster hash.
...
Not original, of course, but I couldn't resist...
Al Moore
DoD 734
keith s.
>all you have to do is look at the myriad cases of animals like
>snakes (without legs) that are equipped with vestigial hip bones,
>to realize that. Why would you leave out the legs but put in
>the hip bones?
>
Consider then that genisis places plant creation ahead of animals
ergo...cannabis and peyote were created befroe some of the things you bring up.
I guess that would expain things like the Kiwi bird and Okipi...talk about
strange critters.
mm
<snip chop hack>
Whatever man.
Word play.
Intelligent design is another word for creation.
Intelligent designer is another word for God.
I don't need to try to find God to make science interesting to me.
Science and the universe are already fascinating.
I don't need to believe that some idiot is behind all of this pulling all
the strings.
You may have discovered God, a.k.a. the "intelligent designer", but science
has not.
Science can look for God, but has never discovered it.
Failure of science? Failure of God? Nonexistance of God?
You decide.
And when you find out, please don't tell us.
Holly Ober
: BUT... leave an Intelligent Designer out of the discussion, and you
: cannot really understand how Einstein came up with his theories. Call
: me silly, but I would say that getting the theories is kind of
: important (or else we'd have nothing to study in high school!).
: Einstein was obviously considering the implications of an Intelligence
: at work in the design of nature - that is what lead him to suppose
: certain things.
Like most reasonable people who have spent prodigious amounts of time
pondering nature or human nature, Einstein apparently felt great humility
in the face of it all. I remember someone getting all in a huff about how
people attributed all kinds of religious sentiments to Einstein that he
did not have. It turns out, this is correct.
http://www.vicariousnotion.org/einstein.htm
http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html
A few other choice quotes of Einstein about his spirituality:
"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."
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely
superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak
and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of
the highest importance-but for us, not for God."
"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical
comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different
sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a
feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe.
It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our
own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in
us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must,
but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality
a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
"Nevertheless we all feel that it is indeed very reasonable and
important to ask ourselves how we should try to conduct our lives. The
answer is, in my opinion: satisfaction of the desires and needs of all, as
far as this can be achieved, and achievement of harmony and beauty in the
human relationships. This presupposes a good deal of conscious thought and
of self-education. It is undeniable that the enlightened Greeks and the
old Oriental sages had achieved a higher level in this all-important field
than what is alive in our schools and universities."
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always
been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of
a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do
not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature
and of our being."
"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend
only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling
of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to
do with mysticism."
In short, it looks to me like Einstein preferred to define himself as
agnostic. The goal of science was human enlightenment and to attempt to
comprehend the beauty of order-- the awe he felt when he was in the
process of discovering, and attempting to get his mind around, the order
of the universe was what he considered a religious feeling. It had
absolutely nothing to do with a personal God or even, a divine force or
intelligence, although he would not rule that possibility out.
I suspect that if he were alive today, Einstein would be one
of the most outspoken *opponents* of teaching this "intelligent design"
idea in the schools precisely because it waters down genuine understanding
of the kinds of the kinds of "profound interrelations" that bind the
universe together and turns it into a mystical "isn't God grand" nonsense.
Charles Soto
> "Road Glidin' Don" <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3dd840f3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> <snip chop hack>
>
> Whatever man.
> Word play.
> Intelligent design is another word for creation.
> Intelligent designer is another word for God.
>
> I don't need to try to find God to make science interesting to me.
> Science and the universe are already fascinating.
> I don't need to believe that some idiot is behind all of this pulling all
> the strings.
> You may have discovered God, a.k.a. the "intelligent designer", but science
> has not.
Well said.
> Science can look for God, but has never discovered it.
> Failure of science? Failure of God? Nonexistance of God?
> You decide.
> And when you find out, please don't tell us.
Up to here, though. Real science could never begin to even look at this
problem.
Charles
--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1979 KZ650, 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>OH look that fucking dogfart pissed on the floor again...once again not doing a
>fucking thing worthwhile. Like every worthless dogfart before him, keeping up
>his family tradition...
<aiming for ba.moto>
Here boy. Fetch!
Road Glidin' Don
<ez05...@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> In short, it looks to me like Einstein preferred to define himself as
>agnostic. The goal of science was human enlightenment and to attempt to
>comprehend the beauty of order-- the awe he felt when he was in the
>process of discovering, and attempting to get his mind around, the order
>of the universe was what he considered a religious feeling. It had
>absolutely nothing to do with a personal God or even, a divine force or
>intelligence, although he would not rule that possibility out.
>
> I suspect that if he were alive today, Einstein would be one
>of the most outspoken *opponents* of teaching this "intelligent design"
>idea in the schools precisely because it waters down genuine understanding
>of the kinds of the kinds of "profound interrelations" that bind the
>universe together and turns it into a mystical "isn't God grand" nonsense.
Thanks for the quotes. I was aware that Einstein was hard to pin down
on the subject and that there has been much debate over what the heck
you'd correctly call him.
Actually, he doesn't sound quite like the description of an agnostic
to me - especially since he seems to be just saying what he thinks the
Jesuits would call him, were they to come in contact with his views.
And his statements of not holding to a "personal" god may not rule out
an intelligent one (maybe he just isn't persuaded about a god who
takes interest in human affairs or desires fellowship with man?)
But he does at least tread close to the line and his religious notions
(he does call it his religion) had its effect on his theorizing.
I wouldn't expect Einstein to be sitting in a church pew singing
"Jesus Loves Me", if he were still alive, but my sense of it is that
he wouldn't be impressed with a purile view that fears any employment
of religious thoughts in science either. He seems to have been
pursuing religion and science, all in one and didn't appear very
concerned that one sphere might slop slightly over into the other -
not exactly a rigid separation. Instead, he brought the entirety of
his thought to the table, whenever he thought about science. At least
that's my impression.
mm
"Road Glidin' Don" <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3dd6a640...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> I wouldn't expect Einstein to be sitting in a church pew singing
> "Jesus Loves Me", if he were still alive,
Good guess, since he was a Jew.
Beth
> IIRC the interchange above was not cosmological in nature - it
> had more to do with bohr's ideas about quantum mechanics. And
> I have the impression that he (einstein) never did feel quite
> right about this, ever.
i think you are correct. my point was that Einstein wasn't always right.
he held opinions that were sometimes in conflict with other physicists
at the time who were very cutting edge stuff that had very profound
implications about the nature of the universe. one of those was the
steady state universe theory that he couldn't let go of. another was the
"god doesn't play dice" comment.
-Beth
keith s.
><aiming for ba.moto>
>
>Here boy. Fetch!
>
<lifts head from paws>
huh
<head back down, snores drools>
Don thet thar is a porch hound knowt a huntin' dawg! 'e jest sits thar on th'
porch 'n barks when the revenooers an' such comes round...althou the sumbitch
is fonda th' sherrif.
Road Glidin' Don
Somebody help me out if they can here, but wasn't the idea he called
"the biggest mistake" of his career the cosmological constant? And
hasn't it recently been dug up again and found to be not so nutty
after all?
The interesting thing about his debates with Bohr - which is where it
intersects the topic of what properly belongs in science - is that it
amounts to 2 *philisophical* positions at complete odds with each
other.
Einstein seems to have cherished the belief that, at bottom, there is
an objective reality which, once we get more knowledge and insight, we
will be able to discern with certainty. That is, even though we can't
figure it now, that objective reality *is* there and we will get at it
someday. It's existence doesn't depend on our abilities. I think
that ties in perfectly with the religious-type sentiments Einstein
expressed.
The indeterminism of Quantum physics throws that hope out the door.
Not just in the small, the theory has philisophical implications for
the larger scale as well and it simply doesn't sit well with every
scientist.
So, regardless of which is the correct position, philosophy plays a
pretty significant part in physics.
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>><aiming for ba.moto>
>>
>>Here boy. Fetch!
>>
>
><lifts head from paws>
>huh
><head back down, snores drools>
>
>Don thet thar is a porch hound knowt a huntin' dawg! 'e jest sits thar on th'
>porch 'n barks when the revenooers an' such comes round...althou the sumbitch
>is fonda th' sherrif.
Heh, heh. I'm guessing the name comes from chasing one too many cars.
Aaron Fix
> Actually, he doesn't sound quite like the description of an agnostic
> to me - especially since he seems to be just saying what he thinks the
> Jesuits would call him, were they to come in contact with his views.
> And his statements of not holding to a "personal" god may not rule out
> an intelligent one (maybe he just isn't persuaded about a god who
> takes interest in human affairs or desires fellowship with man?)
>
> But he does at least tread close to the line and his religious notions
> (he does call it his religion) had its effect on his theorizing.
>
> I wouldn't expect Einstein to be sitting in a church pew singing
> "Jesus Loves Me", if he were still alive, but my sense of it is that
> he wouldn't be impressed with a purile view that fears any employment
> of religious thoughts in science either. He seems to have been
> pursuing religion and science, all in one and didn't appear very
> concerned that one sphere might slop slightly over into the other -
> not exactly a rigid separation. Instead, he brought the entirety of
> his thought to the table, whenever he thought about science. At least
> that's my impression.
Firstly, one man's opinion- even a very smart man's opinion, is not
scientific proof. Secondly, what Holly described quite eloquently, is the
view of most *good* scientists that I know. That is, there is an awe and
wonder associated with the order of the universe. Call it physical law or
God or whatever- it is fascinating that the universe seems to work along a
set of rules and it is really interesting to try to find them out. When
Einstein made his statement, "God does not place dice with the Unverse", it
was in fact much more of a scientific metaphor than a religious one. He was
reacting to the uncertainties inherent in modern quantum theory and to the
belief that certain aspects of subatomic physics are not simply unknown, but
*unknowable*. His stance is actually directly opposed to what you are
ascribing to him. When he speaks of God, he is not talking about a being,
he is talking about his belief that the universe is governed by simple,
eloquent, knowable rules that can be defined by mathematical expressions.
--
Aaron Fix
76 CB550F
Road Glidin' Don
I would agree that the "one man's opinion" part shouldn't be given too
much weight (goodness knows rec.moto proves that).
But, even still, Einstein is obviously bringing in a belief system,
when he debates Bohr on that point, is he not? In spite of the
evidence indicating that aspects of subatomic physics were truly
"unknowable", he still held to a belief that it was - with no real
evidence to back up that claim.
Margaret M.
> I was working in the lab, late one night
> When I heard the gugle of a water pipe.
> There was my monster, engulfed in smoke, he said
> "This shit aint bad, man, have a toke."
>
> (We smoked some hash) We smoked some Monster Hash.
> (We smoked some hash) It was his personal stash
> (of monster hash) We got completel trashed
> (on monster hash) We smoked som monster hash.
Damn, now I'm going to be hearing that tune all day! :-)
Mag
Holly Ober
: Thanks for the quotes. I was aware that Einstein was hard to pin down
: on the subject and that there has been much debate over what the heck
: you'd correctly call him.
You know, you'd argue your side much more convincingly if, being aware
of the ambiguousness of your claims, you took the three minutes it took me
to do a Google search and skim a few sites. Your information about
evolutionary theory was so wildly off base and full of misinformation.
This is the kind of sloppy thinking and laziness that makes you look
genuinely stupid to a number of the posters on these threads, so please
stop taking umbrage when people call you on it.
: Actually, he doesn't sound quite like the description of an agnostic
: to me - especially since he seems to be just saying what he thinks the
: Jesuits would call him, were they to come in contact with his views.
: And his statements of not holding to a "personal" god may not rule out
: an intelligent one (maybe he just isn't persuaded about a god who
: takes interest in human affairs or desires fellowship with man?)
That's the definition of an agnostic-- someone who wouldn't rule out the
existence of a god or divine force of some sort, but doesn't regard the
divine as being terribly relevant to the world of human affairs, whether
it exists or not.
Statements like this:
"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."
lead me to believe he was dealing with a very different conception of
"religious" than you are.
: But he does at least tread close to the line and his religious notions
: (he does call it his religion) had its effect on his theorizing.
That could just as well be a result of the fact that the English
language lacks words and concepts for the kinds of feelings he is
describing, except for in the realm of religion. German isn't a whole lot
better, btw.
: I wouldn't expect Einstein to be sitting in a church pew singing
: "Jesus Loves Me", if he were still alive, but my sense of it is that
: he wouldn't be impressed with a purile view that fears any employment
: of religious thoughts in science either. He seems to have been
No, in fact in one of those quotes he says that he's not one of those
crusading atheists who are so militant because they've recently been freed
from the shackles of religious indoctrination.
: pursuing religion and science, all in one and didn't appear very
: concerned that one sphere might slop slightly over into the other -
: not exactly a rigid separation. Instead, he brought the entirety of
: his thought to the table, whenever he thought about science. At least
: that's my impression.
It sounds to me like the search for pure, objective scientific truth
was similar to a sort of spiritual practice for him. The constant practice
of seeing what really *is*, reality here and now without any
mystifications or longings or pretenses, is spiritual practice. He said in
one of the other quotes that *being* is what the universe is all about.
Pure being; allowing our minds to perceive the universe as it *in truth*
is.
You have argued from at least three different viewpoints since this
thing started, as each of your arguments was demolished. You began by
claiming that in some sort of a multicultural interest, they should teach
this "intelligent design" thing in the schools. You attempted to back this
up with long and highly inaccurate attempts to discredit the scientific
endeavor, mostly by creating "straw man" sorts of arguments. You then
latched onto evolution and the origins of the universe as the critical
features, claiming that what evolutionary theory actually points to is a
creator, or "intelligent designer" of some sort. When that was demolished,
you then went on to quote the Christian Bible to argue for the inclusion
of "intelligent design"--- just in case anyone doubted where you're really
coming from on this one. Now, you're trying to say that, all along, you've
been looking at it the same way Einstein did, but given all of the above,
it is quite clear that you are not.
Klein Gilhousen
<af...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> When
>Einstein made his statement, "God does not place dice with the Unverse",
Yes He does. Not only that, but the dice are loaded. ;-)
Klein
'02 GW "The Yellow Submarine"
jimpepper
> "Alan Moore" <alan.s...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > I was working in the lab, late one night
> > When I heard the gurgle of a water pipe.
> > There was my monster, engulfed in smoke, he said
> > "This shit aint bad, man, have a toke."
> >
> > (We smoked some hash) We smoked some Monster Hash.
> > (We smoked some hash) It was his personal stash
> > (of monster hash) We got completel trashed
> > (on monster hash) We smoked som monster hash.
> > Al Moore
>
> Damn, now I'm going to be hearing that tune all day! :-)
> Mag
LOL,Where's the rest of those lyrics?
The [G]scene was rocking all were digging the sound
[Em]Igor on chains backed by His Baying Hounds
The [C]Coffin Bangers were about to arrive
With their [D]vocal group, the Crypt Kicker Five
Jim
Road Glidin' Don
<ez05...@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Road Glidin' Don <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: Thanks for the quotes. I was aware that Einstein was hard to pin down
>: on the subject and that there has been much debate over what the heck
>: you'd correctly call him.
>
> You know, you'd argue your side much more convincingly if, being aware
>of the ambiguousness of your claims, you took the three minutes it took me
>to do a Google search and skim a few sites. Your information about
>evolutionary theory was so wildly off base and full of misinformation.
>This is the kind of sloppy thinking and laziness that makes you look
>genuinely stupid to a number of the posters on these threads, so please
>stop taking umbrage when people call you on it.
This isn't a full-time job, Holly, so I *have* to rely on my
recollection sometimes. I'm handling a lot of responses and
challenges - some from people who (not pointing fingers, but one is a
female in California) who take a little umbrage if they get ignored...
> : Actually, he doesn't sound quite like the description of an agnostic
>: to me - especially since he seems to be just saying what he thinks the
>: Jesuits would call him, were they to come in contact with his views.
>: And his statements of not holding to a "personal" god may not rule out
>: an intelligent one (maybe he just isn't persuaded about a god who
>: takes interest in human affairs or desires fellowship with man?)
>
> That's the definition of an agnostic-- someone who wouldn't rule out the
>existence of a god or divine force of some sort, but doesn't regard the
>divine as being terribly relevant to the world of human affairs, whether
>it exists or not.
>
> Statements like this:
>
> "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."
>
> lead me to believe he was dealing with a very different conception of
>"religious" than you are.
That may be so. My 'recollection' was that his position is still a
matter of some debate. That said, I may have taken his position too
far.
I *would* still say that - even if you want to call this philosophy
instead of religion - that this example still supports my main
contention; that philisophical notions (even unprovable and competing
ones) have a part to play in science. The example tends to illuminate
and legitimize the very thing some people have been so vigorously
denying any introduction of (it's hard to deny something that's shown
already through the door).
The question of whether philosophy can be productive in advancing
scientific knowledge and discovery has been answered (in my
oh-so-very-humble opinion, of course) by this. As such, it has its
place in the field.
If that's the case, then Einstein's exact sentiments need not be held
to too rigidly either. To avoid making him a Saint - how far Einstein
goes is his choice; probably molded to some extent by his particular
experience with religion as well. So, personally, I don't feel
obliged to adopt his position as my own in every detail.
But... once philosophical extrapolations are allowed in the science
door (as it clearly has been, by those science calls its own), I would
say that it is unfair and inconsistent to chide (or shun) only those
who look at the same evidence of structure and suppose it is
ear-markings of intelligent design.
Many scientists do, in fact, think precisely that and I think it's a
perfectly respectable stand to take - not deserving the type of
ridicule (and exclusivism) that has sometimes characterized this
debate. Both Einstein and Intelligent Design proponents (if they do
differ) are being informed by what they see in the study of nature and
making unprovable inferences based on the data.
They then use those inferences as a framework or guide of sorts, while
attempting to make sense of the universe (e.g. knowing which questions
to ask next). There's no definitive proof. Only the persuasive
effect - as one person holding a certain view finds his predictions
panning out a little better than those who adopt a different
philosophy. Just to throw it all out and say "There's no proof" fails
to look at it carefully enough. The evidence is literally everywhere
you turn, in a sense.
For that reason, the Quantum physicists scored points against
Einstein's deep-seated, philisophical position (when they could make
sense of something he could not). And the playing field may change
yet again in our lifetimes.
Part of the grounds for my agreeing with your earlier assessment about
the uncertainty of things was based on my own, personal philosophy
that takes into account the types of things you point out *and* the
things Quantum physics seems to be saying *and* the things Einstein
was saying.
In light of the two positions of determinism versus indeterminism -
both of which have certain strengths - I think there is a way.
Perhaps you can have an indeterminist and a determinist universe if a
higher being is added to the equation. Indeterminist (and ultimately
unknowable) for us. Determinist to the higher being. It depends on
your frame of reference.
The plausibility of the both positions is what gives the consideration
of a higher being a scientifically useful, unifying role (therefore
less liable to Sagan's, 'why don't we skip a step' criticism). It
doesn't slam the door on either idea.
Of course, disagree with me on that last part if you like, but I would
still say that it is incomplete to imagine you can depict science as
being clean of philosophy. The charges of being overly-simplistic can
travel in both directions here.
>: But he does at least tread close to the line and his religious notions
>: (he does call it his religion) had its effect on his theorizing.
>
> That could just as well be a result of the fact that the English
>language lacks words and concepts for the kinds of feelings he is
>describing, except for in the realm of religion. German isn't a whole lot
>better, btw.
I've heard that English has a vocabulary 30 times larger than the next
largest language. At least he was using the best available! ;)
>: I wouldn't expect Einstein to be sitting in a church pew singing
>: "Jesus Loves Me", if he were still alive, but my sense of it is that
>: he wouldn't be impressed with a purile view that fears any employment
>: of religious thoughts in science either. He seems to have been
>
> No, in fact in one of those quotes he says that he's not one of those
>crusading atheists who are so militant because they've recently been freed
>from the shackles of religious indoctrination.
>
> : pursuing religion and science, all in one and didn't appear very
>: concerned that one sphere might slop slightly over into the other -
>: not exactly a rigid separation. Instead, he brought the entirety of
>: his thought to the table, whenever he thought about science. At least
>: that's my impression.
>
> It sounds to me like the search for pure, objective scientific truth
>was similar to a sort of spiritual practice for him. The constant practice
>of seeing what really *is*, reality here and now without any
>mystifications or longings or pretenses, is spiritual practice. He said in
>one of the other quotes that *being* is what the universe is all about.
>Pure being; allowing our minds to perceive the universe as it *in truth*
>is.
It seems to me Aquinas had thoughts along those lines too (made in
terms of 'existing').
> You have argued from at least three different viewpoints since this
>thing started,
Pretty good for just one guy, huh? ;)
>as each of your arguments was demolished.
Er, I wouldn't go that far. What happened to those who said, "You
can't have it in science if you can't prove it" ?
>You began by
>claiming that in some sort of a multicultural interest, they should teach
>this "intelligent design" thing in the schools.
That's still a good argument. Fundamentalist Christianity going too
far in one way, and pure secularists going too far the other. The
whole premise of what I argued was to find a half-way position. That
sort of thing engenders tolerance and more understanding. It also
gives expression to what a majority of people are going to think, no
matter what, anyway.
>You attempted to back this
>up with long and highly inaccurate attempts to discredit the scientific
>endeavor, mostly by creating "straw man" sorts of arguments. You then
>latched onto evolution and the origins of the universe as the critical
>features, claiming that what evolutionary theory actually points to is a
>creator, or "intelligent designer" of some sort. When that was demolished,
Speaking as the person who wrote it, I don't think that's what the
thrust was. My aim was to show that both positions (materialism
included) were underpinned by assumptions and confidences that are
basically philisophical (and unprovable).
>you then went on to quote the Christian Bible to argue for the inclusion
>of "intelligent design"--- just in case anyone doubted where you're really
>coming from on this one.
You should get over that. In that case, I made it perfectly clear I
was stepping outside my main point. Who's making straw men now?
>Now, you're trying to say that, all along, you've
>been looking at it the same way Einstein did, but given all of the above,
>it is quite clear that you are not.
Well, hopefully, I've reacted to your criticism to make it clearer.
Road Glidin' Don
>>It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our
>>own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in
>>us as individuals.
>
>ie.) there is no god.
Maybe you're projecting what you believe here? To be precise, it
means nothing more that what it says: There is no god of the *type*
he described (one that makes demands and takes interest in
individuals). And, yes, to come up with *that* notion of god is quite
a stretch, on the basis of nature. Of course!
Aaron Fix
Road Glidin' Don <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote
> But... once philosophical extrapolations are allowed in the science
> door (as it clearly has been, by those science calls its own), I would
> say that it is unfair and inconsistent to chide (or shun) only those
> who look at the same evidence of structure and suppose it is
> ear-markings of intelligent design.
Here is where your argument falls apart. You are asserting that because
science doesn't know everything, it therefore knows nothing. The fact that
there are assumptions in science (that the universe is understandable) does
not make it equivalent to every other crack-pot story that has been cooked
up over the years. I think that white people were created when monkeys got
fucked by space aliens. Can you prove otherwise? If not, then it is a
valid point of view, and you are bound by the rules of fairness and right to
teach it to your children.
Road Glidin' Don
<af...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Road Glidin' Don <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote
>
>> But... once philosophical extrapolations are allowed in the science
>> door (as it clearly has been, by those science calls its own), I would
>> say that it is unfair and inconsistent to chide (or shun) only those
>> who look at the same evidence of structure and suppose it is
>> ear-markings of intelligent design.
>
>Here is where your argument falls apart. You are asserting that because
>science doesn't know everything, it therefore knows nothing. The fact that
>there are assumptions in science (that the universe is understandable)
Not understandable? More like not explainable (by materialism),
applied to the point of my argument you are disputing.
>does
>not make it equivalent to every other crack-pot story that has been cooked
>up over the years. I think that white people were created when monkeys got
>fucked by space aliens. Can you prove otherwise? If not, then it is a
>valid point of view, and you are bound by the rules of fairness and right to
>teach it to your children.
But your argument seems also is similar to saying that we cannot know
anything because there are limitations, because you leave no room for
more modest philosophical postulations that try not to not go beyond
what the data can justify; just lump it all together with the wildest
notions, like space aliens fucking people and you're done. Case made!
To me, that type of counter is not persuasive. It's the same sort of
method people use to make anything they want associated with whatever
they fancy; like making John Ashcroft the moral equivalent of Bin
Laden.
Aaron Fix
Road Glidin' Don <langkd_...@shaw.ca> wrote
>
> But your argument seems also is similar to saying that we cannot know
> anything because there are limitations, because you leave no room for
> more modest philosophical postulations that try not to not go beyond
> what the data can justify; just lump it all together with the wildest
> notions, like space aliens fucking people and you're done. Case made!
>
I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned there is just as much evidence for my
alien-fucking theory as there is for Creationism. If you want to limit the
discussion to the presence or absence of a divinity, there is no evidence
either way, so believe what you want.
To me, that type of counter is not persuasive. It's the same sort of
> method people use to make anything they want associated with whatever
> they fancy; like making John Ashcroft the moral equivalent of Bin
> Laden.
Ashcroft and Bin Laden are more alike than many people would like to admit,
especially in their religious narrow-mindedness. The difference is that Bin
Laden is a mass murderer.
Road Glidin' Don
<af...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
> To me, that type of counter is not persuasive. It's the same sort of
>> method people use to make anything they want associated with whatever
>> they fancy; like making John Ashcroft the moral equivalent of Bin
>> Laden.
>
>Ashcroft and Bin Laden are more alike than many people would like to admit,
>especially in their religious narrow-mindedness. The difference is that Bin
>Laden is a mass murderer.
That's sounds pretty bad! Say, whadya think about passing a law that
prohibits those evangelical Christians and practicing Muslims from
holding public office to protect everyone's freedoms? Let's do it for
the children. ;)
jenner
Glidin' Don) 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 mind." (Albert Einstien)
This proves nothing, Don, except that you are persistent.
StephG
came news:41vatu8g81n3sg50g...@4ax.com:
It might have proven that Einstein was trying to be diplomatic and disarm
people with religious proclivities who might take offense and raise
resistance to a more mechanistic instead of an animistic universe.
And while he privately professed to Atheist tendencies, he may well have been
more of an Agnostic (not believing in god, but willing to accept the
possibility) or deist (believing in god, but not subscribing to faith in the
tenents of the Bible).
Given the times, publicly hedging might have been a good idea, considering
how people felt about the Godless Communists, the furor over evolution with
the Scopes trial and pre-WWII open anti-Semitism.
--
~---(_) Steph Greenberg
(>/ "It's all fun and games until someone
)/ starts gathering statistics."
(_)
jim rozen
>It sounds like you're still stuck on a more specific (Christian)
>example, when I am clearly talking about a very general, Intelligent
>Design concept (one that could easily allow for evolution).
Ok. If you say hey there was a design and it included one
species of animal developing into another. But if you
say that it was all created just the way we see it now,
then you can rest assured that whoever designed this stuff
was a world-class fuckup.
Just look at the human back. Now there's a goofup right there.
And just why don't women have their... oh nevermind. But
that was clearly a goof too.
Jim
===================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at watson dot ibm dot com
===================================
High Plains Thumper
news:3dd840f3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> "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 mind." (Albert Einstien)
>
> slight details of an "illimitable, superior spirit" in nature... (a
> spirit he is even so bold to refer to as a "himself")
>
> Okay, listen up Jenner, Charles, et al. This one's for you. <g>
>
> I've said before that people are taking too narrow a view of science
> and this is an example of why. The critical error made by many (here)
> is that they (seem to) view science as a fait de compleat - without
> understanding how the process of discovery functions.
>
> But I got news: Being able to understand scientific theories is not
> the same thing as being able to understand science.
>
> You may not need notions about an Intelligent Designer to understand
> (and use) Einstein's theories. This is an important point to keep in
> mind (and maybe also the source of the confusion here).
>
> BUT... leave an Intelligent Designer out of the discussion, and you
> cannot really understand how Einstein came up with his theories. Call
> me silly, but I would say that getting the theories is kind of
> important (or else we'd have nothing to study in high school!).
>
> Einstein was obviously considering the implications of an Intelligence
> at work in the design of nature - that is what lead him to suppose
> certain things.
>
> he had hunches on what things would be like if an intelligence had
> been involved with making things. That's much more important than
> people often realize Einstein expressed this many times, in many
> ways. One that I remember as striking was him saying (roughly), "The
> most amazing thing is that physics works at all!".
>
> As such, the clues provided by supposing an intelligent design
> provided a real paradigm for Einstein to work within.
>
> That's the real value of theories too. Scientists just don't go,
> whilly-nilly, making measurements and experimenting on all things at
> random. They just wouldn't get anywhere that way. Scientists use
> theories to guide them in determining which question (or experiment)
> to conduct next. The choices of experiments to make are made in order
> to strengthen (or weaken) the theory they are currently operating
> under.
>
> So, if the paradigm Einstein was using was Intelligent Design, the
> proof (or disproof) of the propositions he made were (in essence) ways
> of testing the validity of that paradigm, were they not? Of course.
> And that's just how science works.
>
> So - as a side-bar - for those who don't know what the scientific
> proofs of Intelligent Design are... There you are, if you must have
> them.
>
> No, there's no smoking gun and it's not written in 10 foot tall, bold
> letters on billboards. But for other theories as well, there's no
> smoking gun either. Confidence in a theory simply builds and builds
> as more experiments agree with its projections. This isn't CNN -
> where you get a single, sound-bite moment that says, "The existence of
> God was proved today!"
>
> In the case of Einstein, you might want to regard the supposition of
> Intelligent Design as a paradigm (bigger than a theory), but that's a
> minor distinction, since paradigms are a part of science as well.
>
> Call it what you will. It is not possible to pretend this idea does
> not play a part in the ongoing search for knowledge - especially in
> the theoretical aspects of science. Cutting it out (for the purposes
> of political correctness) leaves you with just a disembowled cadaver -
> not the breathing, living thing that real science is.
>
> Science is more than understanding the theories. It's also
> understanding how theories are arived at. And how theories compete.
> And how they weaken and how they are overthrown and replaced
> periodically.
>
> Maybe, if your only exposure to science has been via the teaching
> received within a high school classroom, you might have been tempted
> to think that the few assumptions needed for *understanding* the
> theories is all there is. That's understandable, but there's more to
> it than that.
Congrats, Don, for hitting the mother lode! Last couple threads you started
still keep going, and going, and going . . . The Eveready Rabbit would have
been proud of you!
Charles Soto
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:18:10 -0500, "Aaron Fix"
> <af...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> > To me, that type of counter is not persuasive. It's the same sort of
> >> method people use to make anything they want associated with whatever
> >> they fancy; like making John Ashcroft the moral equivalent of Bin
> >> Laden.
> >
> >Ashcroft and Bin Laden are more alike than many people would like to admit,
> >especially in their religious narrow-mindedness. The difference is that Bin
> >Laden is a mass murderer.
>
> That's sounds pretty bad! Say, whadya think about passing a law that
> prohibits those evangelical Christians and practicing Muslims from
> holding public office to protect everyone's freedoms? Let's do it for
> the children. ;)
Maybe yer not so stupid after all :)
Road Glidin' Don
<ghos...@plateautel.net> wrote:
>Congrats, Don, for hitting the mother lode! Last couple threads you started
>still keep going, and going, and going . . . The Eveready Rabbit would have
>been proud of you!
I'm gonna have to cut back on this, or else the mother lode might hit
*me* soon. ;)
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
Ok, now THAT was funny!
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
>I was working in the lab, late one night
> When I heard the gugle of a water pipe.
>There was my monster, engulfed in smoke, he said
> "This shit aint bad, man, have a toke."
>
>(We smoked some hash) We smoked some Monster Hash.
>(We smoked some hash) It was his personal stash
>(of monster hash) We got completel trashed
>(on monster hash) We smoked som monster hash.
Am I the only one here who loses bladder control at the thought that
these are the words of a man who designs guidance systems for weapons
of mass destruction for a living?
jenner
<Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2002, jenner <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX> smacked the keyboard and out
>came news:41vatu8g81n3sg50g...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:15:35 GMT, langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road
>> Glidin' Don) 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 mind." (Albert Einstien)
>>
>> This proves nothing, Don, except that you are persistent.
>
>It might have proven that Einstein was trying to be diplomatic and disarm
>people with religious proclivities who might take offense and raise
>resistance to a more mechanistic instead of an animistic universe.
>
>And while he privately professed to Atheist tendencies, he may well have been
>more of an Agnostic (not believing in god, but willing to accept the
>possibility) or deist (believing in god, but not subscribing to faith in the
>tenents of the Bible).
>
>Given the times, publicly hedging might have been a good idea,
I would hazard to guess the same about Thomas Jefferson.
Here's some quotes for you all:
Too many of the Christian Religion forget the words of our founding
fathers when it suits them. Here is a reminder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the right to suicide..if this is a "Christian Nation", then
only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy
issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only
if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian
nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-- Thomas Jefferson
The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
-- George Washington
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or
no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my
own church.
-- Thomas Paine
Question with boldness even the existance of God; because if there be
one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of
blindfolded Fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity
been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places,
pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the
laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
-- James Madison
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the
private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the
church and the state forever separated.
-- Ulysses S. Grant
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with
which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent
that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a
history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize
mankind.
-- Thomas Paine
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example
of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the
Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme
Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the
generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-- George Bush
"The notion that it is one man's duty that another should be religious
was the foundation of all the religious persecutions ever perpetrated,
and, if admitted, would fully justify them. Though the feeling which
breaks out in the repeated attempts to stop railway travel on Sunday,
in the resistance to the opening of museums, and the like, has not the
cruelty of the old persecutors, the state of mind indicated by it is
fundamentally the same. It is a determination not to tolerate others
in doing what is permitted by their religion, because it is not
permitted by the persecutor's religion. It is a belief that God not
only abominates the act of the misbeliever, but will not hold us
guiltless if we leave him unmolested." --John Stuart Mill (1859)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
>Too many of the Christian Religion forget the words of our founding
>fathers when it suits them. Here is a reminder.
>
>As for the right to suicide..if this is a "Christian Nation", then
>only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy
>issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only
>if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian
>nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
>-- Thomas Jefferson
snip
Hey, while we're remembering our illustrious past let's also not
forget these people were RICH WHITE SLAVE OWNERS. The original
inspiration for the stereotype of greedy Capitalist pigs who put
profit and personal gain over everything including morality, humanity
and yes even god.
Personally I've never met anyone who has a *true* understanding of
their chosen religion and is ok with this sort of thing. If you'll
notice most of the world's spiritual doctrines teach things opposite
to destruction and greed.
I find it funny that the supposedly open minded and humanistic
atheists selectively forget the sins of their forefathers just as
often as the Jesus types when setting up their strawmen in the
cornfield.
StephG
smacked the keyboard and out came news:3dd5ac93...@news.prodigy.net:
> Hey, while we're remembering our illustrious past let's also not
> forget these people were RICH WHITE SLAVE OWNERS. The original
> inspiration for the stereotype of greedy Capitalist pigs who put
> profit and personal gain over everything including morality, humanity
> and yes even god.
Some were opposed to slavery, but in order to assemble a nation from scratch,
had to compromise their principles for the greater good.
They weren't exactly prepared to fight the Civil War in 1776 at the same time
they were fighting the British.
You might want to research who it was who *started* the slave trade and
hooked Europe (and then Spain and then America) on the economics of slaves.
It wasn't rich white people:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html
Alan Moore
No, actually it was a group called the Toyes that wrote that. And I
don't design the things, I tell the designers where they screwed up.
Also the builders, testers, users...
Al Moore
DoD 734
Rick Damiani
>That's sounds pretty bad! Say, whadya think about passing a law that
>prohibits those evangelical Christians and practicing Muslims from
>holding public office to protect everyone's freedoms? Let's do it for
>the children. ;)
I'm all for it. Then we could start working on real problems (crime,
poverty, taxes, the death of the domestic mold-making industry), and
not spend so much time on nonsense like prayer in schools and
abortion.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani
and no one will talk to a host that's close .... ri...@nospam.paton.com
Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... ri...@nospam.earthlink.net
is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659
'99 Triumph Sprint ST (Guppy) ....... '86 Yamaha Radian (Fire Breather)
Rick Damiani
>Thanks for the quotes. I was aware that Einstein was hard to pin down
>on the subject and that there has been much debate over what the heck
>you'd correctly call him.
It's funny. Two people read the exact same thing and come away from it
with wildly different ideas. Don fixes on Al's use of the word 'God'
as if Al meant the same thing he does, while Dr. Ober seems to think
that Al's God and Don's God have nothing in common beyond the name.
As much as I like reading Don's flights of fancy on this one, I think
I'll have to go with the good doctor here. Sorry Don.
Rick Damiani
>Am I the only one here who loses bladder control at the thought that
>these are the words of a man who designs guidance systems for weapons
>of mass destruction for a living?
Thanks for reminding me. I'm going to hide under the bed now.
Rick Damiani
>>You began by
>>claiming that in some sort of a multicultural interest, they should teach
>>this "intelligent design" thing in the schools.
>
>That's still a good argument.
No, it's not. Its the worst one you tried.
>Fundamentalist Christianity going too
>far in one way, and pure secularists going too far the other. The
>whole premise of what I argued was to find a half-way position. That
>sort of thing engenders tolerance and more understanding. It also
>gives expression to what a majority of people are going to think, no
>matter what, anyway.
The majority of people are *not* christians. A sizeable fraction of
that non-christian population believes in more than one God. A
'multi-cultural' approach that ignores all the poly-theists is about a
'multi-cultural' as the menu at McDonalds.
I know an immigrant who avoided saying the pledge of allegiance as a
child because she didn't know which God this nation was under, and she
didn't want to upset any of them. Tell me how you would teach ID to
this child.
Rick Damiani
>Einstein seems to have cherished the belief that, at bottom, there is
>an objective reality which, once we get more knowledge and insight, we
>will be able to discern with certainty.
...though we now know this to be incorrect. He did to, after he did
some more work on the subject. The observer cannot be separated from
the phenomena observed, as the very act of observing pins whatever
property you are looking at, generating uncertainty in whatever you
are not looking at.
Before you start talking physics, it would help if you understood it.
Rick Damiani
<snip>
Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
That's not proof.
Road Glidin' Don
Brings up images of Donald Sutherland, in Kelly's Heroes.
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>
>>Einstein seems to have cherished the belief that, at bottom, there is
>>an objective reality which, once we get more knowledge and insight, we
>>will be able to discern with certainty.
>
>...though we now know this to be incorrect. He did to, after he did
>some more work on the subject. The observer cannot be separated from
>the phenomena observed, as the very act of observing pins whatever
>property you are looking at, generating uncertainty in whatever you
>are not looking at.
>
>Before you start talking physics, it would help if you understood it.
Having taken 2 university courses in quantum physics [1], I'm familiar
with the theory, Rick. I believe it's known as the Uncertainty
Principle.
I wasn't talking about 'observe' but the point is that our not being
able to observe with infinite accuracy does not prove an objective
reality fails to exist.
[1] Which is maybe 2 more than you. How much do *you* understand,
Rick?
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>
>
>>>You began by
>>>claiming that in some sort of a multicultural interest, they should teach
>>>this "intelligent design" thing in the schools.
>>
>>That's still a good argument.
>
>No, it's not. Its the worst one you tried.
It might help if you first understood what was being proposed. See
below.
>>Fundamentalist Christianity going too
>>far in one way, and pure secularists going too far the other. The
>>whole premise of what I argued was to find a half-way position. That
>>sort of thing engenders tolerance and more understanding. It also
>>gives expression to what a majority of people are going to think, no
>>matter what, anyway.
>
>The majority of people are *not* christians. A sizeable fraction of
>that non-christian population believes in more than one God. A
>'multi-cultural' approach that ignores all the poly-theists is about a
>'multi-cultural' as the menu at McDonalds.
Sometimes I have to make this correction so many times, I wonder if
what's written has even been read. Theism, Rick. Not Christianity.
Not a specific religion. Just a higher being (even beings, if you
prefer).
It's like people are often locked into the mindset of 'us' against the
Christians and cannot concieve of anything else. People have to be
either black or white, it seems.
How is it that you can be so sure that what I'm proposing is terribly
wrong, when you obviously don't even understand what is being
proposed?
>I know an immigrant who avoided saying the pledge of allegiance as a
>child because she didn't know which God this nation was under, and she
>didn't want to upset any of them. Tell me how you would teach ID to
>this child.
Completely off-base.
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
>posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
>That's not proof.
Maybe the Uncertainty Principle is preventing you from seeing it!
Artie Turner
>>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>>>>You began by
>>>>claiming that in some sort of a multicultural interest, they should teach
>>>>this "intelligent design" thing in the schools.
>>>
>>>That's still a good argument.
>>
>>No, it's not. Its the worst one you tried.
> It might help if you first understood what was being proposed. See
> below.
This reminds me of the Monty Python skit: "I'm here for an argument."
"No you're not..."
>>>Fundamentalist Christianity going too
>>>far in one way, and pure secularists going too far the other. The
>>>whole premise of what I argued was to find a half-way position. That
>>>sort of thing engenders tolerance and more understanding. It also
>>>gives expression to what a majority of people are going to think, no
>>>matter what, anyway.
>>
>>The majority of people are *not* christians. A sizeable fraction of
>>that non-christian population believes in more than one God. A
>>'multi-cultural' approach that ignores all the poly-theists is about a
>>'multi-cultural' as the menu at McDonalds.
This is also a great reason for a non-denominational ID: there are
billions out there who practice religion. Billions who are always on the
verge of war or strife of some sort due to religious differences. ID
could be used as an ecumenical tool to find commonality between religions.
> Sometimes I have to make this correction so many times, I wonder if
> what's written has even been read. Theism, Rick. Not Christianity.
> Not a specific religion. Just a higher being (even beings, if you
> prefer).
>
> It's like people are often locked into the mindset of 'us' against the
> Christians and cannot concieve of anything else. People have to be
> either black or white, it seems.
That's exactly what's happening here. You've started a remarkably
long-lived thread here, Don, but there's very little 'progress' being made.
You'd think that with the vast majority of the Earth's population
professing faith in some form of religion that this impulse to
"religiosity" would be a valid subject of scientific endeavor.
This is why I think religion and psychiatry are so closely related: they
both attempt to deal with the mysterious human psyche. The Pure
Scientists want to tell us that the human psyche is simply biochemistry.
The Fundamentalists give us a equally unsatisfactory explanation for our
human condition.
>
> How is it that you can be so sure that what I'm proposing is terribly
> wrong, when you obviously don't even understand what is being
> proposed?
I suspect that the act of public arguing is the real goal here.
>
>
>>I know an immigrant who avoided saying the pledge of allegiance as a
>>child because she didn't know which God this nation was under, and she
>>didn't want to upset any of them. Tell me how you would teach ID to
>>this child.
Yeah, Don, show him the course outline. ;^)
>
>
> Completely off-base.
Don, do you think you've made any converts in this latest "crusade" or
"experiment?" Do you think anyone *really* understands your point of view?
Steve Makohin
langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) 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 mind." (Albert Einstien)
[snip a bunch of religious stuff]
This type of material has nothing to do with motorcycles. I suggest
you take it to a more appropriate theological news group.
-Steve Makohin | Reply to wate...@interlog.com
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
jenner
and the Gladiatores) wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:59:28 GMT, jenner <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX> wrote:
>
>>Too many of the Christian Religion forget the words of our founding
>>fathers when it suits them. Here is a reminder.
>>
>>As for the right to suicide..if this is a "Christian Nation", then
>>only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy
>>issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only
>>if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian
>>nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
>>-- Thomas Jefferson
>snip
>
>Hey, while we're remembering our illustrious past let's also not
>forget these people were RICH WHITE SLAVE OWNERS.
Good reminder.
jenner
wrote:
>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
>posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
>That's not proof.
Sure it is. It's called Proof by Assertion. :)
jenner
Glidin' Don) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:38:28 -0800, Rick Damiani <no...@notme.com>
>wrote:
>
>>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
>>posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
>>That's not proof.
>
>Maybe the Uncertainty Principle is preventing you from seeing it!
Yeah. That's it. I'm uncertain you really understand what the
scientific method is.
Sagan explains it well in, _The Demon Haunted World, Science
as a Candle in the Dark_.
Al Fresco
>>>only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy
>>>issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only
>>>if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian
>>>nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
>>>-- Thomas Jefferson
I had no idea Jefferson's English was this bad.
It's like an excerpt from a junior high essay.
And they were using the adjective "touchy" in the eighteenth century,
apparently. That comes as news.
"Only God theoretically has the right to take a life." I guess basic syntax
was beyond the grasp of America's first Renaissance man.
http://www.littletinywit.com/Column_11062002.html - Belgian Beer and Small
Breasts
http://www.littletinywit.com/Column_11022002.html - Cartoons and Beer
I sit in judgment.
Road Glidin' Don
>>>>As for the right to suicide..if this is a "Christian Nation", then
>>>>only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy
>>>>issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only
>>>>if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian
>>>>nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
>>>>-- Thomas Jefferson
>
>I had no idea Jefferson's English was this bad.
>
>It's like an excerpt from a junior high essay.
>
>And they were using the adjective "touchy" in the eighteenth century,
>apparently. That comes as news.
>
>"Only God theoretically has the right to take a life." I guess basic syntax
>was beyond the grasp of America's first Renaissance man.
I'd agree with what Jenner said, that it's wrong to characterize the
U.S. Constitution's framers as the Christians some choose to imagine
them. The closer equivalent to our times might be the New Age
movement (hey, whatever happened to those folks?).
Road Glidin' Don
Sing it with me, boys! "I once was blind, but now I see..." ;)
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>> How is it that you can be so sure that what I'm proposing is terribly
>> wrong, when you obviously don't even understand what is being
>> proposed?
<snip>
>
>> Completely off-base.
>
>Don, do you think you've made any converts in this latest "crusade" or
>"experiment?" Do you think anyone *really* understands your point of view?
No and No. I think I'm going slowly nuts up here, Artie! How many
days is it now, 'till Spring?
Dave Slavik
> Brings up images of Donald Sutherland, in Kelly's Heroes.
Heh, same thing happens when I see pictures of you Don! :)
<Ducking and Running>
Road Glidin' Don
Far out, man! <g>
mm
news:3dd5a4aa...@news.prodigy.net...
> >> I wouldn't expect Einstein to be sitting in a church pew singing
> >> "Jesus Loves Me", if he were still alive,
> >
> >Good guess, since he was a Jew.
>
>
> Ok, now THAT was funny!
ROTFLMAO
mm
> No and No. I think I'm going slowly nuts up here, Artie! How many
> days is it now, 'till Spring?
The bad news is, it's still over a month until winter even begins.
Dog Exhaust
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:38:31 -0800, Rick Damiani <no...@notme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
> >
> >>Einstein seems to have cherished the belief that, at bottom, there is
> >>an objective reality which, once we get more knowledge and insight, we
> >>will be able to discern with certainty.
> >
> >...though we now know this to be incorrect. He did to, after he did
> >some more work on the subject. The observer cannot be separated from
> >the phenomena observed, as the very act of observing pins whatever
> >property you are looking at, generating uncertainty in whatever you
> >are not looking at.
> >
> >Before you start talking physics, it would help if you understood it.
>
> Having taken 2 university courses in quantum physics [1], I'm familiar
> with the theory, Rick. I believe it's known as the Uncertainty
> Principle.
With that background, you are qualified to teach physics at King's
University College of Edmonton.
StephG
came news:ikqctu0d7j9hofpjr...@4ax.com:
Reminds me of a CG short named "Bingo". In which a guy is sitting in a chair
and a parade of characters keep calling him "Bingo" and intimidate him to the
point where he really believes he *is* "Bingo the Clown-O".
--
~---(_) Steph Greenberg
(>/ "It's all fun and games until someone
)/ starts gathering statistics."
(_)
Jerome O'Neil
"Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores" <ne...@casputana.it> wrote in message
[Snip Bongage]
> Am I the only one here who loses bladder control at the thought that
> these are the words of a man who designs guidance systems for weapons
> of mass destruction for a living?
I am pleased that it is so, and take it as further evidence that God loves
us, and wants us to be happy.
--
Captain of the High School Varsity Bong Squad
Jerome O'Neil
> Up to here, though. Real science could never begin to even look at this
> problem.
Real science looks at this problem every day.
--
Submergo ergo sum
Road Glidin' Don
<Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2002, jenner <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX> smacked the keyboard and out
>came news:ikqctu0d7j9hofpjr...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:38:28 -0800, Rick Damiani <no...@notme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
>>>posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
>>>That's not proof.
>>
>> Sure it is. It's called Proof by Assertion. :)
>
>Reminds me of a CG short named "Bingo". In which a guy is sitting in a chair
>and a parade of characters keep calling him "Bingo" and intimidate him to the
>point where he really believes he *is* "Bingo the Clown-O".
In a psychology course I took, they taught about a phenomena just like
that, so it may be truer than it appears. On the general subject of
how our senses can decieve; the powerful effects of social pressure
was looked at.
Apparently, it's been tested and shown that if you take an unwitting
subject and place him in a room with a large number of individuals
(who you have pre-arranged with to screw him up), you can almost
always (over 90% of the time, I recall) get the loner to agree to
almost anything - even something he starts off absolutely convinced of
(e.g. black is not white).
The lone individual will eventually cave to the majority opinion, if
the numbers on the other side are large, in complete unison and
display a great deal of conviction.
I feel like that frickin' individual here sometimes. <g>
Jerome O'Neil
> Maybe the Uncertainty Principle is preventing you from seeing it!
Then you should be quoting Heisenberg, not Einstien.
--
Submergo ergo sum
StephG
keyboard and out came news:3ddea9a8....@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
> On 16 Nov 2002 19:59:30 GMT, StephG
><Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>Reminds me of a CG short named "Bingo". In which a guy is sitting in a
>>chair and a parade of characters keep calling him "Bingo" and intimidate
>>him to the point where he really believes he *is* "Bingo the Clown-O".
> The lone individual will eventually cave to the majority opinion, if
> the numbers on the other side are large, in complete unison and
> display a great deal of conviction.
>
> I feel like that frickin' individual here sometimes. <g>
We are the Borg of Reeky. Resistance is futile. You *will* be assimilated.
Road Glidin' Don
<Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2002, langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) smacked the
>keyboard and out came news:3ddea9a8....@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2002 19:59:30 GMT, StephG
>><Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>>Reminds me of a CG short named "Bingo". In which a guy is sitting in a
>>>chair and a parade of characters keep calling him "Bingo" and intimidate
>>>him to the point where he really believes he *is* "Bingo the Clown-O".
>
>> The lone individual will eventually cave to the majority opinion, if
>> the numbers on the other side are large, in complete unison and
>> display a great deal of conviction.
>>
>> I feel like that frickin' individual here sometimes. <g>
>
>We are the Borg of Reeky. Resistance is futile. You *will* be assimilated.
I'm just holding out for a place next to 7 of 9.
Cam Penner
says...
> On 16 Nov 2002 21:14:11 GMT, StephG
> <Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Nov 2002, langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) smacked the
> >keyboard and out came news:3ddea9a8....@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
> >
> >> On 16 Nov 2002 19:59:30 GMT, StephG
> >><Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Reminds me of a CG short named "Bingo". In which a guy is sitting in a
> >>>chair and a parade of characters keep calling him "Bingo" and intimidate
> >>>him to the point where he really believes he *is* "Bingo the Clown-O".
> >
> >> The lone individual will eventually cave to the majority opinion, if
> >> the numbers on the other side are large, in complete unison and
> >> display a great deal of conviction.
> >>
> >> I feel like that frickin' individual here sometimes. <g>
> >
> >We are the Borg of Reeky. Resistance is futile. You *will* be assimilated.
>
> I'm just holding out for a place next to 7 of 9.
As long as I get slot 8. Right between the 7 and 9....
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350
jenner
Glidin' Don) wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2002 16:13:28 GMT, dpth...@aol.commode (Al Fresco) wrote:
>
>>>>>As for the right to suicide..if this is a "Christian Nation", then
>>>>>only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy
>>>>>issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only
>>>>>if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian
>>>>>nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
>>>>>-- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>>I had no idea Jefferson's English was this bad.
>>
>>It's like an excerpt from a junior high essay.
>>
>>And they were using the adjective "touchy" in the eighteenth century,
>>apparently. That comes as news.
>>
>>"Only God theoretically has the right to take a life." I guess basic syntax
>>was beyond the grasp of America's first Renaissance man.
>
>I'd agree with what Jenner said, that it's wrong to characterize the
>U.S. Constitution's framers as the Christians some choose to imagine
>them. The closer equivalent to our times might be the New Age
>movement (hey, whatever happened to those folks?).
Basically, they were products of their culture. This means much
of their language grew from Christian underpinnings. This doesn't
mean they believed in a particular God. How many people here
have said "Jesus!" or "Oh, my God," who don't really believe.
Religious language permeates our culture. Just because someone
uses some of that language doesn't make them a believer, though
it tends to be held onto tightly by latter day believers, trying to
read into the minds of the long dead.
Our founding fathers were suspect of religion, some of them
were atheists, many were Deists.
jenner
Glidin' Don) wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:55:40 GMT, Artie Turner <art...@swbell.nyet>
>wrote:
>
>>> How is it that you can be so sure that what I'm proposing is terribly
>>> wrong, when you obviously don't even understand what is being
>>> proposed?
><snip>
>>
>>> Completely off-base.
>>
>>Don, do you think you've made any converts in this latest "crusade" or
>>"experiment?" Do you think anyone *really* understands your point of view?
>
>No and No. I think I'm going slowly nuts up here, Artie! How many
>days is it now, 'till Spring?
too many as long as you keep this crap up! BIG :)
Don Fearn
with:
>How many people here
>have said "Jesus!" or "Oh, my God," who don't really believe.
What do atheists[*] yell out when they reach orgasm?
.
.
.
"OOOOOH RANDOM! OOOOOH CHANCE!!"
[*] presumably agnostics, too
pooder was here adding a vital piece to this ID thread
"We have enough youth; let's start looking for the Fountain of Sense." --Anon
keith s.
>
>On 16 Nov 2002, langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) smacked the
>keyboard and out came news:3ddea9a8....@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2002 19:59:30 GMT, StephG
>><Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>>Reminds me of a CG short named "Bingo". In which a guy is sitting in a
>>>chair and a parade of characters keep calling him "Bingo" and intimidate
>>>him to the point where he really believes he *is* "Bingo the Clown-O".
>
>> The lone individual will eventually cave to the majority opinion, if
>> the numbers on the other side are large, in complete unison and
>> display a great deal of conviction.
>>
>> I feel like that frickin' individual here sometimes. <g>
>
>We are the Borg of Reeky. Resistance is futile. You *will* be assimilated.
>
>--
8^) ASSimilate this bub... ,,I,,
It's real simple guys I don't know how many times I gotta tell youse
fellas....sheesh.
all together on three
a one
a two
DEMI SIDDOWN! you to STEPH!
a three
I am that
You are that
This is that
AND that is all there is.
that will be$24.95HKD as you leave the tent. buhbye bye g'bye see yah buhbye!
Life is...motrorcickles is...people of the gender of your choice is. what more
is there eh? WHO GIVES A FUCK EXCEPT AS MENTAL MASTURBATION!!!!!
Which is all you none matured adolecents have engaged
in...jesuschristmaryandfuckin'joseph talk about something sensable...Like how
unbelievably UGLY the Ducati 999 is or how small the tank on the XB9R is...what
was buell thinking?
Nefarious Necromancer 42nd class
The human language is like a cracked kettle on which we beat out a tune
for a dancing bear, when we hope with our music to move the stars.
- Gustave Flaubert
systems can be subverted but virgins can be cured.
StephG
keyboard and out came news:20021117003446...@mb-bk.aol.com:
> unbelievably UGLY the Ducati 999 is or how small the tank on the XB9R
> is...what was buell thinking?
There's a lot of things about the XB9R that makes you wonder what Buell was
thinking. It's made for midgets, and they should have demanded the VRSCA
engine for their next generation bikes.
Is that better?
Rick Damiani
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:38:31 -0800, Rick Damiani <no...@notme.com>
>wrote:
>
>>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>>
>>>Einstein seems to have cherished the belief that, at bottom, there is
>>>an objective reality which, once we get more knowledge and insight, we
>>>will be able to discern with certainty.
>>
>>...though we now know this to be incorrect. He did to, after he did
>>some more work on the subject. The observer cannot be separated from
>>the phenomena observed, as the very act of observing pins whatever
>>property you are looking at, generating uncertainty in whatever you
>>are not looking at.
>>
>>Before you start talking physics, it would help if you understood it.
>
>Having taken 2 university courses in quantum physics [1], I'm familiar
>with the theory, Rick. I believe it's known as the Uncertainty
>Principle.
If you are familiar with it and it's implications *and* know when the
theorem was developed, why did you post the above?
>I wasn't talking about 'observe' but the point is that our not being
>able to observe with infinite accuracy does not prove an objective
>reality fails to exist.
Experiments designed to show the existence of an objective reality at
the sub-atomic level actually managed to show the opposite. There is
no objective reality, only statistical norms. As hard as it is to
understand, until someone looks at it, Shrodinger's cat really is both
alive and dead.
>[1] Which is maybe 2 more than you. How much do *you* understand,
>Rick?
I took two years (four semesters) of physics, one year (two semesters)
of chemistry, and 2 years (four semesters) of calculus. This was more
than 10 years ago, though, so I'm more than a little rusty. Wanna
compare grades next? SAT scores? Income? Or should we just skip right
to penis size comparisons?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani
and no one will talk to a host that's close .... ri...@nospam.paton.com
Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... ri...@nospam.earthlink.net
is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659
'99 Triumph Sprint ST (Guppy) ....... '86 Yamaha Radian (Fire Breather)
Rick Damiani
>No, actually it was a group called the Toyes that wrote that. And I
>don't design the things, I tell the designers where they screwed up.
>Also the builders, testers, users...
Wouldn't the absence of an explosion be evidence enough?
Rick Damiani
>But, even still, Einstein is obviously bringing in a belief system,
>when he debates Bohr on that point, is he not? In spite of the
>evidence indicating that aspects of subatomic physics were truly
>"unknowable", he still held to a belief that it was - with no real
>evidence to back up that claim.
IIRC, Einstein made the statement about God playing dice when
uncertainty was first proposed. He, like most 'classical' physicists,
was not comfortable with some of the implications of uncertainty.
Given it's effect on causality and conservation, this is hardly
surprising.
Rick Damiani
>Sometimes I have to make this correction so many times, I wonder if
>what's written has even been read. Theism, Rick. Not Christianity.
>Not a specific religion. Just a higher being (even beings, if you
>prefer).
Buddhism, Don. No higher power, no quest for explanations.
Confucianism, Don, no higher power, a quest for wisdom. Not everyone
is comfortable with the idea of a higher power, nor would they be
willing to view the universe as the embodiment of a higher power's (or
a committee of higher powers') will. How would you remain relevant to
that?
>It's like people are often locked into the mindset of 'us' against the
>Christians and cannot concieve of anything else. People have to be
>either black or white, it seems.
You are the one locked into a euro-centric theist mindset. The largest
nation in the world does *not* have a theist mindset. Their beliefs
are wide-spread among the people of the far east.
>How is it that you can be so sure that what I'm proposing is terribly
>wrong, when you obviously don't even understand what is being
>proposed?
I think I understand it better than you might imagine. It's hardly a
new concept, and you are hardly the first one to bring it to my
attention.
>>I know an immigrant who avoided saying the pledge of allegiance as a
>>child because she didn't know which God this nation was under, and she
>>didn't want to upset any of them. Tell me how you would teach ID to
>>this child.
>
>Completely off-base.
In what way? ID brings religion into the classroom. Once you've done
that, you either *force* the teachers to approach religion in a
block-lettered generic sort of way that offends *everyone* and
requires you to monitor their presentations lest any brand names creep
in, or you let them put their personal spin on ID creating, in effect,
a number of different official religions, with the particular one
*your* child gets exposed to selected by their teacher's beliefs. Not
yours. As someone who professes a devout faith in God and Christ, I am
surprised that you actually think this is a good or useful idea.
religion is (or it damn well ought to be) an intensely personal
experience. As such, it is something that parents, and *only* parents,
should have direct involvement in. Not the schools. Schools are good
at dispensing facts and teaching skills. They are good at providing a
framework for and the intellectual tools to investigate things in a
detached, scholarly kind of way. They are completely and utterly
incapable of providing enlightenment, and should not make an attempt
to do so.
Faith, like morality, comes from within. It is the job of the parents
to lead their children to faith and to help them build their moral
compass. This is far too important a task to relegate to a school
system already overwhelmed by basic skills instruction.
Rick Damiani
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:38:28 -0800, Rick Damiani <no...@notme.com>
>wrote:
>
>>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
>>posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
>>That's not proof.
>
>Sure it is. It's called Proof by Assertion. :)
Isn't that one of the logical fallacies? I always get them confused.
Rick Damiani
>This is also a great reason for a non-denominational ID: there are
>billions out there who practice religion. Billions who are always on the
>verge of war or strife of some sort due to religious differences. ID
>could be used as an ecumenical tool to find commonality between religions.
A fine-sounding idea until you look at the differences between some of
these sects that are at war with each other. For many of them, the
differences are only apparent to themselves.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with cultural awareness. Nor would a
comparative study of the world's major religions be out of place. I
can see tremendous value in such an approach, provided it can be done
without making value judgements. My problem with Don's idea is that
this is *not* an appropriate thing for the science department to be
dealing with. It's a humanities thing, and belongs with the rest of
the art and culture studies.
If, for some reason, you feel that this grouping demeans the subject,
then perhaps you need to re-evaluate the value you place on
humanities. We have no trouble at all with the idea that a
hypothetical race of aliens will understand our science and have
developed one of their own that is essentially the same as ours. We
would be greatly surprised if they developed our culture, art forms,
and beliefs.
Rick Damiani
<cam.pennerATpleasedontsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Even if 9 is fat, harry, greasy, and doesn't believe in soap and
water?
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
<Frankenbikeea...@lycos.com> wrote:
>Some were opposed to slavery, but in order to assemble a nation from scratch,
>had to compromise their principles for the greater good.
>
>They weren't exactly prepared to fight the Civil War in 1776 at the same time
>they were fighting the British.
>
>You might want to research who it was who *started* the slave trade and
>hooked Europe (and then Spain and then America) on the economics of slaves.
>It wasn't rich white people:
Irrelevant. The original economy of the USA was exclusively built on
slave labor and exploitation of the Native American.
The Bill of Rights only applied to **rich white males**. Virtually all
of the freedom fighters that Jenner quoted (in the common vernacular
of today I might add) were slave owners that also had no problem with
giving women virtually no legally recognized rights to property or
politics.
America has only been a truly free nation in the humanist perspective
for a few decades at best and it seems that many Americans find that
so patently offensive they're busily trying to turn back the clock.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
> the death of the domestic mold-making industry
I guess we should all not wash our athletic cups for awhile and help
the cause...
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
> Or should we just skip right to penis size comparisons?
I have 360GB of online storage for any video that may ensue.
Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores
wrote:
> As someone who professes a devout faith in God and Christ, I am
>surprised that you actually think this is a good or useful idea.
>
>religion is (or it damn well ought to be) an intensely personal
>experience. As such, it is something that parents, and *only* parents,
>should have direct involvement in. Not the schools.
Ah well now we're getting to the meat of the potatoes as my broken
english uncle would say.
Yeah, religion is intensely personal and I'm fairly certain Don would
have a real problem with me teaching his kids about true religion of
man, Satanism. Yet here he is proposing concepts like omnipotent
beings designing the universe which smell a lot like his own chosen
religion of judeo-christianity. All the while trying to convince us
that his personal beliefs and cultural experiences have no bearing at
all on this ID concept... it's just scientific fact.
His arguments with what's "wrong" about science really just boil down
to the fact that some people don't give a rat's ass about any
supernatural beings. That some people vehemently eschew religion
period or that some people believe in supernatural beings that Don
would find offensive, like Dionyseus god of wine and debauchery. It
can't be that science itself is a failure, because from the moment it
was allowed free reign it has produced more innovations (like the
Harley Don rides, thought the innovative part has since passed) than
any other movement in mankind's history.
So of course being the open minded individual he claims to be, what
could be more proper than to make his view on the supernatural THE
view? To introduce it into the sciences as fact so that all the poor
children being raised by wiccan lesbians who drink their own menstrual
blood on the equinox have a half-chance of getting their godless souls
enlightened?
Am I being an asshole? Most likely, but then again I'm not trying to
tell anyone what kind of faith they should profess in and yes it takes
a major leap of faith to believe in something that is by default
unknowable. Perhaps Don is so naive as to think his intenions noble
and he actually feels that all us godless materialists (as he
apparently sees the secular types that don't go to church as often as
they should) could benefit from a little sip of that spirit he's been
tippling. And if you want to pass, not to worry. We'll restrain you
and cram it down your throat (or more precisely your child's)
regardless.
"It's for you own good!" That familiar battle cry that makes the
mindless swoon and intellectuals cringe the world over. For every time
it is uttered, yet another freedom is about to be sacrificed for
someone's holy cow of a cause.
Well sorry, I don't like having to do business with certain companies
by law, I don't like wearing my seatbelt, I don't like criminalizing
common human behaviors that leave no victims, I don't like closing
bars entirely too early and I don't like schools teaching my kids
anything beyond the basics.
In fact I don't like the concept of public schooling period. If Ayn
Rand got one thing right is that the government should abandon this
vile brainwashing and allow the parents to send their kids to the free
market school of choice. Annoying childless yuppies like myself won't
have to pony up the dosh to get someone's little genii educated and
parents too will save cause they'll only have to pay as long as their
kids are being schooled, not as long as they earn a taxable income or
own taxable property which is a hell of a lot longer than the 12 years
it takes to knock some sense into their little skulls.
Besides I can freely attest that as delivered college graduates are
damn near useless without constant supervision. The school of hard
knocks is the one that delivers the graduatory blow and separates the
"has beans" from the "almost rans".
My spell checker keeps trying to correct "Don" with "done" and I'm
sure the Intelligent Designer is sending this as an omen to RGD. He's
tired of hearing all this babble and will destroy us all with a giant
asteroid blast if we don't cease this mindless drivel right this
instant!
Jim Upchurch
"Rick Damiani"
> langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
> >That's sounds pretty bad! Say, whadya think about passing a law that
> >prohibits those evangelical Christians and practicing Muslims from
> >holding public office to protect everyone's freedoms? Let's do it for
> >the children. ;)
> I'm all for it. Then we could start working on real problems (crime,
> poverty, taxes, the death of the domestic mold-making industry), and
> not spend so much time on nonsense like prayer in schools and
> abortion.
To say people do not tackle social issues because he disagrees with their
moral sense is evidence of a narrow minded extremist. Exactly what he
pretends to oppose !
jim
Artie Turner
> Artie Turner <art...@swbell.nyet> wrote:
>
>
>>This is also a great reason for a non-denominational ID: there are
>>billions out there who practice religion. Billions who are always on the
>>verge of war or strife of some sort due to religious differences. ID
>>could be used as an ecumenical tool to find commonality between religions.
> without making value judgements. My problem with Don's idea is that
> this is *not* an appropriate thing for the science department to be
> dealing with. It's a humanities thing, and belongs with the rest of
> the art and culture studies.
Ideally, ID would bridge both science and humanities. For me, this is
the real value of such a topic. Neither discipline has the scholarly
tools to fully address a subject broad enough to encompass quarks,
Genesis, the Bagvagita, black holes, the Book of the Dead, DNA, Big Bang
etc. The intellectual cross-pollination gives ID its real value.
>
> If, for some reason, you feel that this grouping demeans the subject,
> then perhaps you need to re-evaluate the value you place on
> humanities.
I'll get right on that...
We have no trouble at all with the idea that a
> hypothetical race of aliens will understand our science and have
> developed one of their own that is essentially the same as ours. We
> would be greatly surprised if they developed our culture, art forms,
> and beliefs.
Good! Would "we" be surprised if the alien culture, art, etc. was
similar to ours, like the culture and art of Earth's races are similar
in many ways?
What would that similarity tell us?
AT
>
Dog Exhaust
> Perhaps Don is so naive as to think his intenions noble
> and he actually feels that all us godless materialists (as he
> apparently sees the secular types that don't go to church as often as
> they should) could benefit from a little sip of that spirit he's been
> tippling.
Is this the spirit that exhalts truck drivers who punch motorists in the
face through an open window when the motorists makes a mistake that
supposedly treads upon a certain Harley rider's free use of the road?
jenner
wrote:
>jenner <Xj5n...@Xattbi.comX> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:38:28 -0800, Rick Damiani <no...@notme.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>langkd_...@shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Where is the proof? What you posted was more of what you had already
>>>posted, with some really odd-ball stuff about Einstein thrown in.
>>>That's not proof.
>>
>>Sure it is. It's called Proof by Assertion. :)
>
>Isn't that one of the logical fallacies? I always get them confused.
Heh. Paying attention again, aren't you?
Here's some more. Go for it, Don:
Fallacies of Distraction
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three
options
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is
assumed to be false
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is
drawn
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single
proposition
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing
the author
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely
held to be true
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
1.the person's character is attacked
2.the person's circumstances are noted
3.the person does not practise what is preached
Appeal to Authority:
1.the authority is not an expert in the field
2.experts in the field disagree
3.the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being
serious
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is
presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion
Inductive Fallacies
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive
generalization about a population
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample
as a whole
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly
dissimilar
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is
denied despite the evidence to the contrary
Fallacy of Exclusion:evidence which would change the outcome of an
inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that
there should be an exception
Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a
generalization should apply
Causal Fallacies
Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the
other
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are
both the joint effects of an underlying cause
Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it
is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause
of the effect
Missing the Point
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the
premises
Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion
instead proves a different conclusion
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker
than) the opposition's best argument
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different
interpretations
Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary
to what the sentence actually says
Category Errors
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a
certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that
the parts have that property
Non Sequitur
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B,
therefore A
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A,
thus Not B
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are
both true
Syllogistic Errors
Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected
because they share a common property
Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of
something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the
predicate
Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of
something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the
subject
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative
Premise:as the name implies
Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal
premises
Fallacies of Explanation
Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)
Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)
Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying
causes)
Fallacies of Definition
Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which should
be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand
than the word or concept being defined)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as
a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
Fallacies of Distraction
Each of these fallacies is characterized by the illegitimate use of a
logical operator in order to distract the reader from the apparent
falsity of a certain proposition. The following fallacies are
fallacies of distraction:
False Dilemma (misuse of the "or" operator)
Argument From Ignorance (misuse of the "not" operator)
Slippery Slope (misuse of the "if-then" operator)
Complex Question (misuse of the "and" operator)
The fallacies in this section have in common the practice of appealing
to emotions or other psychological factors. In this way, they do not
provide reasons for belief.
The following fallacies are appeals to motive in place of support:
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Consequences
Prejudicial Language
Appeal to Popularity
jenner
and the Gladiatores) wrote:
>In fact I don't like the concept of public schooling period. If Ayn
>Rand got one thing right is that the government should abandon this
>vile brainwashing and allow the parents to send their kids to the free
>market school of choice. Annoying childless yuppies like myself won't
>have to pony up the dosh to get someone's little genii educated
Blindness like this deserves recognition. It really does.
Road Glidin' Don
wrote:
>Rick Damiani wrote:
>> Artie Turner <art...@swbell.nyet> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is also a great reason for a non-denominational ID: there are
>>>billions out there who practice religion. Billions who are always on the
>>>verge of war or strife of some sort due to religious differences. ID
>>>could be used as an ecumenical tool to find commonality between religions.
>
>> without making value judgements. My problem with Don's idea is that
>> this is *not* an appropriate thing for the science department to be
>> dealing with. It's a humanities thing, and belongs with the rest of
>> the art and culture studies.
>
>Ideally, ID would bridge both science and humanities. For me, this is
>the real value of such a topic. Neither discipline has the scholarly
>tools to fully address a subject broad enough to encompass quarks,
>Genesis, the Bagvagita, black holes, the Book of the Dead, DNA, Big Bang
>etc. The intellectual cross-pollination gives ID its real value.
Good point, Artie.
>> If, for some reason, you feel that this grouping demeans the subject,
>> then perhaps you need to re-evaluate the value you place on
>> humanities.
>
>I'll get right on that...
>
> We have no trouble at all with the idea that a
>> hypothetical race of aliens will understand our science and have
>> developed one of their own that is essentially the same as ours. We
>> would be greatly surprised if they developed our culture, art forms,
>> and beliefs.
>
>Good! Would "we" be surprised if the alien culture, art, etc. was
>similar to ours, like the culture and art of Earth's races are similar
>in many ways?
>
>What would that similarity tell us?
And another. Two in one post!