[Message Deleted]
-
There's only one problem with that last of names. With the exception of Newton, it's unlikely that I could sit down and drink beer with anyone of them and enjoy a good game of 9 ball or billiards with any of them. Oh and one more thing. Your list of noble minds excludes half the population of the world because you have no female minds listed. You sir are an idiot for not including them as well. :zzz:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
-
John Carson wrote:
My understanding of academic selection processes in the US (I can only speak with real knowledge concerning economics departments, but I suspect that it is true across the board) is that, unlike in many other countries, it is a very democratic process of selection by the academic staff. The "academic bureaucratic infrastructure" doesn't get much of a look in.
John Carson wrote:
From what I have seen of academic life, most academics just don't care what your religious beliefs are. What they care about is how well you do your job. Most aren't religious and may regard those who are as a little strange, but being a little strange in one respect or another is normal in academic life.
All of that may very well be true. But the scientific community is ultimately not a democratic one. Just as with any such professional community there are those who advance and those who don't, and there is a process by which such advancement occurs. As brilliant as they may be they are still people and have all the frailties of people. You cannot argue that scientists of the past may have professed a belief in God because their community expected it of them, and than turn around and say that precisely the same thing could not be happening today in reverse.
John Carson wrote:
Interesting. A documentary has just aired on Australian TV on how being openly gay is a real drag on the career of a man, exhibit A being Rupert Everett. Going back a little, why was Rock Hudson in the closet his entire career?
Are you certain that program was not produced by Gays? Frankly, I've never met a poor gay person, or even an unemployed one for that matter. All of the overtly gay people I have ever known were doing quite well.
John Carson wrote:
What does seem to be true is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among creative people. Industries that depend on creative people (which includes the software industry) tend to be more tolerant toward homosexuals than are other industries.
And you don't find that just a little suspecious? Show me any evidence at all that homosexuals are actually more creative than straight people. Go to any modern art exhibit and tell me that what you find there actually represents any sort of creativity that anyone could have produced - bu
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot argue that scientists of the past may have professed a belief in God because their community expected it of them, and than turn around and say that precisely the same thing could not be happening today in reverse.
In the first place, I referred to the broader community, not the community of scientists. In the US, it is still the case that the broader community is, at least nominally, overwhelmingly Christian. Moroever, a recent survey showed that atheists (compared to gays, Muslims and various others) are the most distrusted minority group in America. I also never claimed that the effect of the broader community was because "the community exapected it of them". To a large extent, it is a case of growing up with certain beliefs which become the default that many people basically just accept.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you certain that program was not produced by Gays?
No, I am not. But please list for me some leading male actors who are out-of-the-closet gays and provide an estimate of what proportion of leading male actors they represent. I figure 0% would be pretty close.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you don't find that just a little suspecious? Show me any evidence at all that homosexuals are actually more creative than straight people.
Here is a straw in the wind http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html[^] Gays make up a disproportionate share of a number of creative occupations, notably fashion and dance and, we seem to agree, people involved in motion pictures. This seems to date back to times when being homosexual was so shocking that people were reluctant to use the word in polite conversation and where homosexuality was illegal. It is hardly credible that such a disadvantaged minority group should have been so successful in gaining prominence in multiple fields unless they had an advantage in talent.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I think there is ample evidence that all of these professional communities, from science, to art, to academia, to the legal profession, and on and on, are suffering from extreme intellectual inbreeding. T
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
First, let me clarify. I wasn't suggesting that homosexuality and atheism are perverse and sterile because most people find them repugnant; I was suggesting that most people find these doctrines repugnant because they are, in fact, perverse and sterile.
Yes, I got that, obnoxious though it is.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now, regarding your poll data. Only 11 percent of the French, you say, identify "religion as an important part of their lives"; yet almost all of them would find it objectionable if I arbitrarily slapped one of them in the face. Why? On what grounds? Scientific? No. Genetic? No. They would object on moral grounds, indicating that they both recognize and accept a more-or-less universal, objective moral standard that cannot be derived from materialistic atheism. Religion plays a more important part in their lives than they know; their words say one thing, but their actions say something else - loud and clear.
Let me see now:
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
It seems you speak out of both sides of your mouth and the word "religion" takes on a different meaning each time. The sure indicator of a charlatan.
John Carson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
Your an idiot. You expect God to require us to worship it? Get real. Do you really think that God would pamper us and let us live in absolute luxury and keep us living forever, FUCKING MORON!!!! THAT FUCKING DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE YOU IDIOT!:wtf:
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Albert Einstein believed in God,
Einstein was an atheist. He couched some of his theory in religion because he was attacked by the religious wackos, but he asserted his atheism many times.
-
Your an idiot. You expect God to require us to worship it? Get real. Do you really think that God would pamper us and let us live in absolute luxury and keep us living forever, FUCKING MORON!!!! THAT FUCKING DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE YOU IDIOT!:wtf:
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Your an idiot. You expect God to require us to worship it? Get real. Do you really think that God would pamper us and let us live in absolute luxury and keep us living forever, FUCKING MORON!!!! THAT FUCKING DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE YOU IDIOT!:wtf:
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
So why do you worship it? Is it a requirement? If not, why do it if it isn't required? Getting angry and shouting makes you appear to be the idiot, not me. And I'm pretty sure I never mentioned luxury or eternity or any such thing. As far as I'm aware you're born, you live and, after a short time you die. End of. Is there a pur[ose to life? If you know you should say. I simple ask the questions that you appear unable or unwilling to answer.
-
digital man wrote:
anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
In your opinion.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
So you feel that it is okay to worship the unseen/unknown? I have some real fine swamp-land in Florida I'm sure you'll be interested in...
-
So you feel that it is okay to worship the unseen/unknown? I have some real fine swamp-land in Florida I'm sure you'll be interested in...
digital man wrote:
So you feel that it is okay to worship the unseen/unknown?
Seems to be the human thang to do.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Your an idiot. You expect God to require us to worship it? Get real. Do you really think that God would pamper us and let us live in absolute luxury and keep us living forever, FUCKING MORON!!!! THAT FUCKING DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE YOU IDIOT!:wtf:
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
FUCKING MORON!!1!!!1 YOU SOUND FUCKING BIPOLAR FUCK FUCK SHIT :omg::omg::omg::mad::mad::mad::wtf::wtf::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:-O:->:->:->:->:->
rotted body landslide, avalanche of cadavers down the mountainside - Cannibal Corpse
-
Just because the meds can take down three full grown elephants, doesn't mean they are strong enough to keep him calm. He ought to be in Guiness's Book of World Records. ;)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Belief in God is clearly not limited to frightened children and imbeciles.
That's what some of you think now. Ask your grand grand children. :)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Albert Einstein believed in God,
Einstein was an atheist. He couched some of his theory in religion because he was attacked by the religious wackos, but he asserted his atheism many times.
You're right that he wasn't a religious person (while Jewish, he was not a Judaic Jew, for instance). At the same time, he wasn't an atheist, strictly speaking; he did not hold the belief that there was no god. A better label for him would be pantheist: the belief that everything in nature together is god.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How Easter replaced Passover in modern Christianity The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
So why do you worship it? Is it a requirement? If not, why do it if it isn't required? Getting angry and shouting makes you appear to be the idiot, not me. And I'm pretty sure I never mentioned luxury or eternity or any such thing. As far as I'm aware you're born, you live and, after a short time you die. End of. Is there a pur[ose to life? If you know you should say. I simple ask the questions that you appear unable or unwilling to answer.
digital man wrote:
So why do you worship it?
I don't worship it. I just believe that there is a god and have respect for it.
digital man wrote:
Getting angry and shouting makes you appear to be the idiot, not me.
WOW!!!!!!!!!
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
So why do you worship it? Is it a requirement? If not, why do it if it isn't required? Getting angry and shouting makes you appear to be the idiot, not me. And I'm pretty sure I never mentioned luxury or eternity or any such thing. As far as I'm aware you're born, you live and, after a short time you die. End of. Is there a pur[ose to life? If you know you should say. I simple ask the questions that you appear unable or unwilling to answer.
Personally I don't feel compelled to worship. The whole thing doesn't make much sense as you've pointed out. But I do feel thankful. So I offer that.
This statement was never false.
-
You're right that he wasn't a religious person (while Jewish, he was not a Judaic Jew, for instance). At the same time, he wasn't an atheist, strictly speaking; he did not hold the belief that there was no god. A better label for him would be pantheist: the belief that everything in nature together is god.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How Easter replaced Passover in modern Christianity The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Isn't pantheism many gods? And not just the immanence of God?
This statement was never false.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
yet almost all of them would find it objectionable if I arbitrarily slapped one of them in the face. Why? On what grounds? Scientific?
Yes. Its scientific that if you slap me on the face, it HURTS. As pain signals are sent to the brain. I find it uncomfortable. Not morally. Its on moral grounds that I don't slap you back.
This statement was never false.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I think that a normal human perspective includes concepts such as "necessary and sufficient causes" and that psychologically healthy humans require some kind of meaning in their lives. Atheism deprives a man of both of these and is therefore a perverse and sterile doctrine (or position, or belief, or conclusion, or whatever term you like).
I disagree. While I find meaning in contemplating the divine, I think its erroneous to suggest that without it you can have no meaning in your life. There are definately Atheists who have found meaning in their lives. As well as homosexuals. This is only your opinion. And you can't dictate what another can find as meaning in their lives. That is just flat out wrong. Do I have to wish upon an afterlife to have meaning within this life? Maybe religion has screwed up people's meanings. Wasn't Jesus the one who said: "The best way for a tadpole to prepare for being a frog, is to live each and every moment faithfully as a tadpole."? That suggests to me, that our focus is rightfully placed within this life, and not worrying so much about the afterlife.
This statement was never false.
-
Isn't pantheism many gods? And not just the immanence of God?
This statement was never false.
Polytheism = "many gods". Pantheism = "god is all".
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How men in the Catholic Church replaced Passover with Easter The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango