A Sad Day For Free Speech In Italy
-
Oakman wrote:
I personally believe in the bung-hole theory of education. On your child's 12th birthday, you have a big party with a full keg of beer which you allow him-her to partake off. Once the keg is emptied, you take your little darling - by this time unconscious - and put them into the keg. For the next 6 years you give your child anything he-she asks for, as long as it fits through the bunghole. Then, on your child's 18th birthday, you drive the bung back in. If he-she can figure out how to get out then they can be welcomed as a member of the human race. Otherwise, you don't even have to buy a coffin.
Ah yes, the tried-and-true approach. They'll be emotionally stunted, probably suicidal, their skeletons will be grossly deformed, but at least they'll be welcome. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They'll be emotionally stunted, probably suicidal, their skeletons will be grossly deformed, but at least they'll be welcome
How is this any different from what happens to most kids now -- except for the welcomed part, of course. :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How do you know its not there? Maybe its hidden away in some kind of secret code. Why don't you spend some time checiking that out?
Anything as cryptic as what the Bible is can be interpreted however the hell you want, if you use an algorithm convoluted enough.
Stan Shannon wrote:
On the other hand, how cool would it be if somewhere trillions of decimal places into the value of pi there was a binary message that said: "Hello, I'm God. My name is Bob. Whats Yours?"
It wouldn't be cool at all, because it's mathematically certain that it is. Just like every other possible string. I also know that it contains, "Worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the true God".
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It wouldn't be cool at all, because it's mathematically certain that it is. Just like every other possible string. I also know that it contains, "Worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the true God".
You have proof of this? It certainly doesn't follow merely from the fact that pi is irrational and hence that its decimal representation is infinite and not repeating. Consider, for example, the following irrational number 0.0100100010000100001000001... i.e., a sequence of 1s separated by strings of zeros that increase in length by 1 for each successive string. This sequence won't give you every possible string --- at least not using any standard number to letter mapping. I would agree, however, that the discovery of some God-related text in the expansion of pi would be neither surprising nor interesting.
John Carson
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Let people be brainswashed into following a fundemental faith
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Dalek Dave wrote:
answers that religion cannot provide
Or it provides answers you are not willing to accept. There are all sorts of groups that have their own agenda, who seek to affect public policy according to their bias. Are you prepared to deny the Cardinal the right to protest a company's decision simply because you don't agree with him?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Well, there hasn't been anything one could use tangible proof that there is one, and it doesn't matter which version of god you might happen to believe in)..
Gary Kirkham wrote:
There are all sorts of groups that have their own agenda, who seek to affect public policy according to their bias.
I don't care what religious folks do as long as they don't they to directly and overtly impact *my* life.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Oakman wrote:
You need to check out the difference between "all respect" and "all due respect." Wink
:laugh: Yeah! Of course, I probably have NO respect due to me. :cool:
Oakman wrote:
Look up what George Santayana said about history and the need to learn from it.
Was it something along the lines of "You need to learn from history"?
Oakman wrote:
Once you've completed that task, check back with me. I could give you a list of "worthwhile" followups that would allow you to speak with some slight authority on the subject of the bible. Then perhaps you could move on to philosophy and theology.
I'd prefer to learn about musical theory.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah! Of course, I probably have NO respect due to me.
OWING to me surely!
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
-
It seems that everybody at some point pulls the "WELL SOME ATHEISTS ARE JUST AS ANNOYING AND LOUD AS CHRISTIANS" shtick out to imply a rational worldview (there's no good evidence for a god) is somehow equivalent to an irrational worldview (w00t god baptist anglican catholic oh my) because *gasp* both have stupid loud people yelling! What-EVER. As to the advertising (speaking more of North America here): Number of signs posted around the countryside suggesting I'm either going to hell or that I'll never reach spiritual or personal fulfillment without accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior: 10,000 or so Number of signs on the side of a bus suggesting I probably won't: 1-2 So atheists have a ways to go to be as annoying as the fucking Baptists, which is all still more entertaining than "Head-On" or CSI adverts.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It seems that everybody at some point pulls the "WELL SOME ATHEISTS ARE JUST AS ANNOYING AND LOUD AS CHRISTIANS" shtick out
Everybody? :confused: That's a level of paranoia that only a few folks reach. (Stan with "everybody is a Marxist" comes to mind.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
because *gasp*
hmmmm, where have I seen that punctuation before. . .
Fisticuffs wrote:
both have stupid loud people yelling
And you used all caps in a couple of places. . .
Fisticuffs wrote:
Number of signs posted around the countryside suggesting I'm either going to hell or that I'll never reach spiritual or personal fulfillment without accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior: 10,000 or so
To coin a phrase: is your faith so weak that you are afraid you may start doubting because of the signs?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Number of signs on the side of a bus suggesting I probably won't: 1-2
And how many times, do you think, that atheists have spent a goodly chunk of change to go to court to eliminate creches from a downtown park? Personally, I am not threatened by the signs of either sort, I can see all the creches I need to see on the front lawns of churches and, yeah, I really wish that both sides would stop yelling.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, January 19, 2009 11:43 AM
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It wouldn't be cool at all, because it's mathematically certain that it is. Just like every other possible string. I also know that it contains, "Worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the true God".
You have proof of this? It certainly doesn't follow merely from the fact that pi is irrational and hence that its decimal representation is infinite and not repeating. Consider, for example, the following irrational number 0.0100100010000100001000001... i.e., a sequence of 1s separated by strings of zeros that increase in length by 1 for each successive string. This sequence won't give you every possible string --- at least not using any standard number to letter mapping. I would agree, however, that the discovery of some God-related text in the expansion of pi would be neither surprising nor interesting.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You have proof of this?
Somebody does.
John Carson wrote:
This sequence won't give you every possible string --- at least not using any standard number to letter mapping.
Some algorithm would, I...think. :~ .
-
Oakman wrote:
What fascinates me is the religious fervor with which some atheists seem to proselytise
No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience
This of course is just a schoolyard insult. Perhaps you would like to list the atheists you consider to be less rational than Fred Phelps and his happy band. Whether there are some is not really the point. What is the point is that you are just poking out your tongue rather than saying anything useful.
John Carson
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Well, there hasn't been anything one could use tangible proof that there is one, and it doesn't matter which version of god you might happen to believe in)..
Gary Kirkham wrote:
There are all sorts of groups that have their own agenda, who seek to affect public policy according to their bias.
I don't care what religious folks do as long as they don't they to directly and overtly impact *my* life.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Well, there hasn't been anything one could use tangible proof that there is one, and it doesn't matter which version of god you might happen to believe in)..
That wasn't my point. What one group does is going to be considered brainwashing by the other.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I don't care what religious folks do as long as they don't they to directly and overtly impact *my* life.
I don't care what athiests do as long as it doesn't impact *my* life. I guess everyone looks after their own self interest, sometimes even putting it before the interests of society as a whole. My point was that the Cardinal had the right to complain, just as you have the right to complain. The bus company had no obligation to listen.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah! Of course, I probably have NO respect due to me.
OWING to me surely!
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
Dalek Dave wrote:
OWING to me surely!
I dunno. Maybe. I'm too sleepy to think at the moment. :zzz:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience
This of course is just a schoolyard insult. Perhaps you would like to list the atheists you consider to be less rational than Fred Phelps and his happy band. Whether there are some is not really the point. What is the point is that you are just poking out your tongue rather than saying anything useful.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Perhaps you would like to list the atheists you consider to be less rational than Fred Phelps and his happy band.
Fred Phelps is not even remotely Christian. But, FWIW, I was referring to the christians and athiests I've had personal experience with. They mostly both do the same thing - ignore everything the other person says and wait for the gap to insert what they always say to such people. Real discussion very rarely occurs. I've had many conversations where the atheist response is a response to the opposite of what I just said.
John Carson wrote:
What is the point is that you are just poking out your tongue rather than saying anything useful.
Well, it *is* useful to point out that many of the people paying for bus signs and generally looking to 'fight' for atheism, are highly irrational, even though they claim to be the voice of reason.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Well, there hasn't been anything one could use tangible proof that there is one, and it doesn't matter which version of god you might happen to believe in)..
Gary Kirkham wrote:
There are all sorts of groups that have their own agenda, who seek to affect public policy according to their bias.
I don't care what religious folks do as long as they don't they to directly and overtly impact *my* life.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Well, that's one way of saying that the idea was to bait them and try to make them look stupid. Which is childish IMO, but I agree that it's hypocritical to expect to be allowed to advertise one set of beliefs, and not the other. As I've said already, I wish these people would ignore folks deliberately trying to bait them. Who cares what i says on the side of a bus ? I sure don't.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Who cares what i says on the side of a bus ? I sure don't.
Neither do I.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
find that even magazines like Scientific American, are a call to war. I saw one issue while I was here with an article 'Creationists - their latest tricks'. I hardly read an article on *anything* without a few snide comments against people who believe in God, or who believe in creationism in any form. It's frankly childish and only makes them look bad.
Precisely. Atheism has become as institutionalized as Christianity once was in our society. It has simply replaced the former as the philosophical prerequisite for academic acceptance. Which is sad because it demonstrates that as a society we have really learned nothing, and have not progressed at all. It is just one group trying to possess intellectual hegemony rather than another.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely. Atheism has become as institutionalized as Christianity once was in our society. It has simply replaced the former as the philosophical prerequisite for academic acceptance. Which is sad because it demonstrates that as a society we have really learned nothing, and have not progressed at all. It is just one group trying to possess intellectual hegemony rather than another.
You right-wingers really are attached to your faux victim status aren't you? I would be confident that there are few science departments without at least some Christians in them and that religious belief is virtually never a hiring criterion --- except at religious colleges. How many declared atheists are there in the US congress, by the way? "As institutionalized as Christianity once was" my arse. There is and has always been a tension between religion and science because belief on the basis of evidence and belief on the basis of faith are fundamentally different approaches. For that reason, scientists are less religious than is the general community, but scientists encounter negligible discrimination if they happen to be personally religious. It is when they attempt to assert scientific conclusions on the basis of religious faith rather than evidence that they, quite properly, get criticised.
John Carson
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Well, there hasn't been anything one could use tangible proof that there is one
You talking about string theory?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You talking about string theory?
There was a time when Einstein's General Relativity couldn't be proven as well...
-
digital man wrote:
As opposed to brainwashing you that there is?
Now you get it. Any form of presentation of views, for or against any viewpoint, can be called brainwashing, if you want to.
digital man wrote:
No, answers that are not believable which is somewhat different.
But wait, doesn't your inability to believe something imply free will, which means that the presentation of this information doesn't 'brainwash' at all, but just present a point of view that people are capable of rejecting ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Any form of presentation of views, for or against any viewpoint, can be called brainwashing
That is just hogwash: being able to read a variety of views or having a variety of views presented can hardly be called brainwashing whereas bringing your child up with only your point of view plainly is. (Close to child abuse).
Christian Graus wrote:
But wait, doesn't your inability to believe something imply free will
Huh? Cheeky git: I am able to believe if I so choose but common sense dictates that I shouldn't.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah! Of course, I probably have NO respect due to me.
OWING to me surely!
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
-
John Carson wrote:
Perhaps you would like to list the atheists you consider to be less rational than Fred Phelps and his happy band.
Fred Phelps is not even remotely Christian. But, FWIW, I was referring to the christians and athiests I've had personal experience with. They mostly both do the same thing - ignore everything the other person says and wait for the gap to insert what they always say to such people. Real discussion very rarely occurs. I've had many conversations where the atheist response is a response to the opposite of what I just said.
John Carson wrote:
What is the point is that you are just poking out your tongue rather than saying anything useful.
Well, it *is* useful to point out that many of the people paying for bus signs and generally looking to 'fight' for atheism, are highly irrational, even though they claim to be the voice of reason.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Fred Phelps is not even remotely Christian
Your statement made no reference to Christians. You said: "No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience". So Fred Phelps is an atheist?
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it *is* useful to point out that many of the people paying for bus signs and generally looking to 'fight' for atheism, are highly irrational, even though they claim to be the voice of reason.
I don't think you have any real evidence that the people paying for bus signs are "highly irrational". You are merely indulging a prejudice and, like I said, poking your tongue out. To the unprejudiced mind, it must appear rather striking that we live in a world in which proselytising on behalf of Christianity is part of the furniture, but in the UK, Italy and Australia just putting an atheist message on a bus leads to attempts to censor that message (successfully in the case of Italy and Australia). The unprejudiced mind would note that, while it is quite common for people to live their lives with little regard and little sympathy for religion, active proselytising on behalf of atheism is a very minor activity relative to proselytising on behalf of religion. Atheist messages on buses create a stir precisely because the religious have enjoyed a near-monopoly in the proselytising business for thousands of years.
John Carson
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They'll be emotionally stunted, probably suicidal, their skeletons will be grossly deformed, but at least they'll be welcome
How is this any different from what happens to most kids now -- except for the welcomed part, of course. :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
How is this any different from what happens to most kids now -- except for the welcomed part, of course. Confused
....... I dunno. It isn't, I guess.
-
Oakman wrote:
You talking about string theory?
There was a time when Einstein's General Relativity couldn't be proven as well...
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There was a time when Einstein's General Relativity couldn't be proven as well...
Although there are an increasing number of observations that strongly support Theory of General Relativity, I am not aware that there is any consensus that says it is now proved beyond all question. Do you know differently?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Well, there hasn't been anything one could use tangible proof that there is one, and it doesn't matter which version of god you might happen to believe in)..
That wasn't my point. What one group does is going to be considered brainwashing by the other.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I don't care what religious folks do as long as they don't they to directly and overtly impact *my* life.
I don't care what athiests do as long as it doesn't impact *my* life. I guess everyone looks after their own self interest, sometimes even putting it before the interests of society as a whole. My point was that the Cardinal had the right to complain, just as you have the right to complain. The bus company had no obligation to listen.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
My point was that the Cardinal had the right to complain, just as you have the right to complain.
I suppose he also had the right to say that all atheists should be put to death, i.e., he had the right at least in the sense that saying that probably isn't against the law. Nevertheless, such statements wouldn't reflect well on him. Neither do his actual statements. The Cardinal is simply lobbying to have an opposing viewpoint censored. As such, he is a loathsome individual.
John Carson
