A Sad Day For Free Speech In Italy
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I spend too much time isolated in my bedroom for my parents to get sick of me.
We all did. And our poor mothers had to do our laundry.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
It made my mum cry, actually, a little while ago, which was kinda weird.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but then he would have had to give humanity algebra and calculus, not to mention an introductory course in Newtonian physics, which, of course, would not have been Newtonian since the man had not been born yet, as well as Maxwell's equations. And the obvious discourse on the laws of motion. And all this to some guy who's most advanced intellectual ambition was counting his goats, who would have been all like "sh*t, this religion crap is freaking hard, dude". Somehow I think the condensed version was more useful.
He doesn't have to teach it to them. He just has to get them to write it down so that several thousand years later we find out that the Schrödinger equation was in the Bible all along. I mean, how unbelievable would that have been! :omg:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He doesn't have to teach it to them. He just has to get them to write it down so that several thousand years later we find out that the Schrödinger equation was in the Bible all along. I mean, how unbelievable would that have been!
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? 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?"
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He doesn't have to teach it to them. He just has to get them to write it down so that several thousand years later we find out that the Schrödinger equation was in the Bible all along. I mean, how unbelievable would that have been!
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? 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?"
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:
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".
-
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:
Anything as cryptic as what the Bible is can be interpreted however the hell you want, if you use an algorithm convoluted enough.
Well, there you go then. Maybe God used a convoluted algorithm.
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".
OK, well what if it said "I live at coordinates x,y,z"?
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Anything as cryptic as what the Bible is can be interpreted however the hell you want, if you use an algorithm convoluted enough.
Well, there you go then. Maybe God used a convoluted algorithm.
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".
OK, well what if it said "I live at coordinates x,y,z"?
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:
Well, there you go then. Maybe God used a convoluted algorithm.
So must the author of 'Pony Pals', because the algorithm worked on that as well. And Vanilla Ice too - his lyrics contain a disturbingly accurate prediction of the September 11 attacks.
Stan Shannon wrote:
OK, well what if it said "I live at coordinates x,y,z"?
It's an infinite string of non-repeating numbers. You can find anything in it.
-
Oakman wrote:
With all due respect,
See, this just confuses me. Since when...?
Oakman wrote:
did you ever stop to think that, at your age, you aren't qualified to decide what is useful information and what isn't? Right now you ought to be worrying less about what you filter out and more on what you can absorb.
Hey, I try and learn as much as I can about everything I can, excluding world geography and most history.
Oakman wrote:
For what it's worth, I'd suggest that you might want to do a fairly detailed research on the writing and collation of both the Old and New Testaments as well as the Apocrypha. Then move on to study the history of the Semitic peoples we now call Jews. Then spend some time studying the difference between Pauline and Petrine Christianity. Who knows, you might learn something "worthwhile."
*faints* That is a lot. I'll put it on my 'to-do' list.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
See, this just confuses me. Since when...?
You need to check out the difference between "all respect" and "all due respect." ;)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I try and learn as much as I can about everything I can, excluding world geography and most history.
Look up what George Santayana said about history and the need to learn from it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That is a lot. I'll put it on my 'to-do' list
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.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
It made my mum cry, actually, a little while ago, which was kinda weird.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, there you go then. Maybe God used a convoluted algorithm.
So must the author of 'Pony Pals', because the algorithm worked on that as well. And Vanilla Ice too - his lyrics contain a disturbingly accurate prediction of the September 11 attacks.
Stan Shannon wrote:
OK, well what if it said "I live at coordinates x,y,z"?
It's an infinite string of non-repeating numbers. You can find anything in it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's an infinite string of non-repeating numbers. You can find anything in it.
Unless you actually go there and find him.
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It made my mum cry, actually, a little while ago, which was kinda weird.
It's when she starts calling you "Crusty" that you need to change your ways.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It's when she starts calling you "Crusty" that you need to change your ways.
Haha, eww, no, I meant about being in my room all the time. To be honest, I didn't know what you meant before. I do now. X|
-
Christian Graus wrote:
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 ?
To be capable of rejecting or accepting any religion one must be mature and well-informed enough to make that decision, therefore children should be protected from any form of contact with any religion until they are at least 18, then educated about many different religions and atheism and only then make their own choice. :)
Steve_Harris wrote:
To be capable of rejecting or accepting any religion one must be mature and well-informed enough to make that decision,
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.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
See, this just confuses me. Since when...?
You need to check out the difference between "all respect" and "all due respect." ;)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I try and learn as much as I can about everything I can, excluding world geography and most history.
Look up what George Santayana said about history and the need to learn from it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That is a lot. I'll put it on my 'to-do' list
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.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
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.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
To be capable of rejecting or accepting any religion one must be mature and well-informed enough to make that decision,
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.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
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. :)
-
digital man wrote:
How feeble.
What fascinates me is the religious fervor with which some atheists seem to proselytise. To tell the truth, I cannot tell the difference between a true believer on either end of the debate - both seem to get quite upset if you suggest that they may not have all the facts they need to guarantee their answers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
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
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience
How quickly you have forgotten he who should not be spoken Il of.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, I was talking about normal human beings, there are bound to be some exceptions on the lunatic fringe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
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:
o 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)
The fact that you misrepresent the Christian viewpoint is all that needs to be said about this.
Fisticuffs wrote:
So atheists have a ways to go to be as annoying as the f***ing Baptists, which is all still more entertaining than "Head-On" or CSI adverts.
Perhaps. But again, one has to wonder at the rationale that causes them to pay for a bus ad to say that they have nothing to say. Excepting that they want to annoy Christians, which is a right I'd defend, even though I don't understand it, and I am disappointed that anyone falls for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
their religion is based on layers of tradition that move from the bible and often have no basis in fact
Name a religion based in Fact.
------------------------------------ "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" Arthur C Clarke
I plainly believe that Christianity is, and I just as plainly know that any discussion on this will involve my beliefs being caricatured and anything I say, ignored. I've done this before, you see....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
o 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)
The fact that you misrepresent the Christian viewpoint is all that needs to be said about this.
Fisticuffs wrote:
So atheists have a ways to go to be as annoying as the f***ing Baptists, which is all still more entertaining than "Head-On" or CSI adverts.
Perhaps. But again, one has to wonder at the rationale that causes them to pay for a bus ad to say that they have nothing to say. Excepting that they want to annoy Christians, which is a right I'd defend, even though I don't understand it, and I am disappointed that anyone falls for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps. But again, one has to wonder at the rationale that causes them to pay for a bus ad to say that they have nothing to say. Excepting that they want to annoy Christians, which is a right I'd defend, even though I don't understand it, and I am disappointed that anyone falls for it.
I think the idea (or one of them, maybe) was to highlight the hypocrisy of the religious groups.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps. But again, one has to wonder at the rationale that causes them to pay for a bus ad to say that they have nothing to say. Excepting that they want to annoy Christians, which is a right I'd defend, even though I don't understand it, and I am disappointed that anyone falls for it.
I think the idea (or one of them, maybe) was to highlight the hypocrisy of the religious groups.
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.
-
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