Superstition
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The universe came to be, and exists, as a result of natural laws. I merely contend that God is behind them.
Now that's an interesting point... Let me come at this one from a different angle... We know these natural laws exist... That much is pretty much proven by science, though obviously we don't KNOW all of the laws yet (See string theory, general relativity, etc). The point is that the laws are there. Now, I don't know how much of a sci-fi reader you are, but in Fredrik Pohl's "Heechee" saga, he made a subtle but interesting point about how life exists the way it does because of certain "magic numbers," so to speak. The ratio between mass and gravitational attraction, the speed of light, and so on. If these fundamental constants were different, the universe would be a very different place. I won't go into the details, in case someone plans on reading the series, but one of the conflicts has to do with a certain entity trying to change these values to better suit them. So the reliance on these constants raises the all-too-familiar question... Why? Why are these numbers what they are? By your argument, I would assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe "god" set them that way. I would conjecture that we simply don't know, and have no way of knowing (yet?), so in this instance, attributing it to an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is just a way of filling in the blanks, not actually providing any answers. Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
And there you have the history of superstition / religion. As more things became known people needed less gods. We're so close, only got one to go!
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Well see, that's what separates religion from science. With a scientific theory, a valid "data dump" can be used to duplicate an experiment and verify the theory (Or alternatively, can be used to disprove a flawed theory). With religion, all you have is hearsay and 2000-year-old literature... No evidence. But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well see, that's what separates religion from science.
Well see, that's what separates a good response from a bad one. I was saying 'life' is not 'science'. There are no 'life' controls, no one can repeat a 'life' experiment, things are different. All observational data of 'life' are anecdotal. Nothing is repeatable. In all cases, your millage may vary. I'm sorry you did not see the irony in calling testimony a data dump. Maybe you should get out more and lighten up? Based on anecdotal observations I have made, I have come to conclusions that are different from yours. That doesn't make me better and smarter than you. I am better and smarter, but it is not because I come to different conclusions. Even when I come up with the same conclusions, it is because I am better and smarter. :laugh:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them. On the contrary, God made all the rules, not me. God does not change, so I can't change the rules to invalidate opposing theorem. I haven't argued religion with you, so your claims I change the rules is based on no data. Let me guess, you based it on faith? You have created a theory from your rich life's experience? From this data point should I believe anyone who argues with me has an anal-cranial inversion? But sock (your theor)em to me, I am always interested in truth, and I know I don't know it all. Better explanations are better. Different explanations may or may not be. Heckling, with no evidence or analysis, like your post? Well, you decide.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well see, that's what separates religion from science.
Well see, that's what separates a good response from a bad one. I was saying 'life' is not 'science'. There are no 'life' controls, no one can repeat a 'life' experiment, things are different. All observational data of 'life' are anecdotal. Nothing is repeatable. In all cases, your millage may vary. I'm sorry you did not see the irony in calling testimony a data dump. Maybe you should get out more and lighten up? Based on anecdotal observations I have made, I have come to conclusions that are different from yours. That doesn't make me better and smarter than you. I am better and smarter, but it is not because I come to different conclusions. Even when I come up with the same conclusions, it is because I am better and smarter. :laugh:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them. On the contrary, God made all the rules, not me. God does not change, so I can't change the rules to invalidate opposing theorem. I haven't argued religion with you, so your claims I change the rules is based on no data. Let me guess, you based it on faith? You have created a theory from your rich life's experience? From this data point should I believe anyone who argues with me has an anal-cranial inversion? But sock (your theor)em to me, I am always interested in truth, and I know I don't know it all. Better explanations are better. Different explanations may or may not be. Heckling, with no evidence or analysis, like your post? Well, you decide.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You're taking this a bit personally...
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them.
I actually meant "you" in the general sense, not specifically you. Sorry if I misled... As in, that's generally how it seems to work. Take the creationist "theory," for example (I'm not saying you believe in this, as I understand even many religious types consider it nonsense)... The whole "Earth was created 6000 years ago." Others respond with "Look, these fossils are X million years old"... The nutty crowd responds with "No they're not. God put them there to trick you." You can't argue with that, because it's designed to be impossible to disprove. Yeah, that's an overused example, but I've seen this argument go back and forth... The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence. "Evolution is a myth" "Look at all this evidence to the contrary" "Ok, evolution is real, but God caused it"... I'm just kind of babbling here, so I don't know if I'm actually making a point here... But it's kind of interesting when you look at the trends... In the distant past, just about everything was attributed to a god of some sort... I mean, just look at the Greek and Roman pantheon for a classic example... The gods change the seasons, the gods control the weather, the gods move the sun across the sky. Over the years, science has disproved one thing after another, finding logical basis behind each... Now, all that's left are the "big" questions like the creation of the universe. Maybe someday we'll figure out a definitive answer to that, and "god" will retreat to the next "unknown." The way I see it, "god" is just another word for "unknown"... Who/what created the universe? Unknown. Funny thing is, I'm sure this isn't original, but it just popped into my head... We're all creationists. Theists believe that god created man... My fellow atheists believe that man created god. :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You're taking this a bit personally...
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't make up rules about something that ignores them.
I actually meant "you" in the general sense, not specifically you. Sorry if I misled... As in, that's generally how it seems to work. Take the creationist "theory," for example (I'm not saying you believe in this, as I understand even many religious types consider it nonsense)... The whole "Earth was created 6000 years ago." Others respond with "Look, these fossils are X million years old"... The nutty crowd responds with "No they're not. God put them there to trick you." You can't argue with that, because it's designed to be impossible to disprove. Yeah, that's an overused example, but I've seen this argument go back and forth... The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence. "Evolution is a myth" "Look at all this evidence to the contrary" "Ok, evolution is real, but God caused it"... I'm just kind of babbling here, so I don't know if I'm actually making a point here... But it's kind of interesting when you look at the trends... In the distant past, just about everything was attributed to a god of some sort... I mean, just look at the Greek and Roman pantheon for a classic example... The gods change the seasons, the gods control the weather, the gods move the sun across the sky. Over the years, science has disproved one thing after another, finding logical basis behind each... Now, all that's left are the "big" questions like the creation of the universe. Maybe someday we'll figure out a definitive answer to that, and "god" will retreat to the next "unknown." The way I see it, "god" is just another word for "unknown"... Who/what created the universe? Unknown. Funny thing is, I'm sure this isn't original, but it just popped into my head... We're all creationists. Theists believe that god created man... My fellow atheists believe that man created god. :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)If I don't take it personal, how can we get a good flame war going? How can we get a good flame war going if I don't take it personal? [pink floyd reference] I did the same thing last week ;P I wish english had a 'das man' equivalent, other than 'you'. I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith. that does not mean that I beat facts into submission, and it has not meant that I beat the Bible into submission. They are two ways that God exposes Himself to us, and I have not found them to be contradictory. I have found them to be fuzzy,on both ends, in different places. Genesis uses how many thousands of words to describe EVERYTHING up to 4-6 k years ago. How non-allegorical can it be? And the only conflict with what I know of science, is that plants were created before it seems right. But we could learn that life started under some conditions off planet, and landed here, and it could be accurate, so I call that fuzzy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence.
I agree that there are people who do that, but there are two sides to that coin. If you have a theory, and the facts do not fit the theory, shouldn't you change the theory to match the facts? I know I'm being nice to a lot of the people you are talking about, but let me flip it around. The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses. Science changed to match Christianity. Science changed to match the facts. Science can't make up it's mind. It is all in how you spin it. I know I'm simplifying, but do you know how long my posts would be if I didn't? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, there are passages in the bible that support my world view? You mean the irrational, inconistent, and contradictory ones?
[scratches head] Well, no. I meant your well thought out world view. But if all you have is an irrational, inconsistent and contradictory one, you should still work with what you got. Go forward. Move ahead. It's not too late. To whip it. Whip it good.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I think you should take to heart what you wrote and apply it to yourself. You're the delusional one here. Well, you and CG to give him his due.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
In fairness, not really... but it can be used either way...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
As it technically can there although it's most commonly used in the sense CSS used it. I do know of one case where there was a "special education" law and a family who had a "gifted" child sued and claimed their child was special and the school district had to provide for him. Of course, the school district objected because it was going to cost them money. The judge who heard the case said that by any stretch of the imagination their child was special and ordered the school system to provide special enrichment classes. :cool:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are completely insane if you believe in magic pixie fairy dust.
The correct term is Magic Pixie Dust. (Fairy or Faierie is an enchanted land in stories, Pixies come from Devon and Cornwall, which are real. The dust works only for those of pure Celtic stock (Breton, Cornish or Welsh). Henize being Germanic you would be completely insane to believe in it.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
I think you should take to heart what you wrote and apply it to yourself. You're the delusional one here. Well, you and CG to give him his due.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
You're the delusional one here.
:laugh: I'm sorry, did I take something you said in not quit the way you meant it? Are you pissed off that someone is not one of your assimilated conformists? Do you think I should lose my freedom to dissent? :-O I guess I should stop. I see you take it too seriously. I would be really embarrassed if you blew an artery and bled out on your keyboard. :rose::rose:And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.:rose::rose:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
To be fair, he's responding the way he is because of a past history. Although, I must admit that it's a history mostly of him acting exactly the same as he has in this thread. The difference is now that I expect it.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Because you act exactly the way you do. You're just used to people deferring to you and I won't. Sure, on the subject of religion, I'm made up my mind. I made it up over a half century ago and I'm not going to change. But calling yourself open minded on the topic is flying in the face of a ton of evidence to the contrary.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Right, you're the sole arbitrator of what's right and wrong in that morass called the bible.
No, God is. By definition, if I don't believe what church X believes, either they are right, or I am. I plainly believe that I am. I am also well able to discuss why I think so. It's entirely possible that in the resurrection, God will tell me the Catholics were right, in which case, I, by definition was wrong. But, only if God wrote the bible to get literate people to do the wrong thing, obviously.
Tim Craig wrote:
Everyone else is wrong and you call atheists closed minded.
You're closed minded because you're not interested in discussion, not because you think I am wrong. To think everyone is right is to assume you have no idea yourself. Being a Christian I have a belief system, right or wrong, I believe something, and my belief in X requires that I believe Y is wrong where it contradicts X.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
God is omniscient IMNSHO. FTFY
I'm pleased that you did. All the ways in which you attack me just show you for exactly what I say you are. I take no joy in that, but it's nice when you reinforce to onlookers who is being obtuse, it means I don't feel I need to defend myself from your accusations.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You really got the OCD thing going on this, too. Have you had that checked out. Guess it doesn't just apply to your inability to pass up a chance to try to wind up CSS. Actually, it points to your inability to refrain from replying to most posts here. :sigh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
LOL - see what I mean ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Hmm, I'd love to see the results of that... I've thought for a while that there was something very fundamental about the universe that we hadn't discovered yet, and that things like "string theory" and "dark matter" are just our way of fitting the facts to the laws instead of fitting the laws to the facts. String theory, general relativity, time dilation... They may be correct, but to me, they seem too convoluted... The basic laws of nature are usually pretty simple... I think there's something really fundamental that we're just missing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)I can't provide a simple reference but I'm sure I saw it referenced in a Scientific American issue sometime last year. I pretty much read it cover to cover every month but I'm behind and I just finished one from late last year. :( Knowing a bit about the equations they use and how similar they are to the engineering equations we used to "try" to solve, I wonder, too. Mostly, they make great simplifications to get a solution at all or the models are highly dependent on assumptions about initial conditions, so looking from the outside in, I have "questions" how it really works. Unfortunately, this is another case of a little bit of knowledge "might" lead one astray.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Well see, that's what separates religion from science. With a scientific theory, a valid "data dump" can be used to duplicate an experiment and verify the theory (Or alternatively, can be used to disprove a flawed theory). With religion, all you have is hearsay and 2000-year-old literature... No evidence. But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)You've pretty much nailed it. Plus the well documented facility of the human mind to try to find patterns in everything and then assign causality even though the scientific method eventually shows there is no causality, just simple correlation and maybe a weak one at that.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
If I don't take it personal, how can we get a good flame war going? How can we get a good flame war going if I don't take it personal? [pink floyd reference] I did the same thing last week ;P I wish english had a 'das man' equivalent, other than 'you'. I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith. that does not mean that I beat facts into submission, and it has not meant that I beat the Bible into submission. They are two ways that God exposes Himself to us, and I have not found them to be contradictory. I have found them to be fuzzy,on both ends, in different places. Genesis uses how many thousands of words to describe EVERYTHING up to 4-6 k years ago. How non-allegorical can it be? And the only conflict with what I know of science, is that plants were created before it seems right. But we could learn that life started under some conditions off planet, and landed here, and it could be accurate, so I call that fuzzy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence.
I agree that there are people who do that, but there are two sides to that coin. If you have a theory, and the facts do not fit the theory, shouldn't you change the theory to match the facts? I know I'm being nice to a lot of the people you are talking about, but let me flip it around. The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses. Science changed to match Christianity. Science changed to match the facts. Science can't make up it's mind. It is all in how you spin it. I know I'm simplifying, but do you know how long my posts would be if I didn't? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Science changed to match Christianity
Um, in a word, no. Christianity is always trying to grasp at bits of science to prove its beliefs. It cherry picks and those doing the picking generally don't have a clue about what they're trying to understand.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
And there you have the history of superstition / religion. As more things became known people needed less gods. We're so close, only got one to go!
Josh Gray wrote:
only got one to go
Only one? Maybe one primary one in the Western world. But globalization is creating new opportunies. :^)
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You're the delusional one here.
:laugh: I'm sorry, did I take something you said in not quit the way you meant it? Are you pissed off that someone is not one of your assimilated conformists? Do you think I should lose my freedom to dissent? :-O I guess I should stop. I see you take it too seriously. I would be really embarrassed if you blew an artery and bled out on your keyboard. :rose::rose:And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.:rose::rose:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I'll never be assimilated by you and your bible wankers. You and CG just can't get over it that people can live happy, productive lives and not buy into your swill.
RichardM1 wrote:
And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.
And Dawkins thinks you're a jerk, too. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
You are a handicap?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a handicap?
No, but my school has a special ed. unit and I'm friends with some of the people in there. They're very sweet, gentle people, and very genuine.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
The dust works only for those of pure Celtic stock (Breton, Cornish or Welsh).
Darn, and I'm really a Pict. :sigh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
I'll never be assimilated by you and your bible wankers. You and CG just can't get over it that people can live happy, productive lives and not buy into your swill.
RichardM1 wrote:
And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.
And Dawkins thinks you're a jerk, too. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
I'll never be assimilated by you and your bible wankers. You and CG just can't get over it that people can live happy, productive lives and not buy into your swill.
Wow. You did not even catch the reference to your own sig file. Or you did catch it, but could not understand how it applied? I don't know what priest did what to you, in your deep dark past, that makes you this angry. I know non-Christian people who live very happy lives, happier than mine. Clearly happier than yours. I'm happy for them. Where did anyone say being a Christian makes you happy and productive? There is no promise that being Christian will make you happy and productive. Have you been watching the 700 club, again?
Tim Craig wrote:
And Dawkins thinks you're a jerk, too.
And what Dawkins thinks affects me, either in the here-and-now, or eternity, exactly how?
Opacity, the new Transparency.