Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ding Dong the Ding Dong's dead
Re: Keeping It Simple (For) Stupid
#26
Quote:
Look at it like this. What if you fell in love with someone who turned out to be a mass serial killer. Should society blame you for their crimes just because you loved them?
Of course not. This example assumes you had nothing to
do with it of course.
Hmm, I think it is a good example and since you go to an extreme I'll take it a bit further.
The America rejoiced when Hitler died. Where they wrong to do so becuase they hurt the feelings of the Nazi's who believed in Hitler and didn't know about the concentration camps?
Rev Dark agrues that it was proper to celebrate, you argue it wasn't.
Now I will admit that Hitler was far worse than Farwell. That might only be because Farwell lacked the power to do what Hitler did and the ability to atain that power, but he still didn't do it.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Reply
Re: Keeping It Simple (For) Stupid
#27
Quote:
Fidhooki, I suppose that name calling is easier for you than thinking. Racist, bigot, or whatever other inappropriate term you want to whip out of your unsophisticated vocabulary and wave around. You will have trouble making it stick though. Atheism, as I took pains to explain to you is the absence of belief. It is not subject to fundamentalism. You may challenge it at any time with rational argument and evidence. If you can prove god, you have triumphed and atheism will melt away. Atheism is not a bigoted belief, as it supports no position, only asks that a particular belief be proven. You cannot be an atheist zealot as explained above, as empirically proving the existence of god will trump atheism.

No atheism is not a bigoted beleif. There are many athiests
who get along just fine with those that believe. However,
in your words, I am 'delusional' and anything I say would be be suspect because I believe in god. So that must extend to
anyone else that believes as well. Now would you hire a
person who has such a delusion since their views and
opinions would also be 'suspect'? Discriminating against someone just because of their religous beliefs is bigotry
no matter the reason you use to hide it.
Now I am not saying you know you are one. You might not
even realize it but when you do, you might need to reevaluate
how you handle others.
Quote:
No, you did not hit a nerve, you would be hard pressed to hit the broad side of a barn with an idiom. By the way, engineers are proponents of the KISS principle; most mechanics are on the hour, so prefer complexity.

You know I was about to reply to your other comments
when I saw this line and realized why we have such a
problem. Oh and for the record. While car mechanics do
tend to do that, airplane mechanics, which usually do say
the KISS motto, that tend to do that are frequently
reclassified as unemployed mechanics...
Anyway, I think our problem is we do not see words the
same way.
Like the word Rake. Do you see it as a farm impliment first?
or a slope or incline? Or an action of a downward clawing
motion as in "raking the fingers down their back". how about
"raking someone over the coals"?
It does not make either one of us 'wrong', we just have
to be more careful and specific.
Quote:
Perhaps I do sound like an arrogant asshole; but if it is true (and it is not) I am an arrogant asshole who can string together an argument, writing clearly with a dramatic flair, humour and a sense of amazement and irony.
Quote:
Whats your excuse?
That I'm not arrogant. Oh I'm an asshole at times but I believe
so is everyone else at one point or another in their lives. I
just try to be honest about it.
Reply
Re: Keeping It Simple (For) Stupid
#28
Quote:
Look at it this way. What has
Falwell's wife and children ever done to you? Given
his views do you think they could have done anything
to change his?
they could have stopped him, or denounced him. They have failed to do so.
Quote:
Look at it like this. What if you fell in love with someone who turned out to be a mass serial killer. Should society blame you for their crimes just because you loved them? Of course not. This example assumes you had nothing to do with it of course.
How would I be to blame if I'm the person who drug them into police custody? Also, that's kinda pathetic, comparing falwell to a serial killer.. Falwell is much worse.Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Various replies
#29
Quote:
Atheism runs from seven levels as a measure of belief; from one - strong theism; to seven no god at all. I fall into category six in that there simply is not evidence for the existence of gods. That includes be the various festive variations of the god of Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), the Norse, Greek or various asian pantheons.
I have a particularly apt comment on this topic in my quotefile:
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
Which is precisely how I feel.
Quote:
Most people do not believe in other gods, only their own. Now conceivably an atheist could be such a staunch non-believer that they ignore all the evidence however until there is evidence this remains purely speculative.
Wasn't it Richard Dawkins who said something like, "We are all atheists about almost all the gods ever worshipped; the true atheist just goes one god further"?

-- Bob
---------
The Internet Is For Norns.
Reply
Re: Keeping It Simple (For) Stupid
#30
Quote:
they could have stopped him, or denounced him. They have failed to do so.
In fact, they probably willingly profited from him, and abetted him in making that profit.

-- Bob
---------
The Internet Is For Norns.
Reply
Re: Keeping It Simple (For) Stupid
#31
Quote:
Hmm, I think it is a good example and since you go to an extreme I'll take it a bit further.
Okay.
Quote:
The America rejoiced when Hitler died. Where they wrong to do so becuase they hurt the feelings of the Nazi's who believed in Hitler and didn't know about the concentration camps?
I think that goes along the lines of what Hitler
represented. A lot of people probably thought that the
war in europe was over when he died. I would go so far
as saying there were as many people that just sighed
and said 'Thank heavens it is finally over.' Also these people
lived with different values than now. To try to judge them with ours isn't a good thing to do on account that basis
theya re based on is not the same.
Quote:
Now I will admit that Hitler was far worse than Farwell. That might only be because Farwell lacked the power to do what Hitler did and the ability to atain that power, but he still didn't do it.
That's the main reason. Falwell spouted his beliefs for good or
ill. To oppose those beliefs and debate them openly as to
whether they are right or wrong is the way it should be
done.
But to hate the man that says them just because he did is
another matter. I could say with some certainty that Rev
doesn't know Falwell good enough to hate him or not.
Now if he had set up an group or organization whose main
purpose was to kill homosexuals, minorities.. whatever THEN
he might be justified. and no, preaching abstinance doesn't
count. that involve the preachees to make a choice as to
whether they should practice it or not.
And before I forget my opinion on jerry falwell is that he
was a moron and a fanatic who did more harm to the church
than any other man in history.
Reply
Reply
#32
Catty; I have heard of the Simulation Argument before; but up to your post had not read the paper itself. Thank you; I quite enjoyed it, and spend several hours of shop time contemplating several of the implications (although in the spirit of multi-tasking I was also listening to Hitchens at the time.)
Math and logic are tools used by the scientific method (and I am fond of both of them) however there are limits to constructions of pure math and logic; and we have to be wary of these limits. If your constants (logical or mathematical as it were) do not have an observable reality, you can logically prove damn near anything. The author is aware of this, and takes pains to elucidate this in the presentation of his argument, which is appreciated, especially when compared to the puerile proofs of Aquinas. While this makes for interesting reading, it ultimately feels like a very subtle satire; though it could certainly spawn many a late night conversation.
I do like how you could substitute post-human or simulator into any phrase currently containing the word god. We truly cannot know the mind of the simulator. In simulator we trust. But for the grace of simulator go I. As amusing as this is; the same argument that you bring against the existence of god can be brought against the existence of the simulator -who may be simulated by an even greater simulator. The foremost being there is no proof and no apparent means of proof.
Fidhooki quoth
Quote:
No atheism is not a bigoted beleif. There are many athiests who get along just fine with those that believe. However, in your words, I am 'delusional' and anything I say would be be suspect because I believe in god. So that must extend to anyone else that believes as well. Now would you hire a person who has such a delusion since their views and opinions would also be 'suspect'? Discriminating against someone just because of their religous beliefs is bigotry no matter the reason you use to hide it
I see that you are unable to distinguish rhetorical flourish. Your persecution complex just went condo. No I dont discriminate against the religious. My barb was directed specifically at you for presenting opinion without evidence; appealing only to an imaginary higher authority as the basis for your argument. Everyone has opinions. Not all opinions are equal. Douglas Adams said it very well.
Quote:
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.
(The rest of the interview is here - it is worth a read)
www.americanatheist.org/w...erman.html
Fidhooki
Quote:
Anyway, I think our problem is we do not see words the same way.
No, your problem is that you use words (racist, bigot, zealot, etc.) without knowing what they mean. These are not ad-homonym attacks to use your inappropriate rake analogy; but fundamental misunderstandings in the definitions themselves. By the way the ad-homonym attack is a homophone not a homonym pun.
Fidhooki again
Quote:
That's the main reason. Falwell spouted his beliefs for good or ill. To oppose those beliefs and debate them openly as to whether they are right or wrong is the way it should be done. But to hate the man that says them just because he did is another matter. I could say with some certainty that Rev doesn't know Falwell good enough to hate him or not.
Falwell did not just speak; he acted. Badly. With malice and enough temporal power to enact change. He did not want debate, he wanted submission, and the temporal power (political and financial) to enforce that submission.
I think it is safe to say that the pronouncements and actions of Falwell are sufficient to engender hatred. His opinions were elucidated clearly; his actions well documented and easily researched. As to not killing people his ministry was and still is against HPV vaccinations. Cervical cancer must be the gift of a loving god who wants to dirt-nap a whole bunch of people in a painful way. I like Mahers take on this
Quote:
Now for the bad news: Not everyone is pleased with this vaccine. That prevents cancer. Christian parent groups and churches nationwide are fighting it. Bridget Maher -- no relation, and none planned -- of the Family Research Council says giving girls the vaccine is bad, because the girls "may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Which is really a stretch. People don't get the vaccine for typhoid and say, "Great, now I can drink the sewer water in Bombay." It's like saying if you give a kid a tetanus shot she'll want to jab rusty nails in her feet.
Falwell was a charlatan and a huckster. Hoovering money out of the faithful, eroding the separation of church and state; engaging on attacks on science or at least the sciences that he felt threatened his racket he may not have liked evolution, but he was first in line to avail himself of the advances in biology and medicine.
Another lovely little Jerry Story what a twat.
www.talk2action.org/story...213627/818
Shayne
Reply
Re: Reply
#33
Quote:
charlatan and a huckster
*headbangs*
ROCK ON, MAN!Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Reply
#34
Quote:
he may not have liked evolution, but he was first in line to avail himself of the advances in biology and medicine.
I have long been of the opinion that fundies who dispute evolution should not be allowed to use products or byproducts of any science required by the parts they claim are wrong.
Just for their souls' protection, of course. Because if they're right, all that stuff only works because the devil makes it work. Of course.

-- Bob
---------
The Internet Is For Norns.
Reply
Re: Reply
#35
Quote:
I have long been of the opinion that fundies who dispute evolution should not be allowed to use products or byproducts of any science required by the parts they claim are wrong.
Just for their souls' protection, of course. Because if they're right, all that stuff only works because the devil makes it work. Of course.
Ooooh, nice. But of course, they'd claim that we simply don't have the right understanding of how the Lord (cue Heavenly chorus) makes that stuff work despite science.
I wouldn't get up in the face of Foulwell's wife and/or children to tell them how much I despised their husband/father, but I agree that it'd be hypocrisy to back off, solely because he's finally done something good for the world by dropping dead (and not before time), from expressing a negative opinion of him. Does anyone here think that any of Foulwell's admirers are going to visit this site and get their feelings hurt by criticism of Jerry?
C'm'on! Even before Rev Dark's comments, this was clearly a site where Friends of Foulwell would feel surrounded by the wicked enemy. For instance, in DWII, we have Daley Wong, an open homosexual, presented as a sympathetic character and cool guy. Now, to Foulwell or any of his ilk, that likely means that we who read and enjoyed DWII are all "queers." (And therefore to blame for 9/11.)
Also, in DWII and even more in DWV, we see genuine, no-foolin' gods who are not the white Anglo-Saxon evangelical-Protestant Jesus Christ worshipped, or at least marketed, by Foulwell. So we're clearly not just "queers," we're "devil-worshipping queers."
When I saw the headline that he'd died, my first thought was along much the same lines as Rev Dark's thread title. My immediate second thought was, "And there was much rejoicing."
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.
Reply
Re: Reply
#36
i6.photobucket.com/albums...ncomic.jpg
nws, for pretty pathetic values of 'work'Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Reply
#37
abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543
This is strictly in keeping with the ethics and morality of the christian religion. Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Reply
#38
Quote:
This is strictly in keeping with the ethics and morality of the christian religion.
Whose?
Reply
Re: Reply
#39
the christian religion as an organized party. take your choice of specific names.Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Reply
Re: Reply
#40
Quote:
the christian religion as an organized party. take your choice of specific names

That is bs and you know it.
Reply
Would not know 'it' if 'it' danced naked.
#41
Fidhooki thus states.
Quote:
That is bs and you know it.
Actually, it is not bs; and if you had actually read the bible, you too would know it.
If taken as inerrant word of god, the Bible, old and new testament is very specific about smiting the non-believers and enemies of all types. Moses goes so far as to detail who to kill and who to take as slaves. Luke 19:27 contains a nice example of how much of this was carried forward to the New Testament (yes it is told as a parable, a common framing device of the synoptic gospels.)
Now having said that; most Christians do not follow the inerrant word of god; they cherry-pick the parts they like and ignore the parts that they do not feel apply. If you want to sell your daughter, your can reference the appropriate verses. Want to keep slaves? It is all there. While you would be hard pressed to find precise admonitions against visiting Rosie Palm and her five daughters, you can find very precise tribal admonitions concerning cattle rights (and rites for that matter.) God hates shellfish as evidenced by Leviticus, but that is because the omniscient, omnipotent creator could not see far enough ahead to figure out refrigeration (a nice example of religion being man made.)
Now, in the context of the article referenced; Jerry Falwell was a strong proponent of the idea of an inerrant bible and stated so in his book Finding Inner Peace and Strength.
Thus Spake Jerry
Quote:
The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
So the little bomb-making atavist was indeed keeping with the ethics and morality of the Christian Religion as espoused by Jerry and his loathsome ilk. Sadly he is not alone.
Shayne
Reply
Re: Reply
#42
Quote:
If your constants (logical or mathematical as it were) do not have an observable reality, you can logically prove damn near anything.
Math and logic both rely on Axioms, things which are assumed to be true. What you do in math/logic generally is prooving that certain things are true or not for any world where those axioms are true.
Quote:
The foremost being there is no proof and no apparent means of proof.
As I said before, I'm a computer scientist, which is really much closer to a mathematician with some engineering thrown in than a scientist. If it is mathematically proven it's true, it might just not be true for our world (meaning we picked the wrong axioms somewhere, assuming of course we wanted to proove something about our world.)
I also recomend you read the FAQ ( www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html ) since it does adress some of your objections.
Quote:
I do like how you could substitute post-human or simulator into any phrase currently containing the word god. We truly cannot know the mind of the simulator. In simulator we trust. But for the grace of simulator go I.
Right because a high fidelity simulation about galaxy clumping really would care that much about the sentient beings it's accidentaly simulating. At this point you are confusing the simulation hypothesis with traditional religions.
Ak, quick definition of terms:
Simulation argument: That at least one of three disjuncts is true, (we live in a simulation, we will go extinct soon, or we won't have any interest in running simulations when we have the computational power to do so.)
Simulation Hypothesis: We live in a simulation.
It's important to keep the two seperate, because the simulation argument is almost certainly correct. The Simulation hypothesis however is unproven. I belive in the simulation hypothesis, but Bostrom (the one who wrote the simulation argument) does not.
I think if we wanted to discuss this more we should start a new thread. Politic threads always seem to veer so far of course.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Reply
Re: Reply
#43
Quote:
Now having said that; most Christians do not follow the inerrant word of god; they cherry-pick the parts they like and ignore the parts that they do not feel apply.
Brings up a point I want to follow. I'm not exactly a full-blown Christian, though I take certain aspects of the faith to heart. I treat the Bible largely as an allegory.
For example, I think the early parts of Genesis are true, in the sense that it's a poetic way of saying, "We're here, and God made all of this." And couched in terms that people of the time would understand. However, I think the Big Bang is the actual way the universe started, and evolution and natural selection is how all the current life on this planet came to be in the state they are in now. It's interesting that the original Hebrew translations used a word that we've translated into English as "day" when the original word used in the "seven days and nights" description was far more ambiguous and arbitrary. You could interpret that to mean stages in the mind of God and his plan. Or something else. 7 days? Or 7 Epochs? Or 7 billion years?
And yeah, I cherry-pick the stuff I think is relevant from the Bible. I do that with other faiths and philosophies as well. Zen and Buddhism and Hinduism fascinate me. Though I have an intrinsic distrust of the central idea - the giving up of one's individuality to achieve "nirvana". I'm too much of an individualist to ascribe to that. The central theme of Christianity - of the redemption by Christ's sacrifice appeals to me far more and on a deeper level. Self Sacrifice for the greater good as opposed to sacrifice OF self.
As to whether any of this is real? Nope - got no proof. I have no idea if there is life after death. I'd like to think so. Since I want to be reunited with so many people in my life who have passed on. I don't think I'd want to spend _eternity_ in heaven, though. Seems like it'd get boring eventually. I'd opt for reincarnation eventually, if that were available.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I guess. If I am, I certainly won't know it. In the meantime, the idea of an afterlife brings me comfort. Am I wrong in thinking that the alternative would be profoundly unfair?
One thing I agree with atheists on. One should live this life as if it really _is_ all there is. Don't make choices based on an afterlife that may or may not exist. Make choices based on what affects you and the people around you in the here and now and the future for your children and society.
Which is why religious fanatics like Bin Laden and Falwell and the head of the Aum Shinriki cult in Japan really make me angry. Their actions assume an afterlife for them of paradise and eternal torment for their enemies. And the world is a much poorer place because of their madness and insistence that the world bend to their will. -Logan
-----------------
"Wake up! Time for SCIENCE!"
-Adam Savage
-----------------
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)