[blackshoe]

In my view, something caused the Primordial Egg to "explode" in the Big Bang. The People of the Book call this something "God". People of other books call it something else. The Chinese, or some of them, call it Taiji (supreme ultimate) and do not anthropomorphize it. I'll go with that.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-31, 19:18, said:

In my view, something caused the Primordial Egg to "explode" in the Big Bang. The People of the Book call this something "God". People of other books call it something else. The Chinese, or some of them, call it Taiji (supreme ultimate) and do not anthropomorphize it. I'll go with that.

This doesn't work that well, because where did Taiji come from?

[blackshoe]

Dunno. Don't know what it is, either. Not something to worship, though.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2012-December-30, 15:17, said:

Goes to show...altho a sample size of two proves little, the atheist knows more about religion than does the typical Xian believer. This is consistent with studies in the US that show that atheists generally have more understanding of the bible than do Xians.

Personally, I feel that these sorts of data do suggest that maybe believers are often believers for cultural reasons (i.e. being indoctrinated before the age of critical thinking) than because they understand what it is they profess to believe.

Once again you make an assumption of my belief that is not supported by what I have posted. What's more, that assumption is evidently at least negative in your mind, if not outright derogatory. Perhaps I should be offended? I ask a simple a question about a fact which I do not happen to know. You correlate lack of knowledge with Christian belief, and reach this judgement about me. Even making the (dubious) assumption that Christians are generally ignorant, to conclude that one who is ignorant (on one specific point) is therefore Christian is a simple logical fallacy of the form A implies B, therefore B implies A.

Or did you reach your conclusion that I am Christian earlier - and if so based on what?

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2013-January-02, 08:00, said:

Once again you make an assumption of my belief that is not supported by what I have posted. What's more, that assumption is evidently at least negative in your mind, if not outright derogatory. Perhaps I should be offended? I ask a simple a question about a fact which I do not happen to know. You correlate lack of knowledge with Christian belief, and reach this judgement about me. Even making the (dubious) assumption that Christians are generally ignorant, to conclude that one who is ignorant (on one specific point) is therefore Christian is a simple logical fallacy of the form A implies B, therefore B implies A.

Or did you reach your conclusion that I am Christian earlier - and if so based on what?

Once again you make an assumption about my attitude that is not supported by what I have posted

I have a great deal of respect for many people who are, in addition to the qualities for which I respect them, christians or believers in other forms of the supernatural. I see their religious beliefs in the same manner as I see other minor eccentricities that do not affect the affection and respect I have for them. My 'negative' reaction is to those who claim absolute knowledge and wish to impose their belief structure on others.

I haven't 'assumed' that you are a Christian: I inferred it, and any inference is quite possibly in error, being based on the drawing of an inference from evidence that is less than clear. The evidence from which I drew the inference is the totality of your postings, rather than any specific post. If there was one post in particular that seems to weigh more heavily than the others it would be the one in which you express a combination of acknowledging that your limited background leaves you unable to understand the science that has led to the inference that dark energy may exist (I gather that dark energy is but one of several hypotheses under consideration as an explanation for the observed accelerating of the expansion of the universe, but is the leading candidate so far) and a skepticism that the theory could be true. Your skepticism isn't based on knowledge: it seems based precisely on: 'I don't understand it therefore it can't be true'. You then make what I read as a sarcastic reference to 'my' theory of the gaps. While I would love to be able to claim original thinking, nothing I have posted in this and related threads is original to me. The 'god of the gaps' is a well-known tho fallacious argument that because we cannot yet explain everything by application of the scientific method, what is left...what is in the gaps of our knowledge...should logically be assumed to be supernatural in origin.That sort of attitude appears, in my experience, to be most commonly found in religious believers.

I am aware that some might say that I am displaying precisely the same attitude towards religion, but my opinion is that I do in fact understand religion quite well. Indeed the point I was trying to make in the post that triggered your response was that it appears that the more one understands religion, the less likely one is to be religious

If I am mistaken, and if you feel that being thought of as a christian is offensive, then I have done you an injustice and I apologize. Those friends of mine who are christian don't seem to be offended that I know of them as christians, and I don't think I'm personally be offended if someone for any reason described me as christian (tho I'd probably clarify what my position was, rather than leave them guessing).

[mycroft]

mikeh, on 2012-December-31, 17:38, said:

But why are we in charge?

Who has the power has the responsibility, no?

Quote

We aren't in charge at all, and thinking that we are has led to a lot of irrational behaviour. Many on the US political right, for example, believe that we can do anything we like because god wouldn't let us destroy his creation. Others, such as the pope, are against contraception. Some say that we are mandated to 'go forth and mulitiply' and the heck with the consequences.

Matthew 13:14-17. Truly, you can see that there are those who have ears and do not hear, eyes and do not see; are given the truth as stories and choose not to understand?

In particular with the current Pontiff, I would add that the inbred nature of any powerful bureaucracy, especially a closed hierarchical one, breeds the kind of closed-mindedness and groupthink that leads to this and worse. After all, even the Catholics admit to several "bad popes". You don't need a mystical being to pull that - although I will admit a belief that can be twisted into self-righteousness easily doesn't make it harder.

Quote

A proper understanding, that we are but one species that has evolved along with all other current living entities, and that we are subject to the laws of physics, and of over-population just as are other species would be far more useful. I don't think those laws are quite as susceptible to being read purely so as to coincide with one's selfish view or wishful thinking.

It's so *nice* to see such naivete in the world. Isaiah, the Psalmist, and Jesus weren't *wrong* with "none are so blind as will not see", even if one takes as read that their beliefs were also wrong. *We* aren't going to have a problem with over-population, and many aren't going to have a problem with lack of petroleum. Our children? Well, there are many reasons why I don't have children; but this is screamingly one of them.


Other topic.

Quote

I don't know what you mean by luck.

Well, apart from being born white and nerdy in 20th Century Canada, in a world where university education for engineering was extra-cost, so $450 a term each for courses and books, and living in a country where the amount of medical treatment to keep me alive, and later to fix the problem, didn't bankrupt me for life, I didn't get run over by a car, or shot in the street, or ...

Quote

But life was probably very likely to have developed and, once it started, its progression wasn't directed or narrowly constrained but, as I understand current thinking, it wasn't utterly random either.

There are only so many ways a piece of self-replicating molecule can be changed and still be self-replicating, and at both the molecular and higher levels of organization, even viable mutations face the risk of failing to preferentially survive. So it isn't 'utterly random' tho it seems to likely be effectively chaotic in many ways.

Ah, but I was discussing strictly myself, and that one random thought that stopped the worst day of my life; and whether it was purposeful or merely the same chemical randomness that makes me guess right in 3NT.

Quote

I understand the first sentence. I completely fail to understand the second. I see the magnificence but why that should cause me to think in religious terms not only escapes me but saddens me that intelligent people are so limited in their imagination and sense of awe that they have to resort to a magic being as 'the explanation'.

It saddens me that creative and imaginative people are so limited in their imagination that they take the wonder of the universe strictly on reason, and not even play with the mystic. Woo is one thing, but:

Quote

“Ki is, of course, mystical bullshit. That’s why it works so well, both as a teaching idiom and a tool of practice in martial arts. It’s as nonexistent as charm, leadership, or acting. Humans are all about bullshit.” (Andrew Plotkin)

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2013-January-02, 12:00, said:

It saddens me that creative and imaginative people are so limited in their imagination that they take the wonder of the universe strictly on reason, and not even play with the mystic. Woo is one thing, but:

I suspect our visceral reactions to the palpable wonders of the world as susceptible to our senses are much the same. We all have within our brains a part that, when stimulated, gives us a sense of 'spirituality'. I can look into the night sky and feel awed. I can try, and fail, to comprehend the vastness of just what we can see, which is a tiny fraction of what is out there (or 'was' out there when the photons impacting our eyes were emitted from the stars/galaxies etc that we see).

My sense of awe is not then channelled towards an imaginary entity. My sense of awe informs a sense of mystery and a yearning for an explanation. My sense of reason tells me that the cop-out explanation that 'god did it' is neither plausible nor of any assistance. Who caused god? And saying that god is that which causes itself is a nice turn of phrase but is essentially void of content.

One of the many strange and fascinating attributes of language is that we can use words that meet all the formal requirements of grammar but which are either utterly meaningless (tho superficially attractive) or become, on close analysis to be tautological (which may be me being tautological myself).

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2013-January-02, 11:02, said:

Once again you make an assumption about my attitude that is not supported by what I have posted

I have a great deal of respect for many people who are, in addition to the qualities for which I respect them, christians or believers in other forms of the supernatural. I see their religious beliefs in the same manner as I see other minor eccentricities that do not affect the affection and respect I have for them. My 'negative' reaction is to those who claim absolute knowledge and wish to impose their belief structure on others.

I haven't 'assumed' that you are a Christian: I inferred it, and any inference is quite possibly in error, being based on the drawing of an inference from evidence that is less than clear. The evidence from which I drew the inference is the totality of your postings, rather than any specific post. If there was one post in particular that seems to weigh more heavily than the others it would be the one in which you express a combination of acknowledging that your limited background leaves you unable to understand the science that has led to the inference that dark energy may exist (I gather that dark energy is but one of several hypotheses under consideration as an explanation for the observed accelerating of the expansion of the universe, but is the leading candidate so far) and a skepticism that the theory could be true. Your skepticism isn't based on knowledge: it seems based precisely on: 'I don't understand it therefore it can't be true'. You then make what I read as a sarcastic reference to 'my' theory of the gaps. While I would love to be able to claim original thinking, nothing I have posted in this and related threads is original to me. The 'god of the gaps' is a well-known tho fallacious argument that because we cannot yet explain everything by application of the scientific method, what is left...what is in the gaps of our knowledge...should logically be assumed to be supernatural in origin.That sort of attitude appears, in my experience, to be most commonly found in religious believers.

I am aware that some might say that I am displaying precisely the same attitude towards religion, but my opinion is that I do in fact understand religion quite well. Indeed the point I was trying to make in the post that triggered your response was that it appears that the more one understands religion, the less likely one is to be religious

If I am mistaken, and if you feel that being thought of as a christian is offensive, then I have done you an injustice and I apologize. Those friends of mine who are christian don't seem to be offended that I know of them as christians, and I don't think I'm personally be offended if someone for any reason described me as christian (tho I'd probably clarify what my position was, rather than leave them guessing).

Interesting. Of course, I do not entirely understand the science behind dark matter and dark energy theory. I doubt anyone on this board does, unless they are professional physicists. That said, I suspect that I understand the science about as well as you do. The difference is that I take a more skeptical view.

I am sure you know that skepticism is not the same as disbelief. I have said quite clearly, that it could be true. However, the fact that these theories are currently the most popular candidates for explaining certain observations, does not particularly motivate me one way or the other. The history of science is full of fad theories which didn't pan out, or were outright contradicted. For example, even recently, a large amount of work went into string theory. Not much came of it all, and it is no longer fashionable. Dark stuff theory, on the other hand, is very fashionable ... for now. Will it remain so? We'll see. If reserving judgement pending a couple more decades of thought and observations flags me as a suspect Christian, or some other sort of addled thinker, I guess I can live with that.

On a more technical side, I would point to a well known marker of good theories: they make predictions which are not directly related to the matters they were designed to explain, and which can be tested by observation. Do any such predictions arise from dark stuff theory? If so, have the experiments been done, and what were the results? Perhaps there is some information out there that I am unaware of, and which is more convincing.

As for the sarcastic gap reference, I intended it as humor. Not my strong point evidently

[Cyberyeti]

http://www.theonion....la-attac,30860/

[Fluffy]

I've heard the bow sales in US rised by several times after hunger games movie. Its just another example of people stupidly over-reacting.

I saw a story on facebook yesterday, some old women almost got killed by a falling tree in Barcelona, neighbours where really concern... but one woman didn't care, why? well she know some statistics, being killed by a tree on a non-windy city is almost impossible, even if it almost happened now it will not almost happen anytime soon.

Perhaps teaching basic maths is more helpful than teaching why guns are dangerous.

The worse episode of over-reacing happened after al-qaeda murdered more than 300 people in Madrid some years ago. People got scared, and since elections where the very next day, changed their votes to the party the terrorist wanted to win, this party has managed to send Spain to the worst financial crisis I have lived.

in 40M population country, more than 500.000 people die per year, that's around 1.500 a day. Should we really be scared for 300 deaths?

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:57, said:

The worse episode of over-reacing happened after al-qaeda murdered more than 300 people in Madrid some years ago. People got scared, and since elections where the very next day, changed their votes to the party the terrorist wanted to win, this party has managed to send Spain to the worst financial crisis I have lived.

in 40M population country, more than 500.000 people die per year, that's around 1.500 a day. Should we really be scared for 300 deaths?

I hope no terrorists are reading these forums! It would be terrible if more of them realised that they can do a lot more damage by using their acts to manipulate the political/financial spheres instead of "simply" killing people.

[Fluffy]

Give that you posted on the religion thread to attack me just before writing this, I supose you are also attacking me here, probably using some irony. But I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 05:59, said:

Give that you posted on the religion thread to attack me just before writing this, I supose you are also attacking me here, probably using some irony. But I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

I don't understand what you mean either. I did not say you are a terrorist; I have no particular reason to think you are. Try not to be paranoid.

[Fluffy]

well maybe you think I don't care about 300 people dying, or 21 in connecticut. Well I do care, I just care so little compared to hundreds of thousands slaughtered on Africa or dying from starvation. By about a thousand times less. and I think people are wrong when overreacting to 21 or 300 deaths when there are much more important things going on.

[Fluffy]

I have been very lucky and know of nobody who has been ransom or been attacked by terrorists, and I realice that if I had I might change my views here, but as it is now I think:

-If nobody payed ever any rescue (or attend any petition) on ransoms there would be no ransoms since they would be pointless.
-For the same reason if terrorist acts didn't go to any kind of news there would be no point for them (or much less). And there would also be less point in mass murders.

[mgoetze]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 06:11, said:

well maybe you think I don't care about 300 people dying, or 21 in connecticut. Well I do care, I just care so little compared to hundreds of thousands slaughtered on Africa or dying from starvation. By about a thousand times less. and I think people are wrong when overreacting to 21 or 300 deaths when there are much more important things going on.

Indeed. About 155,000 people die every day (or 1.8 per second). If I cared about all of them, I wouldn't get around to doing much of anything else.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:57, said:

II saw a story on facebook yesterday, some old women almost got killed by a falling tree in Barcelona, neighbours where really concern

Ban falling trees! Heck, ban trees!

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-11, 09:13, said:

Ban falling trees! Heck, ban trees!

Welcome to the world of video games players. "This guy shot 25 people and also played World of Warcraft - ban WoW" yes, he also played football and ate hamburgers, are we going to ban those too ?

[Fluffy]

you might laugh abaout banning trees, but there was a (fake) video of an eagle taking a litle boy in a park I think in Canada not long ago, my first reaction before knowing it was a fake was: oh no, some stupid is gonna start asking to kill all eagles now.

there are real stories, like my friend who was forbidden to play soccer by his mom. Because she had seen on tv that Nwanku Kanu (Nigerian Senegal player) had something in his heart (obviously unrelated to playing soccer)

This post has been edited by Fluffy: 2013-January-13, 03:11

[gwnn]

In Romania there was a little boy killed by a falling tree in the school yard and (from what I remember) they did cut down all trees in most school yards. I have to look it up.