| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scott Lowther
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
 |
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:16:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
BTW, the neurological source for religious experience has been
discovered: the left temporal lobe. Anti-epilepsy medications have
been found to turn off these experiences. In the bible, Paul, on the
way to Damascus, was struck by lightning. This is known to trigger
visions.
Key point of that story is that we only have Paul's word it ever
happened.
And as we all know, the *true* scientific method says to take such
accounts as fact until *proven* wrong... [/Fred]
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
ZOOOM. Right over Rand's head... |
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:11:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
BTW, the neurological source for religious experience has been
discovered: the left temporal lobe. Anti-epilepsy medications have
been found to turn off these experiences. In the bible, Paul, on the
way to Damascus, was struck by lightning. This is known to trigger
visions.
Key point of that story is that we only have Paul's word it ever
happened.
And as we all know, the *true* scientific method says to take such
accounts as fact until *proven* wrong... [/Fred]
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
ZOOOM. Right over Rand's head...
|
No, I was pointing out that you were mischaracterizing Fred's
argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Lowther
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:11:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
BTW, the neurological source for religious experience has been
discovered: the left temporal lobe. Anti-epilepsy medications have
been found to turn off these experiences. In the bible, Paul, on the
way to Damascus, was struck by lightning. This is known to trigger
visions.
Key point of that story is that we only have Paul's word it ever
happened.
And as we all know, the *true* scientific method says to take such
accounts as fact until *proven* wrong... [/Fred]
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
ZOOOM. Right over Rand's head...
No, I was pointing out that you were mischaracterizing Fred's
argument.
Ah... that's not what you said, Rand. |
Besides, Freds arguement really has been that to deny the existence of
something is a religious claim. Denying the existance of your great^12
granny living under your futon is not a scientific denial, but a
religiously bigotted one. The thing is... the hard-core absolutist
position regarding proof and whatnot almost never happens in science...
and nor shoudl it. As Pat p[ointed out, at some point reason must
prevail and Occams Razor kicks in.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:57:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Key point of that story is that we only have Paul's word it ever
happened.
And as we all know, the *true* scientific method says to take such
accounts as fact until *proven* wrong... [/Fred]
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
ZOOOM. Right over Rand's head...
No, I was pointing out that you were mischaracterizing Fred's
argument.
Ah... that's not what you said, Rand.
|
What's not what I said?
| Quote: |
Besides, Freds arguement really has been that to deny the existence of
something is a religious claim.
|
It is.
| Quote: |
Denying the existance of your great^12
granny living under your futon is not a scientific denial, but a
religiously bigotted one.
|
??
| Quote: |
The thing is... the hard-core absolutist
position regarding proof and whatnot almost never happens in science...
and nor shoudl it. As Pat p[ointed out, at some point reason must
prevail and Occams Razor kicks in.
|
Yes, and at that point one says that there's no evidence of a
proposition, and no reason to believe it. One doesn't say that one
must therefore believe its converse. The only reasonable scientific
position on God is to be a skeptic, not to forthrightly deny Her
existence. That is indeed a religious belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Lowther
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:57:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Key point of that story is that we only have Paul's word it ever
happened.
And as we all know, the *true* scientific method says to take such
accounts as fact until *proven* wrong... [/Fred]
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
ZOOOM. Right over Rand's head...
No, I was pointing out that you were mischaracterizing Fred's
argument.
Ah... that's not what you said, Rand.
What's not what I said?
Oy vey. |
| Quote: |
Besides, Freds arguement really has been that to deny the existence of
something is a religious claim.
It is.
|
That's silly. It would also negate the meaning of the world "religious."
As it would mean that, for instance, "Al Gore did *not* with the 2007
Presidential election" is a *religious* statment.
Words mean things, Rand. A denial of the existence of what's clearly not
there has never before been considewred "religious," but I guess now it is.
| Quote: |
The thing is... the hard-core absolutist
position regarding proof and whatnot almost never happens in science...
and nor shoudl it. As Pat p[ointed out, at some point reason must
prevail and Occams Razor kicks in.
Yes, and at that point one says that there's no evidence of a
proposition, and no reason to believe it. One doesn't say that one
must therefore believe its converse. The only reasonable scientific
position on God is to be a skeptic, not to forthrightly deny Her
existence. That is indeed a religious belief.
|
Just as it's a religious belief to say that the Earth is not a cube? Or
to deny that the Earth is hollow? Or to suggest that the notion that the
Queen of England is really a space lizard is a false notion?
Sometimes, "no" and "wrong" are perfectly good summations of various
unproven and unlikely notions.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:30:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Besides, Freds arguement really has been that to deny the existence of
something is a religious claim.
It is.
That's silly. It would also negate the meaning of the world "religious."
As it would mean that, for instance, "Al Gore did *not* with the 2007
Presidential election" is a *religious* statment.
|
No, there is abundant evidence that Al Gore didn't win the 2007
presidential election, since that can be demonstrated to not exist, at
least on this planet. It isn't possible to have an election with no
record or recollection of it, and it would be unconstitutional. On
the other hand, it is quite possible for there to be a God, and have
no evidence of it.
| Quote: |
Yes, and at that point one says that there's no evidence of a
proposition, and no reason to believe it. One doesn't say that one
must therefore believe its converse. The only reasonable scientific
position on God is to be a skeptic, not to forthrightly deny Her
existence. That is indeed a religious belief.
Just as it's a religious belief to say that the Earth is not a cube?
|
No, it can be readily shown that earth is not a cube.
| Quote: |
Or to deny that the Earth is hollow?
|
No, there is abundant evidence that the earth is not hollow.
| Quote: |
Or to suggest that the notion that the
Queen of England is really a space lizard is a false notion?
Sometimes, "no" and "wrong" are perfectly good summations of various
unproven and unlikely notions.
|
Yes, except that God's existence is not an unlikely notion. It's
completely unknowable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Lowther
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:30:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Besides, Freds arguement really has been that to deny the existence of
something is a religious claim.
It is.
That's silly. It would also negate the meaning of the world "religious."
As it would mean that, for instance, "Al Gore did *not* with the 2007
Presidential election" is a *religious* statment.
No, there is abundant evidence that Al Gore didn't win the 2007
presidential election, since that can be demonstrated to not exist, at
least on this planet.
Right there you inserted a caveat. Thgus, a denial of that electoral |
victory is "religious."
| Quote: |
It isn't possible to have an election with no
record or recollection of it...
|
"It isn't possible" is a "religious" arguement now.
| Quote: |
, and it would be unconstitutional. On
the other hand, it is quite possible for there to be a God, and have
no evidence of it.
Just as it would be possible for this god to have hidden all the |
evidence for the recent election, yes?
| Quote: |
Yes, and at that point one says that there's no evidence of a
proposition, and no reason to believe it. One doesn't say that one
must therefore believe its converse. The only reasonable scientific
position on God is to be a skeptic, not to forthrightly deny Her
existence. That is indeed a religious belief.
Just as it's a religious belief to say that the Earth is not a cube?
No, it can be readily shown that earth is not a cube.
Shown? Perhaps. Proven? Nope. Not in the strict scientific sense that |
allows for hidden omnipotent gods that could well have created this
entire universe 2.2 microseconds ago with your memories already in place..
| Quote: |
Yes, except that God's existence is not an unlikely notion.
|
Opinion, not hard fact.
| Quote: |
It's
completely unknowable.
Incorrect. If a god exists... this god could *easily* make |
him/her/its/their/herms self abundantly known.
Bah. I'm bored with this.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:43:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
That's silly. It would also negate the meaning of the world "religious."
As it would mean that, for instance, "Al Gore did *not* with the 2007
Presidential election" is a *religious* statment.
No, there is abundant evidence that Al Gore didn't win the 2007
presidential election, since that can be demonstrated to not exist, at
least on this planet.
Right there you inserted a caveat. Thgus, a denial of that electoral
victory is "religious."
|
Fine. It is, if you are claiming that it may have happened on some
other planet. I certainly can't deny it.
| Quote: |
It isn't possible to have an election with no
record or recollection of it...
"It isn't possible" is a "religious" arguement now.
|
No, it's not.
| Quote: |
, and it would be unconstitutional. On
the other hand, it is quite possible for there to be a God, and have
no evidence of it.
Just as it would be possible for this god to have hidden all the
evidence for the recent election, yes?
|
I suppose, but that gets into the philosophical question of if, in
doing so, he caused it to cease to have existed.
| Quote: |
Yes, and at that point one says that there's no evidence of a
proposition, and no reason to believe it. One doesn't say that one
must therefore believe its converse. The only reasonable scientific
position on God is to be a skeptic, not to forthrightly deny Her
existence. That is indeed a religious belief.
Just as it's a religious belief to say that the Earth is not a cube?
No, it can be readily shown that earth is not a cube.
Shown? Perhaps. Proven? Nope. Not in the strict scientific sense that
allows for hidden omnipotent gods that could well have created this
entire universe 2.2 microseconds ago with your memories already in place..
|
Sure it can. Unlike the existence of God, the theory that the earth
is a cube is easily falsifiable.
| Quote: |
Yes, except that God's existence is not an unlikely notion.
Opinion, not hard fact.
|
My point is that it's absurd to even talk about the likelihood of such
a proposition.
| Quote: |
It's
completely unknowable.
Incorrect. If a god exists... this god could *easily* make
him/her/its/their/herms self abundantly known.
|
It could just as easily not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Chomko
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Jun 3, 9:54 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Scott Lowther" <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
news:EfC8i.9644$B25.1661@news01.roc.ny...
I never said anything of the kind. That beign the case... you're clearly
little more than a troll, unworthy of more of my time.
*You* are getting that way. Killfile him and be done with it. Arguing on
Usenet is like running in the Special Olympics- even if you win, you're
still retarded.
Ooops- now I've said it. Let's see what little pissant pops up to take
umbrage with my use of that term.
|
Nope, you win.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Chomko
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Jun 3, 11:38 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Scott Lowther <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
:Scott Hedrick wrote:
::>"Scott Lowther" <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
:>news:EfC8i.9644$B25.1661@news01.roc.ny...
:
:
:>>I never said anything of the kind. That beign the case... you're clearly
:>>little more than a troll, unworthy of more of my time.
:
:
:
:>*You* are getting that way. Killfile him and be done with it.
:
:
:Already done. Anyone who claims that any use of the term "such-and-such
:doesn't exist" is religious bigotry, and who then goes on to bleat about
:what scientific terms mean... well, of all the possibilities of what
:that guy is, "troll" is the optimistic one.
:
And yet here you are, still wanking off...
|
He's killfiled you, Freddy.
I just wanted to point out that your posts to EVERYONE are basically
the same. I'd like to think we can get along to actually learn
something from time to time rather than a pissing war about religion
vs. science, as if there has every really been any resolution in that
regard when the topic is just that.
Also, I find it ironic the smugness that you get in the middle
claiming those on both ends are nuts when you yourself have the same
fervor. Welcome the world of the "radical moderate". You and
Borderline. hahahahahaha
Eric
| Quote: |
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Chomko
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Jun 2, 11:38 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:On May 31, 10:12 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:
:> :On May 29, 10:32 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Scott Lowther <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
:> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :
:> :> :
:> :> :>But the self-certainty that said divine will doesn't exist is just
:> :> :>another religious view.
:> :> :
:> :> :
:> :> :In exactly the same way that saying "hanging a horse-shoe above your
:> :> :door has no noticable effect on your fortunes for the coming year" is a
:> :> :superstition.
:> :> :
:> :
:> :> Nope. Note the difference in phrasing.
:> :
:> :> The very fact that this is such an issue of contention for you
:> :> demonstrates just how much a religious belief the non-existence of
:> :> gods is for you.
:> :
:> :> Scientifically prove there are no such things...
:> :
:> :Or are? You make a strawman argument that the negation of which can
:> :also not be scientifically proven. Therefore, in this context it is
:> :worthless.
:> :
:
:> Gee, even a stopped clock is correct once in a while. But not Eric.
:
:The correct answer is a stopped clock is right twice a day. Your "once
:in awhile" comment proves that you play at science and lack true
:rigor.
:
That's only the correct answer if one assumes that one is rooted in
one place and there is no such thing as DST. As usual, Eric tries to
overspecify in a stupidly incorrect way.
|
Nice try, Freddy, but even with DST a clock is right exactly twice a
day. Your point has no bearing on the statment and is only a sad
attempt to take the focus off your vague comment.
| Quote: |
:
:> Eric, pointing to one would prove there are. Now tell me how you
:> prove there are not.
:
:
:You can do neither. If I state that I do not believe in religion and
:you call that a religious belief, then that is only valid from your
:point iof view, not mine since religion is null and void in te context
 f whether I believe it or not.
:
So your position is that BELIEF about the existence or non-existence
of god(s) isn't religion?
|
Correct. Both are philosophical beliefs, but only one that believes in
God or gods can be further described as a religious believer. Think
objective (philosophical) vs. subjective (religious).
| Quote: |
Ok, then there's no such thing as religion.
|
Only to those that do not believe in God or gods. At best, to them it
is something that they recognize that others take part in.
| Quote: |
Stating that one believes
in God isn't a religious statement, either, under your rather silly
criteria.
|
It is a philisophical one. The manner in the belief in God or gods
then becomes the religious belief(s).
| Quote: |
:
:> You're ALMOST as silly as Mr Lowther. He insists he can
:> 'scientifically' prove things that are not provable. You insist that
:> things that there are way to prove cannot be proven.
:
:> You two are made for each other...
:
:Your political beliefs are more in line with his than mine are. You
:probably should re-evaluate...everything!
:
As I keep explaining to you, Eric, most people don't decide things
based purely on "political beliefs". You're a rather stupid exception
to that rule.
|
Yet, here I am setting you straight (or at least trying to) about
philosophy vs. religion of which neither necessarily ties into
politics.
| Quote: |
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
Scott Lowther wrote:
| Quote: |
Key point of that story is that we only have Paul's word it ever
happened.
And as we all know, the *true* scientific method says to take such
accounts as fact until *proven* wrong... [/Fred]
|
There are two other interesting aspects to that story:
1.) The "Damascus" Paul was going to may not have been Damascus, Syria,
but rather the Qumran religious community that wrote the Dead Sea
Scrolls. It was also known as Damascus.
2.) Peter didn't like Paul, as he thought that Christianity was a
splinter Judaic movement that you had to be a Jew to join, unlike Paul's
internationalist interpretation of it, which had it being open to all
peoples. When Paul first met Peter, they had a big squabble about this.
Paul might well have stolen Christianity from the Apostles' hands.
BTW, if you ever wonder why Paul Of Tarsus is so down on conniving
women, it probably has a lot to do with something that happened in his
home town; it was at Tarsus where Cleopatra showed up in her royal
galley, seduced Mark Anthony, and left with him for Egypt, which started
round 2 of the Roman Civil Wars and caused havoc in the ancient world.
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
| Quote: |
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
|
You can do one our the other, but trying both at once is basically
saying nothing at all is knowable.
In such cases, you might want to play the odds as to a general
day-to-day approach to things.
There well might be fairies in the garden, so maybe you should
propitiate them before planting each Spring.
But most people don't, and their gardens don't seem to suffer much from it.
If there's divine intervention going on here, then God either has a very
warped sense of humor, or is just disinterested or basically incompetent.
Let me take that back to some extent...having Dubya embrace his reborn
Christianity and lead the Republican party straight down the tubes while
they publicly glory in their own virtue over the damned Godless
humanists is sort of funny when you consider how he's so sure he's doing
God's will and work.
Who knows? He may be.
Uriah the Hittite didn't have a clue what was in that message that King
David had him deliver to Joab either. :-D
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pat Flannery
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
Fred J. McCall wrote:
| Quote: |
And so Lowther once again demonstrates his absolute lack of reading
comprehension coupled with intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
|
Watch out Fred, he's got a atomic-powered bomber, you know.
Call him ill-read, and Fred may be dead.
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: Re: OT...Jerry Falwell is dead |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:46:17 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Rand Simberg wrote:
Nonsense. The scientific method says to be skeptical (on both the
existence, and non-existence of God).
You can do one our the other, but trying both at once is basically
saying nothing at all is knowable.
|
Well, ultimately, that's the case.
| Quote: |
In such cases, you might want to play the odds as to a general
day-to-day approach to things.
|
Yup. That's the best we can do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
222 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
