Driver to drive?

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

Truthfully, Kevin, I don't see why you have such a problem with
"respect". It's as though you think that there's a limited ampout
of respect in the universe and if it's afforded to anything/anyone
other than yourself your supply of it will be diminished.

We can't "respect" *every* entity. That is, consider every entities
"views". This is trivially obvious. So, yes , there is a limited
amount of respect.

It makes no sense to respect the feelings of a brick. Its don't have
any.

---
No one said a brick has feelings or that it made any sense to respect
its non-existent feelings, but your refutation implies that it was
[said].

It was implied. You want to respect the feelings of an inanimate bit of
DNA. That is, something that cant, and can never feel because DNA is not
conscious.

That's intellectually dishonest, Kevin, and disingenuous, and
indicates that you're not interested in the discussion for any purpose
other than to win an argument. Either that or... well, you figure it
out.

The issue is that you don't understand the *implications* of your
arguments. This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising an
"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false idea.

---
What I've been saying all along, and which you don't seem to be able
to draw the distinction between, is that the respect isn't for the
vessel itself, it's for its contents. In a sense, "If you don't
want to waste the wine, don't break the bottle." That then implies
that if you don't want to waste the wine you have to care for
(respect) the integrity of the bottle.

This isn't issue, the issue is defining what the wine actually is.
When does something actually become wine?. When it is a grape on a
tree? when its just started to be squashed by sweaty feet in a
barrel?. After 1 hour of fermentation?

That is the issue which you can't seem to appreciate.

---
No, the real issue seems to be that _you_ either can't understand
analogy or you continually keep trying to move your end of the field
farther and farther away from the ball.

No, the issue is that your understanding of these issues is too
simplistic.

But, on the chance that you're making honest mistakes I'll explain it
to you, again, but this time in terms of grapes.

1. If you want wine, dont raze the vineyard.

2. If you want Champagne, don't break the bottle before the
fermentation is done.

You see, it's really very simple. If you want wine, then you have to
respect the process, since breaking it anywhere between the vine and
the wine will result in... well, not wine.

No. we don't "respect" the process for its own sake. The process isn't
conscious.

---


difficult to draw the line between even organic and inorganic
chemistry. For example, methane, ethane etc is found all other the
solar system with no hint of life.

---
So what? Organic chemistry is simply the chemistry of
carbon-containing compounds.

I meant with reference to "life" chemistry and non "life" chemistry.
That is some chemistry is claimed to require "life" for its
production. Peronsally, I am in favour of
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

---
So now you want to steer this discussion into a debate about whether
petroleum was created biologically or not?

No. I am simply highlighting the difficulty in deciding what physical
objects are considered "life" objects.

What on Earth does that
have to do with the subject at hand, or is it merely another attempt,
on your part, to steer the discussion away from the subject at hand?
---

Again, the issue is that I am, with all due respect, way ahead of your.
It is getting increasingly clear that your are operating on a much lower
wavelength.

What is and what is not "organic" matter, as in matter *only* associated
with "life", is fundamental to the discussion of what sort of life
matter should have respect.

You just cant see the big picture here.

---

properties that inanimate systems do not have. It is certainly
possible to construct a self-replicating entity with non
biologically components. So, there is no way to distinguish DNA,
from a physical point of view form other physical entity

---
That's not true. I can easily write a program which replicates
itself, (and mutates, if that's my intent) yet it will be totally
different from a self-replicating strand of DNA.

In addition, it's certainly easy enough to differentiate, on a purely
physical level, the difference between a strand of DNA and, say, a
strand of thread, so your argument is invalid.

Thump...Thump...Thump...as he hits his head on the wall.

Oh dear oh dear... this is getting completely pointless. Again, with all
due respect, its clear that you are conceptualising this at a way, way
lower level then me.

Sure, we can differentiate on some arbitrary physics basis, but the
point is about the concepts involved.

What is the actual argument that one can use to decide that the DNA
replicator should be respected where as a constructed mechanical
replicator should not be. Why should one collection of molecules have
priority to another, as certainly, in principle, the constructed
mechanical replicator could also be conscious.

---

Its just an arbitrary definition based on
*preconceived* ideas of what "life" *should* be.

---
Actually, no. What _you're_ trying to ram down everybody's throats is
that life can't be consided life before the onset of consciousness,

Yep. That is, before something first becomes conscious, it is an
inanimate object with zero feelings. Something that can't feel, is not
aware, cant possible, rationally be given respect as if it does feel.

whatever your reasons for trying to do that might be.

It makes logical sense. We can all, essentially, agree that conscious
objects , e.g. feel pain, therefore respect for conscious objects is
trivially obvious. For inanimate collections of chemicals no such
argument can be made. Its that simple.

In the real
world, AIUI, a _new_ life starts when half of the the egg's, and half
of the sperm's DNA spiral around each other and start assembling a new
individual.

No it doesn't. This is an arbitrary definition *invented* by *you*. Its
a definition that cant be supported by any logical arguments. Any
argument you have made in support of this daft idea, I have shown can be
equally applied to entities that you agree is not life. e.g. a
mechanical replicator.

---

essentially, agree on in the sense that if a foetus is conscious,
killing it should be a no no.

---
My position is that if a fetus is alive, killing it should be a
no-no.

Yes, I know your position. You have provide no rational argument as
to why you take this view.

---
"Rational" to you, Kevin, means anything that you agree with, so you
don't have to confront yourself with the possibility of your being
wrong. "Kevinism"...

No. I mean a rational argument.

---

YMMV, but that's also been argued to death, so why keep bringing it
up?

The point is that we are discussing what constitutes a definition of
"life" in the sense that we should respect its views for its own
sake.

---
It's "views"? I wasn't aware that "life" had views...

I'm glad you agree. Basic, simplistic definitions of life don't have
views, therefore why on earth do you want to respect such life. *Until*
"life" has some sort of view, its views are indeed irrelevant.

This is exactly why we need a definition of "special life" that accounts
for objects that should be respected for its own sake. All "life" can't
possible qualify for this respect.

---


---
The meaning can vary as context changes, so if you don't wish to be
misunderstood it's incumbent on _you_ to make your meaning clear in
the context in which you're currently using it. By doing that (and
I might add, taking a little more care with your punctuation,
grammar, and spelling) the amount of unnecessary verbiage will
certainly decline. It's all a question of courtesy, Kevin, in that
if I have to continuously backtrack to try to glean meaning from
what you've written, then you're causing me to waste my precious
time. But perhaps that doesn't matter, since, in what seems to be
your view no one is as important as you are and what matters is
that you be the least inconvenienced.

Your argument here is complete nonsense. It was perfectly obvious the
context I was using in "caring about bacteria". It is *so* trivial
that we obviously have to care about bacteria in the sense of say,
not being made ill by it or other such mundane matters, that this
meaning simply don't require being specifically pointed out. Dah....

One cant go defining every little sentence in a debate. One must
assume that the reader has some modicum of common sense. Thinking
that I could ignore something like bacteria completly, is daft.

---
Kevinism again.

You demand that everyone define _their_ terms explicitly in order to
keep you from being confused, yet _you_ think it's perfectly
acceptable for you to be able to carelessly paint with a broad brush.

No, I expect that there is some modicum of common sense. This means that
certain things are taken as read.

Quite frankly, this is one of those...

Thump...Thump...Thump...hit head on the wall.. Like, how could anyone be
so misguided to really believe that anyone could be so daft as to think
that, for example, that not caring about bacteria in the *slightest*,
was part of the meaning of the above. Its a complete non-starter. It
only shows that you are thinking on this at way, way, lower level then
the what this discussion is aimed at.

I'm, still sitting here wondering, how you could even contemplate such a
daft idea... It again tells me that this discussion is pointless. We are
on different wavelengths.

You have gave no valid reason whatsoever. I applied your *same*
argument to declare that we should respect an electron. My argument
requires no such daft idea. An electron isn't conscious.

---
Apples and oranges.

Your argument can be applied to both apples and oranges, that's why
is useless.

---
Au contraire! The more universal an argument, the more useful it can
be.

Certainly you _must_ agree that Einstein's work, which applies to both
apples and oranges and eclipses Newton's apples-only views, is more
useful than Newton's, no?

Oh dear... again, your completely out of it. You completly misunderstand
why this means your argument fails. The fact the same argument has been
applied to what you consider "life" and what you consider "non life",
yet has the *same* outcome, means that the argument *cannot* be used as
an argument for what constitutes life and non life.

---

You really haven't figured it out yet?
---


Here we go again. This is all so vague.

PLEASE DEFINE LIFE



This is what shows, with all due respect, that you are out of your
depth. I am only now just starting to twig on to this.

The *fundamental* issue here is that is the very *definition* of
what "life" should be classified as. It is what this debate is all
about. Dah...Dah...Dah...

---
Hardly. As I posted earlier:

"So far, the discussion has largely been about the respect for
biological life, the distinction between a living and a non-living
aggregation of chemicals, and the necessity for life to be a precursor
to sentience."

Had you disagreed, I would have expected to have heard about it before
now.
---

No one knows what "life" is.

---
Then it's disingenuous of you to have asked me for a definition of it
unless, in truth, you were inquiring sincerely.

Nonsense. I want to know what *your* definition of life is, irrespective
of any absolute definitions. I presented mine, that is conventional
definitions "life" are simply irrelevant. They are too broad to have
practical meaning, that is, they cant be used to identify (ID) what
might be considered "real life", i.e conscious entities. Sure, its my
definition, but do you want to disagree that all conscious entities
should at least be considered for respect? So I am half way there with
the definition of "meaningful life".

---

It is specifically this that I am
addressing by making the distinction of consciousness.

---
No, it isn't. What you're trying to do is _prove_ that life before
consciousness is unimportant enough that terminating it is a non-issue
and, therefore, no responsibility needs to be taken for having
terminated that life .

No, I am giving an argument what this should indeed be the case.

You _can't_ prove it,

Of course it cant be proved. I am simply making arguments in support of
the view.

therefore the issue of
responsibility needs to be dealt with, therefore you're on the horns
of a dilemma.

Nope. There is no dilemma. I see no argument that can justify DNA should
be given special status. Sure, I cant produce a conscious entity made
from non DNA to show that DNA is insufficient as a decider for "life",
but there is extensive evidence that this is the case. e.g. neural
research on how the brain functions.

---

It is simply
incredible that you consider this issue a "soapbox".

---
Well, I thought about having used "soapbox" after I posted it and came
to the conclusion that "giving you another opportunity to grandstand"
would have been more apropos.
---

This tells me that
this discussion is completely pointless. You don't even know what it
is you are discussing.

---
Ah, Kevinism again. Anything you can't understand or that you
disagree with must be invalid.

No. There comes a point when one realises that that someone has
insufficient background to understand the points being made.

As for the discussion, it _does_ seem
to have run its course, so unless you have some parting shots,
goodbye, Kevin.

Yep.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Clarence_A]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:41F5F002.2C05D7DC@Hovnanian.com...

Clarence_A wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.24.03.39.50.225277@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:58:58 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:23:43 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net
(John S.
Dyson) wrote:

[snip]

It is true that some idiot called the non-DST Indiana
timezone
to be
'Gods time', but it is also true that alot of
psuedo-intellectuals couldn't
explain the historical reason for the oddity.

John

Arizona doesn't observe DST for a very simple reason...
the
drive-in
movie theater lobby argued that it would hurt their
business
on school
nights... because they couldn't start the show until 9PM.

I AM NOT pulling your leg ;-)


A number of Drive-in's closed due to the one year it was
mandatory, but complaints came from Bars and night clubs too,
since there was no change in the required closing time at
1:00AM,
and it didn't get completely dark until so late due to Phoenix
being to the west side of the time zone. I remember it was
very
disruptive to many activities. A group I belonged to at that
time, postponed ALL activities until after the return to
normal
time.

I can understand the drive-in theater problem, but for
everything else,
I'd rather have more light in the evening.

Depends upon where in the time zone you live. Further east,
earlier morning and evenings. More to the west, later of both.

One way or another, most
people end up going to work or school in the dark anyway in the
winter.

See Above!

The problem is that the kids end up having to play outside in
the dark
after school and, since its playing, there's no telling when
they'll pop
up in front of a car.

What with all the lard-butts this country cranks out, we need to
encourage more physical (i.e.outdoor) activity and less in bars,
movie
theaters, etc.

 

[John Fields]

On 24 Jan 2005 18:51:08 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

John Fields wrote...

How could I help myself? It's not all that often some loud,
pretentious, bitch sets herself up for such a deserving kick
in the ass. It still makes me chuckle, Heh, Heh!

Still, and all, you may both be on the same side. :&gt

---
"_Everybody_ wants to get into the act."

Jimmy Durante

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:32:37 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:47:42 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <1gfav0pd6rmo95c8foci57eu0crbhst0cf@
4ax.com&gt about 'Sad Days for America and the World- Four More Years of
Hell', on Mon, 24 Jan 2005:

So, then, what do you think France is going to do about Turkey?

Fricassee de dindon aux asperges, marrons et coeurs de palmier?

Sounds delicious, or at least better than a serving of "annuaire
téléphonique frit".

With a right-wing government like Chirac's in power, it might be a
hard sell. Maybe the US could set a good example and grant every Iraqi
citizen the right to live and work in the US? That wouldn't be
controversial, would it? ;-) And not something like Thatcher's
worthless BNO passports to nowhere.

We've already thrown open our borders to two third-world countries,
and we're swamped with strange-looking foreigners who can't speak the
language and eat funny food. Three, if you count New York.

John

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:16:37 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:32:37 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:47:42 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <1gfav0pd6rmo95c8foci57eu0crbhst0cf@
4ax.com&gt about 'Sad Days for America and the World- Four More Years of
Hell', on Mon, 24 Jan 2005:

So, then, what do you think France is going to do about Turkey?

Fricassee de dindon aux asperges, marrons et coeurs de palmier?

Sounds delicious, or at least better than a serving of "annuaire
téléphonique frit".

With a right-wing government like Chirac's in power, it might be a
hard sell. Maybe the US could set a good example and grant every Iraqi
citizen the right to live and work in the US? That wouldn't be
controversial, would it? ;-) And not something like Thatcher's
worthless BNO passports to nowhere.

We've already thrown open our borders to two third-world countries,
and we're swamped with strange-looking foreigners who can't speak the
language and eat funny food. Three, if you count New York.

John

Do any of the weird foreigners favor taxing shopping bags at ~5000%
rather than just re-using most of them for kitchen garbage or picking
up dog poo?

Let's see, 50E6 bags at 10lb/1000 (250 tons per year) compared to 8E6
tons of trash per year represents 0.003% of SF's waste stream.

"It's a huge part of the waste stream," Department of the Environment
spokesman Mark Westlund said.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Where-Your-Trash-Goes.htm
http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/012505n_bags2

Unfortunately, SF has no monopoly on this sort of thing...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

Ban wrote:

But why do you think it superiour to believe in science rather than
God?

Because science is fallible, and admits it - whereas religions are
fallible, and do not admit it.

 

[TCS]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:50:04 GMT, Ban <bansuri@web.de> wrote:

But why do you think it superiour to believe in science rather than God?

Because science is based on observable fact whereas "god" is a made
up fairy tale first used to explain the laws of nature, later used
to keep peasants in submission and currently used just to annoy
the fuck out of everybody else.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:04:19 +0000, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message
news:wxwJd.764271$35.30019466@news4.tin.it...
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

But why do you think it superiour to believe in science rather than God?

Religious people often justify belief in God by saying, "just look at the
universe", because visible reality implies that something not visible
makes reality possible. However they just aren't looking hard enough.

Actually, those who claim this simply aren't looking deeply enough.
Science has boundaries - well, "Known Science" has boundaries. The stuff
outside the edges terrifies them just like heresy terrifies the faithful,
so they say, "It can't ever be known, we're done, anything that doesn't
fit inside our box doesn't exist. And that's an axiom, so we don't have to
prove it!" How convenient for them.

They're as dogmatic as any fundy, possibly more so. If they were really
scientists, instead of modern-day flat-earthers, they'd investigate these
things, rather than just flatly denying them.

Stop looking for orthogonality and granularity and measurability, and look
for patterns, learn to recognize the fractal nature of reality:

http://www.godchannel.com/reality.html

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Unfortunately,
the ignorant peasants that invented god, knew sod all about maths.
I have no problem with your argument until that.

Why?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
<rtp@example.net> wrote (in <pan.2005.01.25.21.02.34.170237@example.net>
) about 'Have you heard the GOOD NEWS?', on Tue, 25 Jan 2005:

"It can't ever be known, we're done, anything
that doesn't fit inside our box doesn't exist.

While many scientists in the past have made that mistake, it is a
mistake and **not science**. You might as well reject math because some
people get wrong answers.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:18:33 +0000, TripleEight wrote:

"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
news:35aea8F4ksoqrU1@individual.net...

| > >"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
| > >news:1d9uu056435icrb5o804l822rqjk33pgdp@4ax.com...
| > >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Clint Clark" <clint@artdsm.com
| > >> wrote:
|
| > >> >What Is God?
|

http://www.godchannel.com/who.html

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Noah Roberts]

Noah Roberts wrote:

But he applied physical laws in his logic; his entire argument
was
based on them. There is no way to argue logic if you are going
to
be
irrational.

No, the physics was immaterial. It was the logic that showed the
contradiction.

Ok, I can't tell if you guys are pulling my leg or if you really are
that slow...his argument against god's existance was that an all
powerful being can create an object too large for itself to lift. If
not it is not all powerful, if so it is not all powerful, therefor
does
not exist. That is an argument based on the assumption that mass
behaves for God as it does for us.
Come up with a better argument if you don't like the answer.

And how about this one...assuming that mass behaves for God as it does
any known being existing in our universe the argument still does not
support the assertion that God does not exist...why?

Because it assumes God is all powerful and that by proving God is not
all powerful you prove God doesn't exist. That is an assumption not
everyone that believes perscribes to, and in fact I often wonder.
Couldn't God have made it moraly ok to murder or are the laws of ethics
so absolute that even God is governed by them? If ethics are optional,
if you could completely remove any evil inherint in evil acts, why
bother with evil at all? It is very possible that God is NOT all
powerful but is in fact governed by some of the same laws we are; like
the laws of right and wrong.

I do not deny the possibility either way...because I am smart enough to
realize I that don't know. That is were rational people and zealots
like you and yours differ.

So, even if I give your argument credibility, which I don't, you have
only proven that your own conception of God is a fallacy...nice job.
I never disagreed with that.

Now you can go about claiming I said thing I never said...that is my
prediction...

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

But he applied physical laws in his logic; his entire argument

was

based on them. There is no way to argue logic if you are going

to

be

irrational.

No, the physics was immaterial. It was the logic that showed the
contradiction.

Ok, I can't tell if you guys are pulling my leg or if you really are
that slow...his argument against god's existance was that an all
powerful being can create an object too large for itself to lift. If
not it is not all powerful, if so it is not all powerful, therefor

does

not exist. That is an argument based on the assumption that mass
behaves for God as it does for us.
Come up with a better argument if you don't like the answer.


And how about this one...assuming that mass behaves for God as it does
any known being existing in our universe the argument still does not
support the assertion that God does not exist...why?

It actually doesn't need that assumption. Because if mass was of no
consequence to it, then it could not create something it could not lift.

Because it assumes God is all powerful and that by proving God is not
all powerful you prove God doesn't exist.

Yes it does assume that God is all powerful, or all knowing.

Are you taking this back, now? Agreeing that it is impossible for an
omnipotent or omniscient being?

That is an assumption not
everyone that believes perscribes to, and in fact I often wonder.

Considering you've just agreed that omnipotence would make God
impossible to exist, I would certainly hope that you wonder.

Couldn't God have made it moraly ok to murder or are the laws of ethics
so absolute that even God is governed by them? If ethics are optional,
if you could completely remove any evil inherint in evil acts, why
bother with evil at all? It is very possible that God is NOT all
powerful but is in fact governed by some of the same laws we are; like
the laws of right and wrong.

So long as you agree that God lacks omnipotence. Of course at this
point, one has to look at the definition of God and wonder how it
differs from aliens that are sufficiently advanced.

I do not deny the possibility either way...because I am smart enough to
realize I that don't know.

Either way? Does that mean that you think God can be omnipotent even
though you've discovered that such is not possible?

Do you think that's what being open minded is about?

That is were rational people and zealots
like you and yours differ.

Consistent with or based on reason; logical? Are you saying that
applying logic to the existence of God can somehow be irrational?

So, even if I give your argument credibility, which I don't, you have
only proven that your own conception of God is a fallacy...nice job.
I never disagreed with that.

Now you can go about claiming I said thing I never said...that is my
prediction...

What? This whole thing started because of the following posted by you in
response to Kevin Aylward:
---
Kevin Aylward wrote:

The issue is that you don't understand the *implications* of your
arguments. This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising an
"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false

idea.

How so?
---

So yes, you did start this whole thing, and it was all based on the
concept of an all powerful god, not a weak god, not a god that lives in
my pocket, but instead an all powerful one.

 

Hmmm. What you seem to be suggesting that someone sets up an
evidence-based moral system.

"Thous shalt not kill" becomes "You should avoid killing other people,
beause it upsets their relatives and your neighbours - clinical trials
have shown that people who commit a single murder have a 43% chance of
being killed by a vengeful relative, a 15% chance of being
pre-emptively lynched by the neighbours and an 85% chance of becoming
unemployable because they make their co-workers anxious."

Getting the evidence might be tricky, but it beats the hell out of the
present system.

----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

Ban wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

(Unlike a lot of atheists, I don't believe that people invent
metaphors for no reason at all. I think they are trying to
represent something, but I can never figure out what they are
trying
to represent with that one. Maybe it's connected to some forgotten
philosophical concept.)

I differ - I think that the human brain has a hard-wired tendency
to
look for coherent explanations of everything that is going on,
whence
the enthusiasm for inventing gods and conspiracy theories.

The reason is obvious enough - if you detect a real conspiracy
against
you early on, your chances of beating it are much improved, so you
have to tolerate a pretty high level of false positives to minimise
the risk of a false negative. Religion is just a way of coping with
a
potential conspiracy of invisible enemies - people believe in god
or
gods in the same sort of way that I believe in electrons, molecules
and magnetic fields.


Indeed, we believe in science, we believe in "reality", we believe in
the
TV-news, we believe in our rational mind and identify with it ...
But still we do not know. We should be always aware: "I know that I
do not
know". We do not know who we are, what this world is about, what is
life. If
the believe lets us forget this fundamental truth, it is sheer
poison,
science or God doesn't matter, both are "Opium for the people".

I do have the advantage of an extended scientific education, so I
know
why I believe in electrons, molecules and magnetic fields, and -
more
important - why I don't have to believe that cell-phones cause
brain
cancer, or that there is a god.

Lots of people who also have the benefit of an extended scientific
education don't appear to be able to generalise the rules of
scientific logic beyond science, and remain ostensibly devout
church-goers, though some may share Spinoza's opinion that religion
is primarily a device for persuading the less educated citizens to
live virtuous lives, and so may thus be supporting their local
church
for the same reason that they support the local police.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

But why do you think it superior to believe in science rather than
God?

Science knows its limitations - we have worked out a way of finding out
more about our enviroment and ourselves which includes ways of testing
how well our explanations work.

Religions seem to have a tendency to decide that some piece of text is
a divinely inspired explanation of the the way the world works, which
doesn't leave a lot of room for error-correction.
--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:48:55 GMT, "Bradley1234" <someone@yahoo.com>
wrote:

But natural, unsaved mankind has no fear of God, and apparently no natural
interest in knowing who God is.

OK, then explain why the two universal characteristics of all human
society are that they use fire and have religion. Well, excluding the
Democratic party maybe.

John

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:47:46 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:

Ah, so you *have* thrown out all your mirrors, then....Can't say I blame
you, fuglay....

You're repeating yourself. Are you drunk?

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:43:13 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:

I know! It sure seems to be yanking your loose ass around quite nicely.

Tiz funny, old ugly one with the size 48W twat, to hear you talk about
yanking loose asses around. Seems you're the one being yanked around.

What wit!

What he said!

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:14:56 +0000, richard mullens wrote:

keith wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:12:21 -0800, John Larkin wrote:


On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:22:13 GMT, richard mullens
mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


The ultimate measure of freedom is: are you allowed to leave?




And are you allowed to go to Cuba - or is it a criminal offence ?

Lots of people do, indirectly through Mexico usually. I don't know of
anybody being prosecuted lately for it. It's standard procedure to
have a "Mexican" vacation and return with nothing but "Mexico" stamped
on your passport.


Or Canada. I know several who have come back with winter tans after
visiting sunny, tropical, Canuckistan.


Perhaps more jails need to be built to accommodate the people who are slipping through the net.

Nah, more sushi bars.

--
Keith

 

[Bradley1234]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:brodv0titcfuj42bfalqvq5q0dj2n4s87j@4ax.com...

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:48:55 GMT, "Bradley1234" <someone@yahoo.com
wrote:

But natural, unsaved mankind has no fear of God, and apparently no
natural
interest in knowing who God is.


OK, then explain why the two universal characteristics of all human
society are that they use fire and have religion. Well, excluding the
Democratic party maybe.

John

Im not certain of the premise, does everyone use fire? do all societies
have religion? Is atheism a religion?

Id suggest that everyone knows deep down that God exists, and there is more
to life and the universe than man can explain or understand. Mankind fears
things that are suggestive of death or bad luck. Few will dare to challenge
fate, but find out nothing happens (usually). They can instill fear on
others by claiming to have control of the zombies or whatever.

But when it comes what most of the world defines as God, like the God of
Abraham and of Moses who created the universe, the Jewish heredity, prophecy
of Christ the Messiah, the fullfilling of that prophecy with Jesus of
Nazereth, mankind simply does NOT fear that God.

Democrats show this by ensuring the 10 Commandments are taken down from
schools, and taken out of courts