Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 18/1/03 11:29 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > William said: > >>> I suppose an ontology dependent in that way on epistemology is >>> quite interesting though. >> >> It is :) > > Things are even weirder than they might seem at first sight though. For > example, consider the planet (or Kuiper belt object) Pluto. Or Phlogiston, or the Piltdown man... > Suppose that there's an isolated valley in New Guinea whose population have > never heard of it. Does that mean that for them, Pluto doesn't exist but for > the rest of us it does? Put like that, I can't think of another answer but 'yes'. If you meant to say 'does the same lump of matter, currently labelled 'Pluto' exist, despite them not knowing about' it, then the answer is yes too :) > How about for people who believe that there's > empirical evidence for Pluto but who've never seen such evidence? Are you > suggesting that the stuff out there in the world is as ghostly and > insubstantial that its very existence depends on what we think about it? Much of our understanding of epistemological reality is quite insubstantial. Plate Tectonics? Garbage DNA? The ontologies of theoretical physics? > That seems like a strange position for someone who's > trying to be a realist. I'm an epistemological realist rather than an ontological realist. I treat the world as how it seems to be, and regard questions as to how it 'really' is (in an ontological sense) as unanswerable. This is probably due to reading too much Philip K Dick as a child :) > What constitutes empirical evidence? Why are > people's feelings about God not such evidence? Feelings about things are evidence about feelings about things and not about things. (cf Wittgenstein on aesthetics.) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 11:29:31PM +, Richard Baker wrote: > Why are people's feelings about God not such evidence? Can you specify a procedure that anyone could use to falsify the existence of God? I can specify a procedure that anyone could use to falsify the existence of Pluto. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Erik Reuter wrote: > > I can specify a procedure that anyone could use to falsify > the existence of Pluto. > Pluto is a myth. Just notice how its mass has decreased during the XX century, from something the size of Uranus to something smaller than the Moon Alberto Monteiro PS: in the annual meeting of the SAB [Brazilian Astronomical Society] there is an extra-official meeting of the SAdoB [Astronomical Society of Brazil - sorry, but I can't explain _why_ this is a terrific pun for us], where people present the most weird theories, usually by mismanaging data. For example, someone took the measure of the Sun distance to the center of the Galaxy from different years, and proved that the Sun's speed is 400 c. IIRC, this "vanishing Pluto" was another pearl from those meetings ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Marvin said: > Are both sets of heterophenomenological (whew!) evidence/claims equal > w/respect to internal consistency, consequences of acceptance or > denial, and so on? I don't think they are equally internally consistent, but that's not the real key point. The heterophenomenological isn't for the existence of God, but rather for the existence of the idea or "experience" of there being a God. I think that's a worthwhile thing to study, just as the "alien abduction" experience is worthy of study. But it doesn't mean that God or little grey aliens or qualia exist in the same way that neural states exist. Rich GCU I Had A Point But I Seem To Have Misplaced It ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William said: >> I suppose an ontology dependent in that way on epistemology is >> quite interesting though. > > It is :) Things are even weirder than they might seem at first sight though. For example, consider the planet (or Kuiper belt object) Pluto. Suppose that there's an isolated valley in New Guinea whose population have never heard of it. Does that mean that for them, Pluto doesn't exist but for the rest of us it does? How about for people who believe that there's empirical evidence for Pluto but who've never seen such evidence? Are you suggesting that the stuff out there in the world is as ghostly and insubstantial that its very existence depends on what we think about it? That seems like a strange position for someone who's trying to be a realist. What constitutes empirical evidence? Why are people's feelings about God not such evidence? Rich, who is now getting weird "Lathe of Heaven"/Egan hybrid story ideas... GCU Adrift On A Ghostly Sea Of Nothingness ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > William said: > >> Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument >> fails. > > There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some > people say they experience it. There might only be heterophenomenological evidence about the nature of consciousness, but I think its existence[1] is established on firmer grounds. Even if the explanation of its nature is that it is a mirage. > There's exactly the same kind of > "evidence" for God. No, that's just hearsay :) > > Also, the idea that something doesn't exist if there's no empirical > evidence for it is necessarily time-sensitive. For example, by that > argument, neutrinos and the planet Pluto didn't exist in the 19th > century. They didn't. [2] > I suppose an ontology dependent in that way on epistemology is > quite interesting though. It is :) [1] Of the thing to be explained. [2] And the planet Pluto may stop existing again in the future since there is some debate over its status as a planetary body. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Richard Baker wrote: > There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some > people say they experience it. There's exactly the same kind of > "evidence" for God. Are both sets of heterophenomenological (whew!) evidence/claims equal w/respect to internal consistency, consequences of acceptance or denial, and so on? Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 10:04 PM 1/15/03 +, William T Goodall wrote: on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness It's easy for you to say that... :) And AFAIK there's only herpertophenomenological evidence for ophidian consciousness . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William said: >> There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness > > It's easy for you to say that... :) It's certainly easier for me to say that than to type it! Rich GCU Zombie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness It's easy for you to say that... :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William said: Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument fails. There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some people say they experience it. There's exactly the same kind of "evidence" for God. Rich GCU Entirely Serious There's only heterophenomenological evidence for *your* consciousness. The evidence for my consciousness is of a different order entirely! GSV Solopsist ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William said: > Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument > fails. There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some people say they experience it. There's exactly the same kind of "evidence" for God. Also, the idea that something doesn't exist if there's no empirical evidence for it is necessarily time-sensitive. For example, by that argument, neutrinos and the planet Pluto didn't exist in the 19th century. I suppose an ontology dependent in that way on epistemology is quite interesting though. Rich GCU Entirely Serious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 13/1/03 10:18 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So do you accept the mind as real, without any empirical evidence for its > existence? > I think Marvin already addressed this in his post, so 'what he said'. I'd just add that from an empirical point of view, the existence of self-aware consciousness is the null hypothesis. I don't see any cognitive scientists, or other theorists working on the mind, worrying about whether the subject of their study exists or not! And for an example of the kind of ridiculous pseudo-science that results from getting this backwards, one need only look at the behaviourists. >>> and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that >>> humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by >>> biochemistry. >>> >> It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase "I am self aware". >> And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a person's >> brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or not. >> > No, the self awareness contributes nothing to models of the behavior of > humans, thus, by definition, there is no scientific evidence for > self-awareness. Well *of course* self-awareness is a vital part of a good model of the behaviour of humans! I'm not aware of anyone working on a model of how the mind works (Dennett, Pinker, Hofstadter ...) who doesn't have self-awareness right at the centre. What models are you thinking of? > I'll agree that the word conscious is part of the language > that is used to describe brain states as well as self awareness. Thus, I'd be > happy to grant it the same "reality" to consciousness as I grant to reduced > mass. > > Let's look at two models. One uses calls conscious and unconscious, the other > uses "state A", and state "B". Both assume a biochemical basis for all human > behavior. The predictive value of each is identical. In this case, conscious > and state A are equally useful descriptions. Equally useful descriptions of what? If we assume that it was somehow possible to construct a complete bottom-up model of a human brain (and body and an environment to provide sensory input (And somehow 'scanned' in from a volunteer at the lab. Call him Bob.)) which worked by modelling the physics from atomic level up, that model would tell us nothing about consciousness. It would just be an inscrutably complicated black box. We call up Bob on the videophone inside his model: "Hi Bob, what's it like in there?" - Kinda Weird. "Enough chit-chat, time for the $64,000 question. Bob, are you self-aware?" - Yes. "Are you sure about that? You're really nothing but biochemistry. In fact you're not even that, you're just a model of biochemistry!" - I sure feel self-aware to me. Are you sure you're self-aware? "Don't be silly! Of course I'm self-aware!" Etc... :) > > Indeed, state A would, in a real sense, be preferred because it doesn't carry > implicit baggage that is not actually part of the scientific model. But 'state A' tells us nothing about the very thing we wanted to know about! So it is a completely useless scientific model. >>> Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, and argue long >>> and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. >>> >> What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the >> question of the existence of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question >> of consciousness. >> > Well, the proof seems to be: > > There is no empirical evidence for God It is foolish to consider something > that there is no empirical evidence for as existing. Thus there is no God. > > I'm attacking statement number 2 with > > There is no empirical evidence for the existence of self consciousness It is > very reasonable to consider self-consciousness as real. Thus, statement 2 > given above is false. > Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument fails. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 04:58 PM 1/13/2003 -0600, you wrote: I wrote some stuff about _The Night of January 16th_, and Kevin Tarr replied: You could have waited three days to tell us about it. Kevin T. Now you've spoiled it. Ahem, sorry. I apologize for spoiling the ending without inserting spoiler space. I guess I'm just not used to insterting spoiler space for something written in the 1930's. Again, I'm sorry. Reggie Bautista No your not. You're just trying to get back at some nameless director who didn't use your design all those years ago. Admit it, it was Paul Verhoeven wasn't it?!? Kevin T. Or maybe Costner ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
I wrote some stuff about _The Night of January 16th_, and Kevin Tarr replied: You could have waited three days to tell us about it. Kevin T. Now you've spoiled it. Ahem, sorry. I apologize for spoiling the ending without inserting spoiler space. I guess I'm just not used to insterting spoiler space for something written in the 1930's. Again, I'm sorry. Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of > > course you can refute arguments you disagree with. > > I didn't define what real was. I just pointed out that in the real world > nobody refuted the argument. Why be pedantic? Arguing that something does not work in the real world presupposes that one can separate the places where the argument works (not the real world) and those where they don't (the real world). The only way I've seen "real world" used in a way that makes sense to me is in response to extreme idealism: phenomenon is not just a partial divorced from reality, but it has nothing to do with reality. In the real world, i.e. the world that the idealist lives in, she does act as though freeway traffic is real, she doesn't just step in front of the unreal car going 60 mph. But, in the "real world," people do act as though they believe in God. So, that test is passed. The question of the existence of things that there is no empirical evidence for has also been used. My arguments intend to show just how far such an argument cuts. > > > > > For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is > > solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the > > trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic > > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, > > 'Reduced to' isn't equivalent to 'is'. The mind may be supervening on the > brain, but that isn't the same as being the brain. So do you accept the mind as real, without any empirical evidence for its existence? > > and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that > > humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by > > biochemistry. > > It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase "I am self > aware". And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a > person's brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or > not. No, the self awareness contributes nothing to models of the behavior of humans, thus, by definition, there is no scientific evidence for self-awareness. I'll agree that the word conscious is part of the language that is used to describe brain states as well as self awareness. Thus, I'd be happy to grant it the same "reality" to consciousness as I grant to reduced mass. Let's look at two models. One uses calls conscious and unconscious, the other uses "state A", and state "B". Both assume a biochemical basis for all human behavior. The predictive value of each is identical. In this case, conscious and state A are equally useful descriptions. Indeed, state A would, in a real sense, be preferred because it doesn't carry implicit baggage that is not actually part of the scientific model. > > Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, > > and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. > > What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the question of the existence >of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question of consciousness. Well, the proof seems to be: There is no empirical evidence for God It is foolish to consider something that there is no empirical evidence for as existing. Thus there is no God. I'm attacking statement number 2 with There is no empirical evidence for the existence of self consciousness It is very reasonable to consider self-consciousness as real. Thus, statement 2 given above is false. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 01:55 PM 1/13/2003 -0600, you wrote: Marvin wrote: Ugh. _Anthem_ convinced me that Ms. Rand probaby isn't worth reading further. I have to agree. Rand just does absolutely nothing for me. Of course, I've never been able to make it more than a few pages into any of her novels. There's just something about them that I can't stomach. The only thing by Rand I've been able to read all the way through is a play called _The Night of January 16th_ for which I did a sound design (which the director inexplicably didn't use*). I was not very impressed by the play either. It's basically a courtroom drama where 12 people are plucked out of the audience at the beginning of the play to function as jurors, and at the end they get to deliberate and come to a verdict. While this is an interesting concept, Rand's execution is really dull. She gives us no reason to care about any of the characters, and she is also disrespectful of the audience. No matter what verdict the audience/jury makes, the character of the judge is supposed to act like it's the stupidest judgement he's ever heard. Nope, I don't think you could call me a fan of Rand... Reggie Bautista You could have waited three days to tell us about it. Kevin T. Now you've spoiled it. I've read Atlas Shrugged. While there were lots of pages I glossed over, I though it was okay. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Marvin wrote: Ugh. _Anthem_ convinced me that Ms. Rand probaby isn't worth reading further. I have to agree. Rand just does absolutely nothing for me. Of course, I've never been able to make it more than a few pages into any of her novels. There's just something about them that I can't stomach. The only thing by Rand I've been able to read all the way through is a play called _The Night of January 16th_ for which I did a sound design (which the director inexplicably didn't use*). I was not very impressed by the play either. It's basically a courtroom drama where 12 people are plucked out of the audience at the beginning of the play to function as jurors, and at the end they get to deliberate and come to a verdict. While this is an interesting concept, Rand's execution is really dull. She gives us no reason to care about any of the characters, and she is also disrespectful of the audience. No matter what verdict the audience/jury makes, the character of the judge is supposed to act like it's the stupidest judgement he's ever heard. Nope, I don't think you could call me a fan of Rand... Reggie Bautista * It was for a community theater group in KCK. This was the first (and only) design I did for this particular director. The director never told me he wasn't going to use my sound design, and never informed me of when the tech rehearsal would be held, and my work and school situation at the time prevented me from going to see the show. I found out from another director with whom I've worked extensively that my design wasn't used, even though my name appeared in the program. The director who didn't use my design, who was also on the board of directors of this community theater group, also abruptly resigned from the board shortly after the run of the play completed. To this day, no one I know has come up with any explanation of what was going on with him. _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > That's a fair statement. Nothing I've said should be construed to make the > arguement that God has been proven to exist. True enough. What I've perceived myself as arguing against is chiefly an idea that reason, "properly" used, somehow naturally leads one to theism if not to a particular theology. In hindsight I'm not sure that was actually your position, but it was the "target" in my mind's eye. > This brings forth an interesting point about debates. An argument as > strong as Mr. Goodalls is much easier to refute than an argument like the > one I think you have made. On the list, before, he has made arguments > strongly tied to the idea that only that which is empirically verifiable is > real. My point about self awareness directly counters this type of > argument. My problem with this counter-argument is that mental solipsism - believing I am conscious but nobody else is - seems to contradict evolution and genetics by implying that I have a trait, whatever its origin, shared by no other human being. So, even if I can't prove the existence of your self-consciousness by direct observation, it seems to me that there's a fair bit of indirect empirical evidence that you and I are the same w/respect to having a mind in general. Whereas the opposite assumption, that I alone am conscious, requires a great leap of faith (not just that God exists, but that He exists and made the world for ME alone; or the I am God), minus any direct evidence and contrary to the indirect evidence that we do have. So, to my way of thinking, believing that other people are conscious isn't an act of faith of the same kind or degree that believing in a God -- more or less well described by a certain religion or set of religions, and actively excluding certain others -- is an act of faith. If one assumes that our scientific perspective on the brain and behavior doesn't touch on and can never touch on consciousness in some essential way, then one is defining consciousness a priori as something untouchable by empirical knowledge, and *that* itself may be a theist-scale act of faith...but it's not a necessary one. Declining to make that leap is not, in my mind, identical to making the opposite, naturalistic one that all questions will be revealed by science and only science for ever and ever, amen. > But, as you pointed out, many atheists would not insist on this argument. > They would allow that there are things that reasonable people accept as > real that are not reducible to the empirical. They still don't believe in > God, and have an understanding of the world that explains much without God. ...or in which they believe theistic explanations actually fail, or create more questions than they answer. > In my experience, these folks fall into two rough groupings: objectivists, > and everyone else. Objectivists talk about truths that are known and > proven, but are not derivable from the empirical. IMHO, objectivists are > typically folks who are overwhelmed by Ms. Rand, and have not though things > through much on their own. Ugh. _Anthem_ convinced me that Ms. Rand probaby isn't worth reading further. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: A Problem For Conservatives
>>>> Return-Path: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:53:28 EST Subject: Fwd: A Problem For Conservatives To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 1/6/03 4:42:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The statement is, in fact, correct -- at least according to what is taught in The Netherlands. Proper procedure is not to develop a theory and then try to prove it, but to develop a theory and then try and *disprove* it. That way you can prevent scientists from ignoring data that disproves their theory. You are talking about Karl Popper's notion that the thing that defines scientfic knowledge as opposed to religous knowledge is that scientific notions must at least in principle be falsifiable. Therefore no theory can ever be taken to be absolutely true since a falsifying experiment or observation may occur at any point in the future. What scientist do is test a theory in various circumstances. The more tests a theory passes the more likely it is to be true. Very few scientists actively try to disprove their own theories (they are after all the scientist's babies) but rather they attempt to see if theory holds in many circumstances. Others may try to disprove or test a theory they do not like. This really not a method for keeping scientists honest, it is rather a basic facet our species,
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William G said: > If it is so easy, why haven't you managed to do it? Could you repost your putative proof for the benefit of those of us who missed it the first time round? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 11/1/03 5:00 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If one goes over the top with a "proof", then it is easy to refute the proof. If it is so easy, why haven't you managed to do it? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life" - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > When those articles have no measurable consequences, > > yes. > > > Um, I was referring to particular core beliefs (like > "Jesus is the Son of God"), which can be neither > proven nor measured. Derivative beliefs (and I'm > using my own terminology here) like "I must convert > others to belief in Jesus" certainly have had > consequences, both bad/coercive/fatal and > good/life-saving. I was considering things like "God made Adam from dust so evolution must be false" as being among (some folks') core religious beliefs. > OK. My personal agenda doesn't include "proving" > anything about my belief in the Divine, or ridiculing > anyone about their 'universe outlook' (well, privately > I might wonder what happened in someone's past that > made them need to think that a mediocre science > fiction writer with paranoid delusions of grandeur had > latched onto 'the Truth'). Oh, I didn't think so. It's just that my memory of the debate is that it was bit too complicated to be well summarized as "X refuted Y! Did not! Did so!" :-) [Not that I want to take it up again; I haven't the time. But I felt I should squeak for a moment on my own behalf.] > I said: > > time. The new gods are ideologies; God is a fetish; > > and wisdom as ever > > means reaching beyond the tenets of conventional > > belief. On further reflection, Gods and ideologies are a set of reciprocating fetishes caught in a perpetual orgy of mutual ideational S&M. Wisdom's about the same, though. [buddhistic gyrations snipped] > > [I'm going to assume that that's for Dan...] I'm not sure it makes much difference -- it's just interesting to note that in one system self-consciousness is commonly accepted as evidence for a unique and atomistic soul, while in the other a close examination of consciousness is considered to disprove the same. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 08:02 PM 1/6/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: >> That is, given a group of people who favor lower taxes, smaller >government, >> restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of firearms, a strong >> national defense and scientific research and proclaim themselves to be >> "conservatives" - and a second group of people who also favor lower taxes, >> smaller government, restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of >> firearms, a strong national defense, and the teaching of creationism - how >> exactly does the former group monopolize the term "conservatives" from the >> latter group? > >Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. > >I suppose it was at one time a matter of political expediency that caused >conservatives to ally themselves with fringe elements of the religious >right, but at this point it seems to me that conservatism has been infected >with memes that will eventually undo them if rationalism prevails. > >The funny thing about it is that one would expect conservatives to *be* the >rational pragmatics as opposed to the irrational dogmatics. > >> Additionally, would the former group be rational if it >> decided to do so? > >Absolutely! The best knowledge on earth precludes 6 or 7 day creation that >biblical literalists contend for. Why hang on to dogma that cannot possibly >be true? It certainly didnt help the Soviets. Robert, I don't think that you got my point at all.Please read my example again, because I honestly can't understand your above answer in the context of my question. Thank you. JDG. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 01:24 PM 1/5/2003 -0500 Jim Sharkey wrote: >I would agree with that. I was going to ask that very question. JDG is very much a Christian Conservative, but I don't imagine he views the Big Bang as screed. I'd be interested in hearing his opinion. > Nope, the Big Bang makes sense to me. Then, of course, there is the viewpoint I read recently that suggested that science invented the Big Bang so as to rationalize the burgeoning evidence for the existence of God. :) .which is a rather silly way of putting the actually serious point that a great many of us not only do not find the Big Bang inconsistent with religion, but indeed, find the Big Bang to be exactly the sort of thing our belief in God would predict to exist. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
--- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > > > For example, if one wishes to argue that only > things for which there is > > solid empirical evidence need to be considered > real, one finds much in the > > trash heap; including many things believed in by > empiricists. The classic > > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced > to the brain, and the > > brain works by biochemistry, then there is no > reason to assume that humans > > are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot > already be explained by > > biochemistry. Yet, few atheists deny the > existence of self consciousness, > > and argue long and hard that what isn't self > consciousness really is. > > And then, On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > The philosophical discussion has been outlined > again > > by Dan, and I can't improve on it. But I agree > with > > you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or > > unproven. Lordy, that came off as arrogant! > When those articles have no measurable consequences, > yes. Um, I was referring to particular core beliefs (like "Jesus is the Son of God"), which can be neither proven nor measured. Derivative beliefs (and I'm using my own terminology here) like "I must convert others to belief in Jesus" certainly have had consequences, both bad/coercive/fatal and good/life-saving. > But it seems to me that if the atheist argues > according to the outline > given by Dan, he must lose. Not because atheism is > false, necessarily, > but because when Dan outlines the debate he invites > the atheist to permit > his beliefs to live or die according to the success > of a purely empirical, > naturalistic metaphysics. Because atheists tend to > be gung-ho on science, > they often accept these terms and end up arguing > forever about the > implications of quantum mechanics and consciousness > and whether or not > science can explain everything worth knowing. > > Which is awfully hard. Fortunately, the phenomena > that make naturalistic > metaphysics difficult, perhaps even impossible, > cannot themselves prove > the truth of any particular theology [*], so in the > end there's really no > reason for the atheist to assume that his belief (or > lack thereof) must > live or die according to a certain metaphysics. OK. My personal agenda doesn't include "proving" anything about my belief in the Divine, or ridiculing anyone about their 'universe outlook' (well, privately I might wonder what happened in someone's past that made them need to think that a mediocre science fiction writer with paranoid delusions of grandeur had latched onto 'the Truth'). IIRC, in several belief systems, Faith is a divine Gift - which implies that the non-believer is unworthy of it for some reason; that seems to me just one more way of attempting to bolster poor self-esteem. The darker consequence of that idea leads to burning 'infidels' because, if they were worthy folk, obviously God would have graced them with the Gift of Faith... > And of course there is ample fodder for skepticism > in the history and > character of religious belief itself. Lately I've > been wondering if we're > not in a second Axial Age, paralleling the the time > when the world turned > from simple tribal nature deities based on eternal > seasonal cycles to > psycologically complex, mercantile/imperial deities > designed to give > meaning to broad civilizations existing in a more > linear mythological > time. The new gods are ideologies; God is a fetish; > and wisdom as ever > means reaching beyond the tenets of conventional > belief. > > [*] Although a multiverse-interpretation of QM seems > to "fit" well with > Buddhism's notion of infinite beings inhabiting > infinite planes of > existence. And how does the self-consciousness > argument work with > Buddhism, anyway, where there is no "self" and the > perception of thoughts > and emotions is as a mechanical a process as > perceiving the hand in front of one's face? [I'm going to assume that that's for Dan...] Debbi doffing her fake antlers now ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is > solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the > trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, and the > brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that humans > are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by > biochemistry. Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, > and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. And then, On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote: > The philosophical discussion has been outlined again > by Dan, and I can't improve on it. But I agree with > you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or > unproven. When those articles have no measurable consequences, yes. But it seems to me that if the atheist argues according to the outline given by Dan, he must lose. Not because atheism is false, necessarily, but because when Dan outlines the debate he invites the atheist to permit his beliefs to live or die according to the success of a purely empirical, naturalistic metaphysics. Because atheists tend to be gung-ho on science, they often accept these terms and end up arguing forever about the implications of quantum mechanics and consciousness and whether or not science can explain everything worth knowing. Which is awfully hard. Fortunately, the phenomena that make naturalistic metaphysics difficult, perhaps even impossible, cannot themselves prove the truth of any particular theology [*], so in the end there's really no reason for the atheist to assume that his belief (or lack thereof) must live or die according to a certain metaphysics. And of course there is ample fodder for skepticism in the history and character of religious belief itself. Lately I've been wondering if we're not in a second Axial Age, paralleling the the time when the world turned from simple tribal nature deities based on eternal seasonal cycles to psycologically complex, mercantile/imperial deities designed to give meaning to broad civilizations existing in a more linear mythological time. The new gods are ideologies; God is a fetish; and wisdom as ever means reaching beyond the tenets of conventional belief. [*] Although a multiverse-interpretation of QM seems to "fit" well with Buddhism's notion of infinite beings inhabiting infinite planes of existence. And how does the self-consciousness argument work with Buddhism, anyway, where there is no "self" and the perception of thoughts and emotions is as a mechanical a process as perceiving the hand in front of one's face? Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Deborah Harrell wrote: > Well, according to my American Heritage Dictionary (no > laughing, you across the pond! ;D ), the first def is > as you said, "to prove false or erroneous," but the > second def is "to deny the accuracy of," which puts it > more on the metaphysical plane - or belief. ;) > > William also said: > In the real world nobody refuted the argument. > > I do deny its accuracy. :) > The philosophical discussion has been outlined again > by Dan, and I can't improve on it. But I agree with > you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or > unproven > > Isn't Anglic marvelously subtle and deliciously > ambiguous? Yeah, well, according to the OED, to use the word "refute" to mean "deny" or "repudiate" is an erroneous use of the word. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 9/1/03 9:35 pm, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Well, according to my American Heritage Dictionary (no > laughing, you across the pond! ;D ), the first def is > as you said, "to prove false or erroneous," but the > second def is "to deny the accuracy of," which puts it > more on the metaphysical plane - or belief. ;) > > William also said: > In the real world nobody refuted the argument. I meant that in the first sense of the word. > But I agree with you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or unproven I refute that :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> William T. Goodall replied: > > It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > >>> As I recall, that proof was >>>refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives? > > >> > > >> It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and > protested > > >> at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted. As I recall, it was refuted in the sense >that it is > > > not possible to prove or disprove, like the QM > theory that a/new universe(s) is/are created each > second. > > Huh? 'Refute' means an argument has been proven > wrong. If an argument > cannot be proven or disproven then it cannot be > proven wrong, by definition. > 'Refute' used in the way you just did makes no > sense. Well, according to my American Heritage Dictionary (no laughing, you across the pond! ;D ), the first def is as you said, "to prove false or erroneous," but the second def is "to deny the accuracy of," which puts it more on the metaphysical plane - or belief. ;) William also said: In the real world nobody refuted the argument. I do deny its accuracy. :) The philosophical discussion has been outlined again by Dan, and I can't improve on it. But I agree with you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or unproven Isn't Anglic marvelously subtle and deliciously ambiguous? FVP Razor __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 8/1/03 8:45 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > >> >> In the real world nobody refuted the argument. > > But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of > course you can refute arguments you disagree with. I didn't define what real was. I just pointed out that in the real world nobody refuted the argument. > > For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is > solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the > trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, 'Reduced to' isn't equivalent to 'is'. The mind may be supervenient on the brain, but that isn't the same as being the brain. > and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that > humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by > biochemistry. It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase "I am self aware". And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a person's brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or not. > Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, > and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the question of the existence of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question of consciousness. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard. - anonymous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 05:38 PM 1/8/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Richard Baker wrote: > > Jeffrey said: > > > *nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply > > there's another, UK version of the phrase..? > > Over here, if you table something, you put it on the table where it can > be discussed. In other words, exactly the opposite meaning. > > Rich, who thinks that must make US-UK diplomacy fun. I heard a story about a discussion during WWII in which people almost came to blows before that definition was straightened out Can't remember any other details, so it might just be a folktale, but it illustrated the problem nicely when told properly. And don't forget the Vietnam peace talks, when IIRC they spent literally weeks before ever starting the actual talks debating the size and shape of the table to use, not to mention how to arrange the participants around it, so that no one could be seen as being in a superior or inferior position to anyone else . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:38:11PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > I heard a story about a discussion during WWII in which people almost > came to blows before that definition was straightened out Hey, watch your language! :-) (I won't say it, I won't say it, doh! willpower loses). At my apartment last Saturday night, my girlfriend almost came to blow, but at the last minute she called and said she had to wash her hairsomething about the hairdryer and blowing 'til she came -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikreuter.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Richard Baker wrote: > > Jeffrey said: > > > *nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply > > there's another, UK version of the phrase..? > > Over here, if you table something, you put it on the table where it can > be discussed. In other words, exactly the opposite meaning. > > Rich, who thinks that must make US-UK diplomacy fun. I heard a story about a discussion during WWII in which people almost came to blows before that definition was straightened out Can't remember any other details, so it might just be a folktale, but it illustrated the problem nicely when told properly. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A Problem For Conservatives
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:32:07 -0800 > -Original Message- > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > The tabling of the question > of the validity > > of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to > the development > > of science. > > Careful of the use of the word "tabling", it has different (if not > opposite!) meanings depending on which side of the Atlantic > you're on. > And since you're on one side and William is on the other, > this is likely to lead to confusion. Could you re-word the > paragraph above without using the word "tabling" so we *all* > know exactly what you mean? > Thanks! Wow! Yeah, I'm interested. FWIW, in addition to its other meanings, tabling, in the stage-hand world, means carrying an item in as horizontal a fashion as possible. IIRC, Kim Stanley Robinson used a completely different, more x-rated definition of the word in Blue Mars. :) Jon _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Jeffrey said: > *nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply > there's another, UK version of the phrase..? Over here, if you table something, you put it on the table where it can be discussed. In other words, exactly the opposite meaning. Rich, who thinks that must make US-UK diplomacy fun. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A Problem For Conservatives
> -Original Message- > From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:32 PM > Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:20 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > > > > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > > > The tabling of the question > > > of the validity > > > > of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to > > > the development > > > > of science. > > > > > > Careful of the use of the word "tabling", it has different (if not > > > opposite!) meanings depending on which side of the > Atlantic you're > > > on. And since you're on one side and William is on the other, > > > this is likely to lead to confusion. Could you re-word the > > > paragraph above without using the word "tabling" so we *all* > > > know exactly what you mean? > > > Thanks! > > > > Wow! Yeah, I'm interested. > > > > FWIW, in addition to its other meanings, tabling, in the stage-hand > world, means carrying an item in as horizontal a fashion as possible. > > Thanks, I forgot the different meaning. In the US, according > to Robert's rule of order, if a motion to table an item under > discussion is passed, it is "placed upon the table" and > discussion ceases. In short, discussion is suspended. *nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply there's another, UK version of the phrase..? -jeffrey "or I could be wrong, it happened once.." miller- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:32 PM Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:20 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > The tabling of the question > > of the validity > > > of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to > > the development > > > of science. > > > > Careful of the use of the word "tabling", it has different (if not > > opposite!) meanings depending on which side of the Atlantic > > you're on. > > And since you're on one side and William is on the other, > > this is likely to lead to confusion. Could you re-word the > > paragraph above without using the word "tabling" so we *all* > > know exactly what you mean? > > Thanks! > > Wow! Yeah, I'm interested. > > FWIW, in addition to its other meanings, tabling, in the stage-hand world, means carrying an item in as horizontal a fashion as possible. Thanks, I forgot the different meaning. In the US, according to Robert's rule of order, if a motion to table an item under discussion is passed, it is "placed upon the table" and discussion ceases. In short, discussion is suspended. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A Problem For Conservatives
> -Original Message- > From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > The tabling of the question > of the validity > > of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to > the development > > of science. > > Careful of the use of the word "tabling", it has different (if not > opposite!) meanings depending on which side of the Atlantic > you're on. > And since you're on one side and William is on the other, > this is likely to lead to confusion. Could you re-word the > paragraph above without using the word "tabling" so we *all* > know exactly what you mean? > Thanks! Wow! Yeah, I'm interested. FWIW, in addition to its other meanings, tabling, in the stage-hand world, means carrying an item in as horizontal a fashion as possible. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Dan Minette wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > > In the real world nobody refuted the argument. > > But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of > course you can refute arguments you disagree with. Refutations of > arguments require agreed upon presuppositions. In science, falsification > of a theory is fairly straightforward, because of the agreed upon test for > science: models of phenomenon. The tabling of the question of the validity > of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to the development > of science. Careful of the use of the word "tabling", it has different (if not opposite!) meanings depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on. And since you're on one side and William is on the other, this is likely to lead to confusion. Could you re-word the paragraph above without using the word "tabling" so we *all* know exactly what you mean? Thanks! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 12:50 08-01-2003 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: A google search for the term 'Mulder's Razor' turned up lotsa slash fan fiction on the X-Files. I don't recall the term being used onlist and don't have it saved in my archive -- can anyone explain? A search of the Great Brin-L Archive revealed that the term has been used on-list once before (by Michael Harney), and explained in that message. At 20:59 28-05-2002 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Haven't you heard of Mulder's Razor? The most ludicrous solution is the one most likely to be true. Jeroen "Architectus Tabularium" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > In the real world nobody refuted the argument. But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of course you can refute arguments you disagree with. Refutations of arguments require agreed upon presuppositions. In science, falsification of a theory is fairly straightforward, because of the agreed upon test for science: models of phenomenon. The tabling of the question of the validity of observations, as been pointed out many times, was key to the development of science. But, in the case of metaphysics, it is much harder to agree upon presuppositions. Indeed, one finds them creeping in by the backdoor in many arguments. Further, one often finds strong disagreement concerning the reasonable conclusions one can draw from presuppositions. For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by biochemistry. Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. I'd be willing to give self consciousness the exact same empirical standing as reduced mass, but no more. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
I wrote (somewhat facetiously): Of *course* God exists. Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? Jon Gabriel replied: A google search for the term 'Mulder's Razor' turned up lotsa slash fan fiction on the X-Files. I don't recall the term being used onlist and don't have it saved in my archive -- can anyone explain? Occam's Razor: per http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is, "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Mulder's Razor: For any given situation, the most likely explanation is the one that involves alien abduction, vampirism, ghosts, crop circles, the Jersey Devil, or some other form of unexplained or paranormal phenomenon. :-) Reggie Bautista GSV Please don't misconstrue this as a statement that I don't believe in the Divine _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:17:53PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:40:02PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Perhaps, But, one does not see any evidence for purpose when empirical > > > observations are made. > > > > But Jon was not making empirical observations when he said we were here > > for a purpose. > > That's a true statement. What I was doing was wondering if people who > claim only the empirical is real can have a purpose. Maybe they can have a > purpose they deny? How about a random purpose? Anyway, I wasn't commenting on that. I was saying, from Jon's point of view, maybe William was put here for a certain purpose... >From my point of view, the discussion is silly, so I will stop now... -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:40:02PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > Perhaps, But, one does not see any evidence for purpose when empirical > > observations are made. > > But Jon was not making empirical observations when he said we were here > for a purpose. That's a true statement. What I was doing was wondering if people who claim only the empirical is real can have a purpose. Maybe they can have a purpose they deny? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:40:02PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > Perhaps, But, one does not see any evidence for purpose when empirical > observations are made. But Jon was not making empirical observations when he said we were here for a purpose. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:20:25PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > > word is a 'cop-out'. Yet, I personally have complete and unshakeable faith > > that God exists and we are here for a purpose. My spiritual and religious > > beliefs may not make sense to some people, but that's not their concern -- > > Perhaps William's purpose is for it to be his concern? Perhaps, But, one does not see any evidence for purpose when empirical observations are made. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:20:25PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > word is a 'cop-out'. Yet, I personally have complete and unshakeable faith > that God exists and we are here for a purpose. My spiritual and religious > beliefs may not make sense to some people, but that's not their concern -- Perhaps William's purpose is for it to be his concern? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:23:52 -0800 (PST) --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reggie Bautista wrote: > > >>> Of *course* God exists. > >>> Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? > > > > William T. Goodall replied: > >> It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > > > As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, > master of the archives? > > It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested > at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted. As I recall, it was refuted in the sense that it is not possible to prove or disprove, like the QM theory that a/new universe(s) is/are created each second. Question: why is it so important to attempt "proof" one way or the other? Belief in the Divine is Faith. Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru ;) Well, IMO, the simplest explanation is that science is man's way of quantifying the universe. It is almost impossible for a scientist to accept that there are things man cannot quantify or understand. Yet, paradoxically, there are scientific theories that exist about the universe which may never be proven or disproven because we lack the tools to do so. Heck, we still haven't yet really identified what makes us conscious. (In my case, it's that frickin' train horn on my morning ride to work.) :) On some level, I think most scientists equate the term 'faith' with what my father told me when i came home with a science question from school in 7th grade: "'Instinct' is a term scientists use when they don't know why an animal behaves a certain way." (He had a PhD in the oceanographic sciences, was a marine biologist and HS bio teacher.) In other words, the word is a 'cop-out'. Yet, I personally have complete and unshakeable faith that God exists and we are here for a purpose. My spiritual and religious beliefs may not make sense to some people, but that's not their concern -- it's mine. :) Ah well, perhaps I'm straying from the topic. :) Jon _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:18:56 + on 8/1/03 12:23 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Reggie Bautista wrote: >> >>>>> Of *course* God exists. >>>>> Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? >>> A google search for the term 'Mulder's Razor' turned up lotsa slash fan fiction on the X-Files. I don't recall the term being used onlist and don't have it saved in my archive -- can anyone explain? And yeah, I did briefly consider that you might have meant that David Duchovny is God. :) Somehow that's just too much to contemplate. >>> William T. Goodall replied: >>>> It was proved otherwise last year on this list. >>> >>> As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, >> master of the archives? >> >> It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested >> at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted. > > As I recall, it was refuted in the sense that it is > not possible to prove or disprove, like the QM theory > that a/new universe(s) is/are created each second. Huh? 'Refute' means an argument has been proven wrong. If an argument cannot be proven or disproven then it cannot be proven wrong, by definition. 'Refute' used in the way you just did makes no sense. Jon GSV Confoozed _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 8/1/03 12:23 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Reggie Bautista wrote: >> > Of *course* God exists. > Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? >>> >>> William T. Goodall replied: It was proved otherwise last year on this list. >>> >>> As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, >> master of the archives? >> >> It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested >> at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted. > > As I recall, it was refuted in the sense that it is > not possible to prove or disprove, like the QM theory > that a/new universe(s) is/are created each second. > > Question: why is it so important to attempt "proof" > one way or the other? Belief in the Divine is Faith. > > Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru ;) But that argument, and its relatives, can be used to 'refute' any argument about anything. So it doesn't count. I mean that is just the argument that we can't know anything about anything because the nature of reality might be that a Descartian demon is reprogramming our memory every second. That is just silly. In the real world nobody refuted the argument. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2003 2:52:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Werewolves are writing reality programs! > > > > Oh, like that wouldn't be an improvement? > > > > You didn't read all the way to the bottom, did you? I did, but I decided to go ahead and make the response anyway. :) Now, having read a number of P.N. Elrod's Vampire Files books, I'm thinking that the undead could have something to contribute, as well. (But that assumes that most vampires are like Jack Fleming.) Julia trying to figure out what other kind of weirdness would improve the lineup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In a message dated 1/7/2003 2:52:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Werewolves are writing reality programs! > > Oh, like that wouldn't be an improvement? > You didn't read all the way to the bottom, did you? William Taylor --- It aint over till the under thought. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
--- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reggie Bautista wrote: > > >>> Of *course* God exists. > >>> Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? > > > > William T. Goodall replied: > >> It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > > > As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, > master of the archives? > > It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested > at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted. As I recall, it was refuted in the sense that it is not possible to prove or disprove, like the QM theory that a/new universe(s) is/are created each second. Question: why is it so important to attempt "proof" one way or the other? Belief in the Divine is Faith. Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > >But creationists and their ilk are either ignorant Authoritarians or lying > >Authoritarians. Further, I believe they are a great danger to our freedoms > >and liberties as long as they are given voice and can inform policy > >decisions. We have had to rely heavily on the courts to protect us and I > >really believe that is a bad habit we need to break. > > > >I suppose it was at one time a matter of political expediency that caused > >conservatives to ally themselves with fringe elements of the religious > >right, but at this point it seems to me that conservatism has been infected > >with memes that will eventually undo them if rationalism prevails. > > > >The funny thing about it is that one would expect conservatives to *be* the > >rational pragmatics as opposed to the irrational dogmatics. > > > >rob > > > You say: > "I believe they are a great danger to our freedoms and liberties as long as > they are given voice and can inform policy decisions. We have had to rely > heavily on the courts to protect us and I really believe that is a bad > habit we need to break." > > But aren't there just as many strong liberal points of view, people that > are given voice and can inform policy decisions, at least in the prior ten > years? While you may be pointing to a specific religious issue, the liberal > ideas I'm thinking of* can be founded in their 'beliefs' of what is the > right way to do something, the only way, no matter how many times they are > shown it's wrong. Most politics, at least in America, concerns "how" to do things much more that it concerns eventualities. IOW politics is about 'means' rather than 'ends'. The eventual goals of both dominant parties is freedom, prosperity, and security for everyone, they just differ on the path that should be taken to achieve these goals. I agree that there are also liberal nutcases out there, but I dont think anyone takes them seriously. At least not in the way that conservatives seem to have empowered "their" nutcases. I'm not refering in any way to matters like abortion, which is to a great degree a matter of opinion and where neither side of the argument has enough "facts" to destroy the opposing rhetoric. I'm refering to matters such as creationism which has actually been a dead issue for many years, yet seems to be ressurected on a regular basis like some kind of usefull zombie meme. (Zombie Meme - now there is a useful term!) > > And what do you mean by relying heavily on the courts? Removing christian > symbols from Christmas displays, while leaving Jewish and Islamic symbols? > Do you mean such horrors as forcing the removal of a 85 year old plaque of > the ten commandments from the lobby of a public courthouse? Praise be the > right thinkers, the country is saved! Sorry, just having fun. The courts have had to rescue students from being taught "creationism as Science" several times since *I* gained my majority. Jonny cant read, Jonny has no respect for education, and Jonny is an expert on reality because he knows his Bible. Does anyone else see a trend here? > > As I've said many times before, I try and hold no religious views. (not > opinions, just beliefs) But I don't think religion should be banished, it > should be kept around as an opiate for the masses, as it were. Actually I agree a bit here. I dont see religion as a necessarily bad thing as some do. I think religion has a great power to uplift the human spirit even though it also has a great power for abuse. >Rich asked > why Amerikka seemed to have such issues while the UK doesn't. I was trying > to find this stat, I only found indirect quotes: the US has 40% (seems > high) religious participation while the UK has only 2% (seems too low). So > this is fertile ground for more wackos, more chance that they will hold > visible positions. Not calling this wacko, but would you find the same > 'homosexual' issues being discussed in San Francisco city council being > discussed in Green Bay, Wisconsin? Depends. Do they have homosexuals in Green Bay, do you think? >I'm sure there are non religious ideas > being discussed somewhere that would raise red flags in most intelligent > people, but an issue like ceremonialism is on reporters short list of > newsworthy topics. In 1998 if a southern black church was struck by > lightning, even if the reporter said it wasn't burnt down by a human hand, > it would be a news item because at first there were '
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 18:20 06-01-2003 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: > Of *course* God exists. > Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? William T. Goodall replied: It was proved otherwise last year on this list. As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives? I'd be more than happy to do an archive search for you, but you will have to be a bit more precise about when that particular discussion took place. Which month was it? Jeroen "Architectus Tabularium" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why > > the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see > > most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm > > ranting about, but seems to actually embrace it and present it as a virtue > > of the faithful. > > Is the prevalence of this attitude perhaps regionally influenced? I > know I wasn't hearing it in New England to anywhere *near* the extent I > hear it in Texas. > I'm ranting about a local radio show *and* a website that reaches all over. I dont know how this stuff goes elsewhere, but so far no one has even tried to convince me that it *is* different elsewhere. I couls be wrong, but I get the idea that this stuff started creeping into prominance a bit after the election of Reagan. xponent Best Guess Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 03:56 PM 1/7/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . . > > > > > > > > That's supposed to be "we're", not "were" . . . > > And if it was not a mistake.. > > Runaway! Runaway! > > Werewolves are writing reality programs! Oh, like that wouldn't be an improvement? I'd like to see what the lycanthropically afflicted would do with a prime-time slot! Make Seth Green the star of his own "Buffy" spinoff? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . . > > > > > > > > That's supposed to be "we're", not "were" . . . > > And if it was not a mistake.. > > Runaway! Runaway! > > Werewolves are writing reality programs! Oh, like that wouldn't be an improvement? I'd like to see what the lycanthropically afflicted would do with a prime-time slot! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . . > > > > That's supposed to be "we're", not "were" . . . And if it was not a mistake.. Runaway! Runaway! Werewolves are writing reality programs! Wait a minute Aren't network executives already sucking the brains out of our youth? Never mind. William Taylor - There. There wolf. --M.F. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 01:03 PM 1/7/03 -0600, I wrote:
At 12:43 PM 1/7/03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:42:22 EST
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God.
> Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven
with
a
> reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a
> house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors.
I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. >>
I want to see the next reality show being all of the conned females from
that
show with meat grinders going after Fox network executives.
Unfortunately, a good reality show would be to take 20 people off of the
street and have them locked up in a Fox network conference room until they
come up with an original idea for a new reality show.
*sigh*
No. No. No.
Any 20 people chosen off the street will most likely be the ones who
think that reality shows are the epitome of great television -- right up
there with Jerry Springer and Cops. You need 20 people who think reality
tv (aka humiliation television) is a bad, horrible idea -- which will be
MUCH harder to find.
With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . .
That's supposed to be "we're", not "were" . . .
Why Do They Call It "Reality TV" When It's All Contrived Maru
Personally, I place "Cops" and some (not all) similar shows in a somewhat
different category.
So-called "Reality TV" is, as my comment above suggests, entirely
contrived, while "Jerry Springer" and similar shows bring real people with
real problems on TV to make fun of them while they yell at each other in
front of the cameras. ("People's Court", "Divorce Court", etc., are all in
that category, too. And, FWIW, here "Divorce Court" precedes the start of
the evening news block at 5 pm, so if I switch on the TV or switch over
after watching a tape a few minutes before 5 I immediately hit "Mute" so I
won't either barf or throw something through the TV screen.) On "Cops",
OTOH, while the cases they choose to air may be selected from the extremes
rather then the average, at least it is showing what can and does happen
out there every day. (If you know any police officers, sheriff's deputies,
etc., and spend any amount of time talking with them, you will hear stories
of behavior every bit as ridiculous as anything you see on "Cops.") IOW,
it is at least a slice of "reality," unlike the others, which are no more
"reality" than a "Candid Camera" stunt . . .
-- Ronn! :)
"An armed society is a polite society."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Counterexample Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 12:43 PM 1/7/03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:42:22 EST In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. > Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a > reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a > house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. >> I want to see the next reality show being all of the conned females from that show with meat grinders going after Fox network executives. Unfortunately, a good reality show would be to take 20 people off of the street and have them locked up in a Fox network conference room until they come up with an original idea for a new reality show. *sigh* No. No. No. Any 20 people chosen off the street will most likely be the ones who think that reality shows are the epitome of great television -- right up there with Jerry Springer and Cops. You need 20 people who think reality tv (aka humiliation television) is a bad, horrible idea -- which will be MUCH harder to find. With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . . Why Do They Call It "Reality TV" When It's All Contrived Maru --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:40:58 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why > the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see > most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm > ranting about, but seems to actually embrace it and present it as a virtue > of the faithful. Is the prevalence of this attitude perhaps regionally influenced? I know I wasn't hearing it in New England to anywhere *near* the extent I hear it in Texas. Julia I would tend to agree with this statement. And, asking what I would consider personal questions about a relative stranger's religious beliefs and preferences is much more common in TX (i've spent extensive time in Dallas/Plano/Ft Worth, Amarillo, Lubbock and a few weeks in El Paso) than it is in NY in my experience. I also find that people are much more aggressive about imposing their views, but that could be merely my own personal experience. I find it incredibly annoying, offensive and arrogant to have someone assume that their religious point of view is more valid than yours. Jon GSV He's not dead as long as we remember Him :-) _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Julia Thompson wrote: > > I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. > > Uh, no, I believe there *are* full length mirrors on that show. And > probably more than one bathroom. Technically true, but when Keisha and I found ourselves unable to avert our eyes from the train-wreck of a premiere last night, we learned that one of the elements of the show is that not only do the women have to compete for "Joe," they also have to compete for limited numbers of ball gowns, supplies, etc., which I think captures the spirit of the thing pretty well. There's not much difference between 20 high-strung women competing for formalwear and 20 pro wrestlers competing for mirror-space, except maybe that some of the wrestlers will have bigger breasts. Marvin Long GSV Put that wire right into my reprobate lobe, yeah, that's it! Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:42:22 EST In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. > Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a > reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a > house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. >> I want to see the next reality show being all of the conned females from that show with meat grinders going after Fox network executives. Unfortunately, a good reality show would be to take 20 people off of the street and have them locked up in a Fox network conference room until they come up with an original idea for a new reality show. *sigh* No. No. No. Any 20 people chosen off the street will most likely be the ones who think that reality shows are the epitome of great television -- right up there with Jerry Springer and Cops. You need 20 people who think reality tv (aka humiliation television) is a bad, horrible idea -- which will be MUCH harder to find. I'm still waiting for some tv executive to suggest a real version of "The Running Man". We're only a couple of steps away from an arena and lions, anyway. Jon Why Rome Fell maru _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 20:00:00 -0500 William T. Goodall replied: >>It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God loved him so much that he died on a cross for his sins so that he might have eternal life before he wasted all that effort! JDG So *that's* what Nietsche meant! ;-) Jon GSV Was Wondering _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > Jim said: > > > And BTW, in the spirit of fairness, since atheists often say we can't > > prove the existence of God, is it completely wrong to point out that > > scientists can't prove the Big Bang? > > It's not the job of scientists to prove the Big Bang - it's their job to > disprove it! > > Rich > GCU Science Is Not The Search For Truth I think it is worthwhile noting how many scientists, with various metaphysical assumptions, have agreed upon this. Science provides models that are fit to empirical observations. If the model fits, its a good model. If not, no matter how pretty it is, it is not a good model. But, it is not the scientists who insist they are talking about Truth. Rather, it is the alternative thinkers who insist that science search for Truth. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 10:42 PM 1/6/03 -0500, William Taylor wrote: In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. > Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a > reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a > house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. >> I want to see the next reality show being all of the conned females from that show with meat grinders going after Fox network executives. Unfortunately, a good reality show would be to take 20 people off of the street and have them locked up in a Fox network conference room until they come up with an original idea for a new reality show. Or putting all the people who are responsible for these shows in a house together, locking the doors, and setting it on fire . . . Quickly. Before it's time to come up with next season's shows. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 7/1/03 4:48 am, Kevin Tarr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Rich asked why Amerikka seemed to have such issues while the UK doesn't. I was > trying to find this stat, I only found indirect quotes: the US has 40% (seems > high) religious participation while the UK has only 2% (seems too low). > I think 2% is the projected figure for 2020 - the current figure is about 8%. Even better, the projected figure for 2040 is 0.5%. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 10:40 PM 1/6/2003 -0600, you wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: > Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why > the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see > most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm > ranting about, but seems to actually embrace it and present it as a virtue > of the faithful. Is the prevalence of this attitude perhaps regionally influenced? I know I wasn't hearing it in New England to anywhere *near* the extent I hear it in Texas. Julia Agree somewhat. Or maybe he sees it most regularly and clearly because he's looking for it? While walking to work I look for people not wearing seat belts, talking on cell phones, not using turn signals and I see them all the time. Kevin T. Idiots everywhere ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
But creationists and their ilk are either ignorant Authoritarians or lying Authoritarians. Further, I believe they are a great danger to our freedoms and liberties as long as they are given voice and can inform policy decisions. We have had to rely heavily on the courts to protect us and I really believe that is a bad habit we need to break. I suppose it was at one time a matter of political expediency that caused conservatives to ally themselves with fringe elements of the religious right, but at this point it seems to me that conservatism has been infected with memes that will eventually undo them if rationalism prevails. The funny thing about it is that one would expect conservatives to *be* the rational pragmatics as opposed to the irrational dogmatics. rob You say: "I believe they are a great danger to our freedoms and liberties as long as they are given voice and can inform policy decisions. We have had to rely heavily on the courts to protect us and I really believe that is a bad habit we need to break." But aren't there just as many strong liberal points of view, people that are given voice and can inform policy decisions, at least in the prior ten years? While you may be pointing to a specific religious issue, the liberal ideas I'm thinking of* can be founded in their 'beliefs' of what is the right way to do something, the only way, no matter how many times they are shown it's wrong. And what do you mean by relying heavily on the courts? Removing christian symbols from Christmas displays, while leaving Jewish and Islamic symbols? Do you mean such horrors as forcing the removal of a 85 year old plaque of the ten commandments from the lobby of a public courthouse? Praise be the right thinkers, the country is saved! Sorry, just having fun. As I've said many times before, I try and hold no religious views. (not opinions, just beliefs) But I don't think religion should be banished, it should be kept around as an opiate for the masses, as it were. Rich asked why Amerikka seemed to have such issues while the UK doesn't. I was trying to find this stat, I only found indirect quotes: the US has 40% (seems high) religious participation while the UK has only 2% (seems too low). So this is fertile ground for more wackos, more chance that they will hold visible positions. Not calling this wacko, but would you find the same 'homosexual' issues being discussed in San Francisco city council being discussed in Green Bay, Wisconsin? I'm sure there are non religious ideas being discussed somewhere that would raise red flags in most intelligent people, but an issue like ceremonialism is on reporters short list of newsworthy topics. In 1998 if a southern black church was struck by lightning, even if the reporter said it wasn't burnt down by a human hand, it would be a news item because at first there were 'fears' it was an arson fire. (A poor allegory, hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to say). Kevin T. * No examples, sorry. Make up your own. Free swim. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Robert Seeberger wrote: > Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why > the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see > most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm > ranting about, but seems to actually embrace it and present it as a virtue > of the faithful. Is the prevalence of this attitude perhaps regionally influenced? I know I wasn't hearing it in New England to anywhere *near* the extent I hear it in Texas. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
"Marvin Long, Jr." wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. > > Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a > > reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a > > house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. > > I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. Uh, no, I believe there *are* full length mirrors on that show. And probably more than one bathroom. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 7/1/03 2:52 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:24 PM > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > >> It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested at, and even >> disbelieved - but not refuted. > > Are you positive? I checked my archives, and it was in the refuted > arguments folder, right next to the "Jerry Lewis is a genius" argument. > It have been misfiled somehow. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. > Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a > reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a > house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. >> I want to see the next reality show being all of the conned females from that show with meat grinders going after Fox network executives. Unfortunately, a good reality show would be to take 20 people off of the street and have them locked up in a Fox network conference room until they come up with an original idea for a new reality show. William Taylor --- Backstabbing in a reality show is pale in comparison to backstabbing network executives. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. > Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a > reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a > house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A Problem For Conservatives
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Richard Baker ... > Our recent troubles may have been an unpleasant reminder of the > imperfection of the world, but surely they weren't bad enough to > disprove the existence of God? Troubles sure wouldn't disprove the existence of the God of the Bible... This world is *in* trouble, according to it. One might be able to disprove the existence of God personally, by turning to God and receiving nothing in response. Of course, one might just be blind to response. Or one might be imagining it, if it is perceived. And along these lines... one of the wiser things I've read recently was the idea that the opposite of faith is not doubt, it is fear. We all have doubts (the religious folks who claim not to are a bit scary); acting on our beliefs despite doubts takes faith to overcome the fear that there's no God. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In a message dated 1/6/03 6:00:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << William T. Goodall replied: >>It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > The poor dears! >> Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God. Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a house with only one bathroom and no full length mirrors. William Taylor --- Mucha Lucha Sig Move: The pernicious plethora of putrid puns ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Erik Reuter wrote: That was kind of silly of her, wasn't it? Omniscient, omnipotent beings should have more sense than that! Oh, man, you've got it all wrong. Omniscient, omnipotent beings turn a blind eye to genocide while helping football players get touchdowns (at least according to the blessed athlete.) Sense (from our POV anyway) doesn't have much to do with it. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:24 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested at, and even > disbelieved - but not refuted. Are you positive? I checked my archives, and it was in the refuted arguments folder, right next to the "Jerry Lewis is a genius" argument. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 7/1/03 12:20 am, Reggie Bautista at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wrote: >>> Of *course* God exists. >>> Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? > > William T. Goodall replied: >> It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives? It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:47 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > At 12:49 AM 1/5/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > >Pretty much exactly my point. > >I'm just sick of conservatives giving voice to luddite morons and pretending > >it to be virtue. > > Given the existence of the 1st Amendment in this country, please provide a > detailed memo to, quote, "conservatives" on how to, quote, stop "giving > voice to luddite morons." > > That is, given a group of people who favor lower taxes, smaller government, > restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of firearms, a strong > national defense and scientific research and proclaim themselves to be > "conservatives" - and a second group of people who also favor lower taxes, > smaller government, restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of > firearms, a strong national defense, and the teaching of creationism - how > exactly does the former group monopolize the term "conservatives" from the > latter group? Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm ranting about, but seems to actually embrace it and present it as a virtue of the faithful. In my interior monologue (as opposed to what I may present in public), I tend to respect the beliefs of "right-to-lifers". Why? I recognise that one can come to that same conclusion independent of religious dogma. Its an honest attitude. But creationists and their ilk are either ignorant Authoritarians or lying Authoritarians. Further, I believe they are a great danger to our freedoms and liberties as long as they are given voice and can inform policy decisions. We have had to rely heavily on the courts to protect us and I really believe that is a bad habit we need to break. I suppose it was at one time a matter of political expediency that caused conservatives to ally themselves with fringe elements of the religious right, but at this point it seems to me that conservatism has been infected with memes that will eventually undo them if rationalism prevails. The funny thing about it is that one would expect conservatives to *be* the rational pragmatics as opposed to the irrational dogmatics. > Additionally, would the former group be rational if it > decided to do so? > Absolutely! The best knowledge on earth precludes 6 or 7 day creation that biblical literalists contend for. Why hang on to dogma that cannot possibly be true? It certainly didnt help the Soviets. xponent Rant Cycle Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 08:00:00PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God loved him > so much that he died on a cross for his sins so that he might have > eternal life before he wasted all that effort! That was kind of silly of her, wasn't it? Omniscient, omnipotent beings should have more sense than that! -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William T. Goodall replied: >>It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God loved him so much that he died on a cross for his sins so that he might have eternal life before he wasted all that effort! JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 12:49 AM 1/5/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: >Pretty much exactly my point. >I'm just sick of conservatives giving voice to luddite morons and pretending >it to be virtue. Given the existence of the 1st Amendment in this country, please provide a detailed memo to, quote, "conservatives" on how to, quote, stop "giving voice to luddite morons." That is, given a group of people who favor lower taxes, smaller government, restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of firearms, a strong national defense and scientific research and proclaim themselves to be "conservatives" - and a second group of people who also favor lower taxes, smaller government, restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of firearms, a strong national defense, and the teaching of creationism - how exactly does the former group monopolize the term "conservatives" from the latter group?Additionally, would the former group be rational if it decided to do so? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:14 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > - Original Message - > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:54 PM > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:42:29PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Actually, in this case, it was the damn invisible virtual partons. :-) > > > > Dolly & family? > > No, those Partons are all too visible. > The bra and breast thread is down the hall. HTH xponent Lets Talk About Breasts Baybay, Lets Talk About You and You And Me Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
I wrote: > Of *course* God exists. > Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? William T. Goodall replied: It was proved otherwise last year on this list. As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives? Reggie Bautista :-) _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:54 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:42:29PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > Actually, in this case, it was the damn invisible virtual partons. :-) > > Dolly & family? No, those Partons are all too visible. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:42:29PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > Actually, in this case, it was the damn invisible virtual partons. :-) Dolly & family? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:22 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:19:33PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Why waste time trying to disprove it anyway? Might as well spend your > > > time trying to disprove the existence of invisible, undetectably pink > > > unicorns. > > > > But, of course, you were forced to say that. :-) > > Doh! Damn invisible unicorns... Actually, in this case, it was the damn invisible virtual partons. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:19:33PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Why waste time trying to disprove it anyway? Might as well spend your > > time trying to disprove the existence of invisible, undetectably pink > > unicorns. > > But, of course, you were forced to say that. :-) Doh! Damn invisible unicorns... -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:01:18PM +, Richard Baker wrote: > > William G said: > > > > >> Of *course* God exists. > > > > > > It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > > > Our recent troubles may have been an unpleasant reminder of the > > imperfection of the world, but surely they weren't bad enough to > > disprove the existence of God? > > Why waste time trying to disprove it anyway? Might as well spend your > time trying to disprove the existence of invisible, undetectably pink > unicorns. But, of course, you were forced to say that. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Erik said: > Why waste time trying to disprove it anyway? Might as well spend your > time trying to disprove the existence of invisible, undetectably pink > unicorns. Heretic! ...wait, were those *flying* invisible, undetectable pink unicorns? I advise that you consider your answer carefully if you have any concern for your safety and that of your immortal soul. Rich VFP Believe In A Loving God Or Die! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:01:18PM +, Richard Baker wrote: > William G said: > > >> Of *course* God exists. > > > > It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > Our recent troubles may have been an unpleasant reminder of the > imperfection of the world, but surely they weren't bad enough to > disprove the existence of God? Why waste time trying to disprove it anyway? Might as well spend your time trying to disprove the existence of invisible, undetectably pink unicorns. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William G said: >> Of *course* God exists. > > It was proved otherwise last year on this list. Our recent troubles may have been an unpleasant reminder of the imperfection of the world, but surely they weren't bad enough to disprove the existence of God? Rich GCU Did I Miss Something? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 6/1/03 9:43 pm, Reggie Bautista at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > William T Goodall wrote: >> The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God doesn't exist before >> they wasted all that effort! > > Of *course* God exists. It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? Never an X-Files fan. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
William T Goodall wrote: The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God doesn't exist before they wasted all that effort! Of *course* God exists. Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor? Reggie Bautista Only sort of kidding Maru _ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
on 6/1/03 2:32 am, Julia Thompson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nick Arnett wrote: >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >>> Behalf Of Richard Baker >> >> ... >> >>> The thing is, it's not possible to prove the Big Bang. How would one >>> even go about trying to prove it? >> >> But this guy is questioning the very notion of order arising from chaos, as >> though science couldn't possibly deal with such a concept. Hello? We don't >> need God to show how that happens. From my point of view, God created a >> universe made of stuff that works that way; if there's a miracle there, it's >> that such things exist, not how they behave. >> >> How much education will it take for people to realize that understanding how >> creation works, whether in evolution, the birth of the universe, or >> whatever, doesn't rule out God's existence? I suppose I run the risk of >> offending some friends (not here, I suspect) by saying that every time I see >> some Christian slogan or symbol decrying Darwin, I immediately tend to >> assume that it belongs to someone who ever learned much of anything about >> the science of evolution. >> >> And on this subject, is anyone here familiar with Dr. Charles Townes and his >> talks on science and Christianity? He's speaking near here on Feb. 8th and >> I'm thinking of going. He's the inventor of the laser, a Nobel laureate and >> the flyer for the talk says he "will speak on the modern convergence between >> science and religion into a unified way of understanding reality." > > All this reminds me of something I saw a bit of on TV, where some > Christians were arguing the point that Christianity is favorable to the > scientific method, that Christians invented it, and that the pursuit of > science was a great way to come to understanding more of God's > creation. I changed the channel before it got much past 1700 or so in > the history of science and Christianity. (I think it came on after a > church service someone was watching over the holidays, and we changed > the channel so as to be sure not to miss any football. I couldn't tell > you which channel, but I suspect whichever religious channel Cox cable > carries in my area, which I'm not going to look up right this minute.) The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God doesn't exist before they wasted all that effort! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A Problem For Conservatives
Ronn! wrote: The problem with many attempts (NOT necessarily Dr. Townes's) attempts to "unify" science and religion is that they basically assume one is completely true and then try to make the other one fit into that framework, regardless of how much they have to hammer on it or trim pieces off. The classic example is the various attempts of so-called "creation scientists" or "scientific creationists" to make the creation of at least the Earth, and possibly the whole Universe, fit into the six days of Creation that are described in Genesis, on the assumption that the word "day" in that account refers to 24 hours of 60 minutes of 60 seconds, each of which is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom (for which I assume we have to wait until God has created the first Cs¹³³ atom . . .). Frex, that the ground was so soft after the Flood that geological features like the Grand Canyon were formed in a few days or weeks by the runoff of the waters (which, BTW, to cover the whole Earth above the tops of all the mountains currently on Earth would require an additional volume of water some 3.6 times the volume of all the water currently in the oceans), or that somehow the Earth was originally created in close orbit around the black hole at the center of our Galaxy, then somehow flung off into space where it travelled until it came to rest at its current location, and the relativistic time dilation allowed the Earth to age 4.5 billion years while the rest of the Universe aged 6 days. (Identifying the problems inherent in the latter scenario is left as an exercise for the reader . . .) Or one could simply rely on the linguists' belief that Genesis is a poem and therefore not meant to be taken literally, in which case it stands up rather well... I suppose that fits under your category of assuming that one is true and trying to fit the other one into it. But it makes a lot more sense to me (and many others) that science is a description of the rules of the Universe, and spirituality is about the Maker of those rules, than it does to believe that the bible is literal truth (which it clearly can't be, because of the contradictions mentioned by The Fool and others), and to try to bend science to fit with that framework. Reggie Bautista I've *got* to find those references Maru _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Jeroen said: > What's the difference? If you have proof for something then it is absolutely, incontrovertibly true. If you have evidence for something then it's just probable. Rich GCU Degrees Of Certitude ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
