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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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 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
--- 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. sheepish grin Lordy, that came off as arrogant! When those articles have no measurable consequences, yes. puzzled look 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
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
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
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote: When those articles have no measurable consequences, yes. puzzled look 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 SM. 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
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
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: 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 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
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 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
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
- 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
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
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
- 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: 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
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
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
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
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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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
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
[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
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: 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
--- 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: 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: 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
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: 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: A Problem For Conservatives
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Kevin Tarr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Verzonden: zondag 5 januari 2003 17:41 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: A Problem For Conservatives It's not the job of scientists to prove the Big Bang - it's their job to disprove it! I don't know why, but your statements look completely wrong. 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. Jeroen 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
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Verzonden: zondag 5 januari 2003 21:15 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: A Problem For Conservatives I wish the likes of Scientific American would stop saying things like More proof for the Big Bang when they really mean More evidence for the Big Bang What's the difference? Jeroen Question on a cosmic scale 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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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 05:42:29PM -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 5:54 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
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: 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 G 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
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
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: 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
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: 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: 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: [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
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: 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: 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
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
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: 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
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
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
Robert Seeberger wrote http://www.newsmax.com/adv/poist.shtml That conservatives tolerate, and even openly encourage such crap is the main reason I would never vote republican. Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think he speaks for all conservatives? It *is* named an advertisement, though of course that may not be the truth. I'm afraid I also know little about newsmax, though poking around their site a little does suggest a little about it. Is it considered conservatism's voice on the 'net? A little background would certainly clear some things up, thanks! 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? I certainly don't agree with Mr. Poist, but is it truly an unfair question? I don't know that it is. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
At 03:24 PM 1/5/2003 +, you wrote: 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 don't know why, but your statements look completely wrong. I'm sure there are just as many scientists who work towards fitting new data in with old theories to make the case for the big bang even better. The scientist who has that one piece of data that just doesn't fit no matter what he tries, he's the one who ends up, sometimes unintentionally, making a new theory that fits the old data and the new. Kevin T. Or maybe the truth as I know it is different from yours (maybe joking) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives Robert Seeberger wrote http://www.newsmax.com/adv/poist.shtml That conservatives tolerate, and even openly encourage such crap is the main reason I would never vote republican. Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think he speaks for all conservatives? I dont think these morons speak for all conservatives. I think there is too much tolerance for such idiocy within the conservative movement. In fact I believe there should be quite a bit of intolerance for such crap displayed. I would never accuse Gautam or JDG of following this crowd, but I think Gautam and JDG are in the minority in this regard. I suspect this evolves into a larger discussion of Who speaks for Conservatives. It *is* named an advertisement, though of course that may not be the truth. I'm afraid I also know little about newsmax, though poking around their site a little does suggest a little about it. Is it considered conservatism's voice on the 'net? I've mentioned before that I enjoy listening to Conservative/Republican Talk radio. Quite often the hosts read articles from Newsmax *verbatim*. It becomes pretty obvious where they get their news. And it is also quite obvious that even the Ads have infected the views they espouse. Or pehaps i should say that their memes have been corrupted by this anti-information. Newsmax is pretty important. But then so is Matt Drudge. Of the two I find Drudge to be more what I would prefer from a conservative voice. Another contrast with Newsmax is Glen Beck who catagorizes looniness in its own column, even though he doesnt specifically criticise it. A little background would certainly clear some things up, thanks! If you can listen to talkradio during the day, listening to http://www.950kprc.com/main.html would make my rant a bit clearer in the long term. The morning guy, Pat Gray, angers me enormously because he is exactly what I am ranting against. The afternoon guy, Chris Baker, is not as bad and his show is actually enjoyable. The rest of their day is national stuff, make of it what you will, and weekends are typically local interest shows. 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? I certainly don't agree with Mr. Poist, but is it truly an unfair question? I don't know that it is. I think the lack of an alternate explanation with credible evidence to back it up is telling. I'm not an athiest, though I find them agreeable, and I'm not an agnostic, though I find them agreeable. What irks me are the religious types (or even a-religious types) that seem to think that ancient peoples knew more truths off the top of their heads than modern people do after billions of man-hours of research. So no, I dont think that is a fair question. Its like coming home after a hard day at work and having your wife claim you did nothing all day. xponent Disagreeable Jerk Maru (Thats Me) 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
Jim wrote: 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 thatscientists can't prove the Big Bang? I certainly don't agree with Mr. Poist, but is it truly an unfair question? I don't know that it is. It is an unfair question, and it ignores the facts. Scientists may not be able to completely prove the Big Bang occurred, but they've got a pretty good track record of proven hypotheses that makes it very likely that there was a Big Bang. Background microwave radiation, the red shift and many others that I can't recall due to being tired from driving all day yesterday all match the expected theories regarding the age and probable origin of the universe. Even if someone comes forward with experimental results that make the Big Bang invalid as a theory, there will be a shift in the paradigm. Some scientists will work to disprove the new evidence, others will work to explain how the new evidence fits into the original theory and still others will develop a theory to fit the new evidence and begin testing it. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Adam said: Background microwave radiation, the red shift and many others that I can't recall due to being tired from driving all day yesterday all match the expected theories regarding the age and probable origin of the universe. The other important observation that the Big Bang model explains is the primordial abundances of light elements. There appears to be a primordial abundance of helium of around 23% by mass, but this can't all be accounted for by stellar nucleosynthesis because when stars have converted about 12% of their mass to helium they become red giants and subsequent nuclear reactions in the star consume rather than produce helium. Furthermore, the lower bound on the abundance of primordial helium seems quite homogeneous across the universe whereas if it was all produced in stars then there would be a much wider range of variation. The Big Bang also predicts synthesis of trace amounts of deuterium, helium-3 and lithium. The first two isotopes are fragile and are destroyed rather than consumed in stars, so their abundance in nature suggests a process other than stellar nucleosynthesis is responsible. In fact, the synthesis of these nuclei is very sensitive to the matter density in the universe, and a Big Bang with the right value of this parameter predicts just the observed amounts of each. As far as I'm aware, there is no known model that doesn't involved a hot big bang that can explain these three strands of observation: the microwave background, the red shift of distant galaxies and the abundances of light elements. Rich GSV Cosmology Lesson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Robert Seeberger wrote: From: Jim Sharkey Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think he speaks for all conservatives? I would never accuse Gautam or JDG of following this crowd, but I think Gautam and JDG are in the minority in this regard. 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. A little background would certainly clear some things up, thanks!If you can listen to talkradio during the day, listening to http://www.950kprc.com/main.html would make my rant a bit clearer in the long term. I'll try to do that some time, thanks. Is it completely wrong to point out that scientists can't prove the Big Bang? I think the lack of an alternate explanation with credible evidence to back it up is telling. I'm not an athiest, though I find them agreeable. You and Adam make some fair points in that regard. I was more speaking from a philosophical standpoint than from one of having back up for your claims. While you both point out some interesting evidence, it doesn't amount to proof at this point. In regards to atheists being agreeable, I am afraid I've found my experiences with them to be far less so. And perhaps it's a reaction to that. For every one like Jeroen who merely allows his atheism to be just one part of his whole, I've encountered several that act as if it not only defines them, but also grant them an intelligence tenfold beyond their peers. That attitude could certainly, IMO, make folks like Mr. Poist posit reactionary rhetoric like the item you pointed out. Not that they're not probably already inclined to do so, of course. So no, I dont think that is a fair question. Its like coming home after a hard day at work and having your wife claim you did nothing all day. Interesting analogy. Especially given your background. I suppose you might take his position a little personally. :) However, my wife might argue that holding down the fort all day with three children under age seven is at least equally difficult as working all day. :-) (A discussion for another thread, I'm sure.) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Jim wrote: You and Adam make some fair points in that regard. I was more speaking from a philosophical standpoint than from one of having back up for your claims. While you both point out some interesting evidence, it doesn't amount to proof at this point. There's proof and there's proof. As Mr. Baker pointed out, the Big Bang theory accounts for just about everything we've observed so far (caveat mine, just in case) about the universe. I'd say that, like evolution, the Big Bang is proven to the point at which it's perverse to argue that it didn't occur without something pretty impressive to back up your claims. In regards to atheists being agreeable, I am afraid I've found my experiences with them to be far less so. And perhaps it's a reaction to that. For every one like Jeroen who merely allows his atheism to be just one part of his whole, I've encountered several that act as if itnot only defines them, but also grant them an intelligence tenfold beyond their peers. That attitude could certainly, IMO, make folks like Mr. Poist posit reactionary rhetoric like the item you pointed out. Not that they're not probably already inclined to do so, of course. In any group, there's a huge range of individual attitudes. I could make a similar statement about christians, muslims, or Star Trek fans. Especially Star Trek fans. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A Problem For Conservatives
Does this person actually have any kind of following? There are plenty of liberal wackos, too... It doesn't seem quite fair to hold him up as a voice of conservatism. -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 7:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A Problem For Conservatives http://www.newsmax.com/adv/poist.shtml Quote Abandoning all sense of reality, the 'all-knowing' anti-God element of science continues to insult all reason with the noxious claim that the earth and all other bodies in the cosmos were brought into being by a big bang - necessarily a random, unplanned explosion or similar occurrence. Undying fame awaits the scientist who can bring about a random explosion and produce an established sense-of-order within any of its debris. When asked what brought about the perfect and unending relationship between earth, sun and moon, they are left either blank or with some far-out tale of possibilities. How and why the 'big bang' resulted in only one earth, endowed with atmosphere, water and multitudinous forms of life are also beyond their explanation. For decades they have been desperately seeking for any sign of life or condition supporting life, as we know it, totally without success, elsewhere. The pig-headed scientist who refuses to admit reality is really just a pathetic creature of the pathetic anti-God clan, which seems to now infest the institutes of higher learning of this nation. One must wonder whether one of its more-opinionated number, the late Carl Sagan, of Cornell, I believe, is now enjoying his new abode. Indeed, I hope he is. /Quote That conservatives tolerate, and even openly encourage such crap is the main reason I would never vote republican. I can appreciate and even agree with (sometimes) conservative criticisms of the left, but the openly willful ignorance and the acceptance of such stupidity really piss me off. I cant see myself taking conservatives seriously when they allow themselves to be represented by such morons. xponent Sick Of This Crap 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Adam wrote: In any group, there's a huge range of individual attitudes. I could make a similar statement about christians, muslims, or Star Trek fans. Especially Star Trek fans. hehehe. I was talking from my personal experiences, of course, and I've met a fair number of seriously obnoxious atheists. It's funny, but the only time I ever met any of THOSE Star Trek fans was at a game convention where a group of them were in some club or another. Otherwise, I've been blissfully fortunate in avoiding folks who take the time to learn Klingon. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Adam said: There's proof and there's proof. As Mr. Baker pointed out, the Big Bang theory accounts for just about everything we've observed so far (caveat mine, just in case) about the universe. Well, sort of. The Big Bang theory isn't one theory but really a family of theories. The basic Big Bang framework is the Robertson-Walker metric, which is the solution of Einstein's field equations for a homogeneous, isotropic universe filled with dust (which is jargon for matter which exerts no significant pressure). This alone is enough to predict the redshifting of distant objects. You can then construct a specific model by making a choice of what the dust really is. The basic choices are radiation and various kinds of matter. You can also add some vacuum energy or cosmological constant. Reasonable choices of such things then predict the microwave background and the abundances of light elements. Tweaking these choices doesn't mean throwing away the Big Bang model as an overall framework. However, there are still some aspects of the large-scale nature of the universe that the basic Big Bang doesn't explain: - The deviations from homogeneity that led to the formation of galaxies. - The origin of isotropy. This is the famous horizon problem, which arises because regions of the universe that appear to have the same properties should've been causally disconnected early in cosmological history. - The baryon asymmetry (the fact that there is more matter than antimatter). - The reasons why the universe is so close to being critical - being balanced between expanding forever and collapsing again. Various extensions of the basic Big Bang model (for example, inflation) and of particle physics (various grand unified models) have been put forward as explanations for these things not explained by the simple Big Bang theories. They haven't yet been explained to my or most other people's satisfaction though. Some people even invoke the Anthropic Principle in either its weak or strong form to explain them! Rich GCU Almost There ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Kevin said: I don't know why, but your statements look completely wrong. I'm sure there are just as many scientists who work towards fitting new data in with old theories to make the case for the big bang even better. The thing is, it's not possible to prove the Big Bang. How would one even go about trying to prove it? Sure, there are scientists out there trying to measure the parameters of the Big Bang model (the Hubble parameter and mass density are the most important) more accurately, but this isn't making the case for the Big Bang better as such - it's just telling us more accurately which of the Big Bang models is the best one. There are others trying to test the limits of the model by looking at various other aspects of the universe. Many of these observations could in principle disprove the theory, and they only make the case for it better by failing to do so. I wish the likes of Scientific American would stop saying things like More proof for the Big Bang when they really mean More evidence for the Big Bang; and even then they'd be better off with Big Bang passes more tests. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Jim said: In regards to atheists being agreeable, I am afraid I've found my experiences with them to be far less so. I suppose this might be a selection effect - the obnoxious ones are more readily visible as atheists than the more pleasant ones. The same isn't quite true of religious people, because religions tend to make people who believe more strongly become more visibly religious, whether they're obnoxious or pleasant. Rich, who further supposes that he's one of the obnoxious atheists... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Richard Baker wrote: Rich, who further supposes that he's one of the obnoxious atheists... Not to my knowledge. I'll be watching you closely from now on, though. ;-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives Robert Seeberger wrote: From: Jim Sharkey Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think he speaks for all conservatives? I would never accuse Gautam or JDG of following this crowd, but I think Gautam and JDG are in the minority in this regard. 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. While I didnt have John in mind, I agree that his view may be quite interesting. A little background would certainly clear some things up, thanks!If you can listen to talkradio during the day, listening to http://www.950kprc.com/main.html would make my rant a bit clearer in the long term. I'll try to do that some time, thanks. They just recently started streaming their station. I wish they had been doing so when the subject came up before. I'm interested to know whether what I see is just a local abberation or if it is par for the nation as a whole. Is it completely wrong to point out that scientists can't prove the Big Bang? I think the lack of an alternate explanation with credible evidence to back it up is telling. I'm not an athiest, though I find them agreeable. You and Adam make some fair points in that regard. I was more speaking from a philosophical standpoint than from one of having back up for your claims. While you both point out some interesting evidence, it doesn't amount to proof at this point. In regards to atheists being agreeable, I am afraid I've found my experiences with them to be far less so. And perhaps it's a reaction to that. For every one like Jeroen who merely allows his atheism to be just one part of his whole, I've encountered several that act as if it not only defines them, but also grant them an intelligence tenfold beyond their peers. That attitude could certainly, IMO, make folks like Mr. Poist posit reactionary rhetoric like the item you pointed out. Not that they're not probably already inclined to do so, of course. To be fair, (and I should have said so before), I find moderately religious people agreeable too. I find John agreeable. I'm not very fond of the polemic extremes. So no, I dont think that is a fair question. Its like coming home after a hard day at work and having your wife claim you did nothing all day. Interesting analogy. I find it a bit irksome that so many people have so little appreciation of the billions of man-hours of work it has taken to give us the level of detail we can learn from the sciences today. It really extrordinary what has been achieved. Especially given your background. I suppose you might take his position a little personally. :) Wellits not as if this is something that happened to me exactly, but I suppose I do relate to it at a cetain level. G However, my wife might argue that holding down the fort all day with three children under age seven is at least equally difficult as working all day. :-) (A discussion for another thread, I'm sure.) Being the oldest of seven, I would have to agree with your wife.G xponent Bible Black 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
Jim Sharkey wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: So no, I dont think that is a fair question. Its like coming home after a hard day at work and having your wife claim you did nothing all day. Interesting analogy. Especially given your background. I suppose you might take his position a little personally. :) However, my wife might argue that holding down the fort all day with three children under age seven is at least equally difficult as working all day. :-) (A discussion for another thread, I'm sure.) That *is* working all day! :) Julia planning on being in that boat eventually ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Julia Thompson wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: However, my wife might argue that holding down the fort all day with three children under age seven is at least equally difficult as working all day. :-) That *is* working all day! :) Are you sure you and my wife haven't already met? If I've heard that once, I've heard it five dozen times. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:59 PM Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives 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. Charles Hard Townes was born in Greenville, South Carolina, on July 28, 1915, the son of Henry Keith Townes, an attorney, and Ellen (Hard) Townes. He attended the Greenville public schools and then Furman University in Greenville, where he completed the requirements for the Bachelor of Science degree in physics and the Bachelor of Arts degree in Modern Languages, graduating summa cum laude in 1935, at the age of 19. Physics had fascinated him since his first course in the subject during his sophomore year in college because of its beautifully logical structure. He was also interested in natural history while at Furman, serving as curator of the museum, and working during the summers as collector for Furman's biology camp. In addition,he was busy with other activities, including the swimming team, the college newspaper and the football band. Townes completed work for the Master of Arts degree in Physics at Duke University in 1936, and then entered graduate school at the California Institute of Technology, where he received the Ph.D. degree in 1939 with a thesis on isotope separation and nuclear spins. A member ofthe technical staff of Bell Telephone Laboratories from 1933 to 1947, Dr. Townes worked extensively during World War II in designing radar bombing systems and has a number of patents in related technology. From this he turned his attention to applying the microwave technique of wartime radar research to spectroscopy, which he foresaw as providing a powerful new tool for the study of the structure of atoms and molecules and as a potential new basis for controlling electromagnetic waves. At Columbia University, where he was appointed to the faculty in 1948, he continued research in microwave physics, particularly studying the interactions between microwaves and molecules, and using microwave spectra for the study of the structure of molecules, atoms, and nuclei. In 1951, Dr. Townes conceived the idea of the maser, and a few months later he and his associates began working on a device using ammonia gas as the active medium. In early 1954, the first amplification and generation of electromagnetic waves by stimulated emission were obtained. Dr. Townes and his students coined the word maser for this device, which is an acronym for microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. In 1958, Dr. Townes and his brother-in-law, Dr. A.L. Schavlow, now of Stanford University, showed theoretically that masers could be made to operate in the optical and infrared region and proposed how this could be accomplished in particular systems. This work resulted in their joint paper on optical and infrared masers, or lasers (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Other research has been in the fields of radio astronomy and nonlinear optics. Having joined the faculty at Columbia University as Associate Professor of Physics in 1948, Townes was appointed Professor in 1950. He served as Executive Director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory from 1950 to 1952 and was Chairman of the Physics Department from 1952 to 1955. From 1959 to 1961, he was on leave of absence from Columbia University to serve as Vice President and Director of Research of the Institute for Defense Analyses in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit organization operated by eleven universities. In 1961, Dr. Townes was appointed Provost and Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As Provost he shared with the President responsibility for general supervision of the educational and research programs of the Institute. In 1966, he became Institute Professor at M.I.T., and later in the same year resigned from the position of Provost in order to return to more intensive research, particularly in the fields of quantum electronics and astronomy. He was appointed University Professor at the University of California in 1967. In this position Dr. Townes is participating in teaching, research, and other activities on several campuses of the University, although he is located at the Berkeley campus. During 1955 and 1956, Townes was a Guggenheim Fellow and a Fulbright Lecturer, first at the University of Paris and then at the University of Tokyo. He was National Lecturer for Sigma Xi and also taught during summer sessions at the University of Michigan and at the Enrico Fermi International School of Physics in Italy, serving as Director for a session in 1963 on coherent light
