Resurrections and hyperdimensions

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Resurrections and hyperdimensions

Post #1

Post by Volbrigade »

Divine Insight wrote: [Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.
I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?

I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?

But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?
So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.
All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.

"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.

If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.
If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message. :D
Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?

Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?
In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.
I certainly regret to hear that.

But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any. ;)

[/quote]

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #41

Post by Neatras »

Hey, are you guys having an evolution debate without me? Shucks, I was paying too much attention to the science sub-forum where this would be considerably more appropriate.

But I would be more than happy to throw my hat into the ring if it means having a discussion about biology.

Someone get me up to speed. And Volbrigade... Happy to have this discussion with you. I'll make sure you don't regret me coming aboard to debate.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #42

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to Neatras]

We weren't really having a discussion on evolution per se. More of a discussion on how quantum mechanics is the driving force behind all change. And that includes evolution. So this may be exactly the right moment for you to jump in.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #43

Post by Divine Insight »

Volbrigade wrote: DI, because He’s too mean to be. He doesn’t rule out the possibility of the supernatural, the spiritual, “god(s)� (or even “God{s}� ) — just not that bugger Jehovah. There are better, nicer, more competent Creators. Or at least, better ones can be imagined, as you both have indicated.
This is a totally false and misrepresentation of my position.

I reject the Hebrew mythology of YHWH because it is riddled with extreme self-contradictions that cannot be resolved. Not because Yahweh is an obviously immoral ignorant God. However, I certainly recognize the latter as well.
Volbrigade wrote: Of the two anti-Biblical stances (and I note here: DI’s does not qualify as strictly “anti-theist�; he seems, in fact, rather friendly to the pantheist paradigm — e.g., Buddhism), DI’s seems more emotional. It is clear he really does not like this thundering YHWH, with His imperious flushing of the human race — in fact, every living thing, save what was rescued (er, “saved�) on the Ark — down the toilet of a global catastrophic flood.
Again you are dead wrong.

I recognize that Buddhism offers a philosophical paradigm of a God that does not contain any self-contradictions. The fact, that I also recognize that its God is far more intelligent and moral than the God of Hebrew mythology is secondary.

I simply often point out this fact because those who support the Biblical God proclaim their God to be the epitome of morality, when in fact that God of Buddhism has the Biblical God beat by leaps and bounds in terms of morality.
Volbrigade wrote: DI claims to be morally superior, but I can’t see how. His answer doesn’t address moral “standards� at all — just his choice as to what is or isn’t moral. I can’t for the life of me see how, on what grounds he is morally superior to a man who would cut his (DI’s) toes off, just to see what would happen: other than “I SAY I am more moral.�
I speak from a practical perspective. And a secular perspective. I realize you don't understand the concept of secular morality but in a secular world it necessarily how to come down to consensus.

If you claim that it's "moral" to cut people's toes off, then let's have you volunteer to have your toes cut off first. ;)

And also have you cut off the toes of all your loved ones and have them not complain. :D

Let's seek a consensus that most humans agree that having their toes cut off is perfectly fine.

Until you can do that, then it's not going to do you any good to claim that you think it should be moral to cut of my toes. :roll:
Volbrigade wrote: All he is saying is “I have my own morality�. Fine. When he is able to present a moral standard that it adheres to, other than “whatever I call moral, is moral�, then we can compare how his morality matches up with YHWH’s.
I'm willing to go with the consensus of the majority of humans. And besides please demonstrate to me that moral values associated with YHWH have any verifiable standards. Clearly even Jesus disagreed with the immoral garbage attributed to YHWH.

Just think about that. Jesus is on MY SIDE here. ;)
Volbrigade wrote: The gulf between DI and me, however, is considerably wider…
This is because you are not paying attention and you are grossly misrepresenting my position.

You claim that I reject the Biblical God solely on the grounds that he's clearly an immoral idiot. But that's not my sole reason for rejecting these ancient myths. I reject them because they are filled with extreme self-contradictions and therefore they cannot possibly be true.

The fact, that this God is also extremely immoral is just something I feel is worthy of pointing out in addition to the fact that this God cannot logically exist anyway.

What I'm saying is that if you choose ignore all the obvious facts that prove that these ancient fables of YHWH can't possibly be true, these least you can do is reject these fables because they are clearly immoral.

What's the point in placing your faith in an ancient immoral God and going around trying to get other people to believe those immoral principles?

In other words, if you are going to ask me to believe in this religion on pure faith, my answer it no, and citing that I don't feel that this God represents moral values that I can support should be more than sufficient.

But if you want to claim to have "evidence" that this God exists, then I'm going to point to the endless self-contradictions that I feel are more than sufficient "evidence" to prove that he doesn't.

And I don't even want to talk about Jesus until you have proof that YHWH exists.

Without YHWH Jesus' opinions are no better than mine. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #44

Post by Volbrigade »

[Replying to post 40 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Is it just me, or is page 5 a reeeeeally long one?
In March 2015, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, were reportedly formed in the laboratory under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in red giants or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[76]March 3, 2015
So: extremely intelligent and skilled scientists, utilizing their volition, as well as extremely sophisticated technological equipment that is the product of other extremely inteligent people utilizing their volition and skill, succeeded in manipulating matter that they are unable to create, in order to replicate the design of molecular structures under extremely controlled conditions.

But neither intelligence nor volition is required in the creation of matter, energy, space and time itself -- or the DNA molecule of which Bill Gates says "'DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

Got it.

Volbrigade wrote:

It all sounds rather mystical, doesn’t it?
I can certainly see why it would seem mystical to any uneducated mind.
You're a droll one, TotN. 8-)

It doesn't take an "educated mind" to think that "energy" settled into the pattern of a planerium worm, it's eye, the eye of a eagle, or the eagle itself, with its brain and neural and skeletal and circulatory and respiratory systems. And wings.

All, "the way water flows downhill."

In fact, the frame of mind that it takes to accept such a proposition could properly be called "superstitious".

Code: Select all

[quote]Volbrigade wrote:

So you see, TotN, you and I aren’t so far apart as it might seem.
[/quote]

I can't really agree with that conclusion I am afraid.
I suppose you're right. You stand in disdain of the Creator of heaven and earth, beauty and love.

And defend some mindless, circulating "Energy", endlessly transforming itself, one result of which is to produce a race of men who kill each other by the millions, destroy their planet and the life on it, ruthlessly exploit each other for their own gain, and elect a man like Donald Trump as their president. All the while pitilessly offering no reconciliation, no atonement, no restitution, and no redemption for this state of affairs. Only a silent and unpoetic "that's just the way energy flows" -- and an assurance that it will empty itself from the briefly animated pattern of atoms that is our own self -- and do so permanently.

I stand corrected.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #45

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to Divine Insight]
Volbrigade wrote: Is it just me, or is page 5 a reeeeeally long one?
Page five contained a good deal of very heavy examination, rumination and contemplation. The nature of existence is a very profound question, after all.
Volbrigade wrote: So: extremely intelligent and skilled scientists, utilizing their volition, as well as extremely sophisticated technological equipment that is the product of other extremely inteligent people utilizing their volition and skill, succeeded in manipulating matter that they are unable to create, in order to replicate the design of molecular structures under extremely controlled conditions.

But neither intelligence nor volition is required in the creation of matter, energy, space and time itself -- or the DNA molecule of which Bill Gates says "'DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

Got it.
Scientists do not have access to the most important tool of quantum mechanics, which is vast amounts of time. The greatest part of science is figuring out a way to speed up the process for understanding what is occurring.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I can certainly see why it would seem mystical to any uneducated mind.
Volbrigade wrote: You're a droll one, TotN.
I originally wrote, "I can certainly see why it would make sense to an uneducated mind." But then I considered the possibility that you might infer that I was speaking specifically about you. Which I wasn't. So I changed it. I was speaking about the overwhelming majority of people who have ever existed, and who did not have access to the actual scientific explanation for why things occur naturally in the natural world and so made up explanations in their imaginations that they found satisfying. Unfortunately people do have access to actual scientific explanations today, and they STILL often choose to subscribe to the things they make up in their imaginations.

Allow me to give you an example. When I was a young boy back in the mid 1950's I use to enjoy sitting out in the yard on pleasant evenings with my mother to look at the stars. This was before air and light pollution had deprived most urbanites of the magnificent sight of the Milky Way. My grandmother would refuse to join us, however. My grandmother was born in the mid 1880's and was very religious. It was part of her belief system that the streaks of light that sometimes appear in the sky were the souls of the departed who, having committed some infraction in heaven, were being cast down to hell. The idea that people could be cast out of heaven upset my grandmother dreadfully, and she refused to come out an night and be a witness to it. This is what people, left to their own imaginations, often come up with.

My mother had enough schooling to know that the streaks of light were simply space debris burning up in the atmosphere. This made no sense to my grand mother however, and she was buying none of it. Why would God create "space debris?" No "space debris" was mentioned in the Bible. She had a very rigid view of reality based almost entirely on her religious upbringing. She could quote the Bible chapter and verse, but was largely ignorant of much of anything else. This is the state of ignorance that most people existed in throughout most of history. THAT is who I was talking about. People who had no other recourse for most of history except to make things up, and then declare their made up solutions to be true.
Volbrigade wrote: In fact, the frame of mind that it takes to accept such a proposition could properly be called "superstitious".
Wikipedia
Superstition
Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and religions, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

I am firmly convinced that everything that occurs does so for entirely natural reasons. That, I am afraid, amounts to the exact opposite of superstition.
Volbrigade wrote: You stand in disdain of the Creator of heaven and earth, beauty and love.
I certainly do not "stand in disdain of earth, beauty and love." Again, the exact opposite is true. I do have a certain disdain for claims of invisible friends, I have to admit.
Volbrigade wrote: And defend some mindless, circulating "Energy", endlessly transforming itself, one result of which is to produce a race of men who kill each other by the millions, destroy their planet and the life on it, ruthlessly exploit each other for their own gain, and elect a man like Donald Trump as their president. All the while pitilessly offering no reconciliation, no atonement, no restitution, and no redemption for this state of affairs. Only a silent and unpoetic "that's just the way energy flows" -- and an assurance that it will empty itself from the briefly animated pattern of atoms that is our own self -- and do so permanently.
I will also admit to having considerable disdain for Donald Trump, who I considered to be an egotistical buffoon long before he ever decided to run for president. His election has convinced me that there still remain far too many individuals who have managed to retain a view of reality which is based entirely on make believe and ignorance.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #46

Post by Volbrigade »

[Replying to post 45 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

Is it just me, or is page 5 a reeeeeally long one?
Page five contained a good deal of very heavy examination, rumination and contemplation. The nature of existence is a very profound question, after all.
I agree! It's just that it takes about 5 minutes to scroll to the bottom of the page. 8-)

Allow me to say I have really enjoyed our discourse. Your arguments are substantive; I have to exercise a little in order to answer them, which builds muscle. That's one of the reasons I engage in these forums, I think. I always come away from them with my faith affirmed, and strengthened. You get better by playing good "competition". ;)
Volbrigade wrote:

In fact, the frame of mind that it takes to accept such a proposition could properly be called "superstitious".

Wikipedia
Superstition... Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—
My point is, that when you start attributing such things as the development of major organ systems, and light sensitive cells turning into the eyes of eagles, and all the rest of it, to some mindless, random writhing of energy, carving paths - not of destruction, but creation! And not just of simple patterns, but detailed, interconnected, interwoven design -- as it makes its inexorable cascade "down the hillside";

when you do that, you have gone beyond the frontier of "everything that occurs does so for entirely natural reasons." You have entered territory that is at least "psuedo" or "quasi" or "proto" mystical. At least.

IMHO.

Volbrigade wrote:

And defend some mindless, circulating "Energy", endlessly transforming itself, one result of which is to produce a race of men who kill each other by the millions, destroy their planet and the life on it, ruthlessly exploit each other for their own gain, and elect a man like Donald Trump as their president. All the while pitilessly offering no reconciliation, no atonement, no restitution, and no redemption for this state of affairs. Only a silent and unpoetic "that's just the way energy flows" -- and an assurance that it will empty itself from the briefly animated pattern of atoms that is our own self -- and do so permanently.

I will also admit to having considerable disdain for Donald Trump...
While remaining silent in regard to the rest?
...who I considered to be an egotistical buffoon long before he ever decided to run for president. His election has convinced me that there still remain far too many individuals who have managed to retain a view of reality which is based entirely on make believe and ignorance.

That, sadly, is a quality in abundance on both sides in the recent election.

FWIW, here is the preamble to my commentary, from yesterday, made on a site where the mentality that led to his election is well represented (surprisingly, I am not the most popular poster there 8-) ):

"Well boys, you did it.

You took your lifelong immersion in the culture of liberal relativism; and your lack of faith, or even interest, in your Creator, and His written message system to us; and you managed to succeed in getting the biggest embarrassment to the proud heritage of this country ever to run for its highest office, officially perched there.

Quite an accomplishment..."

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #47

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 45 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote: My point is, that when you start attributing such things as the development of major organ systems, and light sensitive cells turning into the eyes of eagles, and all the rest of it, to some mindless, random writhing of energy, carving paths - not of destruction, but creation! And not just of simple patterns, but detailed, interconnected, interwoven design -- as it makes its inexorable cascade "down the hillside";

when you do that, you have gone beyond the frontier of "everything that occurs does so for entirely natural reasons." You have entered territory that is at least "psuedo" or "quasi" or "proto" mystical. At least.

IMHO.
So, in your HO, light sensitive cells which serve to give a specific beastie a survival edge over its competitors, a competitive edge which would inevitably allowed it to successfully survive and out reproduce beasties which did not have this particular advantage, would NOT necessarily tend to select for offspring which had this same advantage to an even greater degree over time? A process known as natural selection, the concept of which you apparently consider to be mystical in nature? Have you ever HAD any classes in biology? Because if you have, I guarantee you that the subject of natural selection has come up.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I will also admit to having considerable disdain for Donald Trump...
Volbrigade wrote: While remaining silent in regard to the rest?
No, I actually included the rest of the remark.

"His election has convinced me that there still remain far too many individuals who have managed to retain a view of reality which is based entirely on make believe and ignorance."
Volbrigade wrote: That, sadly, is a quality in abundance on both sides in the recent election.

FWIW, here is the preamble to my commentary, from yesterday, made on a site where the mentality that led to his election is well represented (surprisingly, I am not the most popular poster there Cool ):

"Well boys, you did it.

You took your lifelong immersion in the culture of liberal relativism; and your lack of faith, or even interest, in your Creator, and His written message system to us; and you managed to succeed in getting the biggest embarrassment to the proud heritage of this country ever to run for its highest office, officially perched there.

Quite an accomplishment..."
Black clouds often hide silver linings. The assumption that many liberals now hold is that the Trump administration will prove to be such an obvious and monumental disaster that conservatism will be indelibly tarnished for generations to come. But I am sure many conservatives have felt the same way about liberal administrations in the past.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #48

Post by Volbrigade »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 45 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote: My point is, that when you start attributing such things as the development of major organ systems, and light sensitive cells turning into the eyes of eagles, and all the rest of it, to some mindless, random writhing of energy, carving paths - not of destruction, but creation! And not just of simple patterns, but detailed, interconnected, interwoven design -- as it makes its inexorable cascade "down the hillside";

when you do that, you have gone beyond the frontier of "everything that occurs does so for entirely natural reasons." You have entered territory that is at least "psuedo" or "quasi" or "proto" mystical. At least.

IMHO.
So, in your HO, light sensitive cells which serve to give a specific beastie a survival edge over its competitors, a competitive edge which would inevitably allowed it to successfully survive and out reproduce beasties which did not have this particular advantage, would NOT necessarily tend to select for offspring which had this same advantage to an even greater degree over time? A process known as natural selection, the concept of which you apparently consider to be mystical in nature? Have you ever HAD any classes in biology?
Nope. Never been to school at all. They make you read and stuff there -- listen to boring lectures and suchlike. If you want a REAL education, try growing up in a brothel, like I did. ;)
Because if you have, I guarantee you that the subject of natural selection has come up.
[/quote]

Oh! I know about that. One of the ladies had an interest in it, and she used to tell me bedtime stories.

Now -- these "light sensitive cells" -- that's a "genetic mutation" right? An alteration of the DNA code, through a "copying error", often produced by radiation, or even just mechanical breakdowns in the cell?

So, what you're telling me is that Energy -- which is not a "god", because it's mindless and random (but certainly tireless and industrious, I think we can agree) -- took advantage of one of these copying errors, which was beneficial -- though the vast numbers of them are either neutral (so far as we can tell, given our limited time range to view them), or, obviously, harmful -- leading to diseases and malformation and so forth (I refer you to your earlier picture).

That occurred in a worm. But that worm's descendants just kept on getting these copying errors, which just kept on producing improvements. Not just to its light sensitive cells; but Energy was WAY more ambitious than that (except it wasn't, of course -- if it was ambitious, or had any other quality besides mindless randomness, it would be a "god" -- right?), as it "flowed down the hillside". It carved nervous and skeletal and circulatory and respiratory systems; all by random, mindless processes. Mistake by fortuitous mistake.

No. Nothing mystical there, my friend.

No superstitious assigning of qualities to "Energy" that sure seem a little...

Godlike.

It's not nearly as magical and mystical, but it may interest you to know that the only OBSERVED natural selection involves a selecting out of existing genetic information -- not the magical mystical creation of new information.

For instance, a genetically diverse population, driven by environmental pressure, will tend to select for specific traits, at the expense of diversity.

For instance, let's take a genetically diverse mid-brown population of humans, containing the information for a number of skin tones within its genome -- from "lily white" to ebony.

And let's say that circumstances -- oh, I don't know; a political/cultural refugee type of situation -- necessitate that population flee to sub-Sharan Africa. There, it quickly becomes apparent that offspring blessed with a genetically high melanin content, and thus darker skin, fare far better than those with lighter shades, who are susceptible to burns and skin cancers under the blazing equatorial sun. This does not go unnoticed, of course, and within a remarkably few generations, sexual selection has made the production of light skinned babies nil; and produced a less genetically diverse population, all ebony, in which the gene for light skin has been "edited out".

Thats what my friend, the lady at the brothel, told me anyway.

It's not as "sexy" as your version, I'll admit. That "microbes became men" thing -- it's like Harry Potter or something! 8-)


Tired of the Nonsense wrote: I will also admit to having considerable disdain for Donald Trump...
Volbrigade wrote: While remaining silent in regard to the rest?
No, I actually included the rest of the remark.
Included. But remained silent with regard to.
"His election has convinced me that there still remain far too many individuals who have managed to retain a view of reality which is based entirely on make believe and ignorance."
Volbrigade wrote: That, sadly, is a quality in abundance on both sides in the recent election.

FWIW, here is the preamble to my commentary, from yesterday, made on a site where the mentality that led to his election is well represented (surprisingly, I am not the most popular poster there Cool ):

"Well boys, you did it.

You took your lifelong immersion in the culture of liberal relativism; and your lack of faith, or even interest, in your Creator, and His written message system to us; and you managed to succeed in getting the biggest embarrassment to the proud heritage of this country ever to run for its highest office, officially perched there.

Quite an accomplishment..."
Black clouds often hide silver linings. The assumption that many liberals now hold is that the Trump administration will prove to be such an obvious and monumental disaster that conservatism will be indelibly tarnished for generations to come. But I am sure many conservatives have felt the same way about liberal administrations in the past.
So Trump's blunders will lead to liberal ascendency once again?

That would be no surprise. History certainly has a cyclical quality.

As a Christian, I believe it is also linear, and rushing to a fore-written conclusion. Not as a stream down a rock; more like water blasting out of a fire hose. And Trump's victory is a part of that process -- in precisely what way, remains to be seen.

"When you see the fig tree putting forth its leaves..."

Another discussion for another time, perhaps.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #49

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to Volbrigade]
Volbrigade wrote: Nope. Never been to school at all. They make you read and stuff there -- listen to boring lectures and suchlike. If you want a REAL education, try growing up in a brothel, like I did.
They make you learn stuff in school. As opposed to simply making stuff up and deciding that it makes sense to you and therefore must be true. If you have never been to school and have never had any actual courses in science, then of course the concept of scientific knowledge seems mystical to you. Just as the concept of science and space seemed mystical to my grandmother. How could they (so called "experts") know there was "space debris?" My grandmother had very little schooling either. As a result she was ignorant of most modern knowledge. But you see, we are all born ignorant. Ignorance is NOT an achievement.

When I was a boy the TV seemed magical. It seemed MYSTICAL. How did they figure out how to make pictures and sound come out of what was, after all, only a box? They very clearly must possess knowledge that I was ignorant of. So I went to school, studied, and learned the principles, not only behind the workings of a TV, but of modern science. Because knowledge IS an achievement. Turning on a TV and then sitting down to watch the pictures and the sound is not an achievement. Using the fruits of scientific advancement while disparaging and doubting the science that made it possible is a form of ignorance.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #50

Post by Volbrigade »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: [Replying to Volbrigade]
Volbrigade wrote: Nope. Never been to school at all. They make you read and stuff there -- listen to boring lectures and suchlike. If you want a REAL education, try growing up in a brothel, like I did.
They make you learn stuff in school. As opposed to simply making stuff up and deciding that it makes sense to you and therefore must be true. If you have never been to school and have never had any actual courses in science, then of course the concept of scientific knowledge seems mystical to you. Just as the concept of science and space seemed mystical to my grandmother. How could they (so called "experts") know there was "space debris?" My grandmother had very little schooling either. As a result she was ignorant of most modern knowledge. But you see, we are all born ignorant. Ignorance is NOT an achievement.

When I was a boy the TV seemed magical. It seemed MYSTICAL. How did they figure out how to make pictures and sound come out of what was, after all, only a box? They very clearly must possess knowledge that I was ignorant of. So I went to school, studied, and learned the principles, not only behind the workings of a TV, but of modern science. Because knowledge IS an achievement. Turning on a TV and then sitting down to watch the pictures and the sound is not an achievement. Using the fruits of scientific advancement while disparaging and doubting the science that made it possible is a form of ignorance.
Thanks for the lecture. I'll treasure it always.

You know, it's funny --

you can tell if "the principles... behind the workings of a TV" are correct or not. You get a picture -- they're correct. No picture: better keep working on it.

There's observable, measurable, repeatable processes involved. They tell me.

Energy flowed downstream to carve an eagle's eye from a mutated cell... I don't know. That sounds kinda magical-mystical to me. Can you verify that?

Now, God said "Let light be..." is a little magical-mystical too, I'll admit.

So, we're dealing with a magical-mystical universe. I'm cool with that.

If God is its creator, sustainer, designer, and sovereign: then it makes sense.

Otherwise -- this microbes to men thing -- it's just absurd. On every level.

You see that, don't you?

Post Reply