Topic:
Occam's Razor
|
|
Excuse me for using Feral's style here. NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE WRONG ... WRONG... WRONG.... You forgot to stamp your foot and throw your dummy out of the baby carriage ... |
|
|
|
Topic:
Throw down - part 2
|
|
Okay, by your reasoning Eljay, NYC is a city with a population of a little over 8 mil? Give or take? I have no idea. Something like that. Okay a certain percentage of that populace is adult males, another percentage is adult females, and then you have children and infants. By your logic we could probably determine that a percentage of that same population of NYC is involved with criminal endeavors or behaviors. We could probably look at what the murder/rape statistics were for the city of NYC last year alone and come up with a number. Alright, torch them all, every single person in NYC, men, women, children, babies. Doesn’t matter because its god's will and he's fed up with it. Sorry. It’s just not my way of doing things. Maybe it’s yours, but it’s not mine. My bet is that you would find - well - at least 10 rightious people. What do you think? LMAO - I have never been to NYC, but Im sure at least one of those 10 would be a yellow taxi driver |
|
|
|
Topic:
Throw down - part 2
|
|
The word to key in my previous post was "Do", or "Does", and you acknowledged that. You answered, "The Will of God" The Hubris here is that any man can truly know the will of such a being. Now if you had simply said good works, I would have at least tipped my hat. Christian good works include slavery, women subjugation, infanticide. then you can also look at attempts at conversion ... Good works come from any human being who feels the desire to help anyone else. The idea of the Islamic period of Ramadan is to get "in touch with allah" and think about those less fortunate than yourselves. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The presumption of Atheism
|
|
Personally I feel that to start with atheism is the wrong place to start. After all, atheism asserts that there is no 'god'. But isn't that an assertion that should also require proof? Wouldn't a better place to start be with agnosticism. No proof is required because nothing is being claimed other than 'we just don't know'. And there is no proof required to admit that we don't know. I also have a problem with bringing the word "god" into it unless this is what a person wishes to try to prove. You posted: It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.
Here we need to define the word 'god' and that definition certainly should be given by the person who is attempting to claim that such a deity or entity exists. I for one, am not so sure that 'god' is the proper word to use. If only because it has been contaminated by religions that insist that it refers to a fully conscious and external 'deity'. For me personally the real question is not so much of whether or not a 'god' exist, but rather whether or not our true essences is 'spiritual' in nature rather than being purely physical as it appears to be to our physical senses. In other words, to me, the term 'atheism' is more than just a disbelief in a godhead-like deity, but it is also a disbelief in any kind of non-physical or spiritual world that may genuinely underlie our true essence. If I were going to propose anything at all, it would be along the lines of a spiritual essence of our nature. My description of our spiritual essence would be one of a nonphysical consciousness that is eternal in its scope. In other words, I suggest that our true essence is eternal in both direction (i.e. we were spirit before we came into this world, and we'll continue to be spirit after we leave this physical world). That would be the hypothetical description that I would entertain serious discussion on. I do not feel that I can prove this even to myself much less to anyone else. However, I can give arguments of why it might be worthy of consideration as a real possibility. And I can support such arguments using physics from both General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. The latter being a mathematical description that is far more than just a 'theory' as it is a very well-observed mathematical description of the actual universe in which we live. As I say, I do not claim to be able to prove this. I merely offer it as something that I believe is worthy of consideration and sincere research. I would be more than happy to accept 'agnosticism' as the social norm until such determinations to the contrary can be made. Otherwise I would denounce atheism as being just as unproven as theism. Just my thoughts, and thank you Belushi for posting a very refreshing thread! You must have heard my cry for a change of channel. You have a good set of points there James. I can see what you are saying, start from the middle and work outwards. But then when a child is born, they are born atheists. They dont have the need for god. Just their parents. If they are not introduced to any form of religion, then they will be athiestic until they look at the world around them. I made the decision that there was no god when I was ejected from bible-bashing christian Sunday school, for asking too many impertinent questions. From that moment I was actually agnostic, as I wasnt sure. I researched and read the bible (bit of a book worm, back then) and still found nothing of any interest apart from a bunch of lovely stories. So, its personal choice, but we do start from zero with no knowledge of any god. Our outside influences make us who we are. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The war in Iraq is Over
|
|
The War in Iraq Is Over. What Next? By BING WEST August 12, 2008; Page A21 Iraq The war I witnessed for more than five years in Iraq is over. In July, there were five American fatalities in Iraq, the lowest since the war began in March 2003. In Mosul recently, I chatted with shopkeepers on the same corner where last January a Humvee was blown apart in front of me. In the Baghdad district of Ghazilia -- where last January snipers controlled streets awash in human waste -- I saw clean streets and soccer games. In Basra, the local British colonel was dining at a restaurant in the center of the bustling city. For the first time in 15 trips across the country, I didn't hear one shot or a single blast from a roadside bomb. In Anbar Province, scene of the fiercest fighting during the war, the tribal sheiks insisted to Barack Obama on his recent visit that the U.S. Marines had to stay because they were the most trusted force. The war turned around in late 2006 because American troops partnered with Iraqi forces and tribal auxiliaries to protect the population. Feeling safe, the population informed on the militias and terrorists living among them. Then, in the spring of 2008, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attacked the Mahdi militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that controlled Basra and half of Baghdad. The militia crumbled under pressure from Iraqi soldiers backed by coalition intelligence and air assets. The threat in Iraq has changed from a full-scale insurgency into an antiterror campaign. Al Qaeda in Iraq is entrenched in northern Mosul, where it may take 18 months to completely defeat them. By employing what he calls his "Anaconda Strategy," Gen. David Petraeus is squeezing the life out of al Qaeda in Iraq. The mafia-style militia of Sadr has been splintered. The competition among Iraqi politicians has shifted from violence to politics, albeit yielding a track record as poor as that of our own Congress. After failing for two years to deliver basic services, both Shiite and Sunni politicians are stalling on legislation to hold provincial elections because many of them will be defeated. While irritating, these political games have not blocked U.S. gains. Americans should praise rather than slight our military's achievements. Civil war has been averted. The Iraqi army has thrown the militia out of the port of Um Qasar, thus ensuring stable oil exports. Al Qaeda fought to make Iraq its base in the Arab Middle East. Instead, it is being hunted down. Iran has emerged as the major threat to stability in Iraq. While its goal was to control a weak Iraq after the American army was driven out, Tehran overplayed its hand. Iran supplied the rockets to attack Iraqi politicians in Baghdad in April and supported Sadr's militia. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites died fighting Iranians in the '80s, and those memories are still fresh. In southern Maysan Province, American and Iraqi units are waiting to hunt down terrorists returning from Iranian training camps. Iraq, backed by some American forces in remote desert bases, is poised to emerge as a regional counterweight to Iran. Yet the progress in Iraq is most threatened by a political promise in the U.S. to remove all American combat brigades, against the advice of our military commanders. Iraqi volunteers working for a nonsectarian political party in Baghdad asked me, "Is America giving up its goals?" It's an unsettling question. With victory in sight, why would we quit? The steady -- but not total -- withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is freeing up forces to fight in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is not the central front in the war on terror. Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan, a nation we are not going to invade. The Iraqis aren't yet confident enough to stand entirely on their own; al Qaeda's savagery still imposes too much fear, while Iran is training terrorists next door. In counterinsurgency, the people must know they are protected. Gen. Petraeus has proven that intimidation can be defeated by placing American soldiers among the population. Wars are won by confidence, but also by procedures that take time to mature; and the Iraqi offensive against Sadr's militia in Basra last April revealed an atrocious Iraqi command and control system. We are withdrawing as conditions permit. For instance, in the infamous Triangle of Death south of Baghdad, Col. Dominic Caraccilo has spread his rifle companies across 22 police precincts. Over the next year, he plans to pull out two of every three companies, leaving the population protected by Iraqi forces, backed by a thin screen of American soldiers. If implemented on a countrywide scale, this model would reduce the American presence from 15 to five brigades over the next few years. They can be comprised of artillerymen, motor transport and civil affairs as well as infantrymen. By calling these residual forces "Transition Teams," we can remove the political argument in the U.S. about the exact number of combat brigades, and allow our commanders flexibility in adjusting force levels. This change of names rather than of missions is a way to save face and bring Americans closer together. The problem is not American force levels in Iraq. It is divisiveness at home. While our military has adapted, our society has disconnected from its martial values. I was standing beside an Iraqi colonel one day in war-torn Fallujah when a tough Marine patrol walked by. "You Americans," he said, "are the strongest tribe." But we cast aspersions on ourselves. The success of our military should not be begrudged to gain transitory political advantage. In 1991, our nation held a parade after our military liberated Kuwait. Over the course of more than five hard years, our troops have brought stability and freedom to 25 million Iraqis, while crushing al Qaeda in Iraq. Regardless of disagreement about initiating the war back in 2003, Americans should unite to applaud the success of our troops in 2008. A stable Iraq keeps faith with the million American soldiers who fought there, sets back Iran's aggression, and makes our enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere fear us. It's time we stopped debating about yesterday and displayed national pride in our soldiers. Mr. West is a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine. His third book on the Iraq war, "The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics and the Endgame in Iraq," is out today from Random House. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850093104731719.html?mod=fpa_mostpop DON'T YOU JUST LOVE THE FACT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA STILL REFUSES TO ADMIT THAT THE SURGE WORKED!!!!! AND, THE MAN FOUND IT MORE 'FITTING' TO GO TO THE GYM INSTEAD OF VISITING OUR WOUNDED TROOPS! MY OH MY. LINDYY More ridiculous right-wing drivel. This is what really happened: 'A top aide to Barack Obama said Friday the campaign canceled a scheduled visit to an American military base in Germany the day before because the Pentagon expressed concerns it would be viewed as a campaign trip.' http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/25/pentagon-was-concerned-with-obama-visit-to-hospital/ I STILL SERVE MY BALONEY SANDWICHES!!!! LINDYY yeah, no kidding ... |
|
|
|
Topic:
Occam's Razor
|
|
I think also Abra has said this as well ..
no more beating him over the head with a rubber Jesus
James, that has to be the best line I have heard in a very long time. (It will take a little time to clear up the coffee from the keyboard though) |
|
|
|
Topic:
Occam's Razor
|
|
Therefore, it is unfair for a human to judge another for behavior which comes naturally to all humans.
Simply because Christians try to hold themselves to a higher standard does not mean that they should be judged more harshly than someone who doesn't hold him or her self to that standard. But then surely that standard should not be forced upon other non-believers. It should be kept within the circle of believers. The standard of the christian is his/her own affair. To improve oneself by attempting to do good, being charitable and generally improving the environment they live in are admirable (to me) traits. Try to live by it and then the christian has acheived his personal goal. (also not an issue to me) But, when that personal goal is used to judge non-believers, then it becomes a problem to me. As you are aware, I see the bible in a negative way. If you (not you personally, btw), but "you" the christian, try to tell me that my way of living is not acceptable to your god, then I dont really care as I dont believe in your god. If you then try to tell others that my way of living is unacceptable, then I have a problem - a big problem. If I decide to have sex with multiple partners (I should be so lucky ) You see this as a sin, I see it as a purely human action. If I decide to have an abortion, again you see it as a sin, I see it as personal choice. Keep it to yourself or within your circle of fellow believers, then fine, but start demonstrating in the streets about taking away my rights to have free choice then I will respond in kind. Its a kind of action/opposite reaction kind of thing. Live and let live. Does that make it a little clearer (Im sorry if it doesnt, I have only just got up and have not finished my coffee yet) |
|
|
|
Topic:
Occam's Razor
|
|
And it is unfair to judge someone for behavior which you indulge in, but as I said, it's sometimes very difficult to be objective. It's not a matter of fairness Spider. It's a matter of religion. If you claim to believe in the words of a God that are written in a doctrine then you must believe in those words and act on them accordingly. Otherwise what would be your agenda? I am not making my point clear. Christians are human. Humans have failings. All humans share the same failings. Therefore, it is unfair for a human to judge another for behavior which comes naturally to all humans. Simply because Christians try to hold themselves to a higher standard does not mean that they should be judged more harshly than someone who doesn't hold him or her self to that standard. But then surely that standard should not be forced upon other non-believers. It should be kept within the circle of believers. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Hate to say?
|
|
Georgia wants into NATO.
That means the US can put military there. The Russians dont want that ... |
|
|
|
Topic:
NOAH'S ARK - WTF??
|
|
The length and beam of Noah's ark compares with that of a 14000 ton Tanker.
The ark resembled a huge barge. It was built just to float - it had no sails, oars, propellors or rudder. It consisted of 3 decks and a 0.5 metre ventilation gap just below the roof, running it's full length. It would have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood. The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts. Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars. Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood? John Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.) But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens. There is an awful lot of questions to be garnered from that little lot. (Which is a google-led search) IF it existed then physically the ark could have held that number of animals .... Who the hell cleaned up after all that lot is beyond me. |
|
|
|
how in the world can a black man run for president? .... probably because ... White people are projected to no longer be in the majority in the United States by the year 2042 - eight years sooner than previous projections.
The US Census Bureau's latest figures - based on birth, death and immigration rates - suggest that minorities will soon make up 55% of the population. Hispanics who now make up about 15% will, it says, account for 30% by 2050. It is projected that black people will make up 15%, a small increase, while Asians will grow from 4% to 9%. White non-Hispanics currently make up about two-thirds of the population, but only 55% of those are aged under five. From the Census Bureau |
|
|
|
Question everything, accept nothing on face value, discount continual contradictions and physical evidence.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Occam's Razor
|
|
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005).
It is argued to imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred. Such arguments are based on the assertion that belief in God requires more and more complex assumptions to explain the universe than non-belief. The history of theistic thought has produced many arguments attempting to show that this is not the case — that the difficulties encountered by a theory without God are equal to or greater than those encountered by a theory postulating one. The cosmological argument, for example, states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God. Similarly, the teleological argument credits the appearance of design and order in the universe to supernatural intelligence. Many people believe in miracles or have what they call religious experiences, and creationists consider divine design to be more believable than naturalistic explanations for the diversity and history of life on earth. The majority of the scientific community generally does not accept these arguments, and prefers to rely on explanations that deal with the same phenomena within the confines of existing scientific models. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in a survey conducted in 1998 from Wiki |
|
|
|
Edited by
Belushi
on
Wed 08/13/08 12:52 PM
|
|
Belushi, Do you start these things, just so you can sit back and watch? Its damn site better than 8 threads trying to prove that the bible is scientific .. isnt it? ... and it gets everyone thinking |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you please elaborate? Upside-down Red-head ... Does it get better than that? I just reckon that there is pre-conditioning to being slave to religion and it takes strength to move away from it. Are you asserting, then, that if you are religious, that you are therefor a slave to it...and that it is something that you must move away from by some stregnth that you must somehow find, preferably within yourself? Depending on your religious upbringings you will be a slave to your religion. If you see that the upbringing has so many contradictions that make it impossible to live comfortably with then the strength you need is to break from you peer-group. Humans like to be part of a group. We are very social animals and when we move against the tide of normality, our peers start to question us, as it is not "normal" |
|
|
|
because it does hurt people. More people have been killed and more wars started in the name of God than for any other reason. In some religions, if you don't follow it just so... you get stoned to death. You can get shunned out of your family and community. One of the biggest problems is ( in my humble opinion) is that everyone seems to think their religion is right and all others are wrong. Take some of my family for example... if you don't believe exactly as they do, you will burn for all eternity in the depths of hell. That's not true, simply look at the statistics on Democide and you will quickly see that more people have been killed in the name of "progress" than any religion. I suppose that if you accept Ann Coulter's belief that Liberalism is a religion, then your statement is still true, but I think most people would reject that belief. Liberalism is a religion - yep I reject (I think this is what you are asking us to reject) War because of religion - I totally do not reject that. The Crusades Hitler's WW2 agenda Come on Spider, you are smart. Europe in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s. The Middle East. The Spaniards in South America ... the list is endless. War is condoned in the bible. god tells people to kill others, so they do (based on their own twisted interpretation) |
|
|
|
heaven or hell which one will you pick err ... neither ... Im a heathen and a non-believer ... ... and what is my decision? Please dont tell me hell!! Im not sure if I could recover from falling off this stool with hilarity. heaven, hell, valhalla, purgatory, olympus, father christmas and the easter bunny ... all the same. imaginary. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you please elaborate? Upside-down Red-head ... Does it get better than that? I just reckon that there is pre-conditioning to being slave to religion and it takes strength to move away from it. |
|
|
|
well i guess in way they are dealing with it. everyone finds a way to deal with the world and if believeing in god is that way, then whos to say its wrong? a good friend of mine said if its not hurting anyone, why should it matte? religion wasnt created originally to tell people believe in this or go to hell,it was created to give rules and stability to an ever changing world. it was created so that the world would become a better place by giving guidelines and ideals. the matter of god exisisting or not is inconseuential in reality. its how we believe...wether figment of imagination or reality he is a figurehead for morality and ethics, as is every god, no matter how the religion has been distorted. Fair points, but then when people choose to follow a lifestyle, surely it is a personal choice. You are a Buddhist, Spider a Christian, I am an Athiest. We made those conscious decisions based on our past. But what you have inside you is personal to you. You do not go around shouting that all other non-believers will go to hell and die and suffer the fires of eternal damnation. Christianity, Islam and Judaism has their followers doing that. This is what makes these three religions so unpalatable to me. Its a gamble. "Have I done enough to secure eternal life?" I dont care. If there is a god, then he will either forgive me for my past indiscretions (and I promise that she looked 30 ) or he wont. There is nothing I want to do about it |
|
|
|
heaven or hell which one will you pick err ... neither ... Im a heathen and a non-believer ... |
|
|