Setting the Bar Higher

[quicksand]

Let's apply Pascal's wager on terrorism threats.

 

Assume there is a terrorist somewhere in the world with enough nuclear material to blow up the whole word. And we don't know where he is or who he is. We only know that he is somewhere in middle east.

 

If we do nothing, we risk of having the whole known world blown to pieces, and everyone killed.

 

If we kill everyone in middle east, we have at least saved the rest of the world.

 

So what would be your choice?

Wow, how much right-wing radio have you been listening too Han? That's essentially - no, that is the precise argument that, again and again, that "Republican Radio - The Life of the Party" asserts over and over again. Kill! Kill! Kill! What they don't see is that, it only leads to killing everyone and I mean everyone. Including those who make that argument.

 

I listen to the podcast when I can, and well, perhaps its cause I am so friggen liberal that I belive men should have abortions, but it hurts to listen to them.

 

Dear invisible sky friend in the sky!

 

 

++++++

 

btw.... I am just comparing the logic of the argument that you outlin Han, not that you are making the argument. My reason for doing so, is to show the how absurd each application is. Got that everyone? Or do I have ot do some real physical ass-kicking?

[Celsus]

Could you please explain where I goofed?

 

Excuse me, but I have to express my anger about this shameless jab. If QS didn't ask you to clarify, you would not have even brought up who you were directing your message to . I thought this was a forum, where people express their thoughts, and share their knowledge. Not a place to make passive-agressive under the radar comments that I would not have known was directed toward me.

 

And I still have absolutely no clue what the hell was directed toward me.

 

How disrespectful of you Bruce! You could have at least shot me a PM if you were so Godamn outraged by my ignorance! But I suspect you were just taking shots at an easy target. Good for you 'ol boy! I am really saddened that a mod isn't above such crap!

 

 

SM, you have made statements in this thread that demonstrate you are confused about what science is. That was all that meant. Others on this thread also took you to task on it. If you want to get your panties in a wad, oh well. A better approach might be to actually open up some books on epistemology and science before making arguments that demonstrate that you you don't understand it, or the differences between science, philosophy and psuedo-science.

 

Bruce

[Fweethawt]

Got that everyone? Or do I have ot do some real physical ass-kicking?

Forgive him, Moderators, for he is drunk.

[MQTA]

So in the beginning was Ra.  Nice of you to clear it up for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In the beginning, there was the end

[MQTA]

Not likely at all, since Fwee has been on the site longer than me, and we've had that exact link up plenty of times since I became a member. The Pascal's Wager is getting pretty irritating, not because of what it says, but because Christians believe it's something that would surprise a freethinker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Almost every person, in person, that has brought up religion has always thrown in the wager at some point in the discussion, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM..

 

They don't appreciate it when I laugh hysterically in response.

[Dianka]

SM, you have made statements in this thread that demonstrate you are confused about what science is. That was all that meant. Others on this thread also took you to task on it. If you want to get your panties in a wad, oh well. A better approach might be to actually open up some books on epistemology and science before making arguments that demonstrate that you you don't understand it, or the differences between science, philosophy and psuedo-science.

 

Bruce

 

 

 

Where is your logic? You can stick your nose in a book and absorb what you want, but what do you use it for?? To simply exclaim how friggin enlightened you are? Where are your Jacobs, man?

 

And you have not even argued why I am confused. Why don't you read my testimony and focus on the last sentence. I am here to possibly learn something from people, not to spout off closed-minded opinions.

 

By the way, I PMed a mod requesting a section where people can recommend books on different categories, and it is your job as mods to discuss any requests, yes? Or maybe that answer, for whatever reason, is no.

 

I would also like to add that I am not puking up philosophy. I understand that my education in that area is limited, so I don't bother with it. I am making my own arguments. I guess I missed the requirement that I have to recite Locke or Hume in order to be acknowledged.

 

And you are right; I am allowing this to piss me off. How very elitist of you to just tell me to run off, like I am a little child.

 

I would like my request to Nivek taken seriously, even if you don't take me seriously.

[Fweethawt]

By the way, I PMed a mod requesting a section where people can recommend books on different categories, and it is your job as mods to discuss any requests, yes? Or maybe that answer, for whatever reason, is no.

We have a section for this already. Check out 'Critics Corner'. That's what it's for.

[Dianka]

We have a section for this already. Check out 'Critics Corner'. That's what it's for. 

 

 

Oh, my. A helpful suggestion. I looked through that section before, but was turned off by it because all I saw was movie and novel reviews. However, after Nivek suggested I go there I looked through it and found 2 books that could possibly set me on the path that Bruce would like me to be on but refuses to lead the way.

 

I suppose I shouldn't ask for anyone to hold my hand on this. I should be able to go out and read all I want to on sceince/phiolsophy. At most there are what, 5-10 books total to read? And those books are no more than 100 pages, I am sure.

 

You know, Bruce I look at your picture, and then I compare it to my face. You are quite a few years older than I am. You have had much more time to read than I have. And I do realize that there are people here my age and younger that far surpass my pathetic grasp of Philosophy, Science, and yes, pseudo-science.

And I just really started reading about these issues on my own in about May. So, why not a little patience?

 

I find it sick that I ask to be corrected and I get no help from the person that is criticizing.

 

And if by saying someone took me to task, you are referring to QS saying that I give ID too much credit...

 

Yeah, bad layout. Sorry.

 

My idea was that ID should be in direct competition if it is ever classified as a theory. BUT we know it won't ever be a theory. Because it cannot withstand the research that would classify it as a theory, it should not be taught as an alternative to evolution.

 

Is the issue still unresolved?

 

And...

Do you mean contradictions, or lack of evidence? If you meant contradictions, then please explain the points of Evolution that contradict each other.

 

I WAS ACTUALLY (((ASKING ))). Not making a statement.

 

 

 

 

I am off to post my request in the critic's corner. Bruce, you are welcome to add to it.

[Fweethawt]

I am off to post my request in the critic's corner.

Bruce, you are welcome to add to it.

Perhaps, (depending upon how it is worded) your post can be pinned in the 'Critic's Corner' section. That way, anyone who has any reading suggestions for what you're looking for will most likely see your thread and contribute to it.

 

A mod will have to pin it though.

[Asimov]

SM, you have made statements in this thread that demonstrate you are confused about what science is. That was all that meant. Others on this thread also took you to task on it. If you want to get your panties in a wad, oh well. A better approach might be to actually open up some books on epistemology and science before making arguments that demonstrate that you you don't understand it, or the differences between science, philosophy and psuedo-science.

 

Bruce

 

Hehe...panties....

[Dianka]

Hehe...panties....

 

 

I see you concentrate on the important things in life.

 

Perhaps, (depending upon how it is worded) your post can be pinned in the 'Critic's Corner' section. That way, anyone who has any reading suggestions for what you're looking for will most likely see your thread and contribute to it.

 

A mod will have to pin it though.

 

Sounds good. Ok ok I swear I am off to create my post nnnnNNNNnnnnnOW!

[crazy-tiger]

And evolution can explain this?

No, evolution cannot explain how the universe was created... if you know anything about it, you'd know that evolution is about what happens to life.

Or are you talking about the Big Bang (just another name for Alakazam!)

Hey ho... BBT, though it hasn't had all it's parts proven true, is well over 50% proven and the rest of it is not contradicted by the evidence we have. (admittedly, it's not likely that it will every be proven 100% true, but that doesn't mean it's a load of bull)

Just because you have Billions of Unseen Years ,

Proven to exist... saying they don't doesn't make them go away.

and a theory sandwich to big for even King Kong to swallow, doesn't make it any less magical than you claim, "in the beginning God," to be.

The evidence for it, on the other hand, shows it to be much less magical that "in the beginning God"

You see... in the beginning God... and then we are allowed to explain everything He created, as best we can.  A scientific mind is not hindered by, "In the beginning God..."  It simply accepts, that here is science... and in the beginning God...

You think it is intelligence that has brought you to your conclusion that there is no God, and that is a mistake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I know it is intelligence and the evidence all around us that has brought me to the conclusion that we may never know if there is a god or not, but that the god of the Christians cannot exist...

 

 

 

Now, about how God created everything...?

[Mr. Neil]

Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician an phyicist who lived in the 1600's gave his "wager."  Perhaps you have heard of Pascal's Wager?

Yes, we all know about Pascal's Wager. It's a notorious intellectual fallacy.

 

And evolution can explain this?  Or are you talking about the Big Bang (just another name for Alakazam!)  Just because you have Billions of Unseen Years ™, and a theory sandwich to big for even King Kong to swallow, doesn't make it any less magical than you claim, "in the beginning God," to be.

Why is it that Christians are completely incapable of differentiating biology and cosmology? You'd think that it'd be obvious.

[crazy-tiger]

Why is it that Christians are completely incapable of differentiating biology and cosmology?  You'd think that it'd be obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is... but they just parrot what they've been taught, and what they've been taught is that anything that seems to be against their God is part of evolution.

 

 

Ironically, none of it is against their God, because it could just be the way that he did it. Funny how so many of them don't realise that either...

[MQTA]

It is... but they just parrot what they've been taught, and what they've been taught is that anything that seems to be against their God is part of evolution.

Ironically, none of it is against their God, because it could just be the way that he did it. Funny how so many of them don't realise that either...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, that's not entirely true. Many of them do realize it, they're told they're going to hell, too. They get called liberals and pick & choose and all sorts of names. I think they prefer Theistic Evolution.

 

God created and then set in motion Evolution. Or Creation was the beginning, Evolution was what He used to get us where we are. Or something like that.

 

And those folks seem to fight with the YECs too, and then they battle how bad it is for them to be battling.

[crazy-tiger]

No, that's not entirely true.  Many of them do realize it, they're told they're going to hell, too.  They get called liberals and pick & choose and all sorts of names.  I think they prefer Theistic Evolution.

 

God created and then set in motion Evolution.  Or Creation was the beginning, Evolution was what He used to get us where we are.  Or something like that.

 

And those folks seem to fight with the YECs too, and then they battle how bad it is for them to be battling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was talking about the general type of Christians we get through here...

 

I should have made that clear in the first place.

[MQTA]

I was talking about the general type of Christians we get through here...

 

I should have made that clear in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, through HERE. LOL. I was thinking about all the places I know of, of this type, combined.

 

Yeah, well, HERE would draw someone with a goal, rather than them just discussing their beLIEfs.

 

What purposes do people have for coming to a place with this name? As a nonchristian, when I was researching the NT, I was real hesitant going to some site names. When I finished reading doubtingmerle's website I looked at his other links page and he had links to some threads on cf.com so I read them. I wasn't planning to join any forums. I just read the first thread he linked to, and then went back to his site.

 

I read each of the threads and went back to his site. It wasn't until I read the last one that I looked at what other threads were on GA. Then I started looking around the rest of the site. I had pretty much found most of my answers, but GA was really opening up some cans of worms I hadn't even thought about. Wow. I sure learned a lot more on CF. com that I thought... and TOTALLY against their INTENT, I am sure.

 

They helped me totally unmask and make sense out of the NT. Some people were able to post forbidden links and I managed to see them before a mod deleted or removed them. I noticed that they don't last long. Not sure how long, but I went looking for an old post of mine and noticed my words were there but the url was changed or removed.

 

So that's how I ended up on CF, and someone posted a link here that I saw, which of course didn't last too long on there, but that's how I found this place. The finishing touches. I can actually talk about things here that I wouldn't even dare intimate on CF. And I see answers that make sense and not just get handwaved or How Dare You'd away.

 

What I find most ironic is how someone wants to shove Christianity down your throat and what, force you to believe? I don't know.. but shouldn't they be Practicing Christianity AT ALL TIMES, no matter what comes their way, their reactions show who they really are. If they can't discuss things without Being who they say you shouldn't be, then they should avoid controversy.

 

Years ago people only dealt with other people in their home towns, people must think sweet little online sites are the same. They come in with their bumper stickers and are culture shocked when they find people who don't have the same Math Book as them. It's even more culture shock when they find out we don't even think it's a MATH Book, but Dick and Jane for the masses.

[crazy-tiger]

When I finished reading doubtingmerle's website

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell me... did you think of warning me before you posted this link?

 

 

 

I've just spent the last hour there and I am finding it very hard to leave...

[MQTA]

Tell me... did you think of warning me before you posted this link?

I've just spent the last hour there and I am finding it very hard to leave...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't forget the Mental Health page.

 

Glad you like it.

 

[a midnight star]

Personally, I like the approach of taking lies and statements made as facts that are far from facts (lies), taken out of books.  Once that is done, I think evolution will be standing on a very weak leg, and that is being generous.

 

Intelligent design isn't, *in the beginning magic* -- it is in the beginning God.  It is no more in the beginning magic than the Big Bang, that's for sure.  The problem is because of the scientific mumbo jumbo, many people that don't want to believe in God are cheering all the long as science seeks to explain the resolution they have already accepted in advance -- and accepted by faith.  To say that one can, by science, witness the creation of the universe is to greatly decieve oneself.

 

In much of your post, the word Evolution could be substituted for "ID," and it would make just as much sense to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Every religion has a creation story and a lot of them are simular to the christian one. If you want yours to be declared fact then all of them should be declared fact and tell me, do those so-called studies verify yours or the classical greek or romans's creation story or both. This alone should show you that ID is not proven correct because ID is for the xian creation story alone not those others which are close to yours.

[Ouroboros]

When I finished reading doubtingmerle's website I looked at his other links page and he had links to some threads on cf.com so I read them. 

Just an interesting fact about this site... scroll down to readers comments... do you see a name you recognize? I wrote that around the time as I deconverted, emailed him, and he asked if he could put it up on the site. I totally forgot about it until now!

The site looks a little better than before too. It was really simple when I got there years ago.

[Guest aexapo]

  I want only to be free to think what I want and to share with others in the discussions about life. Is that so much to ask?

 

  Sorry, its to early to be getting so serious. LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're absolutely right! You have the absolute freedom to share your newly emboldened ideas of a Godly creator with others, and you can even masquerade the idea as a "science" and "teach" them in private Christian schools, but for those of us who prefer that America's children be familiar with real science (so that all the scientific and bio-tech jobs of the future don't go to Japan, India, etc.), we prefer to keep things the way they are -- keeping your religion out of fact-based curriculae.

 

Evolution is not a new idea, it isn't "in the air," and it isn't "open for discussion." I can understand the teacher's frustration. Facts aren't democratic -- they're obvious.

[Guest aexapo]

I cannot but agree with what you say ...except what you say does in fact also apply to ID. Evolution , in fact IS a belief system just like religion. It has absolutely no basis in fact at all but has alot of conjecture and possibilities, but no absolute proof. Please do show me if there is, I am open to the truth no matter how damning it is to what I believe. But, alas, I am losing hope in the oposite point of view. I had hoped to find some intelligent and logical thinking on the other views opposed to God but the fact is that all I get are attacks on my own view. With the exception of Hans who seems quite wise in his postings. But, I cannot give up, for it is in me to always expand my knowledge of the other side. It is what keeps feeding my faith!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have seen more truth in preceding posts than in life's worth of your pastor's preaching. If you can't see it, then you are deaf and blind, bumbling around a room full of facts that you have intentionally innoculated yourself from perceiving.

 

Remove the blinders and earplugs.

 

And please, please stop with the "the more you do this, the more I love Jesus" crappola. It's the adult equivalent of na-na-na-boo-boo . . . well, I take it back. It's not really grown-up.

 

We can discuss science, or you can have a "victory dance" -- but this really isn't the forum for the latter.

[MQTA]

Just an interesting fact about this site... scroll down to readers comments... do you see a name you recognize? I wrote that around the time as I deconverted, email him, and he asked if he could put it up on the site. I totally forgot about it until now!

The site looks a little better than before too. It was really simple when I got there years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cool! And that statement is as good today as it was back then

[crazy-tiger]

Just an interesting fact about this site... scroll down to readers comments... do you see a name you recognize? I wrote that around the time as I deconverted, emailed him, and he asked if he could put it up on the site. I totally forgot about it until now!

The site looks a little better than before too. It was really simple when I got there years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought the name was familiar...

 

 

 

 

Too used to you being HanSolo to have made the connection though.