You too can see the light!

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

You too can see the light!

Postby Yayaril » Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:35 am

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

Now you know the truth, and can in turn change your life, steering yourself away from all things satanic...

Now if only we can get Gormal to kill himself by getting his character killed in-game.


Yayaril
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:53 am

Image
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Postby Disoputlip » Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:13 am

Is that page a joke? Some of it could be for real I think? Not sure though, but I think people could actuctually have this attitude.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:23 am

Unfortunately, it's not a joke. However, I'm going to imitate that girl in the comic and anytime someone calls me that I don't want to talk to, I'll use the excuse of "Sorry, I'm fighting the zombie. They'll have to call back later."


Yayaril
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:31 am

Yeah, when Malacar got killed the other day on Sojourn3, I killed myself.. I couldn't live without him.

But I got a ress, and am feeling much better now.. And coincidentally, so is Malacar!
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:05 am

ROTFL!

Dear goddess!

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Nezgaz
Sojourner
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Nezgaz » Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:26 am

Yeah, that website is scary. I've seen two other comics just like that on there before, linked to them from other sites just like I did this one. One was about rock and roll and the other about masturbation.

If you want to see the most f' up religious site ever: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2680/index.html
This is so messed up I can hardly believe it's for real (looking at their responses to the letters they get makes me wonder if it's real). I really like the "masturbation vs. crime" graph at the bottom. LOL!

[This message has been edited by Nezgaz (edited 03-02-2002).]
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sat Mar 02, 2002 9:05 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Disoputlip:
Is that page a joke? Some of it could be for real I think? Not sure though, but I think people could actuctually have this attitude.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably not a jokepage. There is still superstitious people worshiping "gods".
Eza
Sojourner
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Postby Eza » Sat Mar 02, 2002 9:48 am

All I can say is.. I *really* hope that's a joke. If it isn't, someone needs to be smacked.

------------------
-=Deviant=-
Karikhan
Sojourner
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Karikhan » Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:21 am

Lions and tigers and Ogres... OH MY!!!
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:22 pm

I know my face twists up that chick's did when she was talking about her father every time I think about the mud... especially when it's down.
Holdan
Sojourner
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Holdan » Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:06 pm

LOL! That's great Yayaril. It can't be fake, considering there are two LONG articles on it.

I guess it could be fake, but that'd make that person a huge loser if they faked two long long essays about the evils of D&D.

I posted the second essay and the comic to my guilds webpage, which is currently on the recieving end of much pointing and laughing.

Good one, Yayaril!
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:40 pm

No, the page is not fake. Jack Chick's fairly infamous among gamers for being an idiot. It's nothing new, he's been around for a while now. Still makes you wonder how natural selection passed him over every now and then though Image

------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:49 pm

hey.
1) wanna begin with, i dont agree with the comic/trek there

2) Jegzed, kinda foolish to think that religion is superstition.

3) i forgot who wrote on the bbs, but extremists are extremist. not all are based on religion. example. peta.

4) knowing the difference, will help you deal/debate with people with different ideas. instead of criticize/belittle.

sok
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Postby muma » Sun Mar 03, 2002 12:31 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>hey.
1) wanna begin with, i dont agree with the comic/trek there

2) Jegzed, kinda foolish to think that religion is superstition.

3) i forgot who wrote on the bbs, but extremists are extremist. not all are based on religion. example. peta.

4) knowing the difference, will help you deal/debate with people with different ideas. instead of criticize/belittle.

sok</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed. now i personally don't believe in a major religion, but i know loads of ppl that do.
Sylvos
Sojourner
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada
Contact:

Postby Sylvos » Sun Mar 03, 2002 1:54 am

More guidance from the divine!

http://www.demonbuster.com/paisley.html

Sylvos
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Postby muma » Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:11 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yayaril:
<B>Unfortunately, it's not a joke. However, I'm going to imitate that girl in the comic and anytime someone calls me that I don't want to talk to, I'll use the excuse of "Sorry, I'm fighting the zombie. They'll have to call back later."


Yayaril</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


ROFL YaYaril rules! Image
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:53 am

Rofl! christians are funny! If there is nothing on comedy central besidse infomercials I always turn it to the televangilists and have a hearty laugh.

I know what I am gonna do...I am gonna make a wierd page like that paisley crap page and start a cult and make some cash at home! And I will have Gruumsh help me!
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Sun Mar 03, 2002 3:26 am

Now Kifle, the term "Christian" and "fanatic" are not necessarily the same. Sure, a lot of misery has been caused over the ages in the name of Christianity, but fanaticism is in the mind of the fanatic and his beholders, not always in the theology. I've known a lot of "Christians" who practiced what they preached and lived in a way which many of us could only aspire to, theology or no theology. Christianity is as much misunderstood by those who practice it as it is by those who despise it, just as most other religions are, like that of the Muslim faith. Condemn those who warp the foundations of a theology for their own perverted goals, not the theology.
Nitania
Sojourner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Nitania » Sun Mar 03, 2002 4:10 am

Just so the people who post here know, religion is a deeply felt thing. Remember when you *do* post to a thread like this one that you are dealing with the actual fiber of what one truly believes (s)he is. Using labels like "fanatical" or "superstitious" tend to offend those of us who *do* believe in something greater. Whether or not you do, please use a rememberance of when you were offended by someone not meaning to offend. Debate is well and good... I for one welcome debate. It's healthy. Label slinging and name calling is not.

Not to point fingers btw. I have yet to be offended by this thread, but I know others who have read it and have been.

Nitania
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sun Mar 03, 2002 7:43 am

Sorry Ash and Nit...I shouldn't have used the title "christian" so freely. What I ment was fanatic...and the people that write and support such websites as those that were mentioned are obviously fanatics...especially that paisley one...that was a huge stretch...

Kifle
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sun Mar 03, 2002 8:47 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>2) Jegzed, kinda foolish to think that religion is superstition.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<I>
su·per·sti·tion
1.An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of
events influences its outcome.
</I>

That sure describe the belief in a "god".

If you've read the constradicting peace of texts known as the Bible, or the chaotic text known as the Koran, then you'd DEFINITELY have to remove your rational thought if you WANT to believe in it.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Postby Yayaril » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:11 am

The only problem with myth is that those who embrace it do not see it as such.

Yayaril
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:21 am

Jegzed:

Ever study the foundations of mathematics?

Or study Abiogenesis and information theory?

Consider that Cosmology and Quantum Physics are mutually exclusive?

Or even, hell, noted that every theory of the Universe's Origins completely ignores everything we know about physics and abdigates its laws?

Also, please refrain from confusing Judeo-Christianity and words like "religion", "gods", and "deity."

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning

[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 03-03-2002).]
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Sun Mar 03, 2002 12:48 pm

ROFL. People funny. All y'all.
Zellin
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Zellin » Sun Mar 03, 2002 12:57 pm

Oops. Double post...I'm a funny people too.

[This message has been edited by Zellin (edited 03-03-2002).]
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:06 pm

Uhh...elseenas...Quantum laws and theories are tried and tested...they have experiements and those experiments pass...same with mathmatics...those are not superstitions in the least bit...I think you need to not mix up your physics dear...
Karikhan
Sojourner
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Karikhan » Sun Mar 03, 2002 3:07 pm

I was raised a non-practicing Roman Catholic ...

my aspirations these days run toward the Wiccan ... hrrm

mebbe thats why the dark arts of Shamanism appeal to me ... the nature aspects, etc
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Postby muma » Sun Mar 03, 2002 4:53 pm

hehehe, nothing can be proven when u really break it down. so elseenas has a good point Image
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 7:46 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Uhh...elseenas...Quantum laws and theories are tried and tested...they have experiements and those experiments pass...same with mathmatics...those are not superstitions in the least bit...I think you need to not mix up your physics dear...
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine, prove that 0 is a number.

Science and mathematics, all of it, is founded on a set of guiding assumptions that cannot be tested and cannot be proven. See Principia Mathematica and Goedel's Incompleteness Proof.

Further, as I said, Cosmology and Quantum Physics are *mutuallly exclusive* and every theory of the Universe's Origins (including Hawking's), requires that the laws of physics go *poof*.

String Theory and Abiogeneisis are both *unfalsifiable*. Isn't this one of the criteria for pseudoscience?

Is it any wonder that the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are Phyisicists and Mathematicians?

Finally, before you patronize me again, read up on information theory and abiogenesis.



------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 7:49 pm

muma:

Quite a bit can be proven, the problem is we have to make a set of assumptions in order to do it.

For instance:
Once I have assumed Peano's Axioms and the Axiom of Identity, I can start to prove things in Peano Arithmatic.

Without those assumptions, however, Peano Arithmatic is absolutely worthless.


------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Mar 03, 2002 8:35 pm

Please Elseenas. I have read one of those books that tries to 'prove' that there is a god by refuting science, and it was one of the saddest things I have ever had the misfortune to read.

Trying to claim that scientists are the most likely people to believe in god, is just an unfouded claim.

Fact is that religions have caused nothing but war, death and pain over the centuries. If it were not for science, we'd still be burning witches and living in the squalid middle ages. I'm proud that my ancestors fought the church and the inquisition, giving me the right to dismiss religion as a fraud. Because it is.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:26 pm

cherzra:

I have never claimed that there is a Deity on this board. Nor have I claimed scientific "proof" of Deity (speaking of which, you have a logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization). Nor am I attempting to show that science is invalid--only that it requires certain base assumptions that cannot be proven (see Goedel, there are things that are true that cannot be proven).

You also didn't read what I wrote.

I said: "Is it any wonder that the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are Phyisicists and Mathematicians?"

/Not/ "scientists", nor did I present that as evidence, I stated that as the conclusion "is it any wonder..." of a prior argument.

It is also hardly unfounded. Read back in I believe it was Time and you'll find an article on the topic that states the statistics.

Don't accuse before you know what is being discussed. The proper order is read /then/ write.

Speaking of which, dismissing "religion" as a fraud when you are really targeting the Catholic Church is a fallacy.

Edit:
Clarified the argument slightly.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning

[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 03-03-2002).]
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:27 pm

One other thing.

"Fact is that religions have caused nothing but war, death and pain over the centuries. "

Oh please.

One example to disprove your rule:

Hygia.

Edit:

Okay okay, two other things.

Science comes from religion.

Copernicus was extremely devout (a monk, IIRC).

Newton states "God" as one of his assumptions in Principia and over 10% of his papers were Alchemical in nature.

Leonardo da Vinci was an Occultist and applied the principles of Sacred Geometry to his work.

Alchemy has become modern Chemistry.

Astrology has become modern Astronomy (before you critisize, think of sea navigation).

Herbology has become medicine (talk to a pharmecist, they still consult with herbologists in the creation of drugs).

The list goes on and on.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning

[This message has been edited by Elseenas (edited 03-03-2002).]
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:41 pm

Wow, you write so much empty words just to hide behind.

Gee, I wrote 'scientists' instead of 'mathematicians ans physicists' - same difference. Go back up your statement.

I'm wrong though. It was all better back in the days when the earth was flat, witches were burnt, anyone who disagreed was tortured and the church stole your money for its own greed. God I miss the middle ages.

And you're right, religion has nothing to do with all the wars that were fought over it. The inquisition, the crusades, they are just fairy tales. How could I be so wrong!

Guess I'm off to procreate without some protection now, seeing as how the pope in his infinite wisdom, says that birth control is wrong.

Oh btw. "The proper order is read/then write" - thank you for this insight. I'm just a dumb heathen, thank you not only for showing me the errors of my ways, but also for patronizing me and telling me how I should properly behave. As a dumb little pagan, I deserve that.


[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 03-03-2002).]
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:49 pm

"Wow, you write so much empty words just to hide behind. "

Ad hominem (abusive).

Empty words claiming empty words, almost poetic Image

"Gee, I wrote 'scientists' instead of 'mathematicians ans physicists' - same difference. Go back up your statement."

You completely misconstruded what I said by twisting it.

1) I did not say that scientists were more likely to believe in God.

2) I did not say that most physicists and mathematicians believed in God.

3) The least likely category of scientists to believe in God are Biologists.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I'm wrong though. It was all better back in the days when the earth was flat, witches were burnt, anyone who disagreed was tortured, the church stole your money for its own greed.

And you're right, religion has nothing to do with all the wars that were fought over it. How could I be so wrong!

Guess I'm off to procreate without some protection now, seeing as how the pope in his infinite wisdo, says that birth control is wrong.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the most ignorant, ill-conceived, and immature arguments I have ever read.

Thats with years of debate behind me, congratulations.

I was going to look up the referance for the above article, but this last piece has convinced me that it isn't worth it.

Your mind is already closed.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:52 pm

More empty words... blah blah blah... try to make yourself look like a Phd. Msc. professor, berating the little dumb heathen. Just try talking to someone like that in real life, and see how quickly you end up in more trouble than you bargained for.

"Your mind is already closed."

L A U G H !

And yours isn't? Go on and read some more in whichever precious book you place on a pedestal.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:57 pm

Chezra:

If you can find a single book I "place on a pedestal" I will be impressed.

You see--something you can't seem to drill into your head--I am not Catholic, I am not Christian, I am not a practitioner of Islam, I am not a Jew, nor do I belong to one of any number of branch religions from those.

The closest I come to putting any book on a pedestal is a pedestal of respect, not reverance, and that's Principia Mathematica.

You have been moderated down, score -1: Troll Image

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:57 pm

Your quote: "the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are Phyisicists and Mathematicians"

My quote: "Trying to claim that scientists (=physicists and mathematicians) and are the most likely people to believe in god, is just an unfouded claim."

And then you go on and say that I "completely misconstruded what (you) said by twisting it."

Riiiiiiight.... simpleton.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:04 pm

Okay Cherzra, you have forced me to use mathematical and logical jargon because you just aren't getting this.

My statement:
In the ordered superset S[0..n] of types of scientists, where the components of S are strongly ordered from greatest to least based on the percent of that set that believes in God.

I claim that S[0] and S[1] are Physicists and Mathematicians.

Now we have an ordered superset P which are all of the groups of people in a population, strongly ordered by the same criteria as above.

You are claiming that P[ 0 ] being the set S is an unfounded claim, which is a claim I have not made (qv).


------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:21 pm

Wow, so much nonsense.

Let me show you this again.

Your quote: "the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are Phyisicists and Mathematicians"

My quote: "Trying to claim that physicists and mathematicians are the most likely people to believe in god, is just unfouded."

At what point did you lose the ability to see logically in your attempts to throw scientific jargon into your posts in an attempt to make them hard to read, and thus correct?

Let me spell this out for you again: back. up. your. claim. that. these. people. are. most. likely. to. believe. in. a. deity.

Hard, isn't it.

Cherzra, Msc in computer science, but not trying to vainly impress people with technical nonsense.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:27 pm

Cherzra:

I haven't made that claim.

Set S versus set P. I am claiming that S[ 0 ] and S[ 1 ] are Physicists and Mathematicians.

You are claiming that I am claiming that P[ 0 ] is S.

Not technical jargon, simple set theory because you don't seem to understand anything else I have written. Können Sie Deutsch sprechen?

What about this do you not understand?

I already gave you half of the referance if you are looking for evidence of the claim I have made, though really it is so irrelevant to the original argument I'm not sure why you are bothering.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Dezzex
Sojourner
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri May 11, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Va.BC

Postby Dezzex » Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:52 pm

Good one Yayaril look what you caused this time!

Now at the risk of my own head I intercede briefly to quell the storm with an outsider's clarification...

Elseenas is just saying that of scientists themselves, mathematicians and physicists are most likely to believe in a Deity.

But back to the top and Jegzed's definition of superstition and Elseenas' reply... isn't the distinction between religion and science then in the 'rationality' of the axioms? Suppose religious beliefs are based on some axiom, say, the existence of God, as opposed to the axioms of mathematics. On that basis, which can be termed the most rational and why? (I have my own reasoning but I'm only going to throw out the question for now)
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 11:03 pm

Thank you Dezzex Image

When you break it down, once you have abolished the laws of physics for the creation of the Universe, the concept of a Creator is at /least/ as valid as any other theory presented.

Further is is a statistical impossiability that complex life would form without an ordered basis (information comming from a lack of information): it takes thousands of mutations to make a functional allel, it takes *one* to knock it out. The number of mutations to take a Hox gene out are *trivial* in comparison to the number it takes to form a new one.

Starting from an ordered, a choosen, beginning--however--makes complex life possible but by no means certain.

I wouldn't say that the assumptions of science are any more "rational" than others, nor do they have any more evidence to back them up. Hence why Physicists talk about the "Intelligent Design Theory."

This isn't saying that Christianity is or is not correct (which is what Cherzra was also trying to put into my mouth)--it is just a statement on the possible existance of Deity.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
cherzra
Sojourner
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Holland

Postby cherzra » Sun Mar 03, 2002 11:15 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>Set S versus set P. I am claiming that S[ 0 ] and S[ 1 ] are Physicists and Mathematicians.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So much bull manure... you still don't get the "prove your claim" part do you. Instead you run around the bush saying you claimed something else. Fine - whatever you 'think' you claimed, back up the claim quoted above.

Go on, reply with some more P[0[s[x[Q]]]] drivel, or point out how I wrote 'physicists' while you wrote 'phyisicists' and thus you don't have to back up your words.

Nothing but hot air.
Dezzex
Sojourner
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri May 11, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Va.BC

Postby Dezzex » Sun Mar 03, 2002 11:17 pm

Supposing we did start with the axiom that God exists, and that he is all-powerful. What theorems (truths) could then be derived from that, if we could formulate a way to do so in a precise way similar to mathematics? Would we really end up with any meaningful system at all? If not, the issue of God's existence is really a non-issue because it doesn't result in anything that is worthwhile to our perception of the world.

The thing with religions, is that once given the axioms (eg. the existence of God), they aren't really precise enough to justify their conclusions. Existence of God --> ipso facto do not commit adultery? Existence of God --> burn witches? What is it that people reject religion for: God himself, or the whole resulting structure? It certainly must the latter.

With physics and mathematics, at least given their axioms we can justify to ourselves what and how the world works around us, rationally.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 11:34 pm

Cherzra:

::shrugs::

Look back through issues of Time-Life and the 1998 editions of Nature. I believe it is one of them.

If pressed I might look up the specific article later--but that would require more effort than you're worth.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Sun Mar 03, 2002 11:43 pm

Dezzex:

I think you are confusing "Deity" and "Christian God": separate issues that must be addressed separately.

For instance, why assume that such a Deity would be "all powerful" or, more to the point, what exactly do you mean by "all powerful"?

Where the rest comes from depends on a separate set of phenomena dependant primarily on the separate religions.

This can be said to be as "verifiable" as the Quantum-Zeno Paradox.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Dezzex
Sojourner
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri May 11, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Va.BC

Postby Dezzex » Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:49 am

Maybe so... but is there such a distinction? I define all-powerful as all-capable; that is, capable of doing anything It might please in a conceivable universe barring logical inconsistencies. This is not so precise of course and others have put it better but I am sure as you are well-read that you will know what I mean. The only reason I define God as all-powerful is because this is the most wide-reaching scenario. Discussing anything less will be pointless because He would have no ramifications.

What other religion-specific phenomena are you referring to that should impact the result of the assumption that God exists and is all-powerful?
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Mon Mar 04, 2002 1:04 am

1. Jack chick is a fanatic... I think we must all agree on that. Heck, I think he would agree to that.

However, just because he's overboard on this doesn't mean there isn't some kernel of truth. Take for example, "Reefer madness." This 1940's movie grossly exaggerated the problems of pot smokers (and even made up several), but despite the fact that the movie is horrible, that doesn't automatically mean that there *aren't* any potential health problems that pot smoking creates. Don't be fooled by the straw man.

2. Since when does your own logic dictate what is possible? In the 1600's I'm sure "logic dictated" that putting a man on the moon was impossible. An oversimplification to point at that, perhaps, but we can never know the full extent of what is possible.

Does anyone here know of Pascal's Wager?

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests