posted on October 19, 2002 08:14:07 PM new
I finally understand that Kant, with his lack of aluminum beanies, was channeling the Giant Space Ants from the center of our Galaxy. (It doesn't matter what language it's in, just the mention of it evokes a look of WTF terror on the dear readers face similar to that of W when asked a direct question)
Hmmm, maybe it is a form of psychological warfare. Or possibly just another alien underground cartoon.
I'm not too clear on the Pentecostal tongues. I know it's done in some Evangelical Christian churches. Is it to signify posession, like the vodoun loa possession?
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 19, 2002 08:44:07 PM new
Snowyegret, it was wonderful. I made only one trip off the islands though - visited the Edison-Ford homes. The vegetation was stunning, particularly on Captiva. I'm afraid that hostas and cannas are the only viable large-leaved plants to admire now that I'm back.
We visited the shell museum and "Ding" Darling refuge. Saw snowyegrets,a bald eagle, roseate spoonbills,racoons, etc. Ate at Cheeseburger-Cheeseburger(think gravid recommended it). The food everywhere was good and we ate far too much. (I returned to find a notice from my GYN to come in for a retest for my cholesterol ASAP - what timing.)
I did spend about an hour a day in the pool so I can say that I maintained my exercise regimen, if floating and dogpaddling count.
I need to do this trip again. It was the first extended vacation we'd had in many years and we loved it.
posted on October 19, 2002 08:50:17 PM newI'm not too clear on the Pentecostal tongues.
Well that means that you do understand it, in tonguespeak.
The explanation is that it is a divine revelation from God who enters a person and reveals the message by speaking in an obscure, now lost language, which no one understands anymore. No one understands the message but the speaker but it is too profound for the speaker to fully explain.
It does go a long way in understanding why Fundamentalists believe that they are uniquely suited to politics.
Saabsister,
I remember the good old days when the main conflicts were between the sciences and arts. There were disagreements but an uneasy peace wasn't too difficult to maintain, and no one wanted to take over the government.
posted on October 19, 2002 08:58:31 PM new
Antiquary, perhaps the politicians are using that old epistemological evasion and hope that we'll never really know that when they say "peace" they mean "war". Afterall, we can't know that their definition is or isn't the same as ours. We're making that leap of faith.
[ edited by saabsister on Oct 19, 2002 08:59 PM ]
posted on October 19, 2002 09:05:14 PM new
Maybe it's Ogham. And that is like the loas.
Saabsister, Florida has some excellent birding. One of the hospitals in Sarasota was having probelms with roosting woodpeckers that were on the Endangered Species List. As they couldn't kill the woodpeckers, they had to try other means to stop them from pecking and damaging the building. First, they put fake owls on the lightposts. That didn't work, so then, they decided to play a very loud recording of a wouded bird. The patients and staff were very disturbed, but not the woodpeckers.
Your vacation sounds so relaxing. I used to meet quite a few people from NY and DC areas down there on vacation. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 19, 2002 09:32:11 PM new
Oh, the Have faith because God is with us. I'm making an unfortunte analogy with the Crusades right now. So, it's back to the medieval mindset. I must arm myself with mace. I see myself as more pissant than peasant, or perhaps a pissant peasant, since I can't find delusions of grandeur in my brain.
Peasant, put in the census!
Do it yourself!
Churl! Varlet! You shall be reeducated!
I never claimed to be Frank Bacon
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 19, 2002 09:58:21 PM new
The only thing I predict is an ark of some sort will be involved. Er, I hope not throwing us back past Archimedes.
Hammurabi Code Rocks! You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 19, 2002 10:16:42 PM new
>Borillar, you're not referring to that old parliamentary standby "Robert's Rules of Order", are you?
Between Robert's Rules of Order and Roget's Thesaurus, my mind somehow gets Rodger's Rules of Order.
It may sound odd, but my sister, brother and I were not allowed to argue. Our parents would sit us down and make us use an abridged version of the Rules of Order to resolve our conflicts. However, I have to say that we fared about as well as the British Parliment does. It was a good lesson to learn and I think that it is not so much the rules of procedure that are important to the lessons taught to children as the fact that there actually is a system for arguing with rules! Makes a lot of difference.
posted on October 19, 2002 10:33:56 PM new
Borillar, I think the Dali Lama says that the first one to get angry in a discussion has lost the fight. Simple but true.
posted on October 19, 2002 10:45:53 PM new
And here I thought my big bang left everyone unmoved. Back to the stone age. (I'm not a big dinosaur promoter like Don, and can't make any money off of them, so hit that fast forward button) You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 19, 2002 11:03:45 PM new
>Borillar, I think the Dali Lama says that the first one to get angry in a discussion has lost the fight. Simple but true.
That's true, but not original from the Dali Lama. It is true in all formal debates.
Funny, but people here talk about deabting the issues, but how many of them have an inkling what real debate rules and procedures are? Must be like the word theory with Creationists.
posted on October 19, 2002 11:18:51 PM new
Nite, all. I'm off to count sheep with the Dolly Llama. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 21, 2002 12:04:49 AM new
Well, now I'm confused. I thought some of us who agreed agreed that the reason God derived theories weren't to be pushed into scientific evaluations was because God, being by its nature never able to be disproven by scientific methods, couldn't fit into the categories that go by the rules of scientific theory.
I agree up to that point. But once you win this battle, you can't turn around and try to disprove God with science. Remember, we already said that couldn't be done, that was what we used for our first argument. So, quote Carl Sagan, he has a lot to say about science, but you can't hold God to science's standards, any more than you can hold science to God's.
Antiquary, you quote this:
"Don't get emotionally attached to your own hypothesis (faith?). Doing so blinds you to better ideas."
I haven't read this book. Did Sagan really put "faith" in parentheses there? If he did, and he meant to make (scientific) hypotheses interchangable with (religious) faith, he's completely wrong, in the same way that Creationists who say that "evolution is 'just a theory,' and creationism is a theory, so let's teach them both in science classes" are wrong.
And further, I disagree that Fundamentalism should be fought. There are plenty of people who believe in a Fundamentalist view of various religions. Who can say they're wrong? We can say that scientific evidence dates the earth at 7,000 + X years. So what? All that says is what scientific evidence shows. The concept of God is that it doesn't have to conform to scientific rules. God makes and breaks (made and can break) science.
What maybe should be fought (and I'm not even sure if I'd go this far) are what are seen as the detrimental effects on society from Fundamentalists' pressure.
What I'm meaning to say is, rationalism and critical thinking are excellent and to be rigorously applied, in the applicable fields. But God isn't one of those fields. You can no more lessen religious truth for failing a scientific test than you can lessen scientific truth for failing a religious test.
posted on October 21, 2002 09:02:02 AM new
Hi donny! I'm not sure if I can agree with that. Awhile back, Antiquary said that he's leaving the 'God' door open because, while at this point we can't scrutinize God scientifically, we might be able to in the future. Right now, we think of God as a supreme human figure that performs miracles, etc. With what I know of science, this doesn't fit in with the grand scheme of how things work, but might be explainable down the road. In the meantime, God should be scrutinized, along with His miracles and His supernatural tricks. Not to disprove His existance but to see how it all ties in with what can be explained. To put God on a pedestal, saying His world should be separate with no explanation or proof keeps people ignorant and feeds these fat fundamentalists.
P.S. Borillar, you are right about the math thing. I've actually done just what you prescribed before when I felt I forgot the basics.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Oct 21, 2002 09:05 AM ]
posted on October 21, 2002 09:42:45 AM new
Well, if you're going to "scrutinize his supernatural tricks," you're already working from the conclusion that these are "tricks."
Antiquary may say he's leaving the God door open, but if you try to force God to fit into a scientific proof, or use Sagan's thoughts on how to approach scientific hypotheses to apply to how to approach God, you're not leaving the door to God open at all.
Who says we think of God as a supreme human figure who performs miracles? How about if we think of God as the ultimate unknowable? Not just unknown now, but never able to be known - You can't look into the face of God.
"at this point we can't scrutinize God scientifically, we might be able to in the future."
No, you'll never be able to in the future. The only ultimate resolution between God and science would have to go the other way, with science being brought into compliance with God law; God can never be brought into compliance with science law.
Personally, I don't think that resolution will ever come, because I don't believe in God. But I understand the concept.
posted on October 21, 2002 10:07:27 AM new
But you're concluding that God is separate and should be regarded that way, which might not be true. Supposedly, God made us in His image. Why would He create people that were limited in the pursuit of knowledge? A God with limits doesn't make sense. Doesn't He already know people will go to great lengths to find out the unknown, the unexplainable? It's the understanding of these things, which seem like miracles and tricks to us today, that science might help us to understand in the future. God might be a science in itself donny.
posted on October 21, 2002 10:15:35 AM new
Yes, God might be a science. But God doesn't have to be a science. Science always has to be a science. God always supercedes science, God is always more than science. Science can never be more than God. Science is limited. God never is.
To ask why would God do this, or do it this way or that way, it doesn't conform to our expectations, is to ignore what God is. To believe in God is to understand that it's not necessary for God to conform to us.
posted on October 21, 2002 10:28:34 AM new
I understand what you're saying but again you're concluding that science (or whatever subject) is not as limitless as God. We don't know that. Our universe might just be a pimple on a bigger reality and our thinking /lives, etc., a joke compared to the infinate like you're suggesting. We don't know that yet. So, to me, the concept of God might become explainable with the more knowledge we gain about how we got here, which happens to be called science right now.
posted on October 21, 2002 10:50:26 AM new
Well, no
"the concept of God might become explainable with the more knowledge we gain about how we got here, which happens to be called science right now."
See, you can't use that argument if you subscribe to the earlier position that Scientific study can't be constricted by the rules of religion because God can never be disproven (or proven) by the Scientific Method. If you believe that the study of science has to be done under the rules of science to be scientifically valid, without the constraints that would be imposed by forcing science to contort itself to "religious truths" (and I believe this), you also have to realize that it goes the other way as well - Religion doesn't have to conform to the constraints of science.
And that is like the loas.
