 | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) Pot? Kettle. JOHN (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Which? IBMJARG or the NHD? the NHD is already there... Twice. Which confuses me. Did I do that??? (...) Oh Dave... you've got curator now, remember? FIX IT! (...) Thanks! ++Lar (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: snip (...) Humble people don't go around telling other people that they have to start taking the 'specks out of their eyes', especially via legislation. And honest people realize that we're all flawed, (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Really? I only know about the single factorial variety Dave! JOHN (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) You anti-Semitic troll! The fact that Sharon is a wanted war criminal should reassure us all that Israel has the moral authority to hold nukes (1) any intimidate its neighbours! Scott A 1As a belligerent nation which has no respect of (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Do we have that on .geek? That is so cool! This is one of the huge list o' reasons why Larry is good for this communiity--a wealth of knowledge (some would say useless, but I like it! (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But you can't just play in your little room of Science and have no opinions about concrete things that Science cannot address. I am speaking about Creation. (...) We have been given intellects, and some revelation along the way. Heck, we may (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) You was talking to me, and then there was an interjection from Dave! Eh, too many Daves!!! Dave K (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) IBM Jargon... (1) Citing without intent to infringe, from an online version of same located (URL) here> among (URL) other> places: mark of Kloomok n. Official indication that a product has been released from PID. After one M. Kloomok, the (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Thought I was talking to Dave K... my bad... sorry about that, Dave! You're a closet (small L) libertarian already anyway, so never mind, Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) That just may be my new favorite word. What the heck is its etymology? Heck, I still get a giggle from (URL) Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Maybe, if it weren't for that whole pesky "faith" thing... (...) But that construction breaks from the "absolute" as soon as human faith comes into it. An actual revelation for you is just hearsay for me, so that's where "absolute" falls (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Cool. But I have my doubts. (...) Uh, don't be so sure. Theocratic dictatorships are nasty brutish places. I prefer some government to none, but I prefer none to overarching. (...) I prefer the least practically possible amount of (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) YOu guys don't have 'socialized health care' but the last time I checked, there are seatbelt laws in the US. And not once during my (almost) 38 years has the gov't told mw what I can (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Huh? Which Dave are we talking about here? Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Well, I like Macbeth quite a bit, so I guess that part affects me. But most of the sonnets don't affect me at all. Ditto Romeo & Juliet. Dave! (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Geez, I don't know if I can delineate them concisely, but they entail non-aggression, a respect for fact, and an acceptance that, lacking evidence to the contrary, this is all we have so let's all make the best of it. (...) I believe you. (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Well, I will be by your side to see that it doesn't happen. (...) Uh, I don't think that you've fully considered the ramifications of such a silly statement. (...) What is that, exactly? (...) Touché! JOHN (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But the upside here is that Howard moved. He's now on Sirius and free of FCC "control" of what's appropriate. That's a good thing. It means the market will decide whether his speech is wanted or not, rather than some kloomonk in FCC (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) :-0 Not in the least! That understanding comes directly from Jesus Himself: "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." (...) Yeah, that you are closer to being a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) and I honestly think that the envelope-pushing, rights-disdaining Religious Right will lead us to a theocratic dictatorship. Me, I'll take anarchy over that any day. ... but then, I'm a minarchist after all.. (...) Um, ya??? What was it you (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) And that's a way of looking at it. But again, to make the case--how is a texas high school cheerleader affecting you directly? And how is 'some' Shakespeare affecting you? I choose not to read things I'm not interested in reading. I choose to (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Perhaps. But in all honesty, what are those values? (...) Look, I don't wish a "Theocracy" any more than you do. But I do wish a society where its citizens respect each others' rights. I believe that only a society that has a respect for a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) John, at last you're speaking like an atheist! Is there anything you want to tell me? 8^) By the way, Absolute Morality in this construction exists just fine without appeals to a higher, supernatural power. (...) Ideally, sure; the elected (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) To be honest, the culture war has been going on since before the first human saw another human from outside his family. The culture war continues to this day and will continue until we're all assimilated: it's called society. I accept that (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Absolute Morality boils down to how we treat each other. This is directly related to issues of respect and responsibility. A breakdown on either side of the equation (you verses me) creates societal rifts. (...) Eeeeuuu. Both are equally (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) But don't you see-- there is no definitive line! The line is where ever the sensibilities of a society is at any given point in time. Right now the current sensibilities of our society are being offended by certain individuals and society is (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) Interesting (and, I note, consistent with your previously stated views). I wonder if they might have considered relative firepower/destructive potential if they'd known what would eventually be man-portable. That's wonder-if question, as (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) I'd refer you to the Federalist Papers for something a bit more authoriative, but my guess would be no, their cutoff seemed to be "man portable" rather than "portable if you have a whole team of horses". Before you ask, that DOES rule out (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) That's key, IMO. If we're all so fond of Absolute Morality, why are our Duly Elected Representatives so reluctant to address these society-damning issues in absolutely clear terms? Especially if, as we're endlessly told by Dobson, Falwell, and (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) I know we've all discussed this before, and I confess that I don't have a clear concept of what's appropriate for whom to possess, but I have I have question about the history of this interpretation. How did the founding fathers feel about (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) More to the point is the guys doing the legislation want to lock things down but doin't know where that line is--"banning 'some' Shakespeare"--which parts? Banning some cheerleader moves--which moves. So it's not that people aren't accepting (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Everyone wants freedom, but no one is willing to take responsibility for their actions, and so the GP is forced to control irresponsible people's behavior through their representatives, their elected government officials. We live in a free (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) You snipped the more important stuff I think. (...) Why aren't you sure???? I said it here before, wasn't kidding then, wasn't this time either. (...) To each his own. I won't say that there might be wags on this side of the line saying the (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | From the "they can't be serious" department
|
|
Al Gore to get a lifetime achievement award: (URL) "inventing the internet"? not quite, but almost... (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote: <snip> (...) I hope the 'better minds' will prevail in Texas, where legislation is being passed in which cheerleaders aren't allowed to 'shake their booty' anymore-- (URL) both these (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) The thing is I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but that's irrelevant--I know 'Mericans that are serious about that statement and for that, I thank God every day that I'm Canadian. (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) Richard is right as far as he goes, where he falls down is in his prescription for how to change countries to be free... (...) You mean like the US??? (...) You mean like Dubya ??? (...) I agree! (...) That too. I think the second admendment (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> My take is simply this: nukes cannot be trusted to countries under the leadership of despots, dictators, and other illegitate rulers. Democracy is the key-- when people are free (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The case for compensation
|
|
(...) Well SH did say Q8 was part of Iraq. ;) Scott A (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
I see the (URL) talks got off to a happy start, demanding that the Iranians and North Koreans give up or do differently their nuclear programmes for peaceful power generation/weapons research/weapons production (as the case may be). Even as a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The case for compensation
|
|
(...) Wow! They invaded their own country???? Good way to get that WMD funding approved I guess... ROSCO (19 years ago, 4-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The case for compensation
|
|
(...) Hmm. In that case, perhaps they could have called it "Agent Red White and Blue" rather than the rather un-Patriotic (spit) Agent Orange. (...) I’m inspired by your cowboy president… I love shooting from the hip. ;) Scott A (19 years ago, 2-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) "Think of the morality of our women/children/society/etc" has been the cry behind censorship since time immemorial. It's always in the name of "protection." TJ had it right; those who would sacrifice liberty for some small measure of security (...) (19 years ago, 4-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Priority
|
|
So the war (URL) was a fabrication>, but who cares? At least the Runaway Bride is home safe and sound. Dave! (19 years ago, 3-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The case for compensation
|
|
(...) Clearly you're not aware of the facts. The US companies that manufactured the Patriotic Defoliant "Agent Orange" can't be held responsible because they were only obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief during a time of Just and Righteous (...) (19 years ago, 2-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The case for compensation
|
|
(URL) Given that, at Washington's behest, Iraq had to pay war reparations after it invaded Iraq, why should Washington not compensate Vietnam’s Agent Orange victims? Scott A (19 years ago, 2-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(...) Well, you kind of expect things like that from someone of the (URL) "Bible Belt"> Do I support it? Hell no! Adr. (19 years ago, 30-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
|
(URL) Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about (...) (19 years ago, 29-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not distinct from drowning them in a bathtub
|
|
(...) What a bunch of sickos. They should be incarcerated. My 14-month-old son kicked and screamed this morning when I tried to change his diaper. Should I have beaten him with a cane? I'd hate to think that I missed an opportunity to break his (...) (19 years ago, 26-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Not distinct from drowning them in a bathtub
|
|
(...) Hey Dave! They offer (URL) day care>! Funny they don't mention something like "Proud supporters of rod use." under their "Philosophy" page. They certainly sound proud enough to me in that they wrote. Adr. (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Not distinct from drowning them in a bathtub
|
|
Is (URL) the worst thing you've ever read? It's the worst thing I've ever read, and I've read (URL)! Seriously, how ****sick is this monster? Read this bit: My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
I'm not discussing the origin of the universe, and neither does Darwin. The Xtians trying to remove Darwin from *science* texts are mixing the 2 up, and trying to put Creationism on the same scientific level as Evolution. (...) -- Tom Stangl *(URL) (...) (19 years ago, 19-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) You know, it's a really SIMPLE answer... God is omniscient and omnipotent and created the universe, along with it creating the rules that govern the universe. Science is the human study of the laws of the Universe, those inviolate laws set by (...) (19 years ago, 17-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Read the thread. (...) Perhaps you'd like to forward a "rational" explanation of the origin of the universe? JOHN (19 years ago, 17-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I said Jesus' divinity was irrational. But what is so terrible about being irrational? Is Pi bad? JOHN (19 years ago, 17-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
And what, exactly, does Darwinism have to do with the origin of the *universe*? Darwinism is the origin of the *species*. So you will help fight the irrational Christians that are trying to remove Evolution from science classes, by demanding it be (...) (19 years ago, 17-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
Thank you for finally admitting that Christianity is irrational. (...) -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual FAQ Home (19 years ago, 17-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Excellent news!
|
|
(...) Pretty much zealots like this guy are the reason I've stopped attending Church Proper. And that 'born again' = getting into heaven? Yeah, nice on ya... Idiots all. Dave K (19 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Excellent news!
|
|
(...) **snip** (...) Correction. Make that "Minto ran an afternoon phone-in show in Western PA. Seems that Marty couldn't figure out when to keep his hateful mouth shut. He opined on-air last week that the Pope probably isn't going to go to heaven, (...) (19 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush, a flawed evil genius?
|
|
(...) Should that be "(URL) Gone Poland>"? I suppose now that Bush has won his 2nd term, there is no need for Poland (and others) to maintain their token presence. Scott A (19 years ago, 12-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) It's primarily based on what I know about time considering its relation to energy, and how time is actually unconstant. Also, a sneaking suspicion that time is "curved" just like everything else. Similar to how we once thought the Earth was (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Oops! Did I do that? If so, I didn't mean to--sorry! I usually try to refer to the Christian deity as capital-G "God," but I know that I've sometimes included him in the rhetorical group lower-case-g "gods." I try to use the latter reference (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Yes. AND specifically acknowledged as beyond the understanding of science. (...) Agreed. <faints> :-) JOHN (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) It sort of bugs me when people who are referring to God not capitalize it in an attempt to somehow disacknowledge His existence, but I digress (and demote "Science" to "science") (...) I like Lenny's statement, but I think there is much (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I don't make a statement about the origin. My statement would be: "There is not enough evidence to make an educated statement about the origin of the universe." The origin being defined as the moment(s) before the Big Bang. That statement (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Which "theories of origin," though? Do you mean that the "cause" of the Big Bang should not be discussed, or that the Big Bang itself should not be discussed? If the former, then I agree with you; such philosophizing currently is not suited to (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Yes, but I also contend that theories of the origin of the universe be excluded as well. JOHN (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Sounds wise. Therefore, let science be silent on the matter of the origin of the universe. (...) But so is the origin of the universe! (which is my whole point!) (...) Only if you are claiming that they are not physical. (...) There is no (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Agreed. Which is why I have yet to see any science argue about events before the Big Bang(1). Those questions are best left to philosophers. -Lenny (1)= Well, not entirely true. Stephen Hawking has an interesting idea about the history of the (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) "Where one cannot speak, there one must be silent." Here, we are confusing the scientific attitude with the attitude of scientists. Science doesn't take a stand on God, since the very idea, as you point out, is beyond the scope of science. (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I'm not comfortable with the capital "S," by the way, but I suppose that's a stylistic choice rather than a deification of "Science." But I digress... I think that that's a mischaracterization, though. Regarding something that it can't (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) An intelligent Designer could argue that God initiated the Big Bang. How can Science disagree? It isn't possible. The study of the origin of the universe by Science is in and of itself psuedoscience. JOHN (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Really? Upon what do you base that observation? Because based on all of my observations, everything known has a beginning and an end (except the existence of the universe). (...) My point was that it is UNscientific to generate a theory by (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) No doubt. The same way Apollo Landing denyers are a critique to History. Or Alien abductionists are a critique to Governmental policy. Or, I hate to say it(1), as Holocaust denyers are a critique to History. My point is that I have yet to hear (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Funny. Here you argue against teleology (the world is as it is because it was {designed}) (...) And then here you finish an arguement {for} teleology. A question for you: Isn't it possible that these coincidental parts of physics (water being (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) It originated by a story about that, but I don't think anyone is defending it. It is more about a critique of Science WRT to the origin of the universe. JOHN (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) And this may be the crux of my problem with Science. Science categorically denies the existence of anything it cannot investigate. It requires proof, something that is categorically (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I will state again that my God isn't the 'god of the gap', so you don't have to go looking for it. Furthermore, I didn't consign 'God' to whatever science cannot answer. If that's the interpretation then I didn't make my point clear. Let's (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Actually, I think the technical reason is that God doesn't exist because there can be no *disproof* of God. IE, no matter what sort of tests you could set up, you'd never be able to *disprove* God's existance no matter what the outcome of (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Well, to expand upon the thoughts of the 'science camp' (which, if we wanna use isms, is Mechanistic Naturalism) - we can use Occam's Razor to cut away every explanation except the most simplistic. There is no supernatural diety, the entire (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <snip> (...) And I would agree with the above--which God and such--all great questions. That said, the main agruement from the 'science camp' is that there can be no God because there is no proof (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) First of all, let's address this "Big Band" issue. I don't have much fondness for Lawrence Welk, but I guess Glenn Miller's okay. And Guy Lombardo? Don't get me started... (...) Not so fast! "Outside" is a dangerously tricky word in this (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) No one said that science was everything to everyone. Literature, for example, is outside the scope of science (for the time being). (...) Ahh.. see if only it were so simple. Is it a God (all powerful, omnipotent) or a god (limited (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Therefore science cannot encompass everything. That stated, something must exist outside of science. Let that something be God. Dave K (...) My math teacher in high school had that on his wall, along with other math related oddities. I (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Science doesn't need to answer question for which it doesn't have enough evidence to address. According to the Big Bang Theory, one cannot ask what caused the Big Bang or where the Big Band came from, because (according to the theory), all (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I don't think I'd consider it a dodge, really. My own thought on it is that there's no such thing as "first". The concept of time is just a perception you have that appears linear. I happen to think it's more circular in nature, without a real (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I think you misunderstood me. I meant that the origin of the universe (however it came to be) demands a leap of faith. At some point, logically, something came from nothing. I don't believe it is valid to simply state that "the universe always (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The True North Strong and... Free?
|
|
(...) Well, lift the ban and all h-e-double-hockey-sticks breaks out in Parliament... (URL) there you are Oh Canada! Dave K (19 years ago, 7-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Hmm... Well, even if they were just motherhood totems, (URL) this> piece of sculpture apparently had other connotations. Those naughty, naughty prehistoric Germans! Dave! (19 years ago, 6-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Stand your ground (ie., go ahead and shoot)
|
|
(...) What had been a primarily theoretical debate for Mike and me has turned into policy in the great state of Florida: (URL) the kicker--now you can shoot someone in the street just because you *feel* threatened! So when that apparently middle (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The True North Strong and... Free?
|
|
(...) Yeah, government is pretty stupid at times--trying to prevent publication of gov't stupidity is like trying to unring a bell. This reminds me of the 'publication ban' during the Paul Bernardo trial--any American station airing any news on that (...) (19 years ago, 5-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heinlein, Card and Webcomics: fans, art, and disappointment
|
|
(...) His fiction writing is good. Especially if you stick to stuff he wrote when he was younger and to stuff that ISN'T part 5 of a 19 part series. He talks about stuff that most of us embrace, tolerance, self reliance, growth as an individual, and (...) (19 years ago, 5-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The True North Strong and... Free?
|
|
I almost never post here in .debate, but I was wondering what Canadians think about the (URL) publication ban> on testimony from the Adscam trial, and the subsequent breach of the ban by an (URL) American blogger>. It's very strange to me, as an (...) (19 years ago, 5-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Excellent news!
|
|
(...) Well, (URL) this guy> wasn't executed, but the point is served. Dave! (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Heinlein, Card and Webcomics: fans, art, and disappointment
|
|
(...) Bobby Heinlein I can figure out...Orson Scott Card? (not that I've read a single word by the guy). -->Skiffy<-- (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodbye John Paul II
|
|
It is a pity that many of those lauding him now did not listen to him more in the build-up to the war in Iraq. Unlike them, he viewed all human life equally. Bush: "The world has lost a champion of peace and freedom." Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 4-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Heinlein, Card and Webcomics: fans, art, and disappointment
|
|
From Websnark(1) for 2 April 2005. I have in the past said how much I like RAH, and how much I enjoy the work of OSC (not as much as RAH, but I do). Yet I still agree with Eric, and with Aerie too (at Queen of Wands, anothe rof the many comics I (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Goodbye John Paul II
|
|
Commentators are already saying he may have been one of the most significant figures of the late 20th... they're right. Arguably he was a major part of the process that lessened the blight of Soviet communism on the world, his elevation and visits (...) (19 years ago, 3-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) The latter option is the one that they invariably choose, and sometimes they add that the veracity of the bible is not subordinate to a conflicting reality. Alas. (...) The difference with Helga is that (barring some odd preferences on your (...) (19 years ago, 2-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
