|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 27, 2014 18:30:37 GMT -5
If you are going to keep your word this time, I would recommend going to my profile, click on the little gear icon on the top right hand corner and click "Block member". NO MORE DIALOGUE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 18:31:19 GMT -5
If you are going to keep your word this time, I would recommend going to my profile, click on the little gear icon on the top right hand corner and click "Block member". no more dialogue
There you go. You broke your promise already!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 27, 2014 18:33:59 GMT -5
There you go. You broke your promise already! NO MORE DIALOGUE
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 27, 2014 18:36:14 GMT -5
before you start: earth - the planet on which we live; the world.element - one of the basic substances that are made of atoms of only one kind and that cannot be separated by ordinary chemical means into simpler substances.hurt - to damage or decrease the efficiency of (a material object) by striking, rough use, improper care, etc.I didn't make any claim regarding the elements. If you can demonstrate that elements are being hurt - have at it. I said that humans might be changing the earth but they are not hurting it. Animals are not part of the earth any more than a person riding in a car is part of the car. The discussion, before you entered, actually started out with "universe". The statement that I posted, to which you responded, stated earth.hey are certainly part of the universe but not the earth, as defined.Regarding the definition, yes.I didn't make up a definition, I simply posted the one that I was using when I made the statement. I wanted to avoid your redefining and misquoting as much as possible. As with the example I posted regarding the car - there is the car and then there may be people or items in the car which are not considered part of the car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 18:46:55 GMT -5
The discussion, before you entered, actually started out with "universe". The statement that I posted, to which you responded, stated earth.hey are certainly part of the universe but not the earth, as defined.Regarding the definition, yes.I didn't make up a definition, I simply posted the one that I was using when I made the statement. I wanted to avoid your redefining and misquoting as much as possible. As with the example I posted regarding the car - there is the car and then there may be people or items in the car which are not considered part of the car. Yes, the discussion started with the universe of which the earth is part of, but you may not be interested in context. A synonym for the earth is the "world" and "planet" which includes inhabitants. If you want to limit your comments to soil and rocks, go for it! I am sure you will find lots of people interested in discussing soil and rocks with you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 27, 2014 18:59:14 GMT -5
GUESS WHAT?
I just wiki-ed, "Bible Believers" & look what I found!
An actual church named,........... you guessed it! "Bible Believers"
From Wikipedia,
"Bible Believers is the website of the Bible Believers' Church of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Because the website reprints antisemitic material such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford’s The International Jew,[1][2] and Holocaust denial material from authors such as Bradley Smith and Mark Weber, a complaint was lodged under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.[2][3][4][5] In 2007, Justice Richard Conti of the Federal Court of Australia ordered Anthony Grigor-Scott to remove from the website antisemitic claims that Jews deliberately exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II.[3][6]
Bible Believers were described as "[o]ne of the most visible of the plethora of eccentric pseudo-Christian groups in Australia" and "extremist" by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) in their 2008 report on antisemitism in Australia.[7] "
The thousands of Protestent churches must be running out of names.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 27, 2014 19:22:38 GMT -5
Yes, the discussion started with the universe of which the earth is part of, but you may not be interested in context. A synonym for the earth is the "world" and "planet" which includes inhabitants. If you want to limit your comments to soil and rocks, go for it! I am sure you will find lots of people interested in discussing soil and rocks with you. The post I responded to: Most environmentalists will state that human beings are "hurting" the earth. Are they are being a bit emotional about it? did not mention universe but only was concerned with the earth. I have no doubt that world and planet are synonyms for earth but the word you used was earth, not planet or world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 19:33:06 GMT -5
Yes, the discussion started with the universe of which the earth is part of, but you may not be interested in context. A synonym for the earth is the "world" and "planet" which includes inhabitants. If you want to limit your comments to soil and rocks, go for it! I am sure you will find lots of people interested in discussing soil and rocks with you. The post I responded to: Most environmentalists will state that human beings are "hurting" the earth. Are they are being a bit emotional about it? did not mention universe but only was concerned with the earth. I have no doubt that world and planet are synonyms for earth but the word you used was earth, not planet or world. Context my friend. The discussion started with the quote that unless a person was pursuing understanding about the universe, life was a farce. If you would like me to change my wording to "planet" or "world" to be more understandable or correct in your view, I would be happy to do that. Or, if you actually want to talk about rocks and soil, go for it. Either way, I've lost interest in the discussion, whatever it was about. One good thing you could do though. You could inform the Earth Day organizers that they are improperly using the term Earth and should change it to Planet Day. I am sure they will be forever grateful for your help.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 27, 2014 23:32:43 GMT -5
Jesus' love for sinners must be reconciled with his understanding that big sinners require little sinners to sin largely. What?? Ok I will give this a shot at translation. Does this mean that 'little sinners' who I presume you are referring to yourself here, can only sin against 'big sinner's which I am presuming are atheists? That makes no sense. Sin is the default condition of mankind for as long as it is, and I believe it still is. If it were not so things would be better than they are and perhaps we would be sharing in a universal fellowship and heritage of many inhabited planets. I don't know but I'm inclined to believe our existence will be real on that level some day. In the mean time, the body politic will continue be infected and reflected by its leaders and minions. Perhaps if I substituted "politically-compromised state" for 'sinner' in my previous post my thought would be clearer. The capacity for tyrannical and gratuitous authority to prevail is inversely related to our ability and desire to resist it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2014 7:00:07 GMT -5
I responded to a single quote you made. It concerned only the earth. You can post another dozen or so posts stating whatever you wish but I was responding to your post regarding only the earth.I read that part of the discussion and chose not to engage in it since matisse was doing an admirable job.Thanks, but no. I responded using the common sense of the word and clarified which definition I was using for my response.I am sure you have. That is why I do not join in with the "Save the Earth" people. But I do applaud their decision to attempt to save the human friendly environment that the earth supports and think it is a worthy cause. But no matter what they do or do not do, it will not hurt the earth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 7:51:16 GMT -5
I responded to a single quote you made. It concerned only the earth. You can post another dozen or so posts stating whatever you wish but I was responding to your post regarding only the earth.I read that part of the discussion and chose not to engage in it since matisse was doing an admirable job.Thanks, but no. I responded using the common sense of the word and clarified which definition I was using for my response.I am sure you have. That is why I do not join in with the "Save the Earth" people. But I do applaud their decision to attempt to save the human friendly environment that the earth supports and think it is a worthy cause. But no matter what they do or do not do, it will not hurt the earth! Yep, I'm well aware that context matters only when it supports your position so I won't repeat it as you request. Nothing new there anyway. Similarly, definition matters only when you get to be the one picking the definition that is not the intended valid definition by the other writer. Any diversion from a couple of spectacular argument fails is a good diversion except when it results in another fail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 8:12:58 GMT -5
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
(First time a teacher quoted this I didn't understand the "adult" concepts)
Some atheists quote variations on this. They feel backed by science.
But if they understood science they might be a little more humble.
In the physical universe it is possible that what we see might not exist if we are not here to see it. This is a strange aspect of quantum physics, but not agreed upon by everyone.
What it means, we don't know. What it does show us (if it's true) is that life, reality and meaning are profoundly stranger than we can possibly know.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2014 10:02:22 GMT -5
This makes me wish I had paid more attention in physics class, perhaps in all on my science classes! I like the idea of things springing into existence because I look at them. I like even more the idea of things springing into existence because I imagined them! This all seems a little like someone pulling Erwin's leg! The existence of the cat was never in question. The question is whether the cat, on observation, is a functional cat or not. We can, and should, all hope for the latter! A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." (First time a teacher quoted this I didn't understand the "adult" concepts) Some atheists quote variations on this. They feel backed by science. But if they understood science they might be a little more humble. In the physical universe it is possible that what we see might not exist if we are not here to see it. This is a strange aspect of quantum physics, but not agreed upon by everyone. What it means, we don't know. What it does show us (if it's true) is that life, reality and meaning are profoundly stranger than we can possibly know.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 28, 2014 14:57:03 GMT -5
This makes me wish I had paid more attention in physics class, perhaps in all on my science classes! Sean Carroll talks about god as a theory Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics - California Institute of Technology youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKIpreposterousuniverse.com
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 28, 2014 16:47:15 GMT -5
Context my friend. The discussion started with the quote that unless a person was pursuing understanding about the universe, life was a farce.The red font is my edit. Clearday, you have found a new way to misrepresent Weinberg's words. Here is the quote again: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 28, 2014 17:23:26 GMT -5
Context my friend. The discussion started with the quote that unless a person was pursuing understanding about the universe, life was a farce.The red font is my edit. Clearday, you have found a new way to misrepresent Weinberg's words. Here is the quote again: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993) Thanks, matisse.
I also noticed how CD manipulated what Weinberg said to totally misrepresent what he actually said.
CD does this all the time.
He will leaves out part of the quote etc. to make it something totally different than what the person actually meant.
He Does it all the time.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 28, 2014 17:29:18 GMT -5
I responded to a single quote you made. It concerned only the earth. You can post another dozen or so posts stating whatever you wish but I was responding to your post regarding only the earth.I read that part of the discussion and chose not to engage in it since matisse was doing an admirable job.Thanks, but no. I responded using the common sense of the word and clarified which definition I was using for my response.I am sure you have. That is why I do not join in with the "Save the Earth" people. But I do applaud their decision to attempt to save the human friendly environment that the earth supports and think it is a worthy cause. But no matter what they do or do not do, it will not hurt the earth! Yep, I'm well aware that context matters only when it supports your position so I won't repeat it as you request. Nothing new there anyway. Similarly, definition matters only when you get to be the one picking the definition that is not the intended valid definition by the other writer. Any diversion from a couple of spectacular argument fails is a good diversion except when it results in another fail. While rational is not perfect (I cannot believe I just wrote that), in this case I do not see the supposed "argument fails" that you refer to, Clearday. There are numerous ways to define "earth." Here is part of a set of definitions put forward by Dictionary.com: With reference to the first definition of earth, and to speak to an earlier point, there is no evidence that I am aware of, that the planet gives a rip whether or not life exists on it. With respect to Earth Day celebrants, I believe you will find that they use a variation on the second and third definitions, with an emphasis on the Earth as a place of habitation for an interconnected web of life that includes Human Beings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:01:47 GMT -5
Yep, I'm well aware that context matters only when it supports your position so I won't repeat it as you request. Nothing new there anyway. Similarly, definition matters only when you get to be the one picking the definition that is not the intended valid definition by the other writer. Any diversion from a couple of spectacular argument fails is a good diversion except when it results in another fail. While rational is not perfect (I cannot believe I just wrote that), in this case I do not see the supposed "argument fails" that you refer to, Clearday. There are numerous ways to define "earth." Here is part of a set of definitions put forward by Dictionary.com: With reference to the first definition of earth, and to speak to an earlier point, there is no evidence that I am aware of, that the planet gives a rip whether or not life exists on it. With respect to Earth Day celebrants, I believe you will find that they use a variation on the second and third definitions, with an emphasis on the Earth as a place of habitation for an interconnected web of life that includes Human Beings. You are right, there are numerous ways to define "earth". Reasonable dialogue looks like this: if a participant is not sure what the person means about a word, you ask them and then discuss the issue with the meaning intended by the writer. Bad dialogue is to apply your own meaning to someone's else's writing and incessantly try to prove that they used the word wrongly. I'm interested in reasonable dialogue, not bad dialogue that has nothing to do with the subject matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:03:33 GMT -5
The red font is my edit. Clearday, you have found a new way to misrepresent Weinberg's words. Here is the quote again: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993) Thanks, matisse.
I also noticed how CD manipulated what Weinberg said to totally misrepresent what he actually said.
CD does this all the time.
He will leaves out part of the quote etc. to make it something totally different than what the person actually meant.
He Does it all the time.I am still waiting for your retraction (and apology) of your false accusation of lying about using the word "Christian" as a synonym for "bible believers".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:09:47 GMT -5
Context my friend. The discussion started with the quote that unless a person was pursuing understanding about the universe, life was a farce.The red font is my edit. Clearday, you have found a new way to misrepresent Weinberg's words. Here is the quote again: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993) Believe me, I have read the quote many times. It is not true that I am "misrepresenting" Weinberg's words. I am simply representing my understanding of his words, and that understanding has not changed yet. I am understanding that he is meaning that only scientists attempting to understand the universe live lives which are not a farce. I am also understanding that he is implying that the lives of all (or most?) theists are farcical. Sorry, no misrepresentation intended. At worst, it's a misunderstanding but if you read more of his quotes, it's not difficult to detect his contempt for theism and theists and there is no doubt in my mind that he thinks any involvement with theism is farcical. I will shortly post some of his quotes with my responses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:22:22 GMT -5
These quotes give us an insight into the mind and character of Mr.Weinberg.
Ignorance of religion is not a good qualification for making statements about it. Without religion, evil would never have been defined, nor would there have been anything to point mankind to good. Life would have remained survival of the fittest.
Yes, only esteemed scientists like yourself seem capable of declaring their lives non-farcical, even with a farcical statement like that.
This is clearly a wonderful goal and accomplishment for science and scientists who would not exist today if society had not developed religion as a basis for an orderly, productive society.
Better to have a pointless life than a farcical one Mr. Weinberg?
Since when were tolerance, compassion or reason the sole domain of "merely secular virtues."? Your ignorance of religion is stunning as these virtues underpin great religions like Christianity and Buddhism.
At least you can admit to the vastly limited knowledge of science even if you don't understand much about religion.
That's pretty obvious in many of your statements that you see no signs of any life greater than your own.
Yes, it's all about you. Religion teaches that there are greater purposes in life, including the service to one's fellow human beings.
And of course, we know that the primary mover to abolish slavery was one William Wilberforce, one of those evil religious people.....
The problem with your campaign against religion is that you demonstrate little knowlege or understanding of it. You would be most helpful to society to join your likeminded colleagues and stick with physics where you have some knowledge and insight.
The smarminess of Mr.Weinberg's atheist evangelicalism and superiority is one of his most prominent features. I'm not offended by it though, it's not worth the angst.
It looks to me that you have fallen into a common trap and created a God (that you don't believe in)....... in your own image.
Maybe you could start by loving those who believe in God. Your disrespectful words for those who believe in a greater power are as hypocritical as any fake God believer.
Abraham ended the practice of superstitious human sacrifices. You should rejoice in it as it may have saved your life.
Well demonstrated Mr. Weinberg.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 28, 2014 18:34:38 GMT -5
How about we pause for a moment and quote Weinberg, instead of continuing with your misrepresentation of his words: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993)Weinburg is stating that unless you are trying to "understand the universe" (whatever that means), your life is a farce. And if you are trying to understand the universe, your life is barely above being a farce. That sounds like a farcical statement in itself and certainly a cynical one. [Note: You are misconstruing Weinburg's words....as I pointed out in another post that you wrote after this one] Weinburg's words strike me as being down-to-earth, and reasonable. But then, I basically agree with him. I am not psychologically dependent on the idea that there is some "ultimate meaning and purpose" to life beyond this one. I can see how if you are invested in such a belief that Weinberg's words might strike you as being "cynical."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2014 18:40:18 GMT -5
You are right, there are numerous ways to define "earth". Reasonable dialogue looks like this: if a participant is not sure what the person means about a word, you ask them and then discuss the issue with the meaning intended by the writer. I had no reason to question the definition of earth. From the context of your post and the fact that I chose the first common definition there was no need to ask. If you wished to show that you wanted to use an uncommon definition the usual means to convey this to the reader is to quote the word and supply the definition you wish to use.No, bad dialogue is to use a common word without note or explanation and then, when someone comments on the post, to spin and twist and apply a different definition after the fact. You do this frequently, a fact not missed by other posters, and the reason why I decided to define the key words in my response.Your primary interest is in twisting quotes and redefining terms to avoid having to admit that you made an error. Suddenly bible-believers magically become only christians and even then some self-identifying christians are excluded from the group that you consider christians.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 28, 2014 18:40:54 GMT -5
The red font is my edit. Clearday, you have found a new way to misrepresent Weinberg's words. Here is the quote again: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993) Believe me, I have read the quote many times. It is not true that I am "misrepresenting" Weinberg's words. I am simply representing my understanding of his words, and that understanding has not changed yet. I am understanding that he is meaning that only scientists attempting to understand the universe live lives which are not a farce. I am also understanding that he is implying that the lives of all (or most?) theists are farcical. Sorry, no misrepresentation intended. At worst, it's a misunderstanding but if you read more of his quotes, it's not difficult to detect his contempt for theism and theists and there is no doubt in my mind that he thinks any involvement with theism is farcical. I will shortly post some of his quotes with my responses. "The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things...." Weinberg leaves unspecified the other things he sees as lifting human life above the level of farce. These other things presumably are distinct from "making an effort to understand the universe." Nowhere has he stated, or even implied, "only scientists."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:42:53 GMT -5
Weinburg is stating that unless you are trying to "understand the universe" (whatever that means), your life is a farce. And if you are trying to understand the universe, your life is barely above being a farce. That sounds like a farcical statement in itself and certainly a cynical one. [Note: You are misconstruing Weinburg's words....as I pointed out in another post that you wrote after this one] Weinburg's words strike me as being down-to-earth, and reasonable. But then, I basically agree with him. I am not psychologically dependent on the idea that there is some "ultimate meaning and purpose" to life beyond this one. I can see how if you are invested in such a belief that Weinberg's words might strike you as being "cynical." So what, in your opinion, does he mean by "the effort to understand the universe"? I am understanding that he is talking about (mainly atheist) scientists who are engaging in this. If you are simply living a normal life with whatever worldview you have developed, your life is a farce. I am having difficulty seeing this any other way but I am open to a different interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:44:28 GMT -5
Believe me, I have read the quote many times. It is not true that I am "misrepresenting" Weinberg's words. I am simply representing my understanding of his words, and that understanding has not changed yet. I am understanding that he is meaning that only scientists attempting to understand the universe live lives which are not a farce. I am also understanding that he is implying that the lives of all (or most?) theists are farcical. Sorry, no misrepresentation intended. At worst, it's a misunderstanding but if you read more of his quotes, it's not difficult to detect his contempt for theism and theists and there is no doubt in my mind that he thinks any involvement with theism is farcical. I will shortly post some of his quotes with my responses. "The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things...." Weinberg leaves unspecified the other things he sees as lifting human life above the level of farce. These other things presumably are distinct from "making an effort to understand the universe." Nowhere has he stated, or even implied, "only scientists." True. There is one or more other, unspecified things that lifts your life above farce. But what?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2014 18:45:57 GMT -5
The red font is my edit. Clearday, you have found a new way to misrepresent Weinberg's words. Here is the quote again: The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.-Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1993) Believe me, I have read the quote many times. It is not true that I am "misrepresenting" Weinberg's words. I am simply representing my understanding of his words, and that understanding has not changed yet. I am understanding that he is meaning that only scientists attempting to understand the universe live lives which are not a farce. I am also understanding that he is implying that the lives of all (or most?) theists are farcical. You are understanding his words yet in the quote under consideration the word 'scientist' and 'theist' are not mentioned. Anyone can take the effort to understand the universe. Understanding the universe is simply a way to look beyond yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 18:49:27 GMT -5
You are right, there are numerous ways to define "earth". Reasonable dialogue looks like this: if a participant is not sure what the person means about a word, you ask them and then discuss the issue with the meaning intended by the writer. I had no reason to question the definition of earth. From the context of your post and the fact that I chose the first common definition there was no need to ask. If you wished to show that you wanted to use an uncommon definition the usual means to convey this to the reader is to quote the word and supply the definition you wish to use.No, bad dialogue is to use a common word without note or explanation and then, when someone comments on the post, to spin and twist and apply a different definition after the fact. You do this frequently, a fact not missed by other posters, and the reason why I decided to define the key words in my response.Your primary interest is in twisting quotes and redefining terms to avoid having to admit that you made an error. Speak for yourself about twisting quotes and redefining terms. Good dialogue does not spit out definitions that are not intended by whomever you appear to be making dialogue with. I can only see ill will behind it when I see that sort of garbage happening and it makes no sense to even attempt to go forward in a discussion. OOOkaay. Who besides Christians are bible believers? I'm really interested in your answer on this.
|
|