|
Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2008 02:16:00 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Yes, I think it does. Just from reading some of the stuff on the website it does seem to lean towards a belief in a god or a supreme being. Considering that also according to the website it is about 50% humanists that is kind of interesting. I remember from past posts that your church does a lot of community works.. ie fighting for gay rights. What other kinds of things is your church engaged in? |
Yes, but the belief in some kind of higher power/supreme being isn't a dealbreaker, either.
In answer to your next question.....I hardly know where to start.
We have one program called change for the world. Every month, for a month, a charity, preferrably on a small scale and local level, receives a collection called Change for the World. Someone nominates their local pet charity, stands up at the beginning of the month and tells who, what, & where about it, and then all the change that is collected for that month goes to the designated charity. This little program doesn't set the world on fire, but it usually brings in $200-$300 dollars for the month. This actually is pretty helpful on a local level when you consider that it usually goes to an animal shelter, the local soup kitchen, or the like.
We try to be active in local politics when we feel that we can either help or make a difference.......like passing a law/ordinance in our county, or lobbying our local representative to vote down the marriage amendment on the table in the House......it did in fact get voted down for another term.
We give both time and money to an outfit called Project SHARE, a bursary project where young women in Mozambique are the recipients of a pair of missionaries and financial support, we're sending some people & supplies to Honduras in March '09 (I'll be going) to build and develop modern facilities/housing in country, and we do little local things where we can.
All in all a good bunch of people and a good place to worship, fellowship, and help where your skills and inclinations can be utilized. |
It sounds like a pretty good place. Christian churches I find are often full of hypocrisy and seem to be more about how many people you can get in the door and collect money from which I feel leads to it being more of an entertainment venue than a fellowship for the purpose of worshiping. How are your services conducted? Do you find much politics being played among the members of your church? Is there any pressure to donate money? I hope you don't mind all the questions... |
|
|
|
08/11/2008 09:10:49 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Yes, I think it does. Just from reading some of the stuff on the website it does seem to lean towards a belief in a god or a supreme being. Considering that also according to the website it is about 50% humanists that is kind of interesting. I remember from past posts that your church does a lot of community works.. ie fighting for gay rights. What other kinds of things is your church engaged in? |
Yes, but the belief in some kind of higher power/supreme being isn't a dealbreaker, either.
In answer to your next question.....I hardly know where to start.
We have one program called change for the world. Every month, for a month, a charity, preferrably on a small scale and local level, receives a collection called Change for the World. Someone nominates their local pet charity, stands up at the beginning of the month and tells who, what, & where about it, and then all the change that is collected for that month goes to the designated charity. This little program doesn't set the world on fire, but it usually brings in $200-$300 dollars for the month. This actually is pretty helpful on a local level when you consider that it usually goes to an animal shelter, the local soup kitchen, or the like.
We try to be active in local politics when we feel that we can either help or make a difference.......like passing a law/ordinance in our county, or lobbying our local representative to vote down the marriage amendment on the table in the House......it did in fact get voted down for another term.
We give both time and money to an outfit called Project SHARE, a bursary project where young women in Mozambique are the recipients of a pair of missionaries and financial support, we're sending some people & supplies to Honduras in March '09 (I'll be going) to build and develop modern facilities/housing in country, and we do little local things where we can.
All in all a good bunch of people and a good place to worship, fellowship, and help where your skills and inclinations can be utilized. |
|
|
|
08/11/2008 12:24:58 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Ignorance aside... what is it exactly... a 'church' where there are no core beliefs? ie some might worship trees and others might revere the sun and still others believe in the Christian God and others Buddah? Please don't get all excited and think that I think you can't have a 'church'. I just have never heard of a 'church' where people gathered together and believed completely different things. I most definitely am ignorant of such a 'church'. Do you have any kind of services and if you do how? If you all believe different things do you incorporate all the congregants deities or spiritual beliefs? |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The basic answer is that UU's are united by shared values, not creed, dogma or specific beliefs.
For more details, why don't you read here? |
 Spazmo99 has it pretty succinctly put there.....
The unity is developed from a mutual respect and interest in each other as an interconnected web of life, and all that goes with it.
In many ways, the acceptance, and respect necessary to achieve a plane where the inherent worth and dignity of every person is a given is a really tough nut to crack.....I don't always like some of the people I run into in life, but I have to grant that they have every right to the same respect I want accorded.
And a big part of that for me is the right to pursue spirituality in whatever manner I understand it to occur.
I have to keep it within the parameters of the society in which I live, but outside of that, I don't want anyone telling me what I should believe and whether or not my beliefs are wrong.
Most importantly, I want to know what it is you think, and believe, in the sanctity of an environment where you feel comfortable.
My church is that place.
Does that answer your query? |
Yes, I think it does. Just from reading some of the stuff on the website it does seem to lean towards a belief in a god or a supreme being. Considering that also according to the website it is about 50% humanists that is kind of interesting. I remember from past posts that your church does a lot of community works.. ie fighting for gay rights. What other kinds of things is your church engaged in? |
|
|
|
08/09/2008 08:21:56 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Interesting. Have you found that going to your Church and blending with many different types of beliefs/believers/non believers helps you to be more tolerant of others? |
I would like to think so, but mostly I have to teach myself to be less self-centered, which is hard, and more mindful of the needs and feelings of others.
Personal growth in these areas is a path that I seek to change inside, through hard work, prayer, and the spiritual support of others.
Some days I do okay, some days I'm an asshole.......I try to minimize the latter. |
|
|
|
08/09/2008 12:43:11 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The unity is developed from a mutual respect and interest in each other as an interconnected web of life, and all that goes with it.
In many ways, the acceptance, and respect necessary to achieve a plane where the inherent worth and dignity of every person is a given is a really tough nut to crack.....I don't always like some of the people I run into in life, but I have to grant that they have every right to the same respect I want accorded.
And a big part of that for me is the right to pursue spirituality in whatever manner I understand it to occur.
I have to keep it within the parameters of the society in which I live, but outside of that, I don't want anyone telling me what I should believe and whether or not my beliefs are wrong.
Most importantly, I want to know what it is you think, and believe, in the sanctity of an environment where you feel comfortable.
My church is that place.
Does that answer your query? |
Interesting. Have you found that going to your Church and blending with many different types of beliefs/believers/non believers helps you to be more tolerant of others? |
|
|
|
08/09/2008 09:19:04 AM · #6 |
Huh? My statement stands...On the shuttle the people truly float around and feel no sense of gravity.
I understand why they float (freefall)and I also understand that they did not escape earth's gravity.
Maybe I should have said: On the shuttle the people don't feel the effects of gravity as compared to when they are standing on the Earth or another massive body.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I think it is a little different on the shuttle. On Earth we are planted on the ground and "fall" if we jump up. On the moon it is the same.
On the shuttle the people truly float around and feel no sense of gravity. |
huh?
They float around relative to the ship they are in because it is moving at the same speed as they are. They are still acted upon by gravity, almost to the same extent that we are (or a few percent less relative to the Earth) They are in free-fall, relative to their surroundings. The 'zero gravity' thing is just poor terminology. You don't move at 7000+ meters per second without applying any thrust without something acting upon you...
They also haven't 'escaped gravity' and other poor analogies that get used in popular descriptions of space travel.
We are also moving at about 30km/sec relative to the sun, yet amazingly enough, I don't feel my hair moving right now either.
Speed/ acceleration etc are all relative to another reference source. This is fairly fundamental to relativity theory. |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2008 09:18:37 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
No - I didn't think that I needed to - let me explain why: I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I've read multiple translations - often side by side, and I've done independent research using concordances, commentaries, expositions, reference works on Jewish customs, biblical history, archaeology, etc., and I have listened to hundreds of exegetical sermons. I am already well aware of both the actual and perceived differences among the various biblical translations, and among various passages within a single translation, and I've researched a number of them myself. |
Ron,
Let me say that your exploration of the biblical text is very impressive. In terms of textual analysis (the original topic) I think that you are probably very well placed to comment - though your scholarship is hard to trust given your obvious agenda (I presume that you must be aware of the challenges to your own positions, even if you choose not to publish them). I enjoy your scholarship in the text of the bible, even if I disagree with the way that you employ and apply it (especially the self referential proofs that you use).
In terms of the physical and historical application of those texts, you sometimes seem to get caught up in an abstraction or a literal interpretation of the text that fails to consider the external human and physical forces that were the genesis of the text. Your literal approach does not seem to take into account the fact that the modern Christian belief system is a product of 2,000 years of refinement by a lot of people with their own agendas.
I would remain interested in your response to my earlier posts - my position that a straightforward reading of history results in the conclusion that religion is the tool of man, not its guiding light. |
Matthew, I have not, and do not, dispute that religion ( not faith ) is the tool of man, not its guiding light. And that without the need for reading "history" - it is simple enough to conclude from reading the Bible. It would seem that Jesus, himself, as recorded in the Bible, held the same view of religion - he harshly criticizes the religious leaders on many occasions, at one point even calling them "white-washed tombs", and accuses them of misleading the people.
It would be helpful in these discussions to distinguish between religion and faith, though. They are not one and the same, and I would even go so far as to say that religion is too often detrimental to the development of faith. And I say that not just from library research, but from experience as well - I have attended the religious services of many "Christian" denominations, as well as those of non-Christian denominations. ( I put the word "Christian" is quotes because there are some denominations that call themselves "Christian" that would not seem to be quite so Christian if examined in light of Scriptural teachings, to me at least ). |
|
|
|
08/09/2008 08:34:12 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Ignorance aside... what is it exactly... a 'church' where there are no core beliefs? ie some might worship trees and others might revere the sun and still others believe in the Christian God and others Buddah? Please don't get all excited and think that I think you can't have a 'church'. I just have never heard of a 'church' where people gathered together and believed completely different things. I most definitely am ignorant of such a 'church'. Do you have any kind of services and if you do how? If you all believe different things do you incorporate all the congregants deities or spiritual beliefs? |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The basic answer is that UU's are united by shared values, not creed, dogma or specific beliefs.
For more details, why don't you read here? |
Spazmo99 has it pretty succinctly put there.....
The unity is developed from a mutual respect and interest in each other as an interconnected web of life, and all that goes with it.
In many ways, the acceptance, and respect necessary to achieve a plane where the inherent worth and dignity of every person is a given is a really tough nut to crack.....I don't always like some of the people I run into in life, but I have to grant that they have every right to the same respect I want accorded.
And a big part of that for me is the right to pursue spirituality in whatever manner I understand it to occur.
I have to keep it within the parameters of the society in which I live, but outside of that, I don't want anyone telling me what I should believe and whether or not my beliefs are wrong.
Most importantly, I want to know what it is you think, and believe, in the sanctity of an environment where you feel comfortable.
My church is that place.
Does that answer your query? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 11:00:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I think it is a little different on the shuttle. On Earth we are planted on the ground and "fall" if we jump up. On the moon it is the same.
On the shuttle the people truly float around and feel no sense of gravity. |
huh?
They float around relative to the ship they are in because it is moving at the same speed as they are. They are still acted upon by gravity, almost to the same extent that we are (or a few percent less relative to the Earth) They are in free-fall, relative to their surroundings. The 'zero gravity' thing is just poor terminology. You don't move at 7000+ meters per second without applying any thrust without something acting upon you...
They also haven't 'escaped gravity' and other poor analogies that get used in popular descriptions of space travel.
We are also moving at about 30km/sec relative to the sun, yet amazingly enough, I don't feel my hair moving right now either.
Speed/ acceleration etc are all relative to another reference source. This is fairly fundamental to relativity theory.
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 23:06:17. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 10:43:17 PM · #10 |
Please, people, the phenomenon of gravity is the same everywhere, also in space. It exists between any two objects of mass. With decreasing mass and increasing distance the force gets weaker.
This issue has been settled. We understand gravity. We can send spacecraft to Mars for crying out loud! The European Space Agency launched a spacecraft in 2004 that will land on a comet in 2014. This stuff works!
And yes, gravity can also be measured on the space shuttle. The exact same way we can measure it here on earth. The analogy to God's existence is silly and the ramblings about measuring gravity "directly" are ridiculous.
Can we get back to the topic now?  RonB, I've already answered your questions in previous posts, please read the thread. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 10:13:16 PM · #11 |
I think it is a little different on the shuttle. On Earth we are planted on the ground and "fall" if we jump up. On the moon it is the same.
On the shuttle the people truly float around and feel no sense of gravity.
But like you said...over generations I think the shuttle creatures would figure it out.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Correct me if I'm wrong but you may be trying to say that if the "people" in the shuttle were "unaware" of where they were or "why" they were floating around...would they ever conclude that gravity exists? |
Just in case, the answer would still be yes. *WE* are floating around in space right now and we know gravity exists and can measure it. If we were on the moon, we would still be floating around in space and could measure gravity. If we were on the space shuttle, we would be floating around in space and could measure gravity... using exactly the same methods. The only difference is the degree of accuracy required since the force is much smaller due to the distance from earth and smaller proximate masses. Note, however, that if we had evolved to live in space, our senses would very likely have become more sensitive to microgravity, just as fish have become more capable of picking up chemicals and vibrations in seawater that we couldn't detect with our own senses. Your analogy simply doesn't work. |
Message edited by author 2008-08-08 22:14:05.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 09:58:45 PM · #12 |
Can't find out if this has actually been performed or not... They do mention a previous gravitational space mission though, and this technically doesn't meet Ron's criteria since it appears astronauts are not physically on the craft performing an experiment.
Gravitational waves and red shifts: A space experiment for testing relativistic gravity using multiple time-correlated radio signals
Journal General Relativity and Gravitation
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0001-7701 (Print) 1572-9532 (Online)
Issue Volume 15, Number 2 / February, 1983
Category Research Articles
DOI 10.1007/BF00762473
Pages 129-163
Subject Collection Physics and Astronomy
SpringerLink Date Monday, December 13, 2004
Research Articles
Gravitational waves and red shifts: A space experiment for testing relativistic gravity using multiple time-correlated radio signals
L. L. Smarr1, 5, R. F. C. Vessot1, C. A. Lundquist2, R. Decher2 and Tsvi Piran3, 4
(1) Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 02138 Cambridge, Massachusetts
(2) NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 35812 Huntsville, Alabama
(3) Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
(4) Institute for Advanced Study, 08540 Princeton, New Jersey
(5) Present address: Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois, 61801 Urbana, Illinois
Received: 17 January 1980 Revised: 1 December 1981
Abstract We describe an experimental technique for detecting extremely low-frequency pulses of gravitational radiation (ngr GW sim 1–10 mHz) originating from collapsing supermassive objects (M sim 106–107 m odot) occurring anywhere in the universe. Our technique is the natural outgrowth of a previous gravitational space mission. The novelty of our approach is in placing a highly stable hydrogen maser onboard a deep-space probe that controls a transmitter sending signals to earth. The spacecraft also includes a doppler transponder operating in the conventional two-way mode. Doppler tracking using simultaneously acquired one- and two-way information both on the spacecraft and at the earth station provides four time-records of frequency fluctuations. A single gravitational disturbance manifests itself as a uniquely determined pulse sequence in the two or more data sets whose amplitudes and arrival times depend on a single parameter. The repetition of the signal and the noises in the data can be used in a filtering scheme to improve the amplitude sensitivity by a factor of about 6 in amplitude (36 in energy). We believe the most likely of these gravitational pulse events occurring frequently enough to be detected (more than once per year) will come from the formation of black holes in the cores of ordinary spiral galaxies. We propose a technologically feasible and realistic space mission, using the above technique, to measure two aspects of gravitation with the same experimental equipment. The spaceflight begins in a highly eccentric earth orbit to measure the gravitational red shift and the second-order doppler effects to an accuracy of 5 parts in 106; at this level significant new tests of nonmetric theories of gravity are possible. Later, the spacecraft is sent into a heliocentric orbit to distances beyond 6 AU to search for gravitational radiation. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 08:14:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Correct me if I'm wrong but you may be trying to say that if the "people" in the shuttle were "unaware" of where they were or "why" they were floating around...would they ever conclude that gravity exists? |
Just in case, the answer would still be yes. *WE* are floating around in space right now and we know gravity exists and can measure it. If we were on the moon, we would still be floating around in space and could measure gravity. If we were on the space shuttle, we would be floating around in space and could measure gravity... using exactly the same methods. The only difference is the degree of accuracy required since the force is much smaller due to the distance from earth and smaller proximate masses. Note, however, that if we had evolved to live in space, our senses would very likely have become more sensitive to microgravity, just as fish have become more capable of picking up chemicals and vibrations in seawater that we couldn't detect with our own senses. Your analogy simply doesn't work. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 08:01:23 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by RonB:
No - I didn't think that I needed to - let me explain why: I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I've read multiple translations - often side by side, and I've done independent research using concordances, commentaries, expositions, reference works on Jewish customs, biblical history, archaeology, etc., and I have listened to hundreds of exegetical sermons. I am already well aware of both the actual and perceived differences among the various biblical translations, and among various passages within a single translation, and I've researched a number of them myself. |
Ron,
Let me say that your exploration of the biblical text is very impressive. In terms of textual analysis (the original topic) I think that you are probably very well placed to comment - though your scholarship is hard to trust given your obvious agenda (I presume that you must be aware of the challenges to your own positions, even if you choose not to publish them). I enjoy your scholarship in the text of the bible, even if I disagree with the way that you employ and apply it (especially the self referential proofs that you use).
In terms of the physical and historical application of those texts, you sometimes seem to get caught up in an abstraction or a literal interpretation of the text that fails to consider the external human and physical forces that were the genesis of the text. Your literal approach does not seem to take into account the fact that the modern Christian belief system is a product of 2,000 years of refinement by a lot of people with their own agendas.
I would remain interested in your response to my earlier posts - my position that a straightforward reading of history results in the conclusion that religion is the tool of man, not its guiding light.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 07:51:53 PM · #15 |
Ron,
You and the others may not "be on the same page". The fact is that gravity is responsible for holding the shuttle in it's orbit...that is pure physics and no one can argue it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you may be trying to say that if the "people" in the shuttle were "unaware" of where they were or "why" they were floating around...would they ever conclude that gravity exists? Am I close?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.
BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.
That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.
The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot. |
When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how? |
No, of course not. They are in orbit, driven by gravity.
Yes, it can be shown to exist while on the shuttle. As someone linked earlier, it's all about orbital mechanics. Very simple physics really. The simple fact that the shuttle moves around the Earth shows it exists.
You really should avoid venturing outside your sphere of knowledge, your blatant lack of knowledge in one area taints your arguments in others. |
Neither of you has yet mentioned a single scientific method available to someone on the space shuttle for establishing that gravity exists there.
Instead you keep referring to measurements made on earth. Talk about circular logic!!! |
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 07:39:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You really revel in your display of scientific ignorance, don't you? |
Actually I revel in exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-Christians who, though decrying the intolerance of the Christians, make every effort to level ad hominem attacks against those they hold in contempt, for one reason or another. |
And you do that by making youself look ignorant? |
Not by intention. Though I am ignorant in some areas of knowledge, as, I would wager, are you. Shall I take the time to point out the posts where you show your ignorance ( other than the one where I already did )?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's quite the Pyrrhic strategy. |
It would be if that "was" my strategy, but, contrary to your implications, it is not.
Rather, the statement represents yet another attempt to cast aspersions upon me by yours truly.
The wheels on your bus may go 'round and 'round, but they always end up at the place where you ridicule those who do not bow down to what you apparently perceive to be your superior intellect. That, sir, is a serious character flaw. |
Go ahead and point them out and run this thread even further off track than you already have with your other nonsense. Or maybe you'd like to bring up some other random topic to discuss so you can impress yourself with your ability to take and hold the ridiculous point of view.
Are you casting aspersions on yourself?
(FYI - the expression yours truly refers to oneself)
And finally, don't call me Sir, I work for a living.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 05:39:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's quite the Pyrrhic strategy. |
It would be if that "was" my strategy, but, contrary to your implications, it is not.
Rather, the statement represents yet another attempt to cast aspersions upon me by yours truly.
The wheels on your bus may go 'round and 'round, but they always end up at the place where you ridicule those who do not bow down to what you apparently perceive to be your superior intellect. That, sir, is a serious character flaw. |
Glad to see you've given up the strategy of "You can't measure gravity on a space shuttle and therefore God exists". Are ad hominem attacks the next best alternative?
We are totally off topic right now. Let's get back to the original one. Did you watch the video? |
No - I didn't think that I needed to - let me explain why: I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I've read multiple translations - often side by side, and I've done independent research using concordances, commentaries, expositions, reference works on Jewish customs, biblical history, archaeology, etc., and I have listened to hundreds of exegetical sermons. I am already well aware of both the actual and perceived differences among the various biblical translations, and among various passages within a single translation, and I've researched a number of them myself.
Have you done any research on your own as to the issues raised in the video, as I have regarding the issues raised in the Bible? And to counter your challenge: Did you read any Bible in its entirety?
If all you are looking for is agreement that there are differences among bibles, then discussion is rather moot - I think that we all agree that there are differences.
On the other hand, if you'd care to pick one or several differences for discussion, I would be happy to respond to them, as I did with the passages dahkota selected. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 05:19:03 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jaynes was a psychologist. It's not physical changes he's talking about. It's, in any case, just a fascinating theory, and a controversial one. |
Mhm, I'm very skeptical. So if it wasn't a physical change (and it could not have been an evolutionary one in such a short time frame) people simple decided to use their brains differently to adjust to the new circumstances of more complex societies? If this were true we should expect tribes that still live somewhere in the forests of South America and never had contact with the industrial world to still have a bicameral mind, right?
How could the theory possibly be tested? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 05:16:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually I revel in exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-Christians (…) |
How exactly is doggedly defending bad analogies fitting in with that plan?
Originally posted by RonB:
(…) who, though decrying the intolerance of the Christians, (…) |
Christian intolerance? I don’t decry it. I expect it!
Originally posted by RonB:
(…) make every effort to level ad hominem attacks against those they hold in contempt, (…) |
Can’t I just hold you in mild irritation instead? I’m lazy and contempt takes up too much effort.
Oh, yeah, your feet stink and you’ve chosen the worst possible colors for your fall wardrobe … and that’s why you’re wrong!
Originally posted by RonB:
for one reason or another. |
I'll take both, please. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 05:12:18 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
How did this end up a discussion on gravity?
Does the bible discuss gravity? Someone should have told Einstein and Hawking. |
One of RonB's red herring detours. |
Oh right. That will happen when he gets involved. Good luck attempting to get somewhere with this considering that.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 05:03:28 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's quite the Pyrrhic strategy. |
It would be if that "was" my strategy, but, contrary to your implications, it is not.
Rather, the statement represents yet another attempt to cast aspersions upon me by yours truly.
The wheels on your bus may go 'round and 'round, but they always end up at the place where you ridicule those who do not bow down to what you apparently perceive to be your superior intellect. That, sir, is a serious character flaw. |
Glad to see you've given up the strategy of "You can't measure gravity on a space shuttle and therefore God exists". Are ad hominem attacks the next best alternative?
We are totally off topic right now. Let's get back to the original one. Did you watch the video? |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 04:53:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You really revel in your display of scientific ignorance, don't you? |
Actually I revel in exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-Christians who, though decrying the intolerance of the Christians, make every effort to level ad hominem attacks against those they hold in contempt, for one reason or another. |
And you do that by making youself look ignorant? |
Not by intention. Though I am ignorant in some areas of knowledge, as, I would wager, are you. Shall I take the time to point out the posts where you show your ignorance ( other than the one where I already did )?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's quite the Pyrrhic strategy. |
It would be if that "was" my strategy, but, contrary to your implications, it is not.
Rather, the statement represents yet another attempt to cast aspersions upon me by yours truly.
The wheels on your bus may go 'round and 'round, but they always end up at the place where you ridicule those who do not bow down to what you apparently perceive to be your superior intellect. That, sir, is a serious character flaw. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 04:29:12 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You really revel in your display of scientific ignorance, don't you? |
Actually I revel in exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-Christians who, though decrying the intolerance of the Christians, make every effort to level ad hominem attacks against those they hold in contempt, for one reason or another. |
And you do that by making youself look ignorant?
That's quite the Pyrrhic strategy. |
|
|
|
08/08/2008 04:23:17 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My kids believe in Santa Claus.
BELIEF in Santa Claus exists.
That doesn't mean Santa Claus exists.
The difference between believing in God and believing in gravity is that gravity can be shown to exist. God cannot. |
When astronauts are on the space shuttle, does gravity cease to exist?
Can it be shown to exist on the space shuttle?
If so, how? |
Well for a start, gravity is why the space shuttle is going around the earth. The approx 7900 meters per second it travels at is a good indication that gravity is still acting up on it... |
Easy for you to say from your earthly perspective, but you have not been reared on the space shuttle. If you had been, you would not know that gravity existed by direct measurement.
And, because you have been reared not knowing God, you do not believe He exists.
Originally posted by Gordon:
So as an easy example of how they could demonstrate gravity still exists, they could look out the window? |
If observation is an acceptable scientific proof, then ghosts exist, UFO's exist, leprechauns exist, etc., because they have all been observed.
Observation is not demonstration. |
yes it can be measured. I realise where you are trying to reach with the analogy, but it is fundamentally flawed.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2008 04:17:14 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
(according to Jaynes) a creature with a bicameral brain cannot attain "consciousness" as we know it today, even if intelligence and communication are developing. |
Self-awareness, morality and imagination have been demonstrated in several species of animal. |
True enough, but not germane to Jaynes's hypothesis. According to Jaynes, not even HUMANS had what we now consider to be "consciousness" until about 3000 years ago. See link posted in last post.
R.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:42:57 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:42:57 AM EDT.
|
