The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: jough on April 02, 2006, 08:19:56 am
-
Just want to remind everyone that Daylight Savings Time begins tonight (this morning) at 2AM, so don't forget to set your clocks back an hour.
Spring back, Fall forward
Of course, the board time will continue to be GMT.
-
You, sir, are a bad person. I missed ya, you ol' curmudgeon.
-
Week 1: Fly from Winnipeg to Toronto - move an hour ahead
Week 2: Party at opening night on Saturday, stay up so late you actully feel yourself lose and hour, -move another hour ahead
Week 3: (aka this Saturday) Return to Winnipeg from Toronto, move and hour back.
There is a line in my play "I feel like I've fallen out of time," and now if feels like I wrote that about myself.
Fuck you hour hand. Fuck yooou.
-
Just want to remind everyone that Daylight Savings Time begins tonight (this morning) at 2AM, so don't forget to set your clocks back an hour.
Spring back, Fall forward
And that is why we love him.
Happily, the somewhat rainy but still lovely Aloha State doesn't mess with changing clocks.
Of course, the board time will continue to be GMT.
-
And that is why we love him.
Happily, the somewhat rainy but still lovely Aloha State doesn't mess with changing clocks.
Of course, the board time will continue to be GMT.
Arizona doesn't observe DST, either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_Savings_Time#United_States). I'm not a big fan of it myself, particularly because it makes my 8:30 AM Calc class seem even earlier, and therefore more excruciating. And though there is no citation for the following assertion, it is interesting to read that there are more fatal car crashes in the Spring after shifting to DST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_Savings_Time#Criticism_of_DST).
-
My alarm clock (aka my cell phone) fucked me this morning. Like all cell phones it sets it's clock automatically. I guess it takes longer for the news to get to phones out here in Bumfuck because when my alarm went off at 4:45 this morning it was actually 5:45. I didn't realize this until I got in my car and saw the actual time. I called my boss and told her what had happened. When I arrived I showed her my phone and WTF, it was on the correct time now. My boss totally thinks I am either A.) Lying, or B.) An Idiot.
Fuck you cell phone.
~Paul
-
Your Milage May Vary:
I've noticed that some CDMA phones won't update the time until you make it interact with the network somehow. (In your case, calling your boss.) With out making it hit the pilot and sync channel it's happy just to stay in slotted mode, checking the paging channel every so often for its number to be called.
It's also possible depending on how your carrier has their network set up, that driving through different registration zones would cause the cellphone to re-register on the network, which would fix the time.
Of course: This assumes you have a CDMA cell phone (Sprint, Verizon, US Cellular, Metro, RCR, and so on). Off hand I'm not sure how the other half lives (TDMA/GSM).
-
My T-Mobile phone is GSM, and it didn't reset its clock until I *received* a phone call yesterday.
There is no way to manually set the clock on my phone.
-
And though there is no citation for the following assertion, it is interesting to read that there are more fatal car crashes in the Spring after shifting to DST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_Savings_Time#Criticism_of_DST).
Thank God for Darwin. Even if the fossil record still hasn't borne his theory out as he predicted.
-
Thank God for Darwin. Even if the fossil record still hasn't borne his theory out as he predicted.
Oh dear, your not suggesting?
~Paul
-
Just pointing out that the scientists have not yet found the corroborating evdence Darwin indicated was necessary to bear out his theory, that's all. There's no solid proof of any other explanation either.
-
http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Today, many of the gaps in the paleontological record have been filled by the research of paleontologists. Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. As mentioned earlier, microbial life of the simplest type was already in existence 3.5 billion years ago. The oldest evidence of more complex organisms (that is, eucaryotic cells, which are more complex than bacteria) has been discovered in fossils sealed in rocks approximately 2 billion years old. Multicellular organisms, which are the familiar fungi, plants, and animals, have been found only in younger geological strata. The following list presents the order in which increasingly complex forms of life appeared:
[...]
So many intermediate forms have been discovered between giraffe and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.
The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before giraffees, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.
-
My T-Mobile phone is GSM, and it didn't reset its clock until I *received* a phone call yesterday.
There is no way to manually set the clock on my phone.
Yeek. You'd think with all the whiz bang amazingness that they're packing into these things, they could get the time change right.
Then again, sometimes the people who make the phone network equipment can't even do that well. Here's looking forward to next year when they DST will happen a month sooner, and break all the systems that have the time change happen automagically.
-
There is no way to manually set the clock on my phone.
I hate this kind of thing. I mean, God knows I don't want to go back to the days when you could only use a computer if you knew how to hack the assembler code. But it's infuriating when things are so automatic that there's nothing at all you can do when they screw up.
-
Insufficient fossil evidence has been discovered to convince me of the existence of Daylight Savings Time.
-
http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Is this based on fossils mainly indicating life during the 'Cambrian Explosion"?. A huge number of disparate and complex life forms appear in the fossil record nearly simultaneously (at least in geologic terms) and not apparently as a result of other creatures evolving incrementally but rather at the expense of them. This is not proof of anything; mainly it indicates a lack of proof of other theories, which may or may not be provable due to the long passage of time and the available fossil record. (One assumes that the fossil record preserves a very small percentage of the total life supported on the planet, and that some forms of life existed without fossizable parts or in areas where the environment was not conducive to becomig fossilized)
It may be as easy to postulate that after creating the heavens and the Earth, God created all the critters and the Cambrian Period is some part of that particular Genesis 'day' given the available proof. Or, possibly, some people can easily believe both things are true. There's something to be said for maintaining a thread of faith in the world. There would be no wonder or beauty without it.
Modified: Here's also an interesting link to a line of scientific inquiry that could unlock a lot of the 'missing link' issues currently faced in the study of the fossil record: Chemical Fossils (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast17apr_1.htm)
-
This one has to have earned the all time champion Wandering Thread Award.
-
And if Darwin had a VCR it would blink 12:00 relentlessly.
-
And if Darwin had a VCR it would blink 12:00 relentlessly.
I don't believe in VCR's.
~Paul
-
did you guys know that that is now a known engineering concept? the "blinking 12:00 problem", when a piece of technology is too confusing for a consumer to understand.
alohadawg, who said "bumfuck": it has, for some reason, come to be a common term in my school. specifically when referring to where someone is attending college.
so I heard this exchange in history class.
girl: yeah, he's going to some wierd school out in west bum-
teacher: excuse me? what were you going to say?
girl: bum. bumville. he's going to school in Bumville.
teacher: really? that's the expression?
girl: yes. bumville.
-
girl: yeah, he's going to some wierd school out in west bum-
teacher: excuse me? what were you going to say?
girl: bum. bumville. he's going to school in Bumville.
teacher: really? that's the expression?
girl: yes. bumville.
Excellent. I believe that's just across the river from Hoboton, isn't it?
-
alohadawg, who said "bumfuck": it has, for some reason, come to be a common term in my school. specifically when referring to where someone is attending college.
so I heard this exchange in history class.
girl: yeah, he's going to some wierd school out in west bum-
teacher: excuse me? what were you going to say?
girl: bum. bumville. he's going to school in Bumville.
teacher: really? that's the expression?
girl: yes. bumville.
Bumburg?
I'm the one that said Bumfuck, but I hate to break it to you son, but that was a common term before you were born.*
*I know that what you are saying is that it is currently in vouge, but I wanted to play the crotchety old bastard. On second thought there will be plenty of opportunity for that later when there's no other choice for me so how's this instead. Great to see the kids using quality slang these days.
~Paul
-
Excellent. I believe that's just across the river from Hoboton, isn't it?
Pardon?
-
Excellent. I believe that's just across the river from Hoboton, isn't it?
I got that confused with the distant planet Hobotron, whence come both Hobots and Vagrantcons to Earth to wage their eternal war in disguise as ordinary appliances, vehicles, and forum posters.
-
Bumburg?
I'm the one that said Bumfuck, but I hate to break it to you son, but that was a common term before you were born.*
*I know that what you are saying is that it is currently in vouge, but I wanted to play the crotchety old bastard. On second thought there will be plenty of opportunity for that later when there's no other choice for me so how's this instead. Great to see the kids using quality slang these days.
~Paul
In fact, we used to call something in the middle of nowhere either 'East Bumfuck" or "Bumfuckin' Egypt"
-
Is this based on fossils mainly indicating life during the 'Cambrian Explosion"?. A huge number of disparate and complex life forms appear in the fossil record nearly simultaneously (at least in geologic terms) and not apparently as a result of other creatures evolving incrementally but rather at the expense of them. This is not proof of anything; mainly it indicates a lack of proof of other theories, which may or may not be provable due to the long passage of time and the available fossil record. (One assumes that the fossil record preserves a very small percentage of the total life supported on the planet, and that some forms of life existed without fossizable parts or in areas where the environment was not conducive to becomig fossilized)
There seems to be a common belief in the anti-evolution circles that evolution requires slow and incremental phenotypic (organism-level) changes, but this is not the case. There is a fair degree of slow and incremental change at the molecular (DNA) level (and some sorts which are not slow and incremental), but the correspondance between changes in DNA and changes in how an organism look and behave are definitely not 1:1. The position where the change occurs is very important. If it happens at a spot where the DNA is not even read off into a protein and does not have any regulatory role, then there will be no effect. If it's at a crucial spot in a protein, you may have a goose that can suddenly fly much higher than before.
It may be as easy to postulate that after creating the heavens and the Earth, God created all the critters and the Cambrian Period is some part of that particular Genesis 'day' given the available proof. Or, possibly, some people can easily believe both things are true. There's something to be said for maintaining a thread of faith in the world. There would be no wonder or beauty without it.
The molecular record much more robust than the fossil record, in that all that is required for its persistence is the presence of modern-day descendants, not the right sort of undisturbed muck and lucky digging. It also contains compelling evidence in favour of evolution. Many genes show a pretty much linear accumulation of differences in sequence through time (http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/full/19.jpg). Other genes show their history readily: the chloroplast in plant cells is now thought to have originally been a bacterial algae that took up residence or became enslaved by a larger cell, partly because it contains its own DNA which is much more like that of bacteria than like the eukaryotic cell that the chloroplast lives in.
As for beauty and wonder, that's a matter of personal opinion. I think it's much more awesome that we see the sorts of things that are alive today due to random processes. Learning in detail how some of these things work has repeatedly blown my mind, much more than a naively walking through a meadow, listing off names of the species I find there has.
-
My alarm clock (aka my cell phone) fucked me this morning.
Man, I gotta get this cell phone.
-
I'm not really arguing either side as much as I'm saying that the truth is out there somewhere and no one has demonstrated a proof of any theory as yet.
I think this is a misleading statement. If all of the currently available scientific evidence is analyzed closely, the support for evolution is vastly greater. Most of this evidence is not presented to the general public very well, or understood when it is, so I can see why many people can think that they are equally valid 'theories'. Further, it's the same tired abuse of the term 'theory', which in scientific terms means a well-substantiated explanation that is held to be true by most/ all people in the field. The minor uncertainty in the term is a concession to the finity of our observations, as it's always possible that the future will yield some new observations that force us to re-evaluate our current theories. In these terms, ID is a hypothesis at best, and a poor one as it is not readily testable. It's true that we cannot ever 'prove' that the current diversity of life is due to descent with modification from one or a few common ancestors. However, that's in the same way that you can't prove that a cat with a guilty expression, in a locked, windowless room with only a goldgiraffe bowl (now sans goldgiraffe) was responsible for goldie's disappearance. You may find out later that your neighbour was testing his new teleportation device, but that certainly wouldn't be the first thing you'd think of.
I have similarly strong feelings in the department of faith, wonder, and miracles, but this isn't the place to get into that.
-
My T-Mobile phone is GSM, and it didn't reset its clock until I *received* a phone call yesterday.
There is no way to manually set the clock on my phone.
Do you never turn your phone off? Because I have T-Mobile and just turning my phone on yesterday was enough to trigger the time update.
-
42!
-
Cort, I never turn my phone off.
But hang on - I'll turn it off and turn it back on again. Huh. I'd forgotten how fancy my "Hellomoto" startup screen was. They really give you a nice show now when you turn on your phone and wait the four minutes it takes to get set up.
Okay, yeah, turning it off and then back on again set the clock properly. I'll have to see how long it lasts this time. It changed earlier, and then it changed back again when I got home. Maybe the towers are individual time servers and some of them are out of sync?
I don't know. This whole thing infuriates me.
-
Cort, I never turn my phone off.
But hang on - I'll turn it off and turn it back on again. Huh. I'd forgotten how fancy my "Hellomoto" startup screen was. They really give you a nice show now when you turn on your phone and wait the four minutes it takes to get set up.
Okay, yeah, turning it off and then back on again set the clock properly. I'll have to see how long it lasts this time. It changed earlier, and then it changed back again when I got home. Maybe the towers are individual time servers and some of them are out of sync?
I don't know. This whole thing infuriates me.
That alone could be the problem. The SO never turns her phone off either and had it start to act up a while back. Apparently these fancy new cell phones need to be rebooted now and then what with their WAP and bluetooth and complete lack of fuck*ng analog support because phone companies hate us and want us to suffer.
-
paul-- I wasn't suggesting that the term had been invented by my classmates. I was only commenting that it was funny to hear it used.
-
I love this board.
Where else could you have a discussion about cell phones intertwined with a chat about the origins and usage of "bumfuck" tangled up with a scholarly debate about cellular evidence for evolution. All in a thread titled "Dayling Savings Time".
-
I love this board.
Where else could you have a discussion about cell phones intertwined with a chat about the origins and usage of "bumfuck" tangled up with a scholarly debate about cellular evidence for evolution. All in a thread titled "Dayling Savings Time".
I've been tempted a few times to change the thread title to Daylight Saving Time but I've decided not to let my pet peeves get the better of me. Because I'm sure my inability to spell or use punctuation properly is just driving other people nuts (Hobot, I'm looking in your general direction)
-
Ack.
It's still referred to as "Daylight Savings Time" in this area of the country - I keep forgetting (every year) that it's really Daylight Saving Time. I have fixed this error, with great humility.
-
Well yeah, but in your area don't they say crazy stuff like "The lawn needs mowed"? Or is that just my crazy PA relatives?
-
Mite, that's just those idiots in Pittsburgh. It's that extra "h" at the end (the one that people from Pittsburgh ALWAYS tell people about, always assuming that no one knows how to spell their stupid city's name). It makes them crazy.
They also say "yunz" meaning "all of you." And yeah, the porch needs fixed is just a syntactical anomaly that makes me think it would be a good idea to raze everything west of Harrisburg (no h) and make a new city called "Philly West" or something.
-
I've spent a lot of time working in Pittsburg Texas and I was constantly having to tell people "there's no h on the end."
~Paul
-
Mite, that's just those idiots in Pittsburgh. It's that extra "h" at the end (the one that people from Pittsburgh ALWAYS tell people about, always assuming that no one knows how to spell their stupid city's name). It makes them crazy.
They also say "yunz" meaning "all of you." And yeah, the porch needs fixed is just a syntactical anomaly that makes me think it would be a good idea to raze everything west of Harrisburg (no h) and make a new city called "Philly West" or something.
I've always heard it more like yins. Where I was from we tended to use "yins" in a more mocking way yet saw no problem at all with the phrase "you guys's" ('yü 'gIz-ez). But yes, the lawn needs mowed, the sweeper needs run, and you'd better red the table.
-
In fact, we used to call something in the middle of nowhere either 'East Bumfuck" or "Bumfuckin' Egypt"
We would often use simply "BFE."
My phone turns itself off, frequently. It's really fuckin' annoying.
-
I've been tempted a few times to change the thread title to Daylight Saving Time but I've decided not to let my pet peeves get the better of me. Because I'm sure my inability to spell or use punctuation properly is just driving other people nuts (Hobot, I'm looking in your general direction)
You're considerate enough to correct your errors and acknowledge my unhealthy fixation on proper spelling and grammar, though. You are faultless because you care.
I might as well take this opportunity to remind members, both new and old, that there is, in fact, a "spell check" feature for your posts. Please, spare me my teeth-gnashing and clothes-rending, and USE IT.
-
The word "Savings" was spelled correctly, though, so spell check wouldn't help in this case.
-
The word "Savings" was spelled correctly, though, so spell check wouldn't help in this case.
Oh, I know; I was referring to posts in general. You're also basically out of luck if you are grammatically or syntactically incompetent; however, this is not much of a problem at TOUAMB (which is why I love "y'all" so much).
-
I think this is a misleading statement. If all of the currently available scientific evidence is analyzed closely, the support for evolution is vastly greater. Most of this evidence is not presented to the general public very well, or understood when it is, so I can see why many people can think that they are equally valid 'theories'. Further, it's the same tired abuse of the term 'theory', which in scientific terms means a well-substantiated explanation that is held to be true by most/ all people in the field. The minor uncertainty in the term is a concession to the finity of our observations, as it's always possible that the future will yield some new observations that force us to re-evaluate our current theories. In these terms, ID is a hypothesis at best, and a poor one as it is not readily testable. It's true that we cannot ever 'prove' that the current diversity of life is due to descent with modification from one or a few common ancestors. However, that's in the same way that you can't prove that a cat with a guilty expression, in a locked, windowless room with only a goldgiraffe bowl (now sans goldgiraffe) was responsible for goldie's disappearance. You may find out later that your neighbour was testing his new teleportation device, but that certainly wouldn't be the first thing you'd think of.
I have similarly strong feelings in the department of faith, wonder, and miracles, but this isn't the place to get into that.
Irreducible complexity. That's what stops me from getting my head around the proof of evolution. I don't think I've said I think it's wrong, just that there doesn't seem to be sufficient proof for me to accept it as the ultimate explanation. And even if there was, well, tracking the question back and back and back you can't explain away the origin of space or matter other than saying it eternally is and then you still have a metaphysical question on your hands. Eventually, faith is required. For me and my life, now is as good a time as any.
And I feel sorry for you if you are anti-wonder. Wonder is a pretty powerful precursor to dreams and imagination. And faith - well, we discussed this on the board before - I don't think anyone is without faith of some kind, and what kind of relationships can you have with anyone (or yourself) without it? We all need to believe in something bigger than ourselves, that we can't see, touch, smell or taste but we know it's there. Otherwise there would be no reason to strive for anything beyond what we know and have.
As for miracles - it depends on how you define the term. I feel like I'm surrounded by them, and I try to celebrate them. Because even though my life is not even close to perfect, it's a gift and a miracle in and of itself. And it gets better every day. (maybe living in Hawaii helps)
I don't know you so I can't really guess if you're unhappy or a generally tense person or a strong rationalist - but if you aren't inclined already, take some to experience faith, wonder and miracles. They can all lead to experiencing joy.
Joy is good.
-
Being a rationalist is no obstacle to experiencing joy.
But people, come on, do you really give a fuck if people say Daylight Savings instead of Daylight Saving? Even nitpicking pedants need to pick their battles.
-
But people, come on, do you really give a fuck if people say Daylight Savings instead of Daylight Saving? Even nitpicking pedants need to pick their battles.
Choose their battles.
~Paul
-
Didn't say it does. But a strong rationist could have issues with wonder (due to explaining or seeking explanations for everything), faith (needing reasons to believe or trust) and miracles (again with the explanation).
These things have led me to joy but are happily not the only way to get there.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Jough. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go to the store where I will get a buggy and load it up with pop.
God I love American regionalism.
-
Choose their battles.
Pick their noses.
Why can't a beautiful explanation be a source of joy?
-
Thanks for the clarification, Jough. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go to the store where I will get a buggy and load it up with pop.
God I love American regionalism.
Up here in the PNW we don't seem to have many quirks like that. Though our ladies may speak with "Creaky Voice" and you might find a "Can Foods" aisle at the QFC.
-
I really don't get the "can foods" or "process cheese" or "toss salad", all of which I see a lot. I mean, fine, take your greengrocer's apostrophe. I'll get over that someday. Just remember tenses, please?
-
I really don't get the "can foods" or "process cheese" or "toss salad", all of which I see a lot. I mean, fine, take your greengrocer's apostrophe. I'll get over that someday. Just remember tenses, please?
Well to toss salad is...
Oh you meant.
Uh, nevermind.
-
Well to toss salad is...
Finally we're getting somewhere.
~Paul
-
I really don't get the "can foods" or "process cheese" or "toss salad", all of which I see a lot. I mean, fine, take your greengrocer's apostrophe. I'll get over that someday. Just remember tenses, please?
Clearly we all need to take a page from Infinite Jest* and carry around little stickers that say "fewer" to correct the express lane signs at grocery stores.
*Actually take two or three. There's plenty to choose from.
-
I really don't get the "can foods" or "process cheese" or "toss salad", all of which I see a lot. I mean, fine, take your greengrocer's apostrophe. I'll get over that someday. Just remember tenses, please?
Does 'ice cream' bother you? Of course not. All the people who know it used to be 'iced cream' are dead. This is a natural language change process. Take a deep breath and forget about it.
-
Does 'ice cream' bother you? Of course not. All the people who know it used to be 'iced cream' are dead. This is a natural language change process. Take a deep breath and forget about it.
"I feel like such a free spirit, and I'm really enjoying this so-called 'iced cream.'"
C. Montgomery Burns is not dead!
-
"I feel like such a free spirit, and I'm really enjoying this so-called 'iced cream.'"
C. Montgomery Burns is not dead!
Well he was. But then he was taken to a better hospital where his condition was upgraded to "alive."
Also, for lunch today I got 6 kinds of nasty on some frenched fried potatoes.
-
Why can't a beautiful explanation be a source of joy?
This is a lovely way to put it. A truly good explanation is beautiful; the human mind, for example, is a structure that gives me much more joy now that I understand it, even the paltry bit I can understand. Explanations are beautiful, and the search for explanations is beautiful.
(The other example that comes to mind is technology. I rather prefer actually understanding how my computer works to, say, declaring that my computer is unknowable or just assuming my computer runs on tiny gnomes extracted from the Earth's core; that, and it allows me secondary benefits like, say, being able to fix my computer when something goes wrong.)
-
Does 'ice cream' bother you? Of course not. All the people who know it used to be 'iced cream' are dead. This is a natural language change process. Take a deep breath and forget about it.
The world may not need academics, but academia needs you, Wombat.
-
Sweet of you Miles, but academia has plenty like me, actually. It's just that we only talk to each other.
And while normally I do like a good rational explanation, dang, now I wish that my computer really did run on tiny gnomes extracted from the earth's core.
But that really is what non-scientists don't understand about scientists, isn't it. They don't understand the absolute awesomeness of the feeling that, holy shit, that makes sense!
-
Why can't a beautiful explanation be a source of joy?
This is a lovely way to put it. A truly good explanation is beautiful; the human mind, for example, is a structure that gives me much more joy now that I understand it, even the paltry bit I can understand. Explanations are beautiful, and the search for explanations is beautiful.
(The other example that comes to mind is technology. I rather prefer actually understanding how my computer works to, say, declaring that my computer is unknowable or just assuming my computer runs on tiny gnomes extracted from the Earth's core; that, and it allows me secondary benefits like, say, being able to fix my computer when something goes wrong.)
Wow, you went deep there V. And here I thought Wombat was just doing a mash up of the assorted topics in this thread.
~Paul
-
We really do need to give this one a TOUMBIE for Wandering.
-
Especially since I didn't say a beautiful explanation can't be a source of joy - what I meant was that there are people who lose their sense of wonder by constantly requiring explanations of everything in their environment. I suspect V's joy in understanding the working is not only the explanation itself but the fact that she gets it and that she put in a lot of effort to get it. Sometimes that joy and wonder is a reward, too. That's one way it becomes a 'beautiful' explanation.
The saddest people are the ones who want all the answers but aren't interested in actually learning or seeing the elegance in, say, the design of cells or even the simple double helix of DNA.
That the brain and the rest of our bodies work at all is pretty miraculous when you think about it.
<><>
Miles seems to have the idea that someone somewhere said the world doesn't need academics. I should point out that I said the exact opposite. What the world doesn't need is more overwrought and self-righteous acadcemics.
-
Oh, I said that, Dawg. Or, I implied it. Sorry for the confusion.
-
But that really is what non-scientists don't understand about scientists, isn't it. They don't understand the absolute awesomeness of the feeling that, holy shit, that makes sense!
Exactly, and it brings a lot of happiness too, to certain people.
Depression is often brought about by feeling a lack of control, and greater understanding of the processes that one is subject to can restore that. Lots of events become less bewildering and frightening.
Personally, I found the notion that there was a creator and purpose behind everything more depressing, because it meant that 1) I was totally not getting what this purpose was, and therefore probably screwing up pretty badly 2) all the insults the world subjected me to were personal. I greatly prefer a world in which those things aren't true.
I don't think that people can escape being subject to wonder anymore than they can avoid craving fatty foods, but the things that do it for them are going to be different and are likely to change. I'm no longer enthralled by playing with the faucet like I was when I was 3, either (at least not most days).
-
goddamn.
if I don't get to tell people they're saying things wrong, what do I have?
MY LIFE IS MEANINGLESS IN A WORLD OF RELATIVE GRAMMAR/MORALITY!
I can only survive as long as I can judge others.
(I'm simultaneously being facetious and serious. is there a word for this)
-
Facerious? Seritious?
-
Facerious? Seritious?
Do you need a bucket or something for all that?
-
What the world doesn't need is more overwrought and self-righteous acadcemics people.
Fixed that for you.
-
Fixed that for you.
You mean you got rid of ALL of them?
What am I still doing here?
-
You mean you got rid of ALL of them?
What am I still doing here?
Fixed the sentence, not the problem.
-
What the hell good are you then?
Edit: Never let it be said our discussions aren't timely (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html)
If/when this link dies, let me know. Thanks.
-
Quite timely.
However the article said:
"As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power."
Nope, the proponents of intelligent design won't believe it, because they don't want to.
-
I think Intelligent Design belief is kind of a continuum. I know that there are plenty of scientists, including paleontologists and biologists and cosmologists and chemists who are excellent scientists and also faithful Christians. I think that the back of the broad brush with which one paints 'narrowminded' Christians should necessarily also color 'narrowminded' rationalists.
I'm not sneering at either side; I think perhaps the gift of human intellect and the need to relentlessly seek knowledge may be so that we eventually find God out (or in) there.
-
I think Intelligent Design belief is kind of a continuum. I know that there are plenty of scientists, including paleontologists and biologists and cosmologists and chemists who are excellent scientists and also faithful Christians. I think that the back of the broad brush with which one paints 'narrowminded' Christians should necessarily also color 'narrowminded' rationalists.
I'm not sneering at either side; I think perhaps the gift of human intellect and the need to relentlessly seek knowledge may be so that we eventually find God out (or in) there.
...and we've come full circle (http://touamb.com/index.php/topic,2688.msg60649.html#msg60649).
~Paul
-
I think Intelligent Design belief is kind of a continuum. I know that there are plenty of scientists, including paleontologists and biologists and cosmologists and chemists who are excellent scientists and also faithful Christians. I think that the back of the broad brush with which one paints 'narrowminded' Christians should necessarily also color 'narrowminded' rationalists.
I think this is one of the many annoying things about the latest "teach Creationism in schools" tactic: by trying to use the term "Intelligent Design proponents" to paint the proposal of teaching Creationism as something other than what it is, the end result has been to get intelligent believers in an intelligent designer thrown into the corner with them.
I am a faithful Jew. I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I believe it far more strongly than I believe that the Torah is God's word conveyed correctly and perfectly through generation after generation of human scribes. That is why the Heavens and the Earth are the book we should be reading - through observation and experimentation with the senses and logic God gave us, as scientists do - to discern God's methods, not a textual account heavily altered by time and translation.
-
...and we've come full circle (http://touamb.com/index.php/topic,2688.msg60649.html#msg60649).
~Paul
I would think you above belittlling someone's faith as entertainment.
Also, Ben, well said. I don't really like getting thrown in with the fundamentalists because I don't consider myself one although I'm starting to wonder if I don't sound like one based on Paul's post below. I don't believe it is at all unfair to be skeptical of science or skeptical of religion - I think it becomes unfair when either side places itself above the other based solely on their own opinion of the 'value' or 'truth' of their beliefs.
-
So did anybody see South Park last night? Will they get to show Muhammad or what?
-
I would think you above belittlling someone's faith as entertainment.
Aw man, it ain't like that. I wouldn't belittle your faith. But c'mon, intelligent design isn't science, it's just propaganda.
~Paul
-
Aw man, it ain't like that. I wouldn't belittle your faith. But c'mon, intelligent design isn't science, it's just propaganda.
~Paul
You know that Bible you were reading before, Paul? That's not science either. But if you were reading it for it's riveting action and interwoven plot under the assumptions of fiction I imagine you were disappointed.
I just said I don't buy into either argument as absolute truth. I believe in the existence of a loving, compassionate God who created everything that is and ever will be. Whether he did it in 'seven days' by hand or put all the atoms and molecules and rules for their interactions into motion and manages the details of complex and long-term processes is immaterial to my Faith in Him. Either satisfies in me the more important factor: that God is there, that God is in charge and that although a fallen people, we are still loved and still offered the opportunity for redemption.
Our ability to question and seek knowledge is a gift. We aren't competing with any other species on the planet for knowledge and understanding. It's clear to my tiny, fragile, human mind that we are placed in a position to be stewards of the Earth and the rest of it's inhabitants. And, in my opinion, to seek the answers to our questions about ourselves, the planet, it's origins, and it's future as a means of finding the Creator.
Maybe, Wombat, that's the ultimate joy in a beautiful explanation. Talk about a grand unification theory.
-
You know that Bible you were reading before, Paul? That's not science either.
Actually, the Bible is science. It's a 2000 year old understanding of science and most of it has been disproven, but still it's science. Intelligent design on the other hand is propaganda masquerading as science for the purpose of undermining real science, principally Darwin's theory of evolution.
~Paul
-
The Bible isn't science, nor was it ever perceived as science (at least not by its authors). There is very little mathematics in the bible, no mention of engineering, chemistry, biology, or other sciences that were very very well understood by the Romans of the time the bible was written (1400-1800 years ago, depending on the book, in the New Testament, and a good 500 or more years before that for the Old). The Egyptians had a pretty good grasp of many sciences, particularly engineering but also maths and chemistry.
-
Nor does the bible methodically propose hypothesis and methodically test.
The meaning of the Bible to believers is not a 'search for truth' but 'truth revealed' and to look at it in other ways is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself, but certainly is outside of the intentions of those who contributed to it.
-
Not that there's anything wrong with the Bible. It is just not all things to all people.
You know, because it is a book.
-
The meaning of the Bible to believers is not a 'search for truth' but 'truth revealed' and to look at it in other ways is not 'bad' or 'good' in and of itself, but certainly is outside of the intentions of those who contributed to it.
All the more reason to discard intelligent design. If i'm reading you correctly The Bible says things are a certain way and you either take it on faith that it's true or you don't. If you try to prove it, I think that constitutes a betrayal of faith.
~Paul
-
There is nothing in the bible about intelligent design. The phrase doesn't even appear in the text.
-
Did this thread wander into religion when we changed it from savings to saving? I wonder...
Ironic?
~Paul
-
What is that old logic issue? A monotheistic deity won't prove s/he/it exists because proof denies faith and without faith s/he/it is nothing. Hence, inherent to ID is a built-in logic bomb.
er.. unless I just muddled it.
-
All the more reason to discard intelligent design. If i'm reading you correctly The Bible says things are a certain way and you either take it on faith that it's true or you don't. If you try to prove it, I think that constitutes a betrayal of faith.
~Paul
I don't think that's true if you understand the abilities of logic and reason, and free will to be gifts of a Creator. IBelievers take it on Faith that the fundamental core of the bible is true, but many (not all) believe its truth is written in the hand of men who lived in a specific time and place and their understanding of the world is different than ours. If you were to select the most important messages of the Old testament, the stories - the creation story, the ark and the animals two by two, Joseph's brothers treatment of him, Esau's betrayal of his brother, David, Solomon, and all the rest - are not the message. They carry the message. The message is about Israel's relationship with God, about God's covenant with Israel, and God's expectation from his people before he sends the Messiah to redeem the world. Whether or not it's 100% historically accurate doesn't approach the central truth of the Bible and arguing about that is missing the point.
To believers, the message of the Old Testament is borne out in the New; the truth is far simpler than the sum of the words. Believers say the truth boils down to John 3:16 in fulfillment of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament.
-
To believers, the message of the Old Testament is borne out in the New; the truth is far simpler than the sum of the words. Believers say the truth boils down to John 3:16 in fulfillment of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament.
Footnote: to believers in the "new testament". I am a believer in the Torah and my faith is not carried into your unauthorized sequel.
-
The sequel is never as good.
-
What is that old logic issue? A monotheistic deity won't prove s/he/it exists because proof denies faith and without faith s/he/it is nothing. Hence, inherent to ID is a built-in logic bomb.
er.. unless I just muddled it.
Well I know that bit was in H2G2 explaining the Babel giraffe. And if Douglas Adams said it then it must be true.
-
The sequel is never as good.
Yeah, I like God's old stuff. Y'know, before He got popular.
-
Yeah, I like God's old stuff. Y'know, before He got popular.
Before He sold out.
-
mann, back then it was pure. Back then, when he talked about overturning the moneychanger's tables, it was real, man.
-
Did this thread wander into religion when we changed it from savings to saving? I wonder...
Ironic?
~Paul
No. Coincidental.
Footnote: to believers in the "new testament". I am a believer in the Torah and my faith is not carried into your unauthorized sequel.
The OT's got the NT beat by a mile when it comes to special effects. Mostly due to all of the smiting, I think. Kind of an inverse relationship to Star Wars, really.
-
I like the funny pictures of the cats and the alive stuffed animals. They are funny.
-
mann, back then it was pure. Back then, when he talked about overturning the moneychanger's tables, it was real, man.
That's the New Testament. But I think it's the only act of violence that isn't condemned in the New Testament, while the Old Testament is full of righteous ass-kicking.
-
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
-
I like the funny pictures of the cats and the alive stuffed animals. They are funny.
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Off topic! this belongs in the Achewood forum.
-
miles--
I should have known I couldn't get away with that. Damn.
-
I don't think that's true if you understand the abilities of logic and reason, and free will to be gifts of a Creator.
I guess that leaves me with a real catch 22 because the Creators gift of logic, reason and free will have led me to believe that the creator is a myth.
Believers take it on Faith that the fundamental core of the bible is true, but many (not all) believe its truth is written in the hand of men who lived in a specific time and place and their understanding of the world is different than ours. If you were to select the most important messages of the Old testament, the stories - the creation story, the ark and the animals two by two, Joseph's brothers treatment of him, Esau's betrayal of his brother, David, Solomon, and all the rest - are not the message. They carry the message. The message is about Israel's relationship with God, about God's covenant with Israel, and God's expectation from his people before he sends the Messiah to redeem the world. Whether or not it's 100% historically accurate doesn't approach the central truth of the Bible and arguing about that is missing the point.
See, this is a major part of the problem I have with God. I am expected to believe that God created everything, the Heavens, the Earth, the Moon, the Stars, Me, You and all the rest, but the only guide I have to his existence is a poorly written ancient book filled with inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and contradictions. I believe that a God capable of creating a being as complex as I should be also capable of doing a better job of delivering the knowledge of his existence to me.
To believers, the message of the Old Testament is borne out in the New; the truth is far simpler than the sum of the words. Believers say the truth boils down to John 3:16 in fulfillment of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament.
This sounds like such a cop out to me. That's just basically saying to me look, just ignore all of that stuff that don't add up, here's the only thing you need to understand. But you're ok with that because you have faith and I admire that, but I don't get it.
Now I'm going to ask you a very personal question regarding faith. It's a question that has plagued me since I was 14 years old when I first became a Christian. What does it feel like? I was told that when I asked Jesus into my heart that I would have a personal relationship with the Lord. I did that and nothing happened. Nothing changed, I was exactly the same. I was ready for the transformation, I wanted it. And I wasn't the skeptic I am today, that came much later. I was much too naive, I was raised in a religious family and I trusted my parents, I believed what I was told about God and Jesus and Heaven and Hell. But nothing happened and I can't help, but feel that this is crucial. So I am sincerely asking you to tell me what I am missing. Please.
~Paul
-
Dude, god is an imaginary friend for grown-ups. What exactly did you think would happen?
You know how you wish for something really hard and then pray for it? Well, God's the one that ignores you.
-
God is an asymptote inside the mind of every living and non-living thing.
I'll see you mfers in the next universe.
-
Paul -
That's the hardest question of all. Some see people and meet people who are so able to talk about their faith and their belief and what it means to them, and then they struggle with what that feeling might be. They do the things they feel like they need to do and expect a huge and obvious change. And when they don't see or observe the change in themselves or their circumstances, they assume that it's false for everyone, or they aren't good enough, or that the rest are pretending or in denial. I can say for myself that I have changed so much over the last 14 months and although some important things (job, housing) are up in the air right now, I'm not panicked because God has come through for me every time so far, and I have faith that through my and other's prayer and my hard work good things will happen. And so far, they have.
The Book is not all that you have to go on. My world is full of examples that validate my faith. The Book is a story, a history, a guide but I believe God would rather we lived our lives in positive, righteous and loving ways (to the best of our abilities) and surrender our will to His in our everyday life than dedicate our lives to the study of a very old book. Not that it isn't important to know and understand the Bible, but it's a means to the end, not the end itself.
I don't know if you're missing anything. If you have been baptised and accepted Christ, if you are rejecting sin and temptation, expressing your acknowledgement, contrition, thanksgiving and supplication through prayer and expressing God's love to the world through your actions, your life can become self-rewarding.
I'm working on all these things. I'm nowhere near perfect. No one is perfect, especially those kinds of Christians who like to quiz people about how Christian they are. I understand you as a good and sincere person which is a really good place to start. I think maybe finding a denomination of Christianity you are comfortable in is also important - it sounds like your family is in a charismatic Baptist tradition. If you aren't 'feeling it' maybe try something else. It's your faith journey, so you choose the path.
-
I've had very drastic changes in my life come about as a result of totally non-theistic changes in my behaviour and outlook, and these have been much more effective than my younger attempts at putting my faith in God have. I just don't see the need, personally. Given that, it's hard not to see methods of doing the same thing that involve (what seems to me) cyrptic, imaginary beings as unnecessarily complicated, and at risk of muddying up the process if they propose misleading or harmful explanations. The religious versions are much more popularized, so it's not surprising that these are the primary ones people would look towards. I have no doubt that they can sometimes have positive effects on people's lives, but other non-religious programs can too. In the end, it seems to be about addressing certain social and psychological needs we have, and there are many ways to do that.
I am not naive about the need for faith in some thing (obviously you can't sit around questioning your very existence all day), but it really does seem to vary from person to person. I've known people who are not remotely Christian or religious or metaphysical, but still need to believe that there's some sort of vague purpose to their lives (for example, improving the lot of humanity over the long term). Some people seem to be comfortable without that broad scale, and focus on making the lives of themselves and those close to them more enjoyable.
And a minor complaint about the original tangent: Darwin didn't make any claims about abiogenesis (how life started), just about how the current diversity of life came to be (assuming there was life already in existence). That has in a general sense been resoundingly supported by later discoveries, and biology would really be a lame dog of a field without that underlying theory. Further, modern biologists are not 'Darwinists'. The current version of the theory of evolution is the 'modern evolutionary synthesis', which ties together ideas from several different fields (Darwin knew nothing about genetics), and there is a lot of argument about whether most changes are even driven by selection (as opposed to apparently totally random fluctuations). To call a modern evolutionary biologist a 'Darwinist' is like calling a modern Christian a Zoroastrian, because hey, same ideological background. Oh boy have I wanted to get that out of my system.
-
And might I add, blah blah blah (making little talky hand gestures at myself). ::)
-
(obviously you can't sit around questioning your very existence all day)
Well dammit!
Also: this place gets quality noobs most of the time; huzzah for that.
-
Dude, god is an imaginary friend for grown-ups.
This is what it has always seemed to me, seriously. What religion tells us - that we're not alone, that someone is in charge, that it all makes sense despite appearances, and that we'll live forever in some way - is so exactly what we want to hear. It just seems far too likely to me that we've made it all up because otherwise we'd go crazy.
I don't say this to belittle anyone's faith. Just to say that for me, I can't get past the feeling that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.
-
I don't say this to belittle anyone's faith. Just to say that for me, I can't get past the feeling that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.
If it's a feeling, you can overcome it.
-
If it's a feeling, you can overcome it.
Sure, but the question is should you? I suppose if you feel you're missing something and therein lies the answer then sure. Sometimes we have feelings for a reason though.
-
Actually, a feeling is much less easy to overcome than a logical argument would be. One might recognize the superiority of a different logical argument, but feelings don't work that way.
-
I just know what works for me. It depends on why a person 'feels' that way, too. If she's been burnt by religion that's hard to recover from depending on how much trust you allowed to be violated. If the question is 'should you overcome feelings' the answer to me is, yes, at least most of the time - feelings are based on emotion and psychology for the most part. Finding out the root of the feelings and then looking at the same situation, you may arrive at a different conclusion. Or not - but feelings can cloud your perception of reality depending on where they come from.
I personally would love to work with someone who wanted to find out more about what I believe and I don't think I give people very much shit about their choices. I would not be surprised to find out that no one here has similar ideas or opinions. But I like to think people have mostly open minds about it.
-
I think maybe finding a denomination of Christianity you are comfortable in is also important
I think maybe finding a system of faith you are comfortable in is also important
-
Ben, that message was a direct response to Paul - his interest and his statements (he said he is a Christian) make it perfectly acceptable as written.
I appreciate that there are plenty of belief systems out there, some very old and well respected, and certainly none more 'right' or 'moral' than others, but I don't think that changes my response directly to Paul.
-
Ben, that message was a direct response to Paul - his interest and his statements (he said he is a Christian) make it perfectly acceptable as written.
I appreciate that there are plenty of belief systems out there, some very old and well respected, and certainly none more 'right' or 'moral' than others, but I don't think that changes my response directly to Paul.
I appreciate your help AD, thank you. I've been discussing this issue with other people IRL also and i'm not getting very satisfactory answers. Apparently it's not something you feel so much as just believe. If I don't believe it with my head and I can't feel it with my heart how am I going to be saved?
~Paul
-
how am I going to be saved?
Spider Man.
-
What do you feel with your heart?
I'm extremely non-dogmatic. I have absolutely no use for churches or religious rules. To me, churches and religions are creations of human beings. I don't need anybody else to tell me how to relate to the infinite. Maybe I'm arrogant, stubborn or short-sighted, but I've yet to meet a so-called spiritual leader who has brought me closer to God. There are a few people I've known who have, and several artists. But I can't think of a single member of the clergy, church service or religious tract that has furthered my spiritual growth since I was about 12.
Church and religion seems to me to serve primarily as social purpose. I don't mean that in a negative way. Obviously, some people prefer to take their spiritual journey in a community. I'm not wired that way. You seem like a pretty social guy, so maybe you are. I would suggest you keep looking for the right group. I know there are lots of intelligent, sensative, thoughtful religious communities out there. Even in places like Utah (or Texas, or Kentucky).
Here's what it means to me to have faith. I believe that we should love our neighbor as ourself. I believe it with all my heart and all my bones. I don't live that way, but I'm sure I should. Sometime when I try to look at it objectively and analyze whether it is the most logical, scientific way to live I have doubts. But in my heart, I know what is right and I can't conceive of anything that could change that. That's the important part for me, the rest is all dogma and window-dressing in my book.
-
I don't remember if we've done this before or not, but have you tried this? (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html)
I'm not sure how useful it is, but it does accomplish two purposes: It educates you on what the various religions purport to believe, and it requires you to think about what you believe.
-
I believe that we should love our neighbor as ourself.
This is a high bar to set. The world would be a better place if more people would at least try "tolerate your neighbor as yourself." And I know, some days that's pretty damn hard as it is.
-
I'm not religious, but I fully believe in the supposedly Christian precept of loving one's neighbour as oneself. In my high school Ethics class, we studied the notion that only those who believe in a higher power can truly have guiding moral principles. Most ethicists (whether or not you choose to believe what they say) agree that you don't have to be religious to be a good person; the subjective desire to do good in the world is no less admirable in those who don't believe in God. I treat people with respect and lead a decent life because I think I should; not because I'm trying to get a ticket to Heaven.*
*Note: I am not suggesting that religious people do good deeds for this reason alone.
-
I don't know about loving my neighbour as myself, but I'm all about loving my neighbour. At least, that hot sunbathing neighbour...
-
I'm not religious, but I fully believe in the supposedly Christian precept of loving one's neighbour as oneself. In my high school Ethics class, we studied the notion that only those who believe in a higher power can truly have guiding moral principles.
My contention has always been that ethics and morals can be personal and be derived from ones own conclusions about how people should treat people, but that personal values are a precursor to teaching ethics and morals. Values as a guiding principle, to me, are generally taught or instilled, hopefully from early on. I think that whatever values children are taught (through active teaching or modeling behavior) early really drive or derail their ability to function well in their socially. And so on with the group to other groups. It's a separate issue from religion - although many people within in a given religion draw values guidance from the teaching of their religion. It seems to me that the same conclusions seem to be arrived at in terms of how best to relate to each other regardless of where the values come from.
And Jough, the problem is you just look at your neighbor while loving yourself.
-
What do you feel with your heart?
I feel it when it's beautifully put to music...
~Paul
Fear the hearts of men are failing
These our latter days we know
The great depression now is spreading
God's word declared it would be so
I'm going where there's no depression
To a better land that's free from care
I'll leave this world of toil and trouble
My home's in heaven
I'm going there
-
So I ignore the daylight saving(s) thread, and this is what happens.
You people. You People! YOU PEOPLE!
Gah.
Anyway, the closer I come to understanding my own personal spirituality, the less I am interested in explaining it, debating it, or otherwise discussing it with other people. So, after briefly skimming this thread, I am now officially ignoring it.
-
side_show, AlohaDawg, et al.
While I personally agree with side_show's sentiments about personal spirituality, I need to say this is the classiest I've ever seen this conversation occur on the internet.
104% class.
3% classier than my conversation with the Jehovah's Witnesses that I spoke with Saturday morning. That's saying a lot. Usually I tend to avoid message boards because of just these kind of conversations. They never end well, and someone has by the end sworn some kind of death oath. At the very least, someone will have resolved to mash in someone else's nose by the time they get around to meeting them.
Well done, toumab.
-
How come i'm the et al? I mean, shit, I started the whole conversation and i've been the classiest of all. Fuck you man, i'll kill you!!!
~Paul
-
Hah, you were, but I edited it out, becuase I didn't want to call you Paul, when I don't know in any personal manner you beyond "pmcd9".
I also didn't want to look like I a mod suck up. This has failed now that I've noticed side_show is a mod.
-
Alohadawg is a mod too.
~Paul
-
See, now I'm all "Life in Crisis."
I have sensed that you are classy from your pictures in and around your car, aside from the one where you're flipping off your camera.
I'm certain it had done something to upset you.
Please don't stab me.
-
I think I'll be the judge of who's getting stabbed around here thank you very much.
*readies my stabbing arm*
-
dang. all this religiosity. I was totally going to be jewish for a while. I had it all planned out.
the only part I can't do is believe in g-d. I know, that's a huge thing... but, really. All of the rules made sense to me. The rules that didn't make sense, I could convince myself that maybe that's what g-d wanted. I found that I could apply the morality to my everyday life. I brought up the torah in a debate in english class. everything was going well.
but I cannot make myself believe in g-d. I have spent too many years pooh-pooing the idea. maybe one day, I will be able to. meanwhile, I'm going to keep studying it. maybe that will help.
anyway. yeah.
-
**Tasteless, bad joke removed for humor's sake.**
-
Inevitable: how do you view the Torah? You said you brought it up in a class....is it just the words of men to you or does it have some stronger meaning? If it has stronger meaning, where does that come from? The histories of Israel as the Torah gives it - Abraham, Jacob and Moses' stories especially - I think put G-d in a pretty important and physically real role in the life and development of Israel as His people. So if the Torah is real and meaningful to you, maybe there's room for G-d to become real to you too.
Flip: the hell? try to be nice.
-
sorry dude, trying to make a joke, i'm not very good at it.
-
My science teacher told us that most of the very cleverest scientists leading the field in astrophysics and the study of the Universe are actually theologians; apparently, after seeing how small the chances are for, say, the properties of a proton to be EXACTLY right for everything in the Universe to exist, they believe there must be some divine intervention.
I'll admit I'm naive and ask you clever people: Is he bullshitting? I have to admit that I am biased against the idea of a creator/God; I would like to think he's merely trying to reintroduce religion into public schools (fat chance), but I have less than half the lifetime some of you guys do. Help me out, you know your stuff.
-
My science teacher told us that most of the very cleverest scientists leading the field in astrophysics and the study of the Universe are actually theologians; apparently, after seeing how small the chances are for, say, the properties of a proton to be EXACTLY right for everything in the Universe to exist, they believe there must be some divine intervention.
I'll admit I'm naive and ask you clever people: Is he bullshitting? I have to admit that I am biased against the idea of a creator/God; I would like to think he's merely trying to reintroduce religion into public schools (fat chance), but I have less than half the lifetime some of you guys do. Help me out, you know your stuff.
I can't speak for the individual beliefs of Physicists/Cosmologists et al., or (much) to the nature of the physics involved, but that one's new to me. The way I understand it, Cosmology was, for a long time, pretty much stymied on the question of how our current, fairly low entropy, universe could exist. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy should increase no matter if you're looking forward or backward in time, it increases from the current point on (don't ask, that's just what i've been told). The reigning theory nowadays in cosmology is that there was something called a Higgs field that somehow caused the Universe's earliest days to be extremely low entropy. There's a lot of debate over these things still, and there's new theories cropping up every day, but, I'm pretty sure your teacher is bullshitting you if he's saying that most scientists think the existence of a god is somehow neccesary for the current universe to exist, or that there is some sort of scientific consensus on the matter. That's not to say science has ruled out the possibility for a god to exist, just that it doesn't really have much to say about the issue one way or the other.
-
There is a small, vocal movement of scientists from many disciplines who are proponents of Intelligent Design:
Center for Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/csc/)
Dissent from Darwinism (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/)
It's good to look at both sides of this argument. Obviously, there are some highly placed and respected scientists on both sides, and as you might expect, the majority are either on the side of Darwiin and rational realism or don't make their opinion public.
Of the ones who don't make their beliefs public, who knows how many are on each side...
-
alohadawg-- that's where my problem is. If I just read about it, some part of me assumes "this is the will of god". (I was trying to do the g-d thing, but, that is awkward. I've never really understood it.)
but then, when I stopped and thought about it, I realized that I didn't really believe that. I don't know. I think if I keep reading about it, maybe I'll eventually come to a conclusion about it. For the meanwhile, I really think that a lot of the moral foundations in judaism are the same as the ones I already had. This just gives them a form.
-
My science teacher told us that most of the very cleverest scientists leading the field in astrophysics and the study of the Universe are actually theologians; apparently, after seeing how small the chances are for, say, the properties of a proton to be EXACTLY right for everything in the Universe to exist, they believe there must be some divine intervention.
I'll admit I'm naive and ask you clever people: Is he bullshitting? I have to admit that I am biased against the idea of a creator/God; I would like to think he's merely trying to reintroduce religion into public schools (fat chance), but I have less than half the lifetime some of you guys do. Help me out, you know your stuff.
In agreement with sideshow, I find it difficult to get involved in this discussion, nowadays. But I would be doing a disservice to myself and what I believe if I did not share what I think on the subject.
The universe, basically, is god. God is the only thing that cannot exist, that is the concepts of "nothing" and "infinity." The universe is the best possible expression of the ideas of nothing/infinity, which results in three dimensional space. Three dimensions is the best representation of infinity for this reason: "Nothing" = 1; 1/3 = .33333333333333repeattoinfinity; It is impossible to divide "nothing" by three, the result is an infinte number.
This is not to say that god is limited to existing as the universe. The same idea of infinity is certainly within every non-living molecule, and therefore in the molecules of every living thing, as well. God therefore exists in the mind of every thing and is experienced as conscious thought. Basically, every man, woman, dog, plant, and hydrogen atom exist, in full, as god.
To most, these ideas may sound like insanity that a schizo experienced in several hallucinations. And they are. When I word it out, it sounds like insanity to me, as well. But those hallucinations were simply my brain shutting down, allowing me to exist inside my subconsious mind for an amount of time. I have received the criticisms before. "That's just some drug induced insanity." "You got your beliefs from the movie Pi." Maybe, but I know what I saw, and I cannot believe anything else after I experienced it. In other news, I am a former, confirmed Roman Catholic. I had to label myself as something nowadays, I suppose it would be Buddhist. I think Taoism is basically the exact same thing, but I haven't learned anything about it, yet.
The strongest piece of evidence that god is an asymptote is probably the fact that an orgasm is experienced as the feeling of a spring being streched into a straight line. (Does the female orgasm feel like this? I do not know.)
-
Basically whenever I start reading articles on id my eyes cross and I just stop caring after about a paragraph. Luckily the other day there was a one paragraph story about how part of the so-called "irreducible complexity problem" was just disproved when somebody somehow proved 2 "simple" systems can combine into one "irreducibly complex" one.
Also, I really wish the spell check worked on my browser but one of my extensions must be fuck*ng it up.
-
Two more pages while I wasn't looking, egad.
Dawg, my only point back there was that Paul was asking about religious experiences/experience with God, and not necessarily making Christianity work. If you've grown up Christian, odds are it's going to be a form of Christianity or one of its relatives that works best for you, but if you hear the words of the Buddha and they bring you light, don't let expectations of a Christian system stand in your way. Maybe it didn't need to be said, but in some cases it would have.
theinevitable, I've heard a few of my fellows say that Judaism is not predicated on belief in God. I don't agree with that, but I think that to be a Jew and accept Judaism does not require unwavering faith in God's existence. I feel (and so do many other Jews) that if God exists, He will be at least as pleased with someone who holds to His law without proof of reward as with somebody who does it out of unshakeable faith. What is it about Judaism that appealed to you?
-
My science teacher told us that most of the very cleverest scientists leading the field in astrophysics and the study of the Universe are actually theologians; apparently, after seeing how small the chances are for, say, the properties of a proton to be EXACTLY right for everything in the Universe to exist, they believe there must be some divine intervention.
It's very early, so I can't do this justice, but I'll point you toward the wikipedia article for the Strong Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_anthropic_principle). It's untestable, and therefore, not science. Sure it might be unlikely for a universe like this to evolve. But one obviously did, so let's study it. If a universe suitable for life to evolve didn't exist, life wouldn't be there to study it. It seems like a tautology, but it's subtle. I'll be available for questions after I've had coffee.
Yes, I am a (former) cosmologist. High-energy astrophysicist, actually. Well, I worked on couple of big experiments when I was an undergrad, at least. Would you believe I watched an episode of Cosmos once?
-
I have sensed that you are classy from your pictures in and around your car, aside from the one where you're flipping off your camera.
I was flipping off anyone that says I can't wear my headphones while driving. Fuck that shit. But you aren't a crap dude that I can tell so you won't get stabbed by me. I'd watch my back (or jaw as the case may be) around that loony Mr. Q. He's nuckin' futs.
~Paul
-
Ben-San-- I don't remember what exactly first drew me to it, but I then bought a book about the basic ideas of the faith, the different types (orthodox, reform, that other one which I forget the name of), etc. It was pretty interesting. I really just felt that the whole worldview somehow fit; a lot of the beliefs which put me off about religion were in a form that I could accept.
I believe the book was titled "What is a Jew?" but I don't remember.
The thing that really struck a chord with me was the way (especially in non-orthodox circles) that the commandments were, in some cases, re-examined. It seems like it's a faith very much based on personal faith and understanding, rather than a strict interpretation by some authority. This makes me sound like I'm saying "I like how you don't have to follow the rules", but that isn't what I mean. It just seems that the concepts of foregiveness, guilt, personal responsibility, etc. are in tune with (my view of) human nature.
-
I'd watch my back (or jaw as the case may be) around that loony Mr. Q. He's nuckin' futs.
Paul speaks true... futs has been just beggin' for some serious nuckin' lately; and she has it coming.
*Stabs the air with my stabbin' arm*
A-CAPck! A-CAPck! A-CAPck!
-
It's His Nut! (http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/temporary/PBF051ADsweeto.jpg)
~Paul
-
Mmmm sweet sweet PBF.
I like that this weeks had some continuity. Also, Slim is looking good, he seems to have lost some weight... oh.
This weeks:
http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/temporary/PBF096ADBoss.html
From Yesteryear
http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/temporary/PBF078ADSlim.html
-
It's hard for me to take Christians seriously because they daily flood my inbox with treacly examples of Gods blessings. The following is a pretty typical example..
~Paul
L I T T L E Things
As you might know, the head of a company survived
9/11 because his son started kindergarten.
Another fellow was alive because it was
his turn to bring donuts.
One woman was late because her
alarm clock didn't go off in time.
One was late because of being stuck on the NJ Turnpike
because of an auto accident.
One spilled food on her clothes and had to take
time to change.
One's
car wouldn't start.
One had a
child that dawdled and didn't get ready as soon as he should have.
The one that struck me was the man
who put on a new pair of shoes that morning,
took the various means to get to work
but before he got there, he developed
a blister on his foot.
He stopped at a drugstore to buy a band-aid.
That is why he is alive today.
Now when I am
stuck in traffic,
miss an elevator,
turn back to answer a ringing telephone...
all the little things that annoy me,
I think to myself,
this is exactly where
God wants me to be
at this very moment..
Next time your morning seems to be
going wrong, the children are slow getting dressed,
you can't seem to find the car keys,
you hit every traffic light,
don't get mad or frustrated;
God is at work watching over you.
May God continue to bless you
with all those annoying little things
and may you remember their possible purpose.
Pass this on to someone else, if you'd like.
There is NO LUCK attached.
If you delete this, it's okay:
God's Love Is Not Dependent On E-Mail!! (that's the cool part)
AMEN
-
God wanted all the early nerds who are responsible and get to their jobs on time to die! Bwahahahaha.
At least that's the message I got out of that email. Though I do like that nobody made you to forward that email to 15 friends or you'd go to hell. God's love sure ain't dependant on email.
I like Christianity alright, it's just some of the christians I have a problem with.
-
God wanted all the early nerds who are responsible and get to their jobs on time to die! Bwahahahaha. At least that's the message I got out of that email.
That's exactly the message I took from it too. Get to work on time and God will kill you.
Though I do like that nobody made you to forward that email to 15 friends or you'd go to hell. God's love sure ain't dependant on email.
No, but I did delete all of the clipart of buterflies, puppy dogs, and teddy bears that Jesus is so fond of.
I like Christianity alright, it's just some of the christians I have a problem with.
Actually, the sender of that message is a very sweet lady friend of mine.
~Paul
-
I get that stuff too. I tend to believe that the real message is the intention of the sender, not the (usually unbearably sweet) message itself. The evidence of God here is that someone loves Paul and wants to remind Paul of that by sending a really silly e-mail. That's the message you really need.
-
It's very early, so I can't do this justice, but I'll point you toward the wikipedia article for the Strong Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_anthropic_principle). It's untestable, and therefore, not science. Sure it might be unlikely for a universe like this to evolve. But one obviously did, so let's study it. If a universe suitable for life to evolve didn't exist, life wouldn't be there to study it. It seems like a tautology, but it's subtle. I'll be available for questions after I've had coffee.
Yes, I am a (former) cosmologist. High-energy astrophysicist, actually. Well, I worked on couple of big experiments when I was an undergrad, at least. Would you believe I watched an episode of Cosmos once?
Cosmos? Wasn't Carl Sagan a professor at Cornell (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49674)?
-
Dawg are you familiar with a book entitled "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's been recommended to me and I want to know what you think of it. Lest you think i'm trying to sucker punch you i'll tell you that i've already formed a negative opinion based on three lengthy criticisms I've found. Apparently it's a very popular book to draw such widespread and in depth analysis. I get the impression it's the go to book used by Christians to try to convince skeptics. Unfortunately for me, my search for God is leading me away from rather than towards him.
~Paul
U2 Eucharist (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_en_mu/u2_eucharist)
-
Lee Strobel has written three interesting and thought provoking books. He was the legal affairs editor for the Chicago Tribune and they read fairly easily and quickly:
The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
Basically he interviews experts (scientists in the first, theologians in the second) and presents the arguments of skeptics. I can't say they are quite 'objective' but they do give you a lot of really interesting things to think about in the context of the questions surrounding these issues.
Read 'em and liked them. It would be wrong not to point out to you that Lee Strobel is a conservative Christian writer now, although before his acceptance of Christianity he was an avowed and very cynical atheist. He decided to research Christianity to talk her out of it because he thought she was nuts; he wound up talking to so many intellectually and spititually sound thelogians and believers that he wound up becoming a Christian himself. He was a legal affairs writer so he wrote the 'cases' out of his research.
-
man, when did it turn into daylight SAVING time...
hi-OH!