 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of HOO-HAA
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
91
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: November 03, 2008, 08:37:05 AM »I DO NOT trust you or anyone else to tell me what I know for myself to be be true (indeed we would be much better off if people quit taking others words as truth without evidence).
So, is discussion useless, in your opinion, Gene?
I think it's more important to evaluate the proof offered, rather than insist on only believing things you can see/ hear/ feel for yourself. Your remit of belief is going to be very much limited, Gene, if it is confined to the things you can only experiment on by yourself.
You've stated before that you accept the disciples' words on what they saw re: Jesus as you feel that they have no reason to lie...
... why do you think scientists would lie?
NOTE: The non-canonical Nag Hammadi gospels do not, generally, identify Jesus as the son of god or as having resurrected AND some scholars believe that one of such - the gospel of thomas - may have been written prior to Mark, or formed one of Matthew/ Luke's primary sources - ie:Source 'Q'
92
The Polling Pit / Re: Captain America Movie
« on: November 02, 2008, 04:53:36 PM »
Nick Fury was played by Samuel L in the Iron Man movie.
93
The Polling Pit / Re: How did you find out about Free Talk Live?
« on: November 02, 2008, 04:52:19 PM »I found it by searching for "libertarian talk shows" on a search engine. This was one of the first links that popped up. Unfortunately there are more than a few LINOs on the radio who are actually neocons... so I'm glad I found this show.
Absolutely agree - the first couple of podcasts I found and listened to were most certainly more about Obama-bashing than about liberty. They all loved Sarah Palin - hehehe!
94
The Polling Pit / Re: Captain America Movie
« on: November 02, 2008, 04:32:41 PM »I've heard that Wil Smith is rumoured to play the good Captain.
But...Captain America is white...
In the comics, that is indeed true.
95
The Polling Pit / Re: Do you trust YouTube?
« on: November 02, 2008, 01:37:21 PM »
It's hardly the mecca of 'free speech', but it's good for sharing videos...
96
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: November 02, 2008, 01:35:07 PM »The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow. It stops in one iteration. If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.
(This is not to say the mindset the creator intended to depict could not be depicted as an actual flow chart--it's just to say it's not accurate. If I feel like it and have the time, I'll consider doing a better one, which still conveys the message the author wished.)
Interesting point - although, with regards to many religiously minded folks (not all, of course), there is only one process with no repetition - as dictated by the flowchart, as it is. A repetition would suggest revision/ evaluation of current ideas, of which (for many religious folk) there is none.
Actually, as the faithful understand it, the process repeats indefinitely, with the faith getting stronger and the knowledge of Christ increasing.
Yes, but there would be no further revisitng of 'get an idea' in the flowcart. Once the one idea is 'revealed' a brick wall goes up and no further revision, never mind learning, takes place.
Of course, I'm talking about the fundies - other more liberal religious folks would evaluate other ideas, but, often, only against their chosen idea. If it conflicted, their reasoning, then, would be 'how do I explain this new conflicting idea away in order to make my central idea (ie: god exists in the way my religion states) remain secure and steadfast?'
Oh, certainly, the process would be different, but it would, be a repeating cycle, by definition, otherwise it would end. Maybe I can work up something plausible later (perhaps two--one from the athiest's view of christianity, one from the Christian's.)
It would be cool if you got the chance to do that - I'd be interested to see both flowcharts and (with your permission) post them where discussion on the matter results elsewhere online...
97
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: November 02, 2008, 12:48:42 PM »The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow. It stops in one iteration. If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.
(This is not to say the mindset the creator intended to depict could not be depicted as an actual flow chart--it's just to say it's not accurate. If I feel like it and have the time, I'll consider doing a better one, which still conveys the message the author wished.)
Interesting point - although, with regards to many religiously minded folks (not all, of course), there is only one process with no repetition - as dictated by the flowchart, as it is. A repetition would suggest revision/ evaluation of current ideas, of which (for many religious folk) there is none.
Actually, as the faithful understand it, the process repeats indefinitely, with the faith getting stronger and the knowledge of Christ increasing.
Yes, but there would be no further revisitng of 'get an idea' in the flowcart. Once the one idea is 'revealed' a brick wall goes up and no further revision, never mind learning, takes place.
Of course, I'm talking about the fundies - other more liberal religious folks would evaluate other ideas, but, often, only against their chosen idea. If it conflicted, their reasoning, then, would be 'how do I explain this new conflicting idea away in order to make my central idea (ie: god exists in the way my religion states) remain secure and steadfast?'
98
The Polling Pit / Re: Captain America Movie
« on: November 02, 2008, 12:39:47 PM »
I've heard that Wil Smith is rumoured to play the good Captain.
99
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: November 02, 2008, 12:26:46 PM »The "faith" flow chart doesn't flow. It stops in one iteration. If it were a real process, it would be continuous, repeating over and over, and, if I understand the mindset of its creator, the idea would be that no learning of objective facts takes place, so the cycle repeats without any actual learning.
(This is not to say the mindset the creator intended to depict could not be depicted as an actual flow chart--it's just to say it's not accurate. If I feel like it and have the time, I'll consider doing a better one, which still conveys the message the author wished.)
Interesting point - although, with regards to many religiously minded folks (not all, of course), there is only one process with no repetition - as dictated by the flowchart, as it is. A repetition would suggest revision/ evaluation of current ideas, of which (for many religious folk) there is none.
100
The Polling Pit / Re: Captain America Movie
« on: November 02, 2008, 07:14:59 AM »What's wrong with Iron Man?I've only vaguely heard of Iron Man. I didn't get to America until I was 10, and I wasn't into pop culture much.
I liked the movie.
Yeah, it was entertaining. I also liked Hulk.
101
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: November 02, 2008, 07:11:54 AM »
...When NASA first measured the actual decay rates after the Apollo mission left a mirror on the moon's surface for laser reflection, they reported larger rates than they are currently using. Why the change? Did they discover that the "rates" were inconsistent with their "religion"? Did they have to "recalibrate" their measuring equipment to help their measurements to agree with their presupposition?? Oh, no!!! Scientists would NEVER do that !!! They are upright guys with pocket protectors and they don't have any idea on how to falsify data. Well I personally know of a just such a case at UNR's physics department. The "scientist" was asked to leave and he simply got another position at another university. Yeah, the other university knew about his falsification of data but didn't care because he was a well-known scientist with several publications to his name...
You seem to be upset that "scientists" (side note, your overuse of quotation marks is hilarious) change their minds. Unlike religion which gives black and white answers, the process of science is full of grey areas. Our knowledge changes and is refined over time. The following diagram should illustrate the difference.
With most young eathers they engage in a tactic when they just throw as many misconceptions at you as possible. It take just one sentence to make a false claim, but many paragraphs to debunk it. I don't want to expend much energy in deconstucing each claim, but I do want to quote Carl Sagan.
"So if you want to really be able to predict the future -- not in everything, but in some areas -- there's only one regime of human scholarship, of human claims to knowledge, that really delivers the goods, and that's science. Religions would give their eyeteeth to be able to predict anything like that well. Think of how much mileage they would make if they ever could do predictions comparably unambiguous and precise.
Now how does it work? Why is it so successful?
Science has built-in error-correcting mechanisms -- because science recognizes that scientists, like everybody else, are fallible, that we make mistakes, that we're driven by the same prejudices as everybody else. There are no forbidden questions. Arguments from authority are worthless. Claims must be demonstrated. Ad hommem arguments -- arguments about the personality of somebody who disagrees with you -- are irrelevant; they can be sleazeballs and be right, and you can be a pillar of the community and be wrong."
Solid post with a great use of flowchart!
102
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: October 31, 2008, 02:44:29 PM »
You make a good point regarding atheism, of course, MA - but I'm not sure I ever stated that I can prove the non-existance of god.
In fact, from an earlier post of mine:
In earlier posts, I wasn't trying to prove as much that god doesn't exist - more than if he did exist, from the evidence we are left of his activities, he isn't/ wasn't a very nice god.
What I have also said is that there is no copper-bottomed proof for the existance of god/ allah/ whatever-you-call-he/she/it and I'll stand by that very confidently.
But, you guys should run for campaign. A muslim/ xian team would be refreshing in today's western culture of islamic paranoia
In fact, from an earlier post of mine:
It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.
There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.
In earlier posts, I wasn't trying to prove as much that god doesn't exist - more than if he did exist, from the evidence we are left of his activities, he isn't/ wasn't a very nice god.
What I have also said is that there is no copper-bottomed proof for the existance of god/ allah/ whatever-you-call-he/she/it and I'll stand by that very confidently.
But, you guys should run for campaign. A muslim/ xian team would be refreshing in today's western culture of islamic paranoia
103
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: October 31, 2008, 12:23:47 PM »
Gene, proof is important when you claim anything metaphysical to be true - surely you believe that?
The 'young earth' debate is one that is been raging for quite some time. I'm no scientist, so it's not always something I feel qualified to get involved in.
However, many scientists make it their business to prvide counter-arguments against young earth theories. Here's one I plucked from the net (I believe your theory is countered under 'evidence 6'?)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
Here's another counter against your theory, Gene:
Young-earth "proof" #5: The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.
(Dr. Hilpman vs. Dr. Hovind, June 15, 1992; the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri)
Once again, Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddlysquat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.
A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)
The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.
The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.
The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).
(Brush, 1983, p.78)
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!
It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail. He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit. In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem, see Dalrymple (1991, pp. 48-52).
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html
Either way, I think you've made a classic theist mistake in presenting your argument, Gene - that of simply finding an alleged problem with scientific conclusions, then presenting it as evidence of god's existance.
If a point in evolutionary science is wrong (and in any cases I've seen, there is always a rebuttal against the 'young earth' theory of choice) then that doesn't automatically prove god exists. No, it simply places a question over that one small slice of evidence for origin of species.
To prove god exists, you would be best to provide positive evidence for god's existance, not disprove evidence of his lack of existance piece by piece.
Now this is only one of the "evidences" I see that guarantee a Creator...
The 'young earth' debate is one that is been raging for quite some time. I'm no scientist, so it's not always something I feel qualified to get involved in.
However, many scientists make it their business to prvide counter-arguments against young earth theories. Here's one I plucked from the net (I believe your theory is countered under 'evidence 6'?)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
Here's another counter against your theory, Gene:
Young-earth "proof" #5: The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit* and, thus, destroyed.
(Dr. Hilpman vs. Dr. Hovind, June 15, 1992; the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri)
Once again, Dr. Hovind's figures just boggle the mind! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year. If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddlysquat! Indeed, the Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit that varies more than 95 miles all by itself.
A more accurate estimate, based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago. That is the argument most creationists use. (Since Dr. Hovind's notes match the figures he quoted in his debate with Dr. Hilpman, they are fair game and not a simple slip of the pen.)
The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.
The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.
The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).
(Brush, 1983, p.78)
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!
It may surprise you to learn that Charles Darwin's second son, George Darwin, regarded by many as the father of geophysics, studied the Moon's tidal effects in great detail. He came up with the idea that the Moon broke away from the earth due to rapid rotation (the fission theory), and estimated that at least 56 million years would be required for the Moon to have reached its present distance. George Darwin regarded his view of the Moon's origin as nothing more than a good guess, and he considered his time estimate to be nothing more than a lower limit. In the nineteenth century such a calculation of the earth's age was a reasonable scientific exercise. Today, in the light of what we now know, it's an exercise in futility. Too bad "scientific" creationists don't keep up with these little details. For more insight into the problem, see Dalrymple (1991, pp. 48-52).
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html
Either way, I think you've made a classic theist mistake in presenting your argument, Gene - that of simply finding an alleged problem with scientific conclusions, then presenting it as evidence of god's existance.
If a point in evolutionary science is wrong (and in any cases I've seen, there is always a rebuttal against the 'young earth' theory of choice) then that doesn't automatically prove god exists. No, it simply places a question over that one small slice of evidence for origin of species.
To prove god exists, you would be best to provide positive evidence for god's existance, not disprove evidence of his lack of existance piece by piece.
104
The Polling Pit / Re: The al-Qaeda Vote
« on: October 31, 2008, 07:22:32 AM »
Bush has al-Qaeda (and some excellent propoganda spinning) to thank for his second term.
Joe The Plumber just doesn't have the same bite, does he?
Joe The Plumber just doesn't have the same bite, does he?
105
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: October 31, 2008, 06:13:20 AM »I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that religion isn't the doorway to ignorance. It hasn't happened yet.
It's not going to happen, dude, for a very simple reason - there is no proof that god/ allah/ jaweh is any more real than Casper.
There's also no way any of us atheists can prove beyond a doubt that there is *no way* god/ allah/ jaweh, or even Casper, absolutely don't exist.
If you're looking at evidence alone, it's farily clear that the meaphysical elements of religion exist only in the heads of its respective followers. Any evidence I've EVER been presented with to prove religion is very, very shaky.
My test is always as to whether I would accept that quality of evidence for proving anything else - if not, why would I accept it to prove god?
It seems, when it comes to discussing religion, the rules change regarding proof for many people.
However, I think that it's important that we are able to discuss these things as calmly as possible and thank both Gene and MA for doing such with me, on this thread.
I've little more to add, at this point except to agree that this:
Let me tell you, my stomach turned when the dude I'm chilling with out here proceeded to explain to me how important it was to his religion (Catholic) and to Christians in general, that the California constitution needed to be amended to outlaw gay marriage, because marriage needs to be defined as between a man and a woman.... because.
... is the unfortunate reality of religion at its very darkest, yet seeminlgy (if you take into account what the scriptures say on the matter) purest form.