When Nature's Wrath Is History's Reminder

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:58 pm

Atheism is a form of belief. It's a belief in facts. And reason. And a health amount of skepticism. People tend to define atheism by what it is not.."Atheism is the disbelief of God." But it's more than that. Atheism is the belief that evidence and reason are the only way to find truth, and that those assertions which defy--or preclude--evidence and reason, are antithetical to the advancement of knowledge and the pursuit of truth. You'll note here that I'm refuting the claim that religions have at their core the search for truth. In simpler times that was the case. Now they have at their core the quest to deny, suppress, and eradicate the truth. This is what we call "positive atheism."

I strongly support the right of everyone to believe what they want, so long as they do not attempt to force that view on anyone else. I gladly engage in civil debates with those whose beliefs differ from mine, out of (ideally) our mutual concern for the misguided beliefs in the other. I hate to see people believe lies, and some of them hate to see me disbelieve what they think are important truths. While it seems that this effort is futile, as neither will ever convince the other, it seems that way only to someone who has missed the point: the point is to make each of us think about what we believe. And that is never futile. Those who have carefully regarded their beliefs and thought them out fully have nothing to fear from me, and command great respect from me. My crusade is against ignorance, not the belief of individuals. "Some of my best friends are [insert religious persuasion here]"

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:02 pm

Bob wrote:
samtzu wrote:...We are part of a group that has certain (nebulous) beliefs, don't we? Don't we align ourselves with others... and then dis others that don't believe the way we do? If we were in power, would we outlaw other beliefs that piss us off?...
Whaddaya mean "we", whitey?

Well... unless you live under a rock, or have no social life whatsoever, this pretty much pertains to you, too. Just a question, Bob...

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:21 pm

Jesus... I almost started to defend "God" (who I find to be a very irritating cartoon character that has caused no end of grief to the human race, in whatever form this "god" has appeared in). Far be it from me. What I will defend, however, is free enquiry into the existence of something that we cannot perceive, but which may be out there. Truth is a very nebulous concept that has changed very radically in the last fifty years, let alone in the last five hundred, and those who rely on "facts" appear to me to be like people who have found themselves stuck on islands in the middle of an infinite ocean, who have declared that they will "sail no more" because of the fearfull experiences they have had in the past. These 'facts' are different, depending on the island you are inhabiting. One hundred years ago, the island was called "Newtonian Physics" and those who ventured to explore other areas were called cranks. Fifty years ago, it was "Quantum Physics". Today we have 'String Theory'. Which is the correct island? Which one is 'Truth'? Which one is 'Fact'?

I'm a sailor, and I'm sailing, but I'm sailing in a different direction, one that appears to irritate some people. I am exploring that region that has "Here Be Monsters" printed across it... I'm looking at the origins of this place called Space/Time, and I am not afraid to venture into areas where there may be danger. Life is too fucking short to do otherwise.
RG, you wrote:

As many people get older, they become more conservative. Some people embrace scientific and technological adances, and some people are confused or overwhelmed by them. Flew simply can't imagine how life could become so complex by the machinery of natural selection alone, but others with more sight can, have, and can show at least SOME evidence of how it happened.

Conservatism doesn't always manifest itself in going towards a new explanation of the universe; sometimes it manifests itself in hanging on even harder to explanations that we found more palitable as we were maturing. How many of the old scientists accepted Einstein's Theory of Relativity? How did Einstein react to Bohr? What does Stephen Hawkin say these days?

I am open to everything... EVERYTHING. It would be arrogant of me to close of any explanation simply because it was unpalitable.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:21 pm

samtzu wrote:Well... unless you live under a rock, or have no social life whatsoever, this pretty much pertains to you, too. Just a question, Bob...

Sound as if you're talking about "burners". "We" don't have certain nebulous beliefs -- "we" have a wide variety of beliefs, and had long discussions on the old eplaya re: the varieties of theism & atheism, in which I expressed that I'm a small-A atheist -- that I just don't give a shit about framing my own religious beliefs or lack thereof for public view or any other reason, and that I try to maintain a psychic wall of separation between that and the scientific or physical realm.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:50 pm

"Unpalatable" is not he same thing as "unreasonable." Believing in everything, or even actively contemplating the possibility of some of it, is tantamount to destroying rational thought. We all resist changes in our world-views. Even the most revolutionary thinkers have been insensed by later revolutionaries, it's true. But that doesn't mean it's worthwhile to consider something, simply because it is possible. Scientists argue, they debate, the peer review. That's what's great about science. Its very system forces verification and justification, but accepts change once the writing is on the wall. Sure Einstein didn't like Bohr's theories, and Bohr was hostile to Heisenberg's. Science resists changes which contradict long-standing tenets...because those tenets have been based on observations made thus far. But once there is sufficient evidence, the change is embraced. That's what's beautiful about it. Slew didn't change his mind because new evidence came to light that showed him wrong: he did it because new evidence came to light which he did not understand, and he didn't consult an expert who did.

I'll admit the possibility that you're a super-intelligent shade of blue, but entertaining the notion is intellectually fruitless. Anything is technically possible, but what's important is whether or not it's reasonable. There are things science can't yet explain fully, or areas where all we have are educated guesses. But this is better than complete speculation or works of fiction.

Incidentally, what is the point of inquiring after things which we "cannot perceive?" Isn't that futile? In the words of my high school US history teacher (a line that was emblazoned in my memory): "Russia has no undetectable nuclear submarines, or we'd know." If you cannot percieve it, even indirectly, it does not exist. Or it might as well not exist. What you're saying is that "I believe in these things because I have no reason to."

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:21 am

Donita wrote:Someone is reading hate into a post that isn't even there. Anyone who really knows me knows I am not about hate or perpetuating it. I am very proud of where I work. Our heart center is number one in this area. I enjoy working with the gracious, loving nuns that are such an integral part of this hospital. I was simply taken aback by this *one* person's comment about all those people being killed in the tsunami. Why the fuck am I defending myself? On to better things....

I do hate a lot of things about hte Catholic church. But there have been some kickass nuns and other believers. Keeps my agnostic self humble--I don't have the answer for everything. . .

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:23 am

Badger wrote:
Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God
Not at all uncommon. The guy's probably taking stock of his mortality and trying to stack the deck in his favor just in case a lifetime's worth of non-belief doesn't hit 21 on the ole cosmic poker table.

Enlightemnent at gunpoint might be another way of describie his new found faith. Not that that's bad or anything.

Descartes wager, isn't it?

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:29 am

Pascal. But it's an idiotic one. You have more to lose than you have to gain. I believe in life BEFORE death.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:29 am

geekster wrote: Countries such as the Maldives should probably stop to consider their viability. This is going to happen to them again. Do they want to continue to experiance it? There are nations in the Pacific that should be considering the same thing.

What choice do they have? Mass immegration? Taking over palestine? I don't know how long they've been living there, but once you're born someplace, once you have a culture and an infrastructure in place. People live in all sorts of fragile places. This will never end. And aren't you in earthquake country along with me, geekster?

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:38 am

theCryptofishist wrote:
geekster wrote: Countries such as the Maldives should probably stop to consider their viability. This is going to happen to them again. Do they want to continue to experiance it? There are nations in the Pacific that should be considering the same thing.
What choice do they have? Mass immegration? Taking over palestine? I don't know how long they've been living there, but once you're born someplace, once you have a culture and an infrastructure in place. People live in all sorts of fragile places. This will never end. And aren't you in earthquake country along with me, geekster?

well, it would mix things up for us a bit...
could be interesting.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:04 am

Maldives -- http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/mv.html

Terrain: flat, with white sandy beaches
Elevation extremes: lowest point: 0 m; highest point: 2.4 m
Natural resources: fish
Land use: arable land: 13.33%; permanent crops: 16.67%
Natural hazards: low level of islands makes them very sensitive to sea level rise
Geography - note: 1,190 coral islands grouped into 26 atolls (200 inhabited islands, plus 80 islands with tourist resorts); archipelago with strategic location astride and along major sea lanes in Indian Ocean
Population: 339,330 (2004)
Literacy: 97.2%
Telephones - main lines in use: 28,700; mobile cellular: 41,900 (2002)
Television broadcast stations: 1 (1997)
Internet country code: .mv
Internet hosts: 532 (2003)
Internet users: 15,000 (2002)

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:10 am

Ranger Genius wrote:Pascal. But it's an idiotic one.

Ah, you've ignored one french philosopher, you've ignored them all. . .

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:54 pm

Al-Jazeera wrote:Rabbi: Tsunami punishment for pullout

Tuesday 01 February 2005, 2:41 Makka Time, 23:41 GMT

Last month's Asian tsunami disaster was a form of divine retribution for the world's support of the planned pullout of settlers from the Gaza Strip, a former chief rabbi of Israel has said.
"The all powerful one was angry with the nations that did not help Israel, which wanted an evacuation, a disengagement [from Gaza] ... and this provoked the earth to shake," Mordechai Eliahu said in a religious publication distributed on Monday in thousands of synagogues throughout Israel.

The top-selling Yediot Ahronoth said the rabbi was guilty of "extreme stupidity" with his comments.

Right-wing rabbis have been among the instigators of the opposition to the plan by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to pull troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip by the end of the year.

The number of people presumed dead in last month's tsunamis rose to more than 286,000 on Monday when Indonesian authorities announcing a further increase in the number of dead and missing.

oh my fucking god.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:57 pm

The top-selling Yediot Ahronoth said the rabbi was guilty of "extreme stupidity" with his comments.

Alas, the punishment is not death. . .

Okay, okay, crypto knows that killing the idiot would only make him a martyr to rally around. But still...

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:58 pm

Yeah, we have idiots like that in this country too. The good part is that only a very tiny minority pay any attention to crap like that. I remember hearing crap out of the middle east that the shuttle breaking up over Texas was devine intervention because there was an Israeli astronaut abord too. It's just crap, nobody pays any attention to it.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:10 pm

only a very tiny minority pay any attention to crap like that.

which cable news network was it again with the biggest ratings? Which one of their pundits was it who said god lifted his shield from us and thus 9/11? Which one of our presidents was it who used the word crusade, more than once, in reference to the current war?

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:49 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:

check out Mt. Etna's smoke ring from 2000

She must of had a real good orgasm that day!

Joel is Cowboys sock!!!