Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

So I fail to see my lack
of acceptance without judgement... but I eagerly await your explanation.

What nonsense - he gave you no reason for sadness other than your
judgment of his position. I suggest that before you are
passing judgment so freely on whether other people are inappropriate
that you start by stop giving yourself a free ride in the judgment
area. You pass the time between making judgments on others by being
hypocritical.

I would be sad at your dishonesty, but I won't waste the emotion.

Curtis L. Russell

....this is going nowhere fast..he thought as the spewing continued, more
vomiting actually, and he wished him well on his recovery from mental
hangover.

Cheers

Basjan

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

The statement to a person that "your mother is a [censored]" might be ABSOLUTE
fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that person.

It upsets a person to precisely the extent they allow themselves to be
upset. The statement is probably intended to upset you but you get to
decide. Many people are in the habit of doing whatever others
want/expect.

Very true, but to that end, it was used as an example, albeit it poor one.

Basjan

Howard Kveck said:

Alec Rawls (his father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) is
good with this [censored]. Check out the comments here:

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html

Thanks. He was the guy whose name I was trying to remember.

I'm vaguely surprised the nutbars haven't been picketing Jack in the Box
over the croissandwich.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Howard Kveck said:

Alec Rawls (his father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) is
good with this [censored]. Check out the comments here:

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html

Thanks. He was the guy whose name I was trying to remember.

I'm vaguely surprised the nutbars haven't been picketing Jack in the Box
over the croissandwich.

You're right. After all, it's in the shape of an Islamic crescent and sounds
French (not sure which of those would be considered worse). Of course the Freepers
might not actually recognize that the croissamich name is based on the word
"croissant."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

You're right. After all, it's in the shape of an Islamic crescent and sounds
French (not sure which of those would be considered worse). Of course the Freepers
might not actually recognize that the croissamich name is based on the word
"croissant."

Not to mention you make something in the shape of a crescent and try a
sneaky way to call it a cross. Seems like something a Unitarian
Universalist would do.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Basjan said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Basjan said:

Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find
it sad that another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend,
explain, see, or fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...

So you can't accept the viewpoint of this other person without being
judgmental. Interesting.

Curtis, there is a huge difference between acceptance and emotion. I can
accept his indifference, while still (personally) finding it sad. Like a
teenage dauther´s pregnancy, which while the father accept this and doesn´t
judge, still finds sad for a multitude of reasons.

This is utterly typical arrogant garbage from a mind addled by
institutional religious dogma. You assume that because someone finds
your adherence to some ludicrous fairy tale contemptible, that such a
person has no reckoning with his maker. You think that somehow, you
perceive the answers to eternal questions more clearly than others.

You can keep your pity. You'll need it for yourself when your faith
can no longer support the weight of all that manure.

Chalo Colina

Basjan said:

Much of what is *real* to you, might not be real to me at all. Or stated
differently, things you may regard, as you eloquently stated, as fairy
tales, might be more real to me than your spewing this lovely morning.

So you admit that reality is subjective. Excellent, grasshopper.
Progress, at last!

Please let all the other evangelicals - and Muslim terrorists - and
while you're at it, the neocons - know this, and then maybe we can see
peace on earth in our lifetimes.

Thank you.

chalo colina said:

You can keep your pity. You'll need it for yourself when your faith
can no longer support the weight of all that manure.

If anyone knows about weight and manure, it's Chalo.

:o)

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Donald Munro said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
is true only until if and when it is disproven.

Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true,
however, a true follower of the scientific method will abandon this
assumption if it is ever shown that there are portions of the universe
undescribable by mathematics.

There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
a mathematical model, though.

Even so, how does that make it faith based?

Any discipline which follows the scientific method is not faith based.

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.
However, mathematics is also not faith based.

Assumptions that mathematical models are useful for describing
the universe _are_ science and are refutable. Generally, if a
mathematical model fails to describe the universe, one replaces
it not by abandoning the assumption that math is useful, but by
constructing a new model with different mathematics. For example,
Euclidean geometry doesn't describe the universe on very large
scales, but that doesn't mean Euclidean geometry is "wrong."
It's just inapplicable to that particular problem.

Ben

P.S. It sounds like you have a lot of faith in the scientific method.

Quoted message said:

For example,
Euclidean geometry doesn't describe the universe on very large
scales,

Dude,

The Flight 93 memorial? It points toward Mecca.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Donald Munro said:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
> proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
> is true only until if and when it is disproven.
>
> Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
> mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true,
> however, a true follower of the scientific method will abandon this
> assumption if it is ever shown that there are portions of the universe
> undescribable by mathematics.

There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
a mathematical model, though.

Even so, how does that make it faith based?

Any discipline which follows the scientific method is not faith based.

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.
However, mathematics is also not faith based.

Assumptions that mathematical models are useful for describing
the universe _are_ science and are refutable. Generally, if a
mathematical model fails to describe the universe, one replaces
it not by abandoning the assumption that math is useful, but by
constructing a new model with different mathematics. For example,
Euclidean geometry doesn't describe the universe on very large
scales, but that doesn't mean Euclidean geometry is "wrong."
It's just inapplicable to that particular problem.

Mathematicians are quick to assure us that mathematics is
not a science, and this argument is true as far as it
goes, which is not far enough for me. Science and
mathematics are described at length, but never in the
terms that are important to me. To do mathematics or
science requires that one is regularly required to set
aside ideas, formulations, notions, feelings, and other
deeply rooted comforts; to recognize that one's science
hypothesis, or maths proof does not hold. In a word, one
is required at the drop of a hat to recognize that one is
_wrong_. I invest faith in this process.

--
Michael Press

"chalo colina" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Basjan said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Basjan said:

Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find
it sad that another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend,
explain, see, or fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...

So you can't accept the viewpoint of this other person without being
judgmental. Interesting.

Curtis, there is a huge difference between acceptance and emotion. I can
accept his indifference, while still (personally) finding it sad. Like a
teenage dauther´s pregnancy, which while the father accept this and
doesn´t
judge, still finds sad for a multitude of reasons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is utterly typical arrogant garbage from a mind addled by
institutional religious dogma. You assume that because someone finds
your adherence to some ludicrous fairy tale contemptible, that such a
person has no reckoning with his maker. You think that somehow, you
perceive the answers to eternal questions more clearly than others.

Dear Chalo, your judgement is noted, as is your remarkable ability to assign
meaning to my rather one-dimensional, comprehensible description of "why I
don't like a book". Your response is at the same time clarifyingly bitter.
Again, as I said to an earlier poster, if you know me, and my beliefs so
well, based on a little newsgroup banter, then it is clear that you are
carrying quite a lot of baggage. I have not once said anyone should AGREE
with my position, merely that they should UNDERSTAND it. And actually, if
you cannot, your unacceptance "makes a 180 degrees".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can keep your pity. You'll need it for yourself when your faith
can no longer support the weight of all that manure.

I have not once in this entire thread claimed religious amnesty, but merely
that you *should* be willing to try, however unable, to understand that I
can in fact feel differently about an issue such as D.VinciCode. Your
extreme gurgitation seems like broiling hatred of sorts.

In the words of George Costanza: "Easy big fella..."

Basjan

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

Much of what is *real* to you, might not be real to me at all. Or stated
differently, things you may regard, as you eloquently stated, as fairy
tales, might be more real to me than your spewing this lovely morning.

So you admit that reality is subjective. Excellent, grasshopper.
Progress, at last!

Dear Doug, you are truly going around in circles. While you should allow my
belief, I should allow your disbelief. I have nowhere claimed anything
different. I can try a variety of other languages, if this is not clear in
English.

Quoted message said:

Please let all the other evangelicals - and Muslim terrorists - and
while you're at it, the neocons - know this, and then maybe we can see
peace on earth in our lifetimes.

Right back at you, sparky. I will do my bit, while you spread the word
amongst the hate-spewing, so-called tolerant, all-accepting liberals.

Basjan

Michael Press said:

To do mathematics or
science requires that one is regularly required to set
aside ideas, formulations, notions, feelings, and other
deeply rooted comforts; to recognize that one's science
hypothesis, or maths proof does not hold. In a word, one
is required at the drop of a hat to recognize that one is
_wrong_. I invest faith in this process.

Perhaps all politicians should be required to pass a maths course then.

Basjan said:

Quoted message said:

Please let all the other evangelicals - and Muslim terrorists - and
while you're at it, the neocons - know this, and then maybe we can see
peace on earth in our lifetimes.

Right back at you, sparky. I will do my bit, while you spread the word
amongst the hate-spewing, so-called tolerant, all-accepting liberals.

Here's the difference between you and me. I conceive that there is
one Truth (God, whatever) which is infinite and therefore beyond mere
human intellectual comprehension (we being mere mortal humans stuck in
time and space). Consequently, any intellectual expression of this
Truth - your religion, my religion, someone else's philosophy, another
person's atheism, whatever -cannot by definition completely exhaust
this Truth. An interpretation of Truth is just that: an
interpretation, a point of view. There are as many interpretations as
there are intellects; i.e. people; hence "reality" is subjective.
Therefore, I believe that there are many roads, which all lead to the
same destination

You, on the other hand, confuse the road with the destination, and
believe that anyone not on your road is going nowhere. You are just
deluded, is all, grasshopper. You have blinders on.

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

Quoted message said:

Please let all the other evangelicals - and Muslim terrorists - and
while you're at it, the neocons - know this, and then maybe we can see
peace on earth in our lifetimes.

Right back at you, sparky. I will do my bit, while you spread the word
amongst the hate-spewing, so-called tolerant, all-accepting liberals.

Here's the difference between you and me. I conceive that there is
one Truth (God, whatever) which is infinite and therefore beyond mere
human intellectual comprehension (we being mere mortal humans stuck in
time and space). Consequently, any intellectual expression of this
Truth - your religion, my religion, someone else's philosophy, another
person's atheism, whatever -cannot by definition completely exhaust
this Truth. An interpretation of Truth is just that: an
interpretation, a point of view. There are as many interpretations as
there are intellects; i.e. people; hence "reality" is subjective.
Therefore, I believe that there are many roads, which all lead to the
same destination

Dear Doug, a really, really good description (no sarcasm), bar one important
issue: In your acceptance of many roads to one destination, do you consider
that people on one or more of these roads actually believe that theirs is
the only way? And in your view of these many paths to the same destination,
do you actually accept such a "singular" path as one of the roads in your
reference framework? You see, Doug, this is where many religious critisms
fail. They claim an acceptance of all paths that lead to a similar
destination, except that path which claims it is the only one. Now you tell
me which one of these two philosophies are adhering to what they preach?

Quoted message said:

You, on the other hand, confuse the road with the destination

....not really, in the sense that most Christians probably separate past,
present (road), future. But I see where you are coming from and have to
admit that there might be people that see these two as joined.

Quoted message said:

believe that anyone not on your road is going nowhere.

Not my call, actually, I am glad that it isn´t. (1) I do have certain strict
beliefs, but (2) one of them that it is not my call what happens outside
these.

Quoted message said:

You are just
deluded, is all, grasshopper. You have blinders on.

Well, Doug, we are taking up valuable cycling-cyberspace with this
discussion, perhaps we can one day meet and discuss this and the virtues of
non-boutique wheels on a ride. That is, of course, if you are willing to
ride with grasshoppers.

Basjan

In article said:

The major flaw in your argument is the concept that for a religious person,
God is above democracy, and whoooo, isn´t that a scary thought, that a
person can actually believe in something bigger than an idea invented by us
mere mortals.

An idea invented by mere mortals...like God?
--
vince
/***** Visit the Home of the Rancid Tofu Experience *****/
/***** http://www.garageband.com/artist/rancidtofu *****/

Basjan said:

Again, as I said to an earlier poster, if you know me, and my beliefs so
well, based on a little newsgroup banter, then it is clear that you are
carrying quite a lot of baggage.

The _whole world_ is carrying a lot of baggage from residual
Catholicism damage. The Medieval Inquisition began in the year 1184,
and the last Magdalen laundry closed in 1996. In between, and
continuing to this day, is a trail of misery and atrocities committed
in the name of that faith that even Sweet Baby Jesus couldn't forgive.
We, that is to say the world, should no more indulge Roman Catholicism
with respect and forbearance than the German people should maintain an
open exchange of ideas with neo-Fascists. We already know the nature
of those creeds.

Chalo

Quoted message said:

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.

Dumbass -

I don't know that one can really say that because all "sciences"
necessarily use mathematical tools.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Quoted message said:

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.

Dumbass -

I don't know that one can really say that because all "sciences"
necessarily use mathematical tools.

Objectivity is impossible. All observations and tests necessarily
assume a pre-established framework. If nothing else, you assume that
you're dealing with something called "reality", whatever that means.
The difference between mathematics and everything else is that
mathematicians attempt to define their framework rigorously.

If you find that elusive objective basis for everything, be sure to
mention it in that Middle East Democracy thread. They could sure use it
in there.