General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Christmas is under assault!

Started by Brian Link · · Last activity · 40 posts · 875 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
1 December 2005
Last activity
26 December 2005
Original author
Brian Link
Posts
40
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
875
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 40
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    Alert your congressmen!

    I was all set to celebrate the birth of Christ, and the State got in
    the way!

    I can't celebrate the birth of Christ, because Walmart has chosen to
    greet their shoppers with "Happy Holidays".

    How sad that my children can't celebrate our saviour's birth - because
    WalMart has told us we can't. We all waited for the nod of WalMart...
    because it holds the Truth of God.

    It's so sad that the corporations that rule our lives have to tell us
    what we can do in our own homes. It should be obvious, since we're a
    Christian nation and all that object to Christ should be killed. It's
    sad, But I know that if I talk about Christ's birth in my house, the
    liberals and WalMart (loved by liberals) will storm into my house and
    kill my wife and kids and pets.

    Thank god for Bush. I hope he crushes all these ungodly [censored] and
    reinstates Godly christianity as law into my home, and those of my
    atheistic neighbors.

    Jesus rules. Other gods are but idols. God bless Amerika.

    BLink - recently converted to Bush's Army of God. Though he won't
    enlist...

  2. Brian Link said:

    The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    No, the radical secularists are.

    Quoted message said:

    Alert your congressmen!

    He's aware. Being minority leader of the Senate, he gets all the memos.

    Quoted message said:

    I was all set to celebrate the birth of Christ, and the State got in
    the way!

    Really? How?

    Quoted message said:

    I can't celebrate the birth of Christ, because Walmart has chosen to
    greet their shoppers with "Happy Holidays".

    Why do you do what Walmart tells you?

    Quoted message said:

    How sad that my children can't celebrate our saviour's birth - because
    WalMart has told us we can't.

    Really? I must have missed that memo.

    Quoted message said:

    We all waited for the nod of WalMart...
    because it holds the Truth of God.

    Really? Another missed memo. Damn.

    Quoted message said:

    It's so sad that the corporations that rule our lives

    Corporations rule your life, Brian? I'm sorry. That must be really
    annoying.

    Quoted message said:

    have to tell us
    what we can do in our own homes. It should be obvious, since we're a
    Christian nation

    Yes. We are. And this atheist jew is quite happy about that.

    Quoted message said:

    and all that object to Christ should be killed. It's
    sad, But I know that if I talk about Christ's birth in my house, the
    liberals and WalMart (loved by liberals) will storm into my house and
    kill my wife and kids and pets.

    As long as they don't kill the pets, I guess I can live with it.

    Quoted message said:

    Thank god for Bush.

    True.

    Quoted message said:

    I hope he crushes all these ungodly [censored] and
    reinstates Godly christianity as law into my home, and those of my
    atheistic neighbors.

    Would you mind providing the quote or the reference to where our
    President said, implied, inferred, or hinted at such a thing?

    Quoted message said:

    Jesus rules.

    He does? Damn, missed that memo too.

    Quoted message said:

    Other gods are but idols.

    All gods are idols, since there is no god.

    Quoted message said:

    God bless Amerika.

    I hear Canada's a lovely place to live. Maybe you could be Keith's
    neighbor.

    Quoted message said:

    BLink - recently converted to Bush's Army of God.

    Oh, you're just pulling my leg, now.

    Quoted message said:

    Though he won't enlist...

    I don't understand that reference.

    Probably just another missed memo 🙁

    David

  3. On 1 Dec 2005 02:59:33 -0800, "David Cohen" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Brian Link said:

    The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    No, the radical secularists are.

    Quoted message said:

    Alert your congressmen!

    He's aware. Being minority leader of the Senate, he gets all the memos.

    Quoted message said:

    I was all set to celebrate the birth of Christ, and the State got in
    the way!

    Really? How?

    Quoted message said:

    I can't celebrate the birth of Christ, because Walmart has chosen to
    greet their shoppers with "Happy Holidays".

    Why do you do what Walmart tells you?

    Quoted message said:

    How sad that my children can't celebrate our saviour's birth - because
    WalMart has told us we can't.

    Really? I must have missed that memo.

    Quoted message said:

    We all waited for the nod of WalMart...
    because it holds the Truth of God.

    Really? Another missed memo. Damn.

    Quoted message said:

    It's so sad that the corporations that rule our lives

    Corporations rule your life, Brian? I'm sorry. That must be really
    annoying.

    Quoted message said:

    have to tell us
    what we can do in our own homes. It should be obvious, since we're a
    Christian nation

    Yes. We are. And this atheist jew is quite happy about that.

    Quoted message said:

    and all that object to Christ should be killed. It's
    sad, But I know that if I talk about Christ's birth in my house, the
    liberals and WalMart (loved by liberals) will storm into my house and
    kill my wife and kids and pets.

    As long as they don't kill the pets, I guess I can live with it.

    Quoted message said:

    Thank god for Bush.

    True.

    Quoted message said:

    I hope he crushes all these ungodly [censored] and
    reinstates Godly christianity as law into my home, and those of my
    atheistic neighbors.

    Would you mind providing the quote or the reference to where our
    President said, implied, inferred, or hinted at such a thing?

    Quoted message said:

    Jesus rules.

    He does? Damn, missed that memo too.

    Quoted message said:

    Other gods are but idols.

    All gods are idols, since there is no god.

    Quoted message said:

    God bless Amerika.

    I hear Canada's a lovely place to live. Maybe you could be Keith's
    neighbor.

    Quoted message said:

    BLink - recently converted to Bush's Army of God.

    Oh, you're just pulling my leg, now.

    Quoted message said:

    Though he won't enlist...

    I don't understand that reference.

    Probably just another missed memo 🙁

    It's good to see Cohen getting back up to speed, ;o)

  4. "Brian Link" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    Alert your congressmen!

    I was all set to celebrate the birth of Christ, and the State got in
    the way!

    I can't celebrate the birth of Christ, because Walmart has chosen to
    greet their shoppers with "Happy Holidays".

    How sad that my children can't celebrate our saviour's birth - because
    WalMart has told us we can't. We all waited for the nod of WalMart...
    because it holds the Truth of God.

    It's so sad that the corporations that rule our lives have to tell us
    what we can do in our own homes. It should be obvious, since we're a
    Christian nation and all that object to Christ should be killed. It's
    sad, But I know that if I talk about Christ's birth in my house, the
    liberals and WalMart (loved by liberals) will storm into my house and
    kill my wife and kids and pets.

    Thank god for Bush. I hope he crushes all these ungodly [censored] and
    reinstates Godly christianity as law into my home, and those of my
    atheistic neighbors.

    Jesus rules. Other gods are but idols. God bless Amerika.

    BLink - recently converted to Bush's Army of God. Though he won't
    enlist...

    LOL! That was the best way to start of the day. I just about spit oatmeal
    out my nose.

    Great satire!

  5. "Brian Link" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    Alert your congressmen!

    I was all set to celebrate the birth of Christ, and the State got in
    the way!

    I can't celebrate the birth of Christ, because Walmart has chosen to
    greet their shoppers with "Happy Holidays".

    Uh huh. Another late night bout with the Schnapps, Bri?

  6. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Charles said:

    On 1 Dec 2005 02:59:33 -0800, "David Cohen" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Brian Link said:

    The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    No, the radical secularists are.

    Quoted message said:

    Alert your congressmen!

    He's aware. Being minority leader of the Senate, he gets all the memos.

    Quoted message said:

    I was all set to celebrate the birth of Christ, and the State got in
    the way!

    Really? How?

    Quoted message said:

    I can't celebrate the birth of Christ, because Walmart has chosen to
    greet their shoppers with "Happy Holidays".

    Why do you do what Walmart tells you?

    Quoted message said:

    How sad that my children can't celebrate our saviour's birth - because
    WalMart has told us we can't.

    Really? I must have missed that memo.

    Quoted message said:

    We all waited for the nod of WalMart...
    because it holds the Truth of God.

    Really? Another missed memo. Damn.

    Quoted message said:

    It's so sad that the corporations that rule our lives

    Corporations rule your life, Brian? I'm sorry. That must be really
    annoying.

    Quoted message said:

    have to tell us
    what we can do in our own homes. It should be obvious, since we're a
    Christian nation

    Yes. We are. And this atheist jew is quite happy about that.

    Quoted message said:

    and all that object to Christ should be killed. It's
    sad, But I know that if I talk about Christ's birth in my house, the
    liberals and WalMart (loved by liberals) will storm into my house and
    kill my wife and kids and pets.

    As long as they don't kill the pets, I guess I can live with it.

    Quoted message said:

    Thank god for Bush.

    True.

    Quoted message said:

    I hope he crushes all these ungodly [censored] and
    reinstates Godly christianity as law into my home, and those of my
    atheistic neighbors.

    Would you mind providing the quote or the reference to where our
    President said, implied, inferred, or hinted at such a thing?

    Quoted message said:

    Jesus rules.

    He does? Damn, missed that memo too.

    Quoted message said:

    Other gods are but idols.

    All gods are idols, since there is no god.

    Quoted message said:

    God bless Amerika.

    I hear Canada's a lovely place to live. Maybe you could be Keith's
    neighbor.

    Quoted message said:

    BLink - recently converted to Bush's Army of God.

    Oh, you're just pulling my leg, now.

    Quoted message said:

    Though he won't enlist...

    I don't understand that reference.

    Probably just another missed memo 🙁

    It's good to see Cohen getting back up to speed, ;o)

    Indeed... ;-D
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

  7. "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    WooferBearATL said:

    LOL! That was the best way to start of the day. I just about spit
    oatmeal
    out my nose.

    Are you sure it wasn't your BF's [censored]?

    Nope, it was oatmeal.

  8. "WooferBearATL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    WooferBearATL said:

    LOL! That was the best way to start of the day. I just about spit
    oatmeal
    out my nose.

    Are you sure it wasn't your BF's [censored]?

    Nope, it was oatmeal.


    That was not me posting. I thought I was too boring to be impersonated, I
    guess there's a first for everything.

  9. "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:


    "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:29:06 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >LOL! That was the best way to start of the day. I just about spit
    >oatmeal
    >out my nose.

    Are you sure it wasn't your BF's [censored]?

    Nope, it was oatmeal.


    That was not me posting. I thought I was too boring to be impersonated, I
    guess there's a first for everything.


    LOL, no one is too borning for a troll. Most trolls it seems are pathetic
    losers that really have no life.

  10. "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:


    "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:29:06 -0500, "WooferBearATL"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >LOL! That was the best way to start of the day. I just about spit
    >oatmeal
    >out my nose.

    Are you sure it wasn't your BF's [censored]?

    Nope, it was oatmeal.


    That was not me posting. I thought I was too boring to be impersonated, I
    guess there's a first for everything.


    LOL, no one is too borning for a troll. Most trolls it seems are pathetic
    losers that really have no life.

  11. On 1 Dec 2005 02:59:33 -0800, "David Cohen" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Brian Link said:

    The liberals are stealing Christmas!

    No, the radical secularists are.

    Hmmm....Which dog is being given a bad name and then hanged for it?

    New York Times
    This Season's War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else
    By ADAM COHEN
    Published: December 4, 2005

    Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the
    commercialization of Christmas. They're for it.

    The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for not
    using the words "Merry Christmas" in its advertising. (Target denies
    it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League boycotted
    Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches for
    "Christmas." Bill O'Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started a
    "Christmas Under Siege" campaign, has a chart on his Web site of
    stores that use the phrase "Happy Holidays," along with a poll that
    asks, "Will you shop at stores that do not say 'Merry Christmas'?"

    This campaign - which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk
    radio - is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its
    celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court
    and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for
    powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians
    are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and
    slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that
    sell "holiday trees."

    What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas's self-proclaimed
    defenders are rewriting the holiday's history. They claim that the
    "traditional" American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson,
    another Fox anchor, calls "professional atheists" and "Christian
    haters." But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going
    back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing
    is not defending America's Christmas traditions, but creating a new
    version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

    The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it
    out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole
    source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from
    Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their first
    Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on building
    projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659 to 1681
    Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by
    forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.

    The concern that Christmas distracted from religious piety continued
    even after Puritanism waned. In 1827, an Episcopal bishop lamented
    that the Devil had stolen Christmas "and converted it into a day of
    worldly festivity, shooting and swearing." Throughout the 1800's, many
    religious leaders were still trying to hold the line. As late as 1855,
    New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist
    churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as
    a Holy One." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in
    just 18 states.

    Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic
    celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit
    from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which
    created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children.
    The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that the holiday
    would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced
    another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail industry had
    adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off
    the "Christmas shopping season."

    Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an
    inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while
    clergymen tried to keep commerce out. A 1931 Times roundup of
    Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that
    Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background
    by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical of
    countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a
    "profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A
    Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown
    ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find"
    and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and
    finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

    This year's Christmas "defenders" are not just tolerating
    commercialization - they're insisting on it. They are also rewriting
    Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians' objection to
    having the holiday forced on them.

    The campaign's leaders insist this is a new phenomenon - a "liberal
    plot," in Mr. Gibson's words. But as early as 1906, the Committee on
    Elementary Schools in New York City urged that Christmas hymns be
    banned from the classroom, after a boycott by more than 20,000 Jewish
    students. In 1946, the Rabbinical Assembly of America declared that
    calling on Jewish children to sing Christmas carols was "an
    infringement on their rights as Americans."

    Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For
    decades, companies have replaced "Christmas parties" with "holiday
    parties," schools have adopted "winter breaks" instead of "Christmas
    breaks," and TV stations and stores have used phrases like "Happy
    Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" out of respect for the nation's
    religious diversity.

    The Christmas that Mr. O'Reilly and his allies are promoting - one
    closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward
    nonobservers - fits with their campaign to make America more like a
    theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian
    prayer in public schools.

    It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That
    may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized,
    mean-spirited Christmas as their own. Of course, it's not even clear
    the campaign's leaders really believe in it. Just a few days ago, Fox
    News's online store was promoting its "Holiday Collection" for
    shoppers. Among the items offered to put under a "holiday tree" was
    "The O'Reilly Factor Holiday Ornament." After bloggers pointed this
    out, Fox changed the "holidays" to "Christmases."

  12. Dr_Dickie said:

    My problem with the whole Christmas is

    I think it's that baseball bat someone shoved up your ass.

  13. In article <[email hidden]>,

    JMW said:

    Simply claiming that there is no proof of God is a different matter,
    and it places no burden upon the person who makes that assertion.

    Sure it does: demonstrate that there is no such proof.

    (That's what you get for arguing with a metamathematician.)

    Seth
    --
    Wow! This math stuff works. -- Tom Morley

  14. (Seth Breidbart) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    JMW said:

    Simply claiming that there is no proof of God is a different matter,
    and it places no burden upon the person who makes that assertion.

    Sure it does: demonstrate that there is no such proof.

    (That's what you get for arguing with a metamathematician.)

    A lack of proof is the automatic default position. It is the null
    hypothesis. Anyone who wishes to move away from that default position
    has the burden of presenting evidence and proving their proposition,
    be it positive or negative.

    That's what you get for arguing with a lawyer.

  15. David Cohen said:


    True. But, proof of absence is an absurd concept, when dealing with
    universal concepts. It causes the agnostic "well, maybe not in THIS
    part of the Universe, but maybe, just maybe, there is somewhere, out
    there, where [insert absurd claim] is true, so, the best we can say is
    we don't know."

    I think it comes down to intellectual integrity. You, John, in all my
    cyber dealings with you, have impressed me as someone with extreme
    intellectual integrity. And yet, in this area of cultural/societal/
    community/familial brainwashing, you don't want to take that final step
    into atheism. And you aren't alone. Look at those lists of highly
    respected scientists who always sign the pro-"Intelligent Design"
    stuff. Theism is so ingrained in them that they just can't shake it.
    You're in good company. You, Albert Einstein,...

    Oh, you're way off track on that one. You make a lot of assumptions
    about background brainwashing. If anything, it is my Zen Buddhist
    practice that leads me to agnosticism. Form is emptiness; emptiness
    is form. All concrete reality, and the logic based thereon, is
    illusory. Knowledge is illusory and impermanent. When knowledge is
    illusory, it is the agnostic, who realizes that he knows nothing, that
    is the most wise.

    I will admit that my concept of what "God" might be is exponentially
    broader than what is written in Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures,
    and probably much broader than what most people are willing to accept.
    But even if one is to engage this subject in the illusory terms of
    concrete reality, for one to conclusively deny the existence of any
    supreme intelligence while sitting on this "utterly insignificant
    little blue-green planet" orbiting "an unregarded yellow sun" situated
    "far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the
    western spiral arm of the galaxy"[1], solely because one has not seen
    evidence thereof from his limited perspective, seems to be the most
    ignorant arrogance imaginable. When I view reality in those terms,
    not knowing seems to be the only reasonable answer.

    [1] Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

  16. Seth Breidbart said:
    David Cohen said:

    "Seth Breidbart" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    Those who make any assertion, either way, are required to provide
    proof if they want to be believed.

    No. Only positive assertion requires proof.

    So somebody claiming "David Cohen wore a red shirt yesterday" is
    required to provide proof, while someone else claiming "David Cohen
    didn't wear a red shirt yesterday" isn't?

    This is about right. To make it more transparent, let the red shirt be
    speckled with little "hammer and sickle"s. The agnostic, or flat
    allocation of equal chances to each possible color and pattern leads
    to a drastic change in these chances once the positive is proven. As
    far as the negative, there're still plenty of possibilities once it's
    proven that he didn't wear the communist shirt. If we were to somehow
    act based on these chances, the proof of a positive assertion would
    modify our actions to a larger degree. OTOH, we may choose to ignore
    the consequences of a negative proof altogether.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Does the person stating "Elvis is alive and well on a planet
    orbiting a star in the Crab Nebula" and the person stating "no, he
    isn't" both have the same responsibility to provide proof or
    evidence?

    If they want their statement to change my subjective probability,
    yes. If that starts at 0, it doesn't matter.

    Or perhaps, an assertion I don't already agree with requires proof;
    one I already agree with doesn't, because I agree with it before it's
    made.

    While this is true, positive assertions tend to place a
    disproportionally large prior chance on a hypothesis. When such
    hypothesis is sharp, it is reasonable that you do not to agree with
    the assertion, and seek its proof.

  17. JMW said:

    And to avoid any strawman argument that might arise from consistent
    references to people who "claim" there is a God, I will clarify that
    if someone HYPOTHESIZES the existence of God, the burden lies with a
    strong atheist to prove the univeral nonexistence thereof.

    It depends on whether the hypothesis comes with detailed
    qualifications about God and its role in our existence. To simply say
    that there is God is not to say much. At the other extreme, to give
    details about the number of baby elephants on the ark puts the
    hypothesis into Elvis in the Crab Nebula category.

    For me, there would be a long way from hypothesizing the existence of
    God to actually going to church on Sunday.

  18. JMW said:
    David Cohen said:


    True. But, proof of absence is an absurd concept, when dealing with
    universal concepts. It causes the agnostic "well, maybe not in THIS
    part of the Universe, but maybe, just maybe, there is somewhere, out
    there, where [insert absurd claim] is true, so, the best we can say is
    we don't know."

    I think it comes down to intellectual integrity. You, John, in all my
    cyber dealings with you, have impressed me as someone with extreme
    intellectual integrity. And yet, in this area of cultural/societal/
    community/familial brainwashing, you don't want to take that final step
    into atheism. And you aren't alone. Look at those lists of highly
    respected scientists who always sign the pro-"Intelligent Design"
    stuff. Theism is so ingrained in them that they just can't shake it.
    You're in good company. You, Albert Einstein,...

    Oh, you're way off track on that one.

    It wouldn't be the first time.

    Quoted message said:

    You make a lot of assumptions
    about background brainwashing. If anything, it is my Zen Buddhist
    practice that leads me to agnosticism. Form is emptiness; emptiness
    is form. All concrete reality, and the logic based thereon, is
    illusory. Knowledge is illusory and impermanent. When knowledge is
    illusory, it is the agnostic, who realizes that he knows nothing, that
    is the most wise.

    I will admit that my concept of what "God" might be is exponentially
    broader than what is written in Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures,
    and probably much broader than what most people are willing to accept.
    But even if one is to engage this subject in the illusory terms of
    concrete reality, for one to conclusively deny the existence of any
    supreme intelligence while sitting on this "utterly insignificant
    little blue-green planet" orbiting "an unregarded yellow sun" situated
    "far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the
    western spiral arm of the galaxy"[1], solely because one has not seen
    evidence thereof from his limited perspective, seems to be the most
    ignorant arrogance imaginable. When I view reality in those terms,
    not knowing seems to be the only reasonable answer.

    Imagine this, if you will. You are born into a society that has no
    concept of a supreme being. It just isn't mentioned or discussed. Human
    nature, in my hypothetical society, never developed the need to have an
    explanation for everything, even if it has to invent one. Even cavemen
    were willing to look at fire, or rain, or stars, and grunt, "gee, I
    wonder what those are, I don't know, I hope we find out some day."
    Science explains whatever science explains, and what science can't
    explain, society just says, "we don't know, at least yet". You grow up,
    are educated, and become an attorney, a proscecutor in Ohio.

    What in your experience, in my scenario, would cause you to come up
    with the concept of a supreme being? I would venture to answer:
    nothing. You didn't invent religion, or the concept of a supreme being,
    or zen buddhism. It was taught to you/learned by you. I use the term
    brainwashed, but, any other, gentler, term will suffice. It satisfies a
    nearly universal human need to have an explanation for everything NOW.
    And even the most dedicated scientist, for the most part, is willing to
    allow science to explain almost everything, but, when faced with the
    question, "But, where did the Universe come from? What was before?",
    allows the brainwashing to make them say, "Well, God, of course, I have
    Faith."

    God did not invent Man. Man invented God.

    David

  19. Dr_Dickie said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    David Cohen wrote:
    > every crackpot nutjob can state, "Oh, you say that Elvis is NOT
    > alive on a planet orbiting a distant star, as I claim? Well,
    > then, PROVE he's not!"

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    JMW said:

    The same is true about an assertion that no supreme intelligence exists
    anywhere in the universe, in any form. Nobody has sufficient data to
    make that claim. If one seeks to make that claim, one should be bound
    to prove it.



    That is correct. Just as if someone claims that there IS NO supreme
    intelligence, that person must provide some proof for that claim that as
    well. In science we do not claim, "THERE IS NO..." except when it come to
    evidence.

    Basically, I agree with Cohen, when "proof" is taken to mean "strong
    evidence". The degree of need for such a proof (and that includes
    science) depends on the consequences of accepting the proposition. The
    issue is with the sharpness of a hypothesis. E.g. "there is something
    out there doing stuff" is not sharp. There is really no need for a
    strong atheist to oppose such a non-consequential statement. God
    created the Solar system is sharper, and "there are angels and they
    shed feathers from the wings" is sharp. As sharpness increases, the
    need for a proof goes the opposite ways with a positive and a negative
    assertion.

    To simply say "there is supreme intelligence" is not very useful. It
    may simply mean that there are slightly smarter life forms out there
    that have nothing to do with us. That have little consequence for our
    understanding of nature and our existence. But once you start
    specifying what exactly you mean by supreme intelligence, you're bound
    to increase the need for a proof of the positive statements you make
    (like with Cohen wearing the red shirt example). At the same time,
    somebody who rejects your assertions has less and less need to supply
    the corresponding proof.

    One way to think about it is how the prior beliefs (subjective
    probabilities) are partitioned among all possible hypotheses, and what
    effect the evidence can have on these probabilities.

    If our prior beliefs regarding Elvis being on various planets are
    agnostic, then once we choose to go all the way to prove that Elvis is
    not on a particular planet, the whole set of our agnostic
    probabilities will not be much affected. Therefore there is little
    need for a proof of such negative assertion.

  20. "David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1134638972.573203.60330
    @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

    Quoted message said:

    Imagine this, if you will. You are born into a society that has no
    concept of a supreme being. It just isn't mentioned or discussed. Human
    nature, in my hypothetical society, never developed the need to have an
    explanation for everything, even if it has to invent one. Even cavemen
    were willing to look at fire, or rain, or stars, and grunt, "gee, I
    wonder what those are, I don't know, I hope we find out some day."
    Science explains whatever science explains, and what science can't
    explain, society just says, "we don't know, at least yet". You grow up,
    are educated, and become an attorney, a proscecutor in Ohio.

    What in your experience, in my scenario, would cause you to come up
    with the concept of a supreme being? I would venture to answer:
    nothing. You didn't invent religion, or the concept of a supreme being,
    or zen buddhism. It was taught to you/learned by you.

    Two problems with this.

    One is that such a society doesn't exist, has never existed, and shows no
    sign of ever existing. What would cause some such person to invent a
    supreme being? The same impulse that has always caused mankind to invent
    supreme beings: the awareness of the divine.

    The second problem is that God is not there to explain the unknown. Go
    talk to any religious person you like and they will not start telling you
    that the important thing about God in their lives is that He explains how
    quantum dynamics is reconciled the general relativity. They'll tell you
    God matters because He explains aspects of their experience that they
    can't explain otherwise.

    Hugh

    I use the term

    Quoted message said:

    brainwashed, but, any other, gentler, term will suffice. It satisfies a
    nearly universal human need to have an explanation for everything NOW.
    And even the most dedicated scientist, for the most part, is willing to
    allow science to explain almost everything, but, when faced with the
    question, "But, where did the Universe come from? What was before?",
    allows the brainwashing to make them say, "Well, God, of course, I have
    Faith."

    --
    Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
    chocolate. ("Ladi"😉

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.