Here's a place to talk turkey about politics, or talk politics about turkeys, or chat about whatever else is on your mind. Hope everyone has a fun and relaxing week.
should scientists clone a Neanderthal? Such a feat should be possible soon, although it raises a number of bioethics concerns, including where to draw the line between humans and other animals."
If a Neandrathal is cloned, I'm wondering what the last refuge of Young Earth Creationist will be? Was the possiblby still viable DNA put there by Lucifer to test man's faith in the Earth only being 6,000 years old (that wouldn't be much, most of them think Raquel Welch starred in a documentary )?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
As for the creationist folks, never underestimate their ability to explain away anything in defense/support of their conclusion. They -- and even many "people of faith" who don't take the Bible literally but who have strong faith -- are like some wives of abusive or alcoholic husbands who constantly make excuses for the guy. I would love to have a boss or clients who evaluated my performance the way these folks view anything that their god has supposedly done -- no matter what was done and no matter what the results appear to be, he did something great, whether we understand why or not. Another outstanding performance review!
It's not like he would be God, if we could just put Him under human evaluation. Although there will a period for reviewing His perfomance in the millenium, that time hasn't come.
Well, maybe those guys believe on faith that tax cuts always increase revenues. After all, it's in their bible (the Limbaugh newsletter) so it must be true, period, since Rush is merely channeling the word of their deity. So any evidence or arguments to the contrary must be inadequate, erroneous or complete illusions ;-)
And as a note, the refutation of their argument is not merely that correlation does not imply causation, but that they are not even following the basics of correlation analysis and are instead cherry-picking their data points, ignoring what generally happens to revenues in the absence of tax cuts and even after tax increases (revenues generally trend up regardless of tax policy), per my explanation (to GR) here:
If you wish to establish a significant correlation (let alone causation), you have to consider all relevant data points, not just those that confirm your hypothesis (or desired conclusion, as the case seems to be). So we cannot just look at whether or not revenues go up after a tax cut. We must also look at whether or not revenues go up without a tax cut, or even after tax increases. For example, look at this chart http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html and take note of the strong upward revenue trend (in real terms) following the 1993 tax increase. And look at the general upward trend since 1965 (again, in real terms, meaning dollars adjusted for inflation). You see, the economy is more often in expansion than in recession, and revenues have generally grown, regardless of whether taxes have been raised or lowered (and by the way, which is happening to what extent is not even as clear as you might think, as the tax increases during the Reagan Administration illustrate).
An illustration of your error. Suppose I told you that, over the past decade or so, whenever I've moved to and spent a couple of years living in a large city, I've gotten more wrinkles on my face, and that I therefore conclude that something about large cities are causing those wrinkles. What's wrong with my "analysis" (for lack of a better word)? Answer coming up, so stop reading for a moment if you want to think about it and guess the answer......................ok, the answer is that I haven't considered whether or not I've gotten more wrinkles on my face when I have NOT been living in a large city. It could be that I've been getting more wrinkles regardless of where I've lived and at the same rate, in which case there is probably some other factor driving this phenomenon. Perhaps it's that...I'm getting older (and related biological dynamics are occurring). http://swordscrossed.org/diary/20081017/no-bush-tax-cuts-have-not-generated-higher-revenues#comment-97981
Well, maybe those guys believe on faith that tax cuts always increase revenues. After all, it's in their bible (the Limbaugh newsletter) so it must be true, period, since Rush is merely channeling the word of their deity. So any evidence or arguments to the contrary must be inadequate, erroneous or complete illusions ;-):
And as a note, the refutation of their argument is not merely that correlation does not imply causation, but that they are not even following the basics of correlation analysis and are instead cherry-picking their data points, ignoring what generally happens to revenues in the absence of tax cuts and even after tax increases (revenues generally trend up regardless of tax policy), per my explanation (to GR) here:
It still boils down to correlation not equaling causation, but your arguement there does show do a good job of detailing why it doesn't. Maybe I'll use some of your quotes, if the debate continues.
It still boils down to correlation not equaling causation
Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no, and the distinction is worth noting. If by "correlation" we just mean the correlation between two variables for the cherry-picked data points, then yes, we are still saying that correlation doesn't equal causation. But that rule would apply even if there were a very strong -- or even perfect or near perfect -- correlation using appropriate methodology, meaning there could be a spurious relationship (e.g., one of the two variables being highly correlated with a third variable that actually is causative -- for example, the temperature of sidewalk pavement and the number of heat strokes may be highly correlated, but not because hot sidewalks are causing heat strokes, but rather that hot ambient temperature causes heat strokes and also happens to cause hot sidewalks).
By contrast, what we have here is fundamentally poor analytical methodology -- cherry-picking data points for correlation analysis, (at best) choosing only data points for the supposedly dependent variable (revenues) following the presence of the independent variable (tax cuts) while ignoring what happens to that supposedly dependent variable in the absence of that independent variable or even with the presence of the opposite force of that independent variable (the latter being tax increases). When we look at all relevant data points, we don't see the strong historical correlation that they are asserting. Instead, we see revenues generally trending upward (in real terms) regardless of whether tax rates are cut or not, and we see them trending up particularly strongly following the 1993 tax increase, and that's even leaving aside their incomplete independent variable data -- e.g., the Reagan tax increases that followed the Reagan tax cuts.
Basically, yes, that's basically what I'm saying, although the language of correlation analysis is different, involving "strength" of correlation and statistical "significance" of the correlation.
Those folks are asserting a strong, positive correlation (as well as causation) between tax cuts and revenues. The data (all the relevant data, not just their cherry-picked data points) simply do not support that assertion of strong correlation, as can be seen from that chart showing revenues since 1965 (generally trending upward regardless of tax policy, increasing markedly for several years following the 1993 tax increases, etc.).
So, yes, they do not even have a legitimate argument that there is a strong positive correlation, let alone causation. And the correlation could be negative rather than positive (generally, the net effect of tax cuts, ceteris paribus, is a loss of revenue, which may or may not be reflected in the overall data due to variations among all the other factors that drive revenue).
That god gave us the free will to choose to not understand him. I think this contradicts a little with the earlier statement that a god who could be understood is not the true god.
lol. Nah, the G dude is just very clever. Think about it: wouldn't life be easy if every time you harmed someone or let harm come to someone for no apparent reason or justification, you could just say "You just don't understand" ? God's a smart dude. So smart it's like he's...superhuman...OMG -- I see the light!!
Even after all these years I still find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent, rational, critical thinkers can think (for lack of a better word) in an entirely different manner when it comes to the matter of "faith". As I say, it's like a Twilight Zone episode in which everyone in town seems perfectly normal, then all of a sudden turn out to be batsh*t insane in some way. I guess it shows the power of emotion (fear, insecurity, grief, frustration, loneliness, emptiness, etc., and all the positive emotions that come with relief of those negative ones) to overcome reason.
And of course one comical twist is that so many of them see the beliefs of other faiths as obviously absurd! I heard/read Christians pretty much implying that Mormons like Romney must be insane to believe (per those Christians) that each Mormon will get his own planet over which to rule in the afterlife. Same deal regarding the Heaven's Gate "cult" folks thinking they would be transported to a space ship after committing suicide. Yeah, and those beliefs are more insane than Christian beliefs?? Geez, Louise. When is Rod Serling going to step out from around the corner.
Hey, I'm very pro-emotion. Ultimately, emotions are largely what life is about. We want us to feel good (and not feel bad) and we want the same for others. And it's not irrational or necessarily bad to choose something -- e.g., a spouse -- based much more on a feeling than on practical considerations, if that's where you're goin' with your point (I don't know if it is). That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about believing, based on absolutely nothing but a "feeling" one has or just mindless acceptance, in some cooky idea about some entity that created the universe, is watching us all the time, and has delivered its commandments -- things for us to do and not do -- and related punishments, which include eternal "life after death" either in some paradise or in some really awful place, per some beliefs based simply and solely on whether or not you believe in it.
Because, generally speaking, you want a spouse that makes you happy, and that is largely the reason you are choosing to marry that person. You can give what many would consider inadequate consideration to practical matters for optimizing your future happiness (per probabilities and magnitudes) and/or forego an analytical view (e.g., thinking through common interests, goals, etc.) in favor of going with the feeling of love and joy in the moment, and that may turn out to be something you regret, but not necessarily.
As for choosing to believe that there is some omniscient, omnipotent deity with a particular, specified history and commandments and rewards and punishments for us -- on zero basis whatsoever and based just on some "feeling" or on what your parents or someone else told you is the truth even though they have no basis for it -- just because it will make you feel happy (assuming you can actively, knowingly convince yourself of something for that purpose, which I generally can't do), well, that's obviously irrational and, while it may very well make you happier, it is not really living, as I've explained. Again, if there were a "happy pill" you could take that would make you experience extreme euphoria for the rest of your life even if you just lay in bed daydreaming or sleeping -- perhaps via hallucinations that seem like real experiences to you -- you could take that pill and be happier, but I wouldn't consider that living.
Perhaps a closer analogy -- but imperfect, so don't hold me to it -- would be a wife who lives in denial, convincing herself every single time after getting beaten by her husband every few days for years that he definitely won't do it again, and convincing herself that he doesn't cheat on her even though he brings home crack-whores and other women every few days and has sex with them in the next room (or heck, even the same room with the wife right there). Now, I would venture to guess that a woman in that situation would probably ultimately be happier if she accepted what are much more likely to be truths, but possibly not in some cases. In her persistent state of fairly obvious denial, I would consider her delusional, allowing her emotions (e.g., fear of being alone; fear of further violence; etc.) to obstruct and override her reason. She is living a lie, so to speak, and as such is not fully living life. And I consider strong religious faith to be less than fully living to an even greater extent, but I could see arguments either way on that matter of degree.
Generally speaking, you want to be happy with your religion, too.
I've not idly chosen the beliefs I hold. I've read a fair amount of philosophical, religious and spiritual works, and spent lots of time in self-contemplation. I have a set of beliefs that are in no way provable, but make perfect sense to me and are completely compatible with every experience I have ever had. They give me an understanding of the universe that I would not have were I to rely solely on rational thought and provable truths. Now, it is certainly possible that this understanding I have is not True with a capital T, but I have no reason to believe that it is not True, either. Furthermore, this understanding I have gives me a sense of purpose and a feeling of happiness. Personally, I would claim the exact opposite of what you are claiming: It would be irrational for me to give up these beliefs for no good reason.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What if I got a sense of purpose and feeling of happiness from my belief that my Pepsi bottle created the universe, has provided me with commandments (what I must and must not do) and corresponding supernatural rewards and punishments -- would it be irrational for me to give up my beliefs and worship and devotion to my Pepsi bottle? Or are you now going to argue that you have a better reason for believing in whatever supernatural stuff in which you believe because you've read a bunch of stuff on the subject?
Then more power to you. I dont care what gives you your sense of purpose and feelings of happiness, as long as it works for you and doesn't harm anyone else. I guess I'd be a little concerened that tying your well-being so closely to a physical, easily destroyed or lost item is not the best way to go, though.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That people want their religion to be accurate, spiritually fulfilling and a cause of personal improvement, and that those taken together would make them happy, rather than a religion that sets out simply to be "feel good."
"Even after all these years I still find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent, rational, critical thinkers can think (for lack of a better word) in an entirely different manner when it comes to the matter of "faith". As I say, it's like a Twilight Zone episode in which everyone in town seems perfectly normal, then all of a sudden turn out to be batsh*t insane in some way. I guess it shows the power of emotion (fear, insecurity, grief, frustration, loneliness, emptiness, etc., and all the positive emotions that come with relief of those negative ones) to overcome reason."
You're like a blind person, totally puzzled why people would believe in things which he couldn't see, totally puzzled how rational people could believe in something he can't see any evidence for.
Oh John, you're such an intelligent guy with such a conspicuous blind spot. That you confidently think that others are the blind ones is, of course, classically ironic.
Although your faith perhaps makes you a better person than you would be (or would have become) otherwise, and perhaps benefits others by extension (perhaps even more than people would benefit from other contributions you could make that may be precluded by your religion), I consider it sad in the sense of a mind being a terrible thing to waste (with apologies to the UNCF). You have adopted this whole fantastic construct based on nothing but some feeling that you simply have no way of distinguishing from fantasy/imagination, even though with all other matters you would think basing a belief on such a feeling would be ridiculous (e.g., if I told you that I believe that the moon is made of cheese simply because I have a feeling that it is).
I'd like to think that, given your youth, intellect, and tendency toward critical thought except in this one area from which you've apparently banned critical thought on your part, at some point in your life you'll realize how silly it all is. I'm not saying it's likely, since you're in pretty deep, but it's possible. Why would I like to think that, even though you might not be happier after such a revelation (pardon the pun)? For the same reason I would want to see someone detoxed from some perpetual happy-pill*: because I believe that someone living life with profound delusions is to that extent not fully living life.
* Actually, there was a Twilight Zone episode set in the future in which, upon reaching adulthood, everyone had an operation that made them perfect-looking and perfectly happy at all times, and the protagonist didn't want to have the operation, and everyone (who had all had the operation) couldn't imagine why she wouldn't want to be perfect-looking and happy all the time.
Anyway, as you know, I like you and I respect your opinions and ideas on other (secular) matters. I realize that the way I speak of religious faith may be offensive, but I think it's important to speak frankly, although some of my snarky sarcasm is just a means of venting (it's frustrating, annoying and sad to be surrounded by this mass idiocy all the time).
Oh John, you're such an intelligent guy with such a conspicuous blind spot. That you confidently think that others are the blind ones is, of course, classically ironic
Personally I don't see how from a secular perspective you can know anything to be true beyond the fact that you perceive what you perceive. You just arbitrarily look at spiritual perceptions and rule it out as being delusional and yet generally accept physical perception ( unless it's perceptions that a majority of humans don't share - hallucinations.), however, logically I don't see any reason to accept any perceptions as truth outside of the fact that the perceptions proves to you that you have the perception. I guess this means if I didn't have faith I would be an absolute relativist.
Although your faith perhaps makes you a better person than you would be (or would have become) otherwise, and perhaps benefits others by extension (perhaps even more than people would benefit from other contributions you could make that may be precluded by your religion), I consider it sad in the sense of a mind being a terrible thing to waste (with apologies to the UNCF). You have adopted this whole fantastic construct based on nothing but some feeling that you simply have no way of distinguishing from fantasy/imagination, even though with all other matters you would think basing a belief on such a feeling would be ridiculous (e.g., if I told you that I believe that the moon is made of cheese simply because I have a feeling that it is).
Actually, if you believed the moon was made of cheese based on a religious belief I wouldn't consider that insane. If you believed such an idea on another basis besides religion I might consider it less than intelligent, but I don't consider people insane for religious beliefs.
I'd like to think that, given your youth, intellect, and tendency toward critical thought except in this one area from which you've apparently banned critical thought on your part, at some point in your life you'll realize how silly it all is. I'm not saying it's likely, since you're in pretty deep, but it's possible. Why would I like to think that, even though you might not be happier after such a revelation (pardon the pun)? For the same reason I would want to see someone detoxed from some perpetual happy-pill*: because I believe that someone living life with profound delusions is to that extent not fully living life.
Well I'd just become a depressed relativist, but I can understand your desire that I know what you view as the truth, I also have a desire to know the truth for the truth sake, although I can't say I find that desire completelly rational - anyway I've found the truth so I'm not worried about it. And I know you don't seem to believe it, but I really have doubted God, and was even almost an atheist for a time ( I say almost because in the back of my head I think I may have still thought there was a God.), these were dark times for me. There's a quote I've strangely fallen in love with, a quote taken from Bertrand Russell's ironically titled “A Free Man's Worship”:
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.
That piece written by a, no doubt, brilliant atheist, beautifully sums up the darkness and "unyielding despair" of atheism. My point, I guess is just as you hope I would embrace the darkness of the atheistic viewpoint, I wish you would come to Jesus and see His truth as I have, and come to a truth that can save one from absolute relativism and a false philosophy of "unyielding despair."
I'll leave most of your comment alone, since there's not much left to say about it, and just comment on the last part.
First, your premise that atheism (and I presume you would include agnosticism as well) is necessarily associated with "unyielding despair" is quite dubious, although I will say that, at least from superficial appearances based on my limited exposure to them (in public), the Hare Krishnas seem more happy than most atheists and most Christians and most of any other group of people that I know, so perhaps you should recommend that I join them if that is the standard and criterion for choosing to have religious faith.
Second, I don't think that the prospect or likelihood that adopting some belief would make me feel better than I would otherwise is a compelling reason for adopting a belief (perhaps with few exceptions related to boosting self-esteem or performance -- e.g., like a boxer convincing himself he's better than the guy he's about to fight), nor would it be possible for me generally to convince myself of some premise knowing that I am deliberately tipping the scale toward that conclusion for emotional or practical benefit (again, perhaps with those few exceptions, perhaps temporary in nature and perhaps with the help of some alcohol, as in briefly convincing myself, back in my unattached days, that I was better looking than I really was, prior to hitting on some particularly attractive girl in a bar).
Lastly, to some extent you are making my point. Religious faith represents the triumph of emotion (particularly the seeking of relief from negative emotions like fear and emptiness and grief and insecurity, etc.) over reason. Now, perhaps you're not offering that "unyielding despair" stuff as a reason to adopt your religious faith, but rather are only explaining why you would like to see that happen (because you think I would be better off). But if it's the former rather than, or in addition to, the latter, then it makes my point in the same way as that idiotic argument I often hear that "There are no atheists in foxholes", as if a (supposed) tendency to adopt faith during an experience of utter terror and desperation was actually a good argument.
Anyway, you're a good guy, although I'd consider you an even better guy if you were behaviorally the same good guy but were an atheist, since it's always hard to tell when good behavior by a "person of faith" is "from the heart", so to speak, as opposed to motivated by desire for reward and/or fear of punishment by his deity. Perhaps it's different for folks who assume that they've got a guaranteed ticket to paradise merely for accepting their deity regardless of how they behave "in this life". I don't know.
Ultimately, of course, no one is really a good guy or a bad guy because free will is an illusion, but that's a whole other matter and something I put aside in my daily living as I think about people (Hitler could never have acted any differently than he did, but I still call him an evil a** hole)
Yes I hesitated bringing up the Bertrand Russell quote, because I kind of figured you'd think I was making your point. Let me clarify here, I don't view the unyielding despair of atheism ( and honestly I don't see how any atheist could disagree with Russel's statement) nor the beautiful hope of Christianity, as either an argument for or against Christianity, I think I have fully stated my reasons for belief and do not care to restate them. I brought up this quote party since you mentioned your desire for me to not believe, I thought I'd show what a tragedy that would be, of course I guess I'd still consider not believeing a good thing if I thought that was the truth ( which I'm not sure what the logic is in knowing the truth for truth sake, but I guess I share that desire with you), however, I've found the Truth.
I love Russel's quote as it captures so well, how I view atheism ( and it's from someone arguing for atheism) so well, it captures the despair I see in it, and therefore my motivation for keeping people connected to the Truth, and leading them to the Truth, which is Jesus Christ. Also perhaps I like the quote because of the literary quality. However, let me repeat that none of this should be interpretated as me using the quote as evidence for the truth of Christianity.
Isn't it odd that no man that wasn't told of the Christian God before, has ever been visited by the Holy Ghost.
That Christianity is so much like other religions that came before it.
All the accounts of people having a relationship with the Holy Ghost seems so vague and easily debunked as a self delusion.
The interaction normally goes like this:
Situation 1:
I talked to God and told him I accepted Jesus Christ, and that Christ shed his blood for my sins.
I suddenly had a moment that I felt somehow better and felt more in touch with the world.
I re-read, or read the Bible for the first time and suddenly felt a more positive outlook, like "yes, this is the Truth [I feel better now that the omnipotent entity loves me and has a plan for me]
Situation 2 [mostly the same, slightly different]:
Someone wants some piece of information to be true that some people around them think is false.
They suddenly feel that it must be true.
It turns out they were right, it is true.
It must have been the Holy Ghost that told them.
Then there is" Everything needs a creator.
A painting must need a painter.
So God made the painter.
God doesn't need a creator, since God is eternal, therefore God is the Creator.
The chances of life is so small that Earth and the universe must have been designed for human life by God.
That would be the same as someone at the top of the leader board after 18 holes of golf is proof, the course was designed for them. Because imagine the odds of some random person just shooting a 62.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Don't be silly. It's very simple. God exists and is exactly as the Bible says He is because everything in the Bible must be true. It must be true because it is the word of God, and God can't be wrong, right?
Then there is empirical evidence that the Bible is right:
The Bible said there would be doubter and there are doubters.
God is all-powerful, but don't tempt God. [I also have a rock that keeps Tigers from attacking me, but I'm not allowed to test the rock to see if works and I have never been attacked by a Tiger once I had the rock].
Having a more positive after trying to get on Team Jesus is proof that Christ is LORD.
God loves us so much, he had Mary be born of a Virgin Birth, and then had his human form be born of a virgin birth. Proof that God can do anything [absolutely no out of wedlock relations explain those births].
God's human form refused to be tempted by his creation [Satan] after the Holy Ghost sent Jesus out to be tempted by God's creation.
God then sacrificed his human self and gave up his life on Earth until he comes back [even though time has effectively no meaning to God]. Having an experience with the Holy Ghost is nothing like one thinking like they were abducted by aliens, God is all-powerful, aliens are not.
God's understanding is beyond ours.
yyyyeah, like that is so, like, EXACTLY! Like, anyone who doesn't get all that and see that Christ is Lord Jesus our Savior or whatever is so, like, duh. It's like, how much more proof do you need of Jesus Savior our Lord or whatever? I mean, duh!
But if someone hasn't found Christ Jesus the Savior Lord or whatever yet, you just need to let Him into your heart, and you'll JUST KNOW IT. And then you'll realize that people who don't get it are all like blind, like, duh.
You see, Brutus? Like other "people of faith" John (John Mark) presents an air-tight argument, just as I presented it: God is the way the Bible says he is because the Bible must be true because it is the word of God and God can't be wrong, and we can be sure that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so, and as I've explained, the Bible must be true because it is the word of God. Case closed.
Now go find Jeeeeeeesus, Brutus! Even you can find Jeeeeeesus! Even you! Et tu Brute!
And if you're not quite ready for Jesus, maybe start out with Jeebus. That way, even if you never accept Jesus, you won't end up in Hell, just in heck (which is less severe).
ok, perhaps I took some liberties in representing what you said in that particular comment. I apologize. But just so you can give me your own words, do you confidently believe that the content of the Bible is God's word and is therefore true, and if so, on what basis do you have that degree of certainty?
But just so you can give me your own words, do you confidently believe that the content of the Bible is God's word and is therefore true, and if so, on what basis do you have that degree of certainty?
I've given you my words numerous times in serious conversation ( which you obviously have no respect for), and I'm not going to give them again. I will sugest though, that if you wish to keep a thread of my respect you will refrain from twisting my words into what your cartoon Christian says.
Well, if your thinking is something significantly different than that the content of the Bible is true because it is the word of God, and you know it's the word of God because it says that it is and because you just have a feeling that it is and that God is real and is what you think He is, then it would be helpful if you'd take just a moment here to point out the difference between the preceding and your actual thinking. I think that's pretty much it, more or less, regardless of whether you would describe your thinking/feeling at greater length and in more glorious-sounding spiritual terms. If not, I would think that it would only take you a couple of minutes and a few sentences to set me straight, so please do. It wouldn't be the first time someone took a couple of minutes to repeat a point on a blog that he made on a previous thread with someone else, let alone regarding a subject very important to the former person, and bear in mind as well that others here may want to hear your answer as well as me.
As for my somewhat inaccurate representation of what you said in one particular comment, I've already acknowledged that I probably did that and apologized, which is much more than you're likely to see from most people in the blogosphere of any philisophical, religious, or ideological/political orientation on any of the political or economics blogs I've been on, so perhaps you should cut me a little slack in terms of "keeping a thread of your respect", given all the good discussions/debates we've had over the past year or so in terms of content and tone, unless I'm losing that because you are finding my comments generally offensive and irritating, not because I -- Heaven forbid on a blog -- carelessly somewhat misrepresented one particular comment of yours in my haste to be snarky.
ok. I hope you will sometime soon. If your thinking is significantly different from the kind of "feeling" and/or circular logic I've described, I'd be interested in hearing how so, and I think others here would be, too.
That's not unlike the Calvinist who believe God, more or less, randomly decides who gets into heaven. Because if man's deeds got them into heaven, then God would be subservient to the deeds of man, which makes no sense [God has no master but his past decisions must be followed].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm not sure it holds up under christian dogma though. The Bible is replete with examples of God proving itself. All the miracles fall into this category. What are those if not separate evidence of god besies the actual word of god? And if god is willing to prove itself then, why not now?
Of course there's miracles and the sort which may give one reason to come to God, but I don't think they ultimately prove God - only God can validate God, or His Word. Take a look at how Jesus refused to give the pharisees a sign when they asked for proof. I believe this is done through the Holy Spirits revelation to the human mind. And I know many of you think I'm crazy for this ( which quite frankly is giving me second thoughts about sticking around much in this community), however, if you were all to follow your agnosticism to its logical conclusions I think you would take GR's position ( what I take to be his position, sorry if I'm misrepresenting it) that there is no knowable reality.
Clearly in some places in the bible god has no problem taking an overt role and directly providing evidence of itself. Angels were popping out of the (burning) woodwork to talk to Moses.
As for reality being unknowable- it's a perfectly rational position but since it is ultimately nihilistic, i.e. it provides no information about or guidance for life, there's no use in believing it. You might as well believe that your senses are reasonably trustworthy because your other option is not to be able to say anything about life at all.
Anyway I hope you'll stick around as you seem intelligent and interesting. At the same time if the topic is one you find too personal then it might be best to avoid such discussions.
As for reality being unknowable- it's a perfectly rational position but since it is ultimately nihilistic, i.e. it provides no information about or guidance for life, there's no use in believing it. You might as well believe that your senses are reasonably trustworthy because your other option is not to be able to say anything about life at all.
Well I think by that logic you ought to have religous belief too, since not having religous belief ultimately nihilistic - see my Betrand Russell quote below.
An atheist can still know aout the material aspects of life, they just may be ignorant of the non-materialist aspects. But since the non-material is highly debatable there's every reason to suspect that they are just as right as the most devout believer.
The material realm has the advantage of being highly consensual and subject to verification. The spiritual realms is quite the opposite. So while everything we believe about physical reality may be a lie it seems unlikely. The scope of the deception would be enormous.
So while everything we believe about physical reality may be a lie it seems unlikely.
Key word being seems". But why would everthing being as it appears in reality be anymore likely than it not being the way it appears? And as to likelyhood that's inherently relative. Since the probability at least of present reality would be 100% and 0% if we were omniscient, so probability is just based on how much we know, which means nobody really right or wrong when it comes to probability.
I think you would take GR's position ( what I take to be his position, sorry if I'm misrepresenting it) that there is no knowable reality.
Other than to attack the (ironically) holier than thou position that people who only believe in an observable reality are somehow better than people who believe in more than that.
In this thread I have been arguing that a belief that "the True reality consists only of the observable universe" is every bit as faith-based as those beliefs the science proponents deride in others, and that the reason is that there is no knowable reality (or at least no provable reality).
They cannot prove that their reality is any more True than any of the religious folk can. They are no better and no worse, which is why their taking a holier than thou attitude is so amusing given who they are attacking. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure that is what you are saying here, but you seem to be treading close to that. I suppose I am again reading too much into your apparently broad-brush statements, but "science proponents" do not deride others for their faith, any more than "religious people" are anti-science.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
God exists and is exactly as the Bible says He is because everything in the Bible must be true.
There are more religions than just Christianity. The Bible (actually the New Testament) is only the word of God to Christians. There are potentially many other conceptions of God than the one found in the Bible, and many of those don't even resmeble the God in the Bible.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
uph, I'm trying to ignore you because you are so consistently a waste of time and you so consistently get things wrong in some way. As for your comment, well, geez, thanks for that brilliant point that there are other faiths with other scriptures and other conceptions of deities -- big time duh. I'm just using an example, and one that happens to relate to at least a substantial degree to at least one and probably most persons here.
Having shown once again your propensity for not getting stuff and wasting people's time, I'll go back to trying to ignore you.
oh man, you are just such an idiot it's almost beyond belief. In fact, I'm ready to believe that there is a God (or Demon) of Oblivious Stupidity and that you are possessed by it.
How do you know, the images aren't there? As I've said I think the only logical conclusion to atheism is absolute relativism, but of course atheists think for whatever reason that the perceptions they accept are superior to the perceptions other people accept as truth. I would accept an agnostic who believed reality was completely unknowable as being at least logical considering he the situation that he didn't have faith, however, people who claim to not believe, but still hold onto the idea of reality, are only following their own logic as far as they can comfortablly go.
Isn't it odd that no man that wasn't told of the Christian God before, has ever been visited by the Holy Ghost.
God's revealed Himself in some way to everyone, not everyone's had the blessing of the Scriptures, but no man is without excuse. The problem with the rest of your quote is that you assume to know what the Christian experience is, while of course you're not experienceing it- once again like a blind man telling those who see that what they see isn't real.
Almost all atheist are agnostics to a degree, it's just that theist highjacked the term to mean "belief there is no god/s"
Atheism = lack of belief.
God's revealed Himself in some way to everyone, not everyone's had the blessing of the Scriptures, but no man is without excuse. The problem with the rest of your quote is that you assume to know what the Christian experience is, while of course you're not experienceing it- once again like a blind man telling those who see that what they see isn't real.
The blind man is feeling a stuffed animal and those with sight are telling him they are seeing him feel a real life bear.
The theist sees a tomato, thinks its an apple, because they never seen a tomato before and tells others that the non-believers just never seen that kind of apple before and what makes that non-believer such an expert on veggies.
The whole Hoodoo trick of one must let Christ into their heart and believe first and man's mind isn't capable of understanding God cannot work on a good deal of people and God would know there are people that won't feign belief.
One man hears a pop sound in their car and " knows" its the magic fairy because he has a personal relationship with the fairy and feels better about life because of that.
Another man remembers he doesn't clean out his car and realizes its just an empty pop bottle moving around.
Another man knows there is a pop bottle back there, but keeps on telling himself its a fairy and that others are blind to the sight of the fairy.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Hey, you're gettin' awfully close to infringing on my copyrighted "Pepsi bottle" analogy. Watch it, bud, or I'll have you placing your hand on the Bible in a Ten Commandments-hangin' courtroom.
Isn't it odd that no man that wasn't told of the Christian God before, has ever been visited by the Holy Ghost.
Please present your objective evidence for this statement, or are you merely accepting this on pure faith based on your personal beliefs?
Your (implicit) argument here is just as circular as the one you claim Christians use. You know the Holy Ghost has never visited anyone because there is no Holy Ghost, right? This is clearly an article of your faith-based belief in a strictly objective reality.
Oh, and if you don't have any objective evidence to support this belief is that a rational belief by your definition?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Do you have any evidence of Christians saying otherwise? Anything of Christians claiming the Holy Ghost appears to people that don't "know" Christ is their Savior? You can use more source than just the Bible, find a theologian that claims what I said isn't true.
I claim my special swiss army knife can cut through the armor of a M-1 Abrams tank, do you have evidence otherwise, find some otherwise what I said was true.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You should auction that knife on EBay. I'll bet it would get a price almost as high as the toast with the Virgin Mary or Jesus or whatever the f-ck some people thought they saw in the toast.
My point is that BR is relying on circular logic, just as the Christians are.
Absence of evidence is evidence absence
Is there a typo in this? If not this is a mere tautology.
Do you have any evidence of Christians saying otherwise? Anything of Christians claiming the Holy Ghost appears to people that don't "know" Christ is their Savior? You can use more source than just the Bible, find a theologian that claims what I said isn't true.
What difference would this make to my main point that BR is using circular logic?
And even if it did, the question wasn't "are Christians saying the Holy Ghost appears before people who have not heard of Christ", the question was "is the Holy Ghost (actually) appearing before people who have not head of Christ?" Those aren't the same question.
I claim my special swiss army knife can cut through the armor of a M-1 Abrams tank, do you have evidence otherwise, find some otherwise what I said was true.
My point has nothing to do with either side being true or not, but merely that they are both relying on circular logic (which is a logical fallacy). BR's original statement:
Isn't it odd that no man that wasn't told of the Christian God before, has ever been visited by the Holy Ghost.
cannot be rationally supported. I raise this point because he makes such a big fuss about his being a rational thinker, and this is obviously NOT a valid example of rational thinking.
Stated more directly, the premise BR is expressing is that:
There exists no person who has (a) been visited by the Holy Ghost, and (b) not been told of the Christian God before being visited.
I merely want to hear the rational basis for this statement. A few interesting questions come to mind at this point:
(1) How does BR know who has and has not been visited by the Holy Ghost?
(2) How does BR know that these people knew of the Christian God before meeting the Holy Ghost?
(3) How does BR know that the Holy Ghost uniformly reveals itself to be a Christian Diety to everyone it chooses to visit? (Which seems implicit in his meaning.)
I am certain he has a rational explanation, I merely want to hear it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Is "BR" supposed to be me? If so, you are attributing to me arguments I didn't make. If you're capable of no other cognitive feat on this blog (which seems to be the case), at least pay attention to whose comment you are replying to.
I merely want to hear the rational basis for this statement. A few interesting questions come to mind at this point:
(1) How does BR know who has and has not been visited by the Holy Ghost?
(2) How does BR know that these people knew of the Christian God before meeting the Holy Ghost?
(3) How does BR know that the Holy Ghost uniformly reveals itself to be a Christian Diety to everyone it chooses to visit? (Which seems implicit in his meaning.)
I am certain he has a rational explanation, I merely want to hear it.
I've seen this guy testify before Congress on many occasions about budgetary issues, and have always been very impressed. He always has plenty to say, and all of it is clear, pointed, and thoughtful. He just seems to be born for this job.
he lied and you're spinning for him to cover up. I thought he was about change but he's just a lying politician like all the rest of them.
Simply letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is a cowardly move at best, and it doesn't get any tax refund checks sent to those 40% of people who don't pay taxes like he promised. Lying bast*** doesn't care about the poor or the middle class at all.
There're gonna be starving babies in the ghettos because of this and he doesn't even care.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
You mean who don't pay "Federal Income Tax" and some of their "untaxed" income is deferred during the year.
Even the anti-Casino ads, mentioned the non-payment of "Casino Taxes," if they claimed there were no "taxes" on the Casino, that would have been a lie on their part, since they surely know better.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Wrong again. A lot of people pay payroll taxes (e.g., SS FICA) -- a federal tax, "obviously" -- but not income tax. But good for you for admitting an error. And it's turned into a "two-fer" since you can do so again now. Good practice for you -- if applied every time you are wrong about something, you'll find the practice very handy, albeit tediously repititious, tiresome and conducive to repetitive strain injury (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome).
LOL! You are quite a piece of work, man! Only question I have is whether or not you believe your own bullsh*t. Not only were you just plain wrong, both technically and in context (Obama and his campaign and supporters repeatedly pointed out the error of that talking point you used about all those people who, per the false claim, supposedly don't pay any taxes), but you are also blatantly weasely in your argumentation: You try to invoke context when you think that approach supports some point you've made, and invoke technicalities when you think that supports some point you've made. Reminds me of my friend Mark when I was a little kid, who tended to make up the rules as the game went on based on what would favor him. Needless to say, it didn't take long for me to discover that playing games with him was not worthwhile.
Clearly I am laying claim to such statements as part of our voodoo economics policies. I just find it funny that you are now claiming the same things as we have been since Reagan. Welcome aboard. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Reaganomics attempted to stimulate the economy by lowering taxes on the wealthy, which they claimed would result in "trickle down". Put the money in the hands of those that already have more than they know what to do with, and in their benevolence, they will use the money to create businesses and jobs.
Obama's plan is to stimulate the economy by rebating taxes to the 95% who are NOT wealthy, which will result in "trickle up". Put the money in the hands of the masses, and they will spend it, and jobs will be created from that and everyone will prosper - including and especially the wealthy business owners.
We've tried "trickle down" for 3 decades now. It didn't.
We're now going to try some "trickle up". It might.
The stimulated economy will shorten the recession, leading to a decrease in the deficits starting around 2010-11 time frame.
The operative approach here is to put more money into the economy and thereby stimulate growth. That's what you meant by "stimulated economy", right? And how do the deficits decrease over time? By growing the economy and thereby increasing tax revenues. It's the same plan.
The only difference is that the Republicans weren't planning to steal ... confiscate ... redistribute the wealth to make it happen. The Democrats are ... assuming that they weren't lying about that too.
You're stealing our schtick, simple as that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Could the author be anymore condescending? This should be retitled "Ten Myths Conservatives Believe about Progressives because Conservatives are Stupid Idiots and They Smell Bad." This part takes the cake:
Conservatism, by contrast, tends to take a dim view of human nature, prefers hierarchy to liberty, and isn't completely convinced people can or should be trying to contravene the will of God or their betters by trying to arrange their own futures. This tends to lead to a selective reading of the Constitution (as well as the Bible), and—as we've seen in the Bush years—a far more flexible attitude toward its interpretation.
Both sides read the Constitution and the Bible selectively. What part of "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" don't liberals understand? God wants you to kill gays. It's right there in black and white.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
Considering the decades long flood of rank invective showered upon the 'godless left liberals', it shouldn't be surprising that there would be a little blow back.
Everyone reads the bible selectively. I interpret the passage you quote, as meaning that God hates, humans (mankind) generally, and women specifically. :)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them".
The Left has made some mistakes that has also helped bring on this kind of onslaught of abuse and invective on them.
Automatically labeling counterprotesters of our wars, and the people who ended up serving in our unnecessary wars as fascists, ignoramuses, etc., and, in general failing to understand that they, too, suffered pain of losing loved ones in those wars, condemning those who oppose, or even question the efficacy of mandated school busing (which has been disastrous in many places, including and particularly Boston) as a bunch of racists per se, and wholeheartedly supporting such policies, and, in general, just demonizing people of a more conservative bent, the Left, not surprisingly, did suffer the blowback which resulted.
Applauding and supporting people on the Left who went to excesses didn't help, either, and, having a rather snooty attitude towards people of a different political and social persuasion, in addition to the above-mentioned, also helped bring about the Rightwing backlash, and put the Republicans in office for so long.
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
It's right there is black white not to follow the OT laws if it seems not right to do.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
In fact, the list shows more about the myths that Progressives believe rather than the other way around.
The truth about what Progressives and Conservatives think of eachother in terms of "myth" is probably far less interesting than the hyperbole that each "side" like to believe. Being that that is the case, they feel the need to write this kind of nonsense.
Seems a little ironic that you would criticize being condescending, and then as an atheist claim to have a better understanding of Scripture by taking of few things quickly out of context, than what those who actually seriously study the Scriptures have.
I am learning it however. Funny you should ask, Hebrew is a ig part of my homework that I have to do over break - though I haven't been getting too much done. :-)
Just another "my side's better than your side 'cause you suck" waste of bytes.
It really only takes a little bit of effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. And it's been done so many times by better writers than me. Neither liberals nor conservatives are the demons from hell* the other side most desperately wants (needs?) them to be. This kind of crap bores me.
Ahh, GR, you read me like a book. I've completely underestimated your intellect. OK, here's the story.
I used to believe in God. But then He crashed at my place one night, and while I was sleeping, he drank all my beer, f*cked my girlfriend (in the culo!) and left with my wallet, the rat bastid.
This is all very emotional for me recounting this traumatic, profoundly life-altering experience. I'm gonna stop now and go get a tissue.
A Wal-Mart employee in suburban New York died after being trampled by a crush of shoppers who tore down the front doors and thronged into the store early Friday morning, turning the annual rite of post-Thanksgiving bargain hunting into a frenzy.
The 34-year-old employee, who was not identified, was knocked down by a crowd that broke down the doors of the Wal-Mart at the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream, N.Y., and surged into the store. He was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital at 6 a.m.
The police said that three other shoppers were injured and a 28-year-old pregnant woman was taken to the hospital for observation.
One shopper, Kimberly Cribbs, said she was standing near the back of the crowd at around 5 a.m. on Friday when people started pulling the doors from their hinges and rushing into the store. She said several people were knocked to the ground, and parents had to grab their children by the hands to keep them from being caught in the crush.“They were falling all over each other,” she said. “It was terrible.”
When stuff like the incident in the Long Island Wal-Mart occur, it reveals the worst aspects of our culture and of human nature generally; greed, viciousness, and callousness, on the face of it all. It's reminiscent of similar stampedes that occurrred in various places here in the country, in the early to mid 1980's over the Cabbage Patch doils, where, while nobody was killed, frequently culminated in brawls, and one person ended up with a broken leg. Also, the stampeding that occurred during entrance to a Who concert in a cleveland arena, which came about as a result of the city having only opened one gate in the 11-gated arena for entry, resulting in t he suffocation and death of at least one person, or possibly more was also rather awful. If those two incidents are any indication of the worst aspects of our culture, these two incidents are it.
I can't get the pictures right in my new diary. I've replaced them with simple links (the two that are from imageshack, in case it isn't obvious). I tried everythng obvious (I think) but it never worked right. Any tips?
and extracted the fixed url of the image, rather than using the script link.
However, it's entirely possible this had nothing to do with your problem. Spector was having issues earlier and it turned out the SC form was submitting using "testinput" as the format rather than "Full html" and so it was just stripping out the image tags. It could be that was what it was doing to you and then for me it defaulted to normal input format.
Still a few kinks to be worked out with the new system, I think...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hi, everybody--it's been awhile. I had a wonderful Thanksgiving week. On Wednesday night, I watched an airing of my favorite film, the golden oldie-but-goodie movie/musical classic, West Side Story, on the Turner Classic Movies Channel. Yesterday, on Thanksgiving, after a wonderful dinner with my family and friends, with great food, conversation, along with much fun, warmth and laughter, I went to see the movie "Milk", with Sean Penn. It was a well-done film, and Sean Penn did a wonderful job of playing t he part of the late Harvey Milk. Well worth seeing, imo.
okay, I admit that I end up humming bits and pieces of various WSS songs, especially "Somewhere", and "America", and even walking around snapping my fingers and/or imitating the Jet gang whistle a little bit. Nothing that I don't normally do. LOL
Comments :
Man, I know it's been light but a whole WEEK open thread?
Well, I'm not sure what to think.
I wasn't sure if people would be around during the break,
but I'll be happy to make another one if y'all fill up this one =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Were all politicked out
I'm in the middle of moving as well.
I actually have a lot to say in the upcoming months. I've got some ideas rattling around in the noggin.
Don't despair! We'll be back in regular fashion after the new year for sure.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Looking for a job
also taking foster care classes and, as always, workig on a bunch of side projects.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thought this was funny. From
Thought this was funny. From Voodoo Doughnuts in Portland Oregon, in AOL's list of top doughnut shops in the U.S.
Damn
neither my wife nor I had heard of the place. Looks like it is in NE portland. I rarely ever got over to the east side.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Encino Man
So easy, a cloned cave man indentured servant could be bought to do it.
"Scientists Develop Technique To Clone Frozen Mice" just to please Michael Critchon
If a Neandrathal is cloned, I'm wondering what the last refuge of Young Earth Creationist will be? Was the possiblby still viable DNA put there by Lucifer to test man's faith in the Earth only being 6,000 years old (that wouldn't be much, most of them think Raquel Welch starred in a documentary
)?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Do we have Neanderthal
Do we have Neanderthal DNA?
As for the creationist folks, never underestimate their ability to explain away anything in defense/support of their conclusion. They -- and even many "people of faith" who don't take the Bible literally but who have strong faith -- are like some wives of abusive or alcoholic husbands who constantly make excuses for the guy. I would love to have a boss or clients who evaluated my performance the way these folks view anything that their god has supposedly done -- no matter what was done and no matter what the results appear to be, he did something great, whether we understand why or not. Another outstanding performance review!
Well Duh
It's not like he would be God, if we could just put Him under human evaluation. Although there will a period for reviewing His perfomance in the millenium, that time hasn't come.
BTW, I commented on a topic we have much more agreement on here: http://race42008.com/2008/11/25/merely-allowing-bush-tax-cuts-to-expire-is-cause-for-joy/#comments
Well, maybe those guys
Well, maybe those guys believe on faith that tax cuts always increase revenues. After all, it's in their bible (the Limbaugh newsletter) so it must be true, period, since Rush is merely channeling the word of their deity. So any evidence or arguments to the contrary must be inadequate, erroneous or complete illusions ;-)
By the way, as always, feel free to link to my list of quotes of economists (most conservative, none "liberal") on that question at http://swordscrossed.org/diary/20081017/no-bush-tax-cuts-have-not-generated-higher-revenues
And as a note, the refutation of their argument is not merely that correlation does not imply causation, but that they are not even following the basics of correlation analysis and are instead cherry-picking their data points, ignoring what generally happens to revenues in the absence of tax cuts and even after tax increases (revenues generally trend up regardless of tax policy), per my explanation (to GR) here:
Well, maybe those guys
Well it does seem that way at times.
It still boils down to correlation not equaling causation, but your arguement there does show do a good job of detailing why it doesn't. Maybe I'll use some of your quotes, if the debate continues.
It still boils down to
Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no, and the distinction is worth noting. If by "correlation" we just mean the correlation between two variables for the cherry-picked data points, then yes, we are still saying that correlation doesn't equal causation. But that rule would apply even if there were a very strong -- or even perfect or near perfect -- correlation using appropriate methodology, meaning there could be a spurious relationship (e.g., one of the two variables being highly correlated with a third variable that actually is causative -- for example, the temperature of sidewalk pavement and the number of heat strokes may be highly correlated, but not because hot sidewalks are causing heat strokes, but rather that hot ambient temperature causes heat strokes and also happens to cause hot sidewalks).
By contrast, what we have here is fundamentally poor analytical methodology -- cherry-picking data points for correlation analysis, (at best) choosing only data points for the supposedly dependent variable (revenues) following the presence of the independent variable (tax cuts) while ignoring what happens to that supposedly dependent variable in the absence of that independent variable or even with the presence of the opposite force of that independent variable (the latter being tax increases). When we look at all relevant data points, we don't see the strong historical correlation that they are asserting. Instead, we see revenues generally trending upward (in real terms) regardless of whether tax rates are cut or not, and we see them trending up particularly strongly following the 1993 tax increase, and that's even leaving aside their incomplete independent variable data -- e.g., the Reagan tax increases that followed the Reagan tax cuts.
So basically you're saying
So basically you're saying there's not real correlation let alone a causation? Sorry, my brain's a little slow now.
Basically, yes,
Basically, yes, that's basically what I'm saying, although the language of correlation analysis is different, involving "strength" of correlation and statistical "significance" of the correlation.
Those folks are asserting a strong, positive correlation (as well as causation) between tax cuts and revenues. The data (all the relevant data, not just their cherry-picked data points) simply do not support that assertion of strong correlation, as can be seen from that chart showing revenues since 1965 (generally trending upward regardless of tax policy, increasing markedly for several years following the 1993 tax increases, etc.).
So, yes, they do not even have a legitimate argument that there is a strong positive correlation, let alone causation. And the correlation could be negative rather than positive (generally, the net effect of tax cuts, ceteris paribus, is a loss of revenue, which may or may not be reflected in the overall data due to variations among all the other factors that drive revenue).
Alright
I know a little about that stuff due to may stats and probability class, but not much of it stuck with me. :-)
John (John Mark), just a
John (John Mark), just a reminder: I hope at some point when your time permits you'll reply to my comment here http://swordscrossed.org/story/20081104/congratulations-obama-and-dems-wednesday-open-thread#comment-100335
I tend to think
that any all powerful god who'd choose to create sentient beings incapable of understanding Him is kind of a jerk. :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not incapable of understanding Him
but capable of not understanding Him, which is freee-will.
Huh?
How is giving the capability of doing something taking away free will?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I believe he's saying
That god gave us the free will to choose to not understand him. I think this contradicts a little with the earlier statement that a god who could be understood is not the true god.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
lol. Nah, the G dude is just
lol. Nah, the G dude is just very clever. Think about it: wouldn't life be easy if every time you harmed someone or let harm come to someone for no apparent reason or justification, you could just say "You just don't understand" ? God's a smart dude. So smart it's like he's...superhuman...OMG -- I see the light!!
Even after all these years I still find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent, rational, critical thinkers can think (for lack of a better word) in an entirely different manner when it comes to the matter of "faith". As I say, it's like a Twilight Zone episode in which everyone in town seems perfectly normal, then all of a sudden turn out to be batsh*t insane in some way. I guess it shows the power of emotion (fear, insecurity, grief, frustration, loneliness, emptiness, etc., and all the positive emotions that come with relief of those negative ones) to overcome reason.
And of course one comical twist is that so many of them see the beliefs of other faiths as obviously absurd! I heard/read Christians pretty much implying that Mormons like Romney must be insane to believe (per those Christians) that each Mormon will get his own planet over which to rule in the afterlife. Same deal regarding the Heaven's Gate "cult" folks thinking they would be transported to a space ship after committing suicide. Yeah, and those beliefs are more insane than Christian beliefs?? Geez, Louise. When is Rod Serling going to step out from around the corner.
Didn't you watch Star Trek?
You say that like it's always a bad thing!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hey, I'm very pro-emotion.
Hey, I'm very pro-emotion. Ultimately, emotions are largely what life is about. We want us to feel good (and not feel bad) and we want the same for others. And it's not irrational or necessarily bad to choose something -- e.g., a spouse -- based much more on a feeling than on practical considerations, if that's where you're goin' with your point (I don't know if it is). That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about believing, based on absolutely nothing but a "feeling" one has or just mindless acceptance, in some cooky idea about some entity that created the universe, is watching us all the time, and has delivered its commandments -- things for us to do and not do -- and related punishments, which include eternal "life after death" either in some paradise or in some really awful place, per some beliefs based simply and solely on whether or not you believe in it.
Not sure I see a huge difference
If it's not irrational to choose a spouse because it makes you happy, why is it irrational to hold religious beliefs that make you happy?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Because, generally
Because, generally speaking, you want a spouse that makes you happy, and that is largely the reason you are choosing to marry that person. You can give what many would consider inadequate consideration to practical matters for optimizing your future happiness (per probabilities and magnitudes) and/or forego an analytical view (e.g., thinking through common interests, goals, etc.) in favor of going with the feeling of love and joy in the moment, and that may turn out to be something you regret, but not necessarily.
As for choosing to believe that there is some omniscient, omnipotent deity with a particular, specified history and commandments and rewards and punishments for us -- on zero basis whatsoever and based just on some "feeling" or on what your parents or someone else told you is the truth even though they have no basis for it -- just because it will make you feel happy (assuming you can actively, knowingly convince yourself of something for that purpose, which I generally can't do), well, that's obviously irrational and, while it may very well make you happier, it is not really living, as I've explained. Again, if there were a "happy pill" you could take that would make you experience extreme euphoria for the rest of your life even if you just lay in bed daydreaming or sleeping -- perhaps via hallucinations that seem like real experiences to you -- you could take that pill and be happier, but I wouldn't consider that living.
Perhaps a closer analogy -- but imperfect, so don't hold me to it -- would be a wife who lives in denial, convincing herself every single time after getting beaten by her husband every few days for years that he definitely won't do it again, and convincing herself that he doesn't cheat on her even though he brings home crack-whores and other women every few days and has sex with them in the next room (or heck, even the same room with the wife right there). Now, I would venture to guess that a woman in that situation would probably ultimately be happier if she accepted what are much more likely to be truths, but possibly not in some cases. In her persistent state of fairly obvious denial, I would consider her delusional, allowing her emotions (e.g., fear of being alone; fear of further violence; etc.) to obstruct and override her reason. She is living a lie, so to speak, and as such is not fully living life. And I consider strong religious faith to be less than fully living to an even greater extent, but I could see arguments either way on that matter of degree.
Hmm...
Generally speaking, you want to be happy with your religion, too.
I've not idly chosen the beliefs I hold. I've read a fair amount of philosophical, religious and spiritual works, and spent lots of time in self-contemplation. I have a set of beliefs that are in no way provable, but make perfect sense to me and are completely compatible with every experience I have ever had. They give me an understanding of the universe that I would not have were I to rely solely on rational thought and provable truths. Now, it is certainly possible that this understanding I have is not True with a capital T, but I have no reason to believe that it is not True, either. Furthermore, this understanding I have gives me a sense of purpose and a feeling of happiness. Personally, I would claim the exact opposite of what you are claiming: It would be irrational for me to give up these beliefs for no good reason.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What if I got a sense of
What if I got a sense of purpose and feeling of happiness from my belief that my Pepsi bottle created the universe, has provided me with commandments (what I must and must not do) and corresponding supernatural rewards and punishments -- would it be irrational for me to give up my beliefs and worship and devotion to my Pepsi bottle? Or are you now going to argue that you have a better reason for believing in whatever supernatural stuff in which you believe because you've read a bunch of stuff on the subject?
If that's what floats your boat
Then more power to you. I dont care what gives you your sense of purpose and feelings of happiness, as long as it works for you and doesn't harm anyone else. I guess I'd be a little concerened that tying your well-being so closely to a physical, easily destroyed or lost item is not the best way to go, though.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I would hope
That people want their religion to be accurate, spiritually fulfilling and a cause of personal improvement, and that those taken together would make them happy, rather than a religion that sets out simply to be "feel good."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
.
[double post deleted]
"Even after all these years I
"Even after all these years I still find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent, rational, critical thinkers can think (for lack of a better word) in an entirely different manner when it comes to the matter of "faith". As I say, it's like a Twilight Zone episode in which everyone in town seems perfectly normal, then all of a sudden turn out to be batsh*t insane in some way. I guess it shows the power of emotion (fear, insecurity, grief, frustration, loneliness, emptiness, etc., and all the positive emotions that come with relief of those negative ones) to overcome reason."
You're like a blind person, totally puzzled why people would believe in things which he couldn't see, totally puzzled how rational people could believe in something he can't see any evidence for.
Oh John, you're such an
Oh John, you're such an intelligent guy with such a conspicuous blind spot. That you confidently think that others are the blind ones is, of course, classically ironic.
Although your faith perhaps makes you a better person than you would be (or would have become) otherwise, and perhaps benefits others by extension (perhaps even more than people would benefit from other contributions you could make that may be precluded by your religion), I consider it sad in the sense of a mind being a terrible thing to waste (with apologies to the UNCF). You have adopted this whole fantastic construct based on nothing but some feeling that you simply have no way of distinguishing from fantasy/imagination, even though with all other matters you would think basing a belief on such a feeling would be ridiculous (e.g., if I told you that I believe that the moon is made of cheese simply because I have a feeling that it is).
I'd like to think that, given your youth, intellect, and tendency toward critical thought except in this one area from which you've apparently banned critical thought on your part, at some point in your life you'll realize how silly it all is. I'm not saying it's likely, since you're in pretty deep, but it's possible. Why would I like to think that, even though you might not be happier after such a revelation (pardon the pun)? For the same reason I would want to see someone detoxed from some perpetual happy-pill*: because I believe that someone living life with profound delusions is to that extent not fully living life.
* Actually, there was a Twilight Zone episode set in the future in which, upon reaching adulthood, everyone had an operation that made them perfect-looking and perfectly happy at all times, and the protagonist didn't want to have the operation, and everyone (who had all had the operation) couldn't imagine why she wouldn't want to be perfect-looking and happy all the time.
Anyway, as you know, I like you and I respect your opinions and ideas on other (secular) matters. I realize that the way I speak of religious faith may be offensive, but I think it's important to speak frankly, although some of my snarky sarcasm is just a means of venting (it's frustrating, annoying and sad to be surrounded by this mass idiocy all the time).
Oh John, you're such an
I'll leave most of your
I'll leave most of your comment alone, since there's not much left to say about it, and just comment on the last part.
First, your premise that atheism (and I presume you would include agnosticism as well) is necessarily associated with "unyielding despair" is quite dubious, although I will say that, at least from superficial appearances based on my limited exposure to them (in public), the Hare Krishnas seem more happy than most atheists and most Christians and most of any other group of people that I know, so perhaps you should recommend that I join them if that is the standard and criterion for choosing to have religious faith.
Second, I don't think that the prospect or likelihood that adopting some belief would make me feel better than I would otherwise is a compelling reason for adopting a belief (perhaps with few exceptions related to boosting self-esteem or performance -- e.g., like a boxer convincing himself he's better than the guy he's about to fight), nor would it be possible for me generally to convince myself of some premise knowing that I am deliberately tipping the scale toward that conclusion for emotional or practical benefit (again, perhaps with those few exceptions, perhaps temporary in nature and perhaps with the help of some alcohol, as in briefly convincing myself, back in my unattached days, that I was better looking than I really was, prior to hitting on some particularly attractive girl in a bar).
Lastly, to some extent you are making my point. Religious faith represents the triumph of emotion (particularly the seeking of relief from negative emotions like fear and emptiness and grief and insecurity, etc.) over reason. Now, perhaps you're not offering that "unyielding despair" stuff as a reason to adopt your religious faith, but rather are only explaining why you would like to see that happen (because you think I would be better off). But if it's the former rather than, or in addition to, the latter, then it makes my point in the same way as that idiotic argument I often hear that "There are no atheists in foxholes", as if a (supposed) tendency to adopt faith during an experience of utter terror and desperation was actually a good argument.
Anyway, you're a good guy, although I'd consider you an even better guy if you were behaviorally the same good guy but were an atheist, since it's always hard to tell when good behavior by a "person of faith" is "from the heart", so to speak, as opposed to motivated by desire for reward and/or fear of punishment by his deity. Perhaps it's different for folks who assume that they've got a guaranteed ticket to paradise merely for accepting their deity regardless of how they behave "in this life". I don't know.
Ultimately, of course, no one is really a good guy or a bad guy because free will is an illusion, but that's a whole other matter and something I put aside in my daily living as I think about people (Hitler could never have acted any differently than he did, but I still call him an evil a** hole)
Yes I hesitated bringing up
Yes I hesitated bringing up the Bertrand Russell quote, because I kind of figured you'd think I was making your point. Let me clarify here, I don't view the unyielding despair of atheism ( and honestly I don't see how any atheist could disagree with Russel's statement) nor the beautiful hope of Christianity, as either an argument for or against Christianity, I think I have fully stated my reasons for belief and do not care to restate them. I brought up this quote party since you mentioned your desire for me to not believe, I thought I'd show what a tragedy that would be, of course I guess I'd still consider not believeing a good thing if I thought that was the truth ( which I'm not sure what the logic is in knowing the truth for truth sake, but I guess I share that desire with you), however, I've found the Truth.
I love Russel's quote as it captures so well, how I view atheism ( and it's from someone arguing for atheism) so well, it captures the despair I see in it, and therefore my motivation for keeping people connected to the Truth, and leading them to the Truth, which is Jesus Christ. Also perhaps I like the quote because of the literary quality. However, let me repeat that none of this should be interpretated as me using the quote as evidence for the truth of Christianity.
ok, fair enough. As I noted,
ok, fair enough. As I noted, that possibility occurred to me (that you offered it only for that reason).
Hey, don't forget about that other thread. I replied to your comment and -- surprise, surprise -- asked a follow-up question http://swordscrossed.org/story/20081104/congratulations-obama-and-dems-wednesday-open-thread#comment-101162
Blind men can think they see things
Even a blind man can see images in their mind, that doesn't mean those images are there.
A blind man might think they see something.
You're like a blind man telling every sight seeing person out there, that you actually see something.
Isn't it odd that no man that wasn't told of the Christian God before, has ever been visited by the Holy Ghost.
That Christianity is so much like other religions that came before it.
All the accounts of people having a relationship with the Holy Ghost seems so vague and easily debunked as a self delusion.
The interaction normally goes like this:
Situation 1:
I talked to God and told him I accepted Jesus Christ, and that Christ shed his blood for my sins.
I suddenly had a moment that I felt somehow better and felt more in touch with the world.
I re-read, or read the Bible for the first time and suddenly felt a more positive outlook, like "yes, this is the Truth [I feel better now that the omnipotent entity loves me and has a plan for me]
Situation 2 [mostly the same, slightly different]:
Someone wants some piece of information to be true that some people around them think is false.
They suddenly feel that it must be true.
It turns out they were right, it is true.
It must have been the Holy Ghost that told them.
Then there is"
Everything needs a creator.
A painting must need a painter.
So God made the painter.
God doesn't need a creator, since God is eternal, therefore God is the Creator.
The chances of life is so small that Earth and the universe must have been designed for human life by God.
That would be the same as someone at the top of the leader board after 18 holes of golf is proof, the course was designed for them. Because imagine the odds of some random person just shooting a 62.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Don't be silly. It's very
Don't be silly. It's very simple. God exists and is exactly as the Bible says He is because everything in the Bible must be true. It must be true because it is the word of God, and God can't be wrong, right?
Amazing claims support the circular reasoning
Then there is empirical evidence that the Bible is right:
The Bible said there would be doubter and there are doubters.
God is all-powerful, but don't tempt God. [I also have a rock that keeps Tigers from attacking me, but I'm not allowed to test the rock to see if works and I have never been attacked by a Tiger once I had the rock].
Having a more positive after trying to get on Team Jesus is proof that Christ is LORD.
God loves us so much, he had Mary be born of a Virgin Birth, and then had his human form be born of a virgin birth. Proof that God can do anything [absolutely no out of wedlock relations explain those births].
God's human form refused to be tempted by his creation [Satan] after the Holy Ghost sent Jesus out to be tempted by God's creation.
God then sacrificed his human self and gave up his life on Earth until he comes back [even though time has effectively no meaning to God].
Having an experience with the Holy Ghost is nothing like one thinking like they were abducted by aliens, God is all-powerful, aliens are not.
God's understanding is beyond ours.
Jesus Loves Me
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
yyyyeah, like that is so,
yyyyeah, like that is so, like, EXACTLY! Like, anyone who doesn't get all that and see that Christ is Lord Jesus our Savior or whatever is so, like, duh. It's like, how much more proof do you need of Jesus Savior our Lord or whatever? I mean, duh!
But if someone hasn't found Christ Jesus the Savior Lord or whatever yet, you just need to let Him into your heart, and you'll JUST KNOW IT. And then you'll realize that people who don't get it are all like blind, like, duh.
The problem with all of this is it assumes God Word
can be proven by some separate piece of evidence besides God, if it could then the evidence would be more authoritative than the Word of God.
You see, Brutus? Like other
You see, Brutus? Like other "people of faith" John (John Mark) presents an air-tight argument, just as I presented it: God is the way the Bible says he is because the Bible must be true because it is the word of God and God can't be wrong, and we can be sure that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so, and as I've explained, the Bible must be true because it is the word of God. Case closed.
Now go find Jeeeeeeesus, Brutus! Even you can find Jeeeeeesus! Even you! Et tu Brute!
And if you're not quite ready for Jesus, maybe start out with Jeebus. That way, even if you never accept Jesus, you won't end up in Hell, just in heck (which is less severe).
Why don't you just leave my words to speak for themselves
rather than distort them into your preconcieved notion of what Christian faith is?
Because the only thing he can defeat ...
is a strawman. That requires him to twist your words by definition. Never fear, though, we all see him for what he is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I nominate this for the most ironic post in SC history
oy vey.
I survived the Bush Administration
Seconded (lol)
Seconded (lol)
ok, perhaps I took some
ok, perhaps I took some liberties in representing what you said in that particular comment. I apologize. But just so you can give me your own words, do you confidently believe that the content of the Bible is God's word and is therefore true, and if so, on what basis do you have that degree of certainty?
Speaking of irony.
See post above
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But just so you can give me
I've given you my words numerous times in serious conversation ( which you obviously have no respect for), and I'm not going to give them again. I will sugest though, that if you wish to keep a thread of my respect you will refrain from twisting my words into what your cartoon Christian says.
Well, if your thinking is
Well, if your thinking is something significantly different than that the content of the Bible is true because it is the word of God, and you know it's the word of God because it says that it is and because you just have a feeling that it is and that God is real and is what you think He is, then it would be helpful if you'd take just a moment here to point out the difference between the preceding and your actual thinking. I think that's pretty much it, more or less, regardless of whether you would describe your thinking/feeling at greater length and in more glorious-sounding spiritual terms. If not, I would think that it would only take you a couple of minutes and a few sentences to set me straight, so please do. It wouldn't be the first time someone took a couple of minutes to repeat a point on a blog that he made on a previous thread with someone else, let alone regarding a subject very important to the former person, and bear in mind as well that others here may want to hear your answer as well as me.
As for my somewhat inaccurate representation of what you said in one particular comment, I've already acknowledged that I probably did that and apologized, which is much more than you're likely to see from most people in the blogosphere of any philisophical, religious, or ideological/political orientation on any of the political or economics blogs I've been on, so perhaps you should cut me a little slack in terms of "keeping a thread of your respect", given all the good discussions/debates we've had over the past year or so in terms of content and tone, unless I'm losing that because you are finding my comments generally offensive and irritating, not because I -- Heaven forbid on a blog -- carelessly somewhat misrepresented one particular comment of yours in my haste to be snarky.
Well I'm not up to repeating my reason for belief right now
Maybe later. Anyway I'll acept your apology.
ok. I hope you will sometime
ok. I hope you will sometime soon. If your thinking is significantly different from the kind of "feeling" and/or circular logic I've described, I'd be interested in hearing how so, and I think others here would be, too.
And God couldn't have decided to give that evidence?
That's not unlike the Calvinist who believe God, more or less, randomly decides who gets into heaven. Because if man's deeds got them into heaven, then God would be subservient to the deeds of man, which makes no sense [God has no master but his past decisions must be followed].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
That's an interesting statement John
I'm not sure it holds up under christian dogma though. The Bible is replete with examples of God proving itself. All the miracles fall into this category. What are those if not separate evidence of god besies the actual word of god? And if god is willing to prove itself then, why not now?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Of course there's miracles
Of course there's miracles and the sort which may give one reason to come to God, but I don't think they ultimately prove God - only God can validate God, or His Word. Take a look at how Jesus refused to give the pharisees a sign when they asked for proof. I believe this is done through the Holy Spirits revelation to the human mind. And I know many of you think I'm crazy for this ( which quite frankly is giving me second thoughts about sticking around much in this community), however, if you were all to follow your agnosticism to its logical conclusions I think you would take GR's position ( what I take to be his position, sorry if I'm misrepresenting it) that there is no knowable reality.
Seems pretty arbitrary
Clearly in some places in the bible god has no problem taking an overt role and directly providing evidence of itself. Angels were popping out of the (burning) woodwork to talk to Moses.
As for reality being unknowable- it's a perfectly rational position but since it is ultimately nihilistic, i.e. it provides no information about or guidance for life, there's no use in believing it. You might as well believe that your senses are reasonably trustworthy because your other option is not to be able to say anything about life at all.
Anyway I hope you'll stick around as you seem intelligent and interesting. At the same time if the topic is one you find too personal then it might be best to avoid such discussions.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
As for reality being
Well I think by that logic you ought to have religous belief too, since not having religous belief ultimately nihilistic - see my Betrand Russell quote below.
Not the same
An atheist can still know aout the material aspects of life, they just may be ignorant of the non-materialist aspects. But since the non-material is highly debatable there's every reason to suspect that they are just as right as the most devout believer.
The material realm has the advantage of being highly consensual and subject to verification. The spiritual realms is quite the opposite. So while everything we believe about physical reality may be a lie it seems unlikely. The scope of the deception would be enormous.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
So while everything we
Key word being seems". But why would everthing being as it appears in reality be anymore likely than it not being the way it appears? And as to likelyhood that's inherently relative. Since the probability at least of present reality would be 100% and 0% if we were omniscient, so probability is just based on how much we know, which means nobody really right or wrong when it comes to probability.
Heh, I don't have a position.
Other than to attack the (ironically) holier than thou position that people who only believe in an observable reality are somehow better than people who believe in more than that.
In this thread I have been arguing that a belief that "the True reality consists only of the observable universe" is every bit as faith-based as those beliefs the science proponents deride in others, and that the reason is that there is no knowable reality (or at least no provable reality).
They cannot prove that their reality is any more True than any of the religious folk can. They are no better and no worse, which is why their taking a holier than thou attitude is so amusing given who they are attacking. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Science and Religion
The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure that is what you are saying here, but you seem to be treading close to that. I suppose I am again reading too much into your apparently broad-brush statements, but "science proponents" do not deride others for their faith, any more than "religious people" are anti-science.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You're wrong. Again.
There are more religions than just Christianity. The Bible (actually the New Testament) is only the word of God to Christians. There are potentially many other conceptions of God than the one found in the Bible, and many of those don't even resmeble the God in the Bible.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4uph, I'm trying to ignore you
uph, I'm trying to ignore you because you are so consistently a waste of time and you so consistently get things wrong in some way. As for your comment, well, geez, thanks for that brilliant point that there are other faiths with other scriptures and other conceptions of deities -- big time duh. I'm just using an example, and one that happens to relate to at least a substantial degree to at least one and probably most persons here.
Having shown once again your propensity for not getting stuff and wasting people's time, I'll go back to trying to ignore you.
Well, try to be more accurate with your examples then ...
because that one is flawed. That's all I'm sayin', you're wrong (again).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4oh man, you are just such an
oh man, you are just such an idiot it's almost beyond belief. In fact, I'm ready to believe that there is a God (or Demon) of Oblivious Stupidity and that you are possessed by it.
Even a blind man can see
How do you know, the images aren't there? As I've said I think the only logical conclusion to atheism is absolute relativism, but of course atheists think for whatever reason that the perceptions they accept are superior to the perceptions other people accept as truth. I would accept an agnostic who believed reality was completely unknowable as being at least logical considering he the situation that he didn't have faith, however, people who claim to not believe, but still hold onto the idea of reality, are only following their own logic as far as they can comfortablly go.
God's revealed Himself in some way to everyone, not everyone's had the blessing of the Scriptures, but no man is without excuse. The problem with the rest of your quote is that you assume to know what the Christian experience is, while of course you're not experienceing it- once again like a blind man telling those who see that what they see isn't real.
Non-stamp collector
Almost all atheist are agnostics to a degree, it's just that theist highjacked the term to mean "belief there is no god/s"
Atheism = lack of belief.
The blind man is feeling a stuffed animal and those with sight are telling him they are seeing him feel a real life bear.
The theist sees a tomato, thinks its an apple, because they never seen a tomato before and tells others that the non-believers just never seen that kind of apple before and what makes that non-believer such an expert on veggies.
The whole Hoodoo trick of one must let Christ into their heart and believe first and man's mind isn't capable of understanding God cannot work on a good deal of people and God would know there are people that won't feign belief.
One man hears a pop sound in their car and " knows" its the magic fairy because he has a personal relationship with the fairy and feels better about life because of that.
Another man remembers he doesn't clean out his car and realizes its just an empty pop bottle moving around.
Another man knows there is a pop bottle back there, but keeps on telling himself its a fairy and that others are blind to the sight of the fairy.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Hey, you're gettin' awfully
Hey, you're gettin' awfully close to infringing on my copyrighted "Pepsi bottle" analogy. Watch it, bud, or I'll have you placing your hand on the Bible in a Ten Commandments-hangin' courtroom.
How do you know?
Please present your objective evidence for this statement, or are you merely accepting this on pure faith based on your personal beliefs?
Your (implicit) argument here is just as circular as the one you claim Christians use. You know the Holy Ghost has never visited anyone because there is no Holy Ghost, right? This is clearly an article of your faith-based belief in a strictly objective reality.
Oh, and if you don't have any objective evidence to support this belief is that a rational belief by your definition?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Absence of evidence is evidence absence
Do you have any evidence of Christians saying otherwise? Anything of Christians claiming the Holy Ghost appears to people that don't "know" Christ is their Savior? You can use more source than just the Bible, find a theologian that claims what I said isn't true.
I claim my special swiss army knife can cut through the armor of a M-1 Abrams tank, do you have evidence otherwise, find some otherwise what I said was true.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You should auction that knife
You should auction that knife on EBay. I'll bet it would get a price almost as high as the toast with the Virgin Mary or Jesus or whatever the f-ck some people thought they saw in the toast.
I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to what I wrote.
My point is that BR is relying on circular logic, just as the Christians are.
Is there a typo in this? If not this is a mere tautology.
What difference would this make to my main point that BR is using circular logic?
And even if it did, the question wasn't "are Christians saying the Holy Ghost appears before people who have not heard of Christ", the question was "is the Holy Ghost (actually) appearing before people who have not head of Christ?" Those aren't the same question.
My point has nothing to do with either side being true or not, but merely that they are both relying on circular logic (which is a logical fallacy). BR's original statement:
cannot be rationally supported. I raise this point because he makes such a big fuss about his being a rational thinker, and this is obviously NOT a valid example of rational thinking.
Stated more directly, the premise BR is expressing is that:
I merely want to hear the rational basis for this statement. A few interesting questions come to mind at this point:
(1) How does BR know who has and has not been visited by the Holy Ghost?
(2) How does BR know that these people knew of the Christian God before meeting the Holy Ghost?
(3) How does BR know that the Holy Ghost uniformly reveals itself to be a Christian Diety to everyone it chooses to visit? (Which seems implicit in his meaning.)
I am certain he has a rational explanation, I merely want to hear it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is "BR" supposed to be me? If
Is "BR" supposed to be me? If so, you are attributing to me arguments I didn't make. If you're capable of no other cognitive feat on this blog (which seems to be the case), at least pay attention to whose comment you are replying to.
Oops, I apologize.
I stand corrected. While BR is my shorthand for you, I was in fact replying to Brutus.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I merely want to hear the
(1) "The Apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior."
Everything I find pretty much says the same thing I remembered/thought before.
It must be a bad translation from Greek or the Holy Ghost took too much time.
(3) By visited by the Holy Ghost, I mean visited by the Holy Ghost, not "visited by the Holy Ghost Icognitio"
(2) Why would the Bible lie if it were true?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Great pick by Obama...
Peter Orszag to head the Office of Management and Budget
I've seen this guy testify before Congress on many occasions about budgetary issues, and have always been very impressed. He always has plenty to say, and all of it is clear, pointed, and thoughtful. He just seems to be born for this job.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ironically it looks like
Ironically it looks like Obama may be backing down one of the things I thought having a Dem would be good for- raising taxes.
Just letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire
...on their original schedule.
2010.
He never said it would happen right away.
I survived the Bush Administration
But this is clearly not that tax raising plan he ran with ...
he lied and you're spinning for him to cover up. I thought he was about change but he's just a lying politician like all the rest of them.
Simply letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is a cowardly move at best, and it doesn't get any tax refund checks sent to those 40% of people who don't pay taxes like he promised. Lying bast*** doesn't care about the poor or the middle class at all.
There're gonna be starving babies in the ghettos because of this and he doesn't even care.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Misuse of technical jargon infraction.
You mean who don't pay "Federal Income Tax" and some of their "untaxed" income is deferred during the year.
Even the anti-Casino ads, mentioned the non-payment of "Casino Taxes," if they claimed there were no "taxes" on the Casino, that would have been a lie on their part, since they surely know better.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I stand corrected.
Yes, this is scoped to federal taxes, obviously.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wrong again. A lot of people
Wrong again. A lot of people pay payroll taxes (e.g., SS FICA) -- a federal tax, "obviously" -- but not income tax. But good for you for admitting an error. And it's turned into a "two-fer" since you can do so again now. Good practice for you -- if applied every time you are wrong about something, you'll find the practice very handy, albeit tediously repititious, tiresome and conducive to repetitive strain injury (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome).
Meh.
Given the context my statement was well defined and accurate.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL! You are quite a piece of
LOL! You are quite a piece of work, man! Only question I have is whether or not you believe your own bullsh*t. Not only were you just plain wrong, both technically and in context (Obama and his campaign and supporters repeatedly pointed out the error of that talking point you used about all those people who, per the false claim, supposedly don't pay any taxes), but you are also blatantly weasely in your argumentation: You try to invoke context when you think that approach supports some point you've made, and invoke technicalities when you think that supports some point you've made. Reminds me of my friend Mark when I was a little kid, who tended to make up the rules as the game went on based on what would favor him. Needless to say, it didn't take long for me to discover that playing games with him was not worthwhile.
Meh.
Bloviating given all DUE consideration (i.e. none).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You do a very poor job of pretending to be a netroots-ian
The tax cuts for the 95% will come early.... the tax increases for the top 5% will come in 2010. It's the best of both worlds.
Should be making you happy.
And... unlike our current occupant of the White House, it means that when 2012 rolls around - Promises Kept.
I survived the Bush Administration
So you are promising checks to the poor ...
before we have the money? Won't that run up the debt?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A) I'm not promising them, Obama is... B) Yes.. debt runs up in
....short term.
I know that Keynesian economics is to you what holy water is to a vampire, but it works.
The stimulated economy will shorten the recession, leading to a decrease in the deficits starting around 2010-11 time frame.
I survived the Bush Administration
This sounds a little too much like voodoo economics for me ...
Are you trying to steal our schtick? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're a proponent of voodoo economics (being a Reaganite)....
...so you should welcome this.
I survived the Bush Administration
Obviously ...
what do you think I meant by:
Clearly I am laying claim to such statements as part of our voodoo economics policies. I just find it funny that you are now claiming the same things as we have been since Reagan. Welcome aboard. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Big difference
Reaganomics attempted to stimulate the economy by lowering taxes on the wealthy, which they claimed would result in "trickle down". Put the money in the hands of those that already have more than they know what to do with, and in their benevolence, they will use the money to create businesses and jobs.
Obama's plan is to stimulate the economy by rebating taxes to the 95% who are NOT wealthy, which will result in "trickle up". Put the money in the hands of the masses, and they will spend it, and jobs will be created from that and everyone will prosper - including and especially the wealthy business owners.
We've tried "trickle down" for 3 decades now. It didn't.
We're now going to try some "trickle up". It might.
I survived the Bush Administration
More importantly
Who cares if it trickles up? The wealthy donot need to be more wealthy yet. We need to decrease income disparity in america.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think there is likely one big similarity
Both will involve major deficits.
Not so big a difference, actually.
The operative approach here is to put more money into the economy and thereby stimulate growth. That's what you meant by "stimulated economy", right? And how do the deficits decrease over time? By growing the economy and thereby increasing tax revenues. It's the same plan.
The only difference is that the Republicans weren't planning to
steal ... confiscate ...redistribute the wealth to make it happen. The Democrats are ... assuming that they weren't lying about that too.You're stealing our schtick, simple as that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So....you admit it...
....that the GOP "schtick" is to use government policy to achieve their goals?
Wow.... and here I thought your "schtick" was all about reducing the role of government in the economy. Silly me.
Turns out, we've only been arguing over which way we want to micromanage the economy.
Got it.
I survived the Bush Administration
Tyler Cowen
I think this Q&A type "vlog" is pretty good. I'll be checking out the website listed in the vlog for other speakers on other topics.
Here's the link to other speakers
on this topic.
Other questions and speakers here
.
Ten myths conservatives believe about progressives
www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008114825/talking-turkey-ten-myths-conservative-believe-about-progressives
I survived the Bush Administration
Ugh
Could the author be anymore condescending? This should be retitled "Ten Myths Conservatives Believe about Progressives because Conservatives are Stupid Idiots and They Smell Bad." This part takes the cake:
Both sides read the Constitution and the Bible selectively. What part of "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" don't liberals understand? God wants you to kill gays. It's right there in black and white.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Really........?
Considering the decades long flood of rank invective showered upon the 'godless left liberals', it shouldn't be surprising that there would be a little blow back.
Everyone reads the bible selectively. I interpret the passage you quote, as meaning that God hates, humans (mankind) generally, and women specifically. :)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them".
I'm only half stupid
Unfortunately, however, the Left helped bring it on.
The Left has made some mistakes that has also helped bring on this kind of onslaught of abuse and invective on them.
Automatically labeling counterprotesters of our wars, and the people who ended up serving in our unnecessary wars as fascists, ignoramuses, etc., and, in general failing to understand that they, too, suffered pain of losing loved ones in those wars, condemning those who oppose, or even question the efficacy of mandated school busing (which has been disastrous in many places, including and particularly Boston) as a bunch of racists per se, and wholeheartedly supporting such policies, and, in general, just demonizing people of a more conservative bent, the Left, not surprisingly, did suffer the blowback which resulted.
Applauding and supporting people on the Left who went to excesses didn't help, either, and, having a rather snooty attitude towards people of a different political and social persuasion, in addition to the above-mentioned, also helped bring about the Rightwing backlash, and put the Republicans in office for so long.
Like the OT needs followed
Well, Mathew :17-18 clearly states
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
It's right there is black white not to follow the OT laws if it seems not right to do.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Bravo, stiner
In fact, the list shows more about the myths that Progressives believe rather than the other way around.
The truth about what Progressives and Conservatives think of eachother in terms of "myth" is probably far less interesting than the hyperbole that each "side" like to believe. Being that that is the case, they feel the need to write this kind of nonsense.
Seems a little ironic that
Seems a little ironic that you would criticize being condescending, and then as an atheist claim to have a better understanding of Scripture by taking of few things quickly out of context, than what those who actually seriously study the Scriptures have.
The Boat is over here
I think you read the post in an unintended way.
I think Stinerman pretty much said about the article that you said about his post.
Do you know Greek and Hebrew?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I don't know them too well
I am learning it however. Funny you should ask, Hebrew is a ig part of my homework that I have to do over break - though I haven't been getting too much done. :-)
Agreed
Just another "my side's better than your side 'cause you suck" waste of bytes.
It really only takes a little bit of effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. And it's been done so many times by better writers than me. Neither liberals nor conservatives are the demons from hell* the other side most desperately wants (needs?) them to be. This kind of crap bores me.
*reference included solely to yank BR's chain ;-)
Tell me, BR, what did God ever do to you ...
to make you rail aginst him/her so? :)
Is it rational to be so obsessed with a fictional (in your mind) entity?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ahh, GR, you read me like a
Ahh, GR, you read me like a book. I've completely underestimated your intellect. OK, here's the story.
I used to believe in God. But then He crashed at my place one night, and while I was sleeping, he drank all my beer, f*cked my girlfriend (in the culo!) and left with my wallet, the rat bastid.
This is all very emotional for me recounting this traumatic, profoundly life-altering experience. I'm gonna stop now and go get a tissue.
So you admit that God exists? :)
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Of course. F-cker drank all
Of course. F-cker drank all my beer. And screwed my girlfriend in the ass, but more to the point, the f-cker drank all my beer!
God may work in mysterious ways ...
but in your case I guess he made an exception. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Happy Thanksgiving all.
Take time out to enjoy your families, both blood & extended.
( A little late, but...) Same to you, kindness.
Hope you, too had a great Thanksgiving, kindness. Thanks.
Even more belated from me,
Even more belated from me, but hope everybody had a good one.
Time for that great tradition
tha's right; it's death by shopping time again:
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Totally horrendous.
When stuff like the incident in the Long Island Wal-Mart occur, it reveals the worst aspects of our culture and of human nature generally; greed, viciousness, and callousness, on the face of it all. It's reminiscent of similar stampedes that occurrred in various places here in the country, in the early to mid 1980's over the Cabbage Patch doils, where, while nobody was killed, frequently culminated in brawls, and one person ended up with a broken leg. Also, the stampeding that occurred during entrance to a Who concert in a cleveland arena, which came about as a result of the city having only opened one gate in the 11-gated arena for entry, resulting in t he suffocation and death of at least one person, or possibly more was also rather awful. If those two incidents are any indication of the worst aspects of our culture, these two incidents are it.
From the Irony Department.....
She has to be fuming
Now *that's* a shame
:)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ender, a question...
I can't get the pictures right in my new diary. I've replaced them with simple links (the two that are from imageshack, in case it isn't obvious). I tried everythng obvious (I think) but it never worked right. Any tips?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think I got it to work
Lemme know if any additional edits are required.
I'm looking forward to reading the diary after I get back next week.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Nice
can you let me know what you had to do?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I copy/pasted the forum link
and extracted the fixed url of the image, rather than using the script link.
However, it's entirely possible this had nothing to do with your problem. Spector was having issues earlier and it turned out the SC form was submitting using "testinput" as the format rather than "Full html" and so it was just stripping out the image tags. It could be that was what it was doing to you and then for me it defaulted to normal input format.
Still a few kinks to be worked out with the new system, I think...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Glad everybody had a wonderful Thanksgiving. So did I.
Hi, everybody--it's been awhile. I had a wonderful Thanksgiving week. On Wednesday night, I watched an airing of my favorite film, the golden oldie-but-goodie movie/musical classic, West Side Story, on the Turner Classic Movies Channel. Yesterday, on Thanksgiving, after a wonderful dinner with my family and friends, with great food, conversation, along with much fun, warmth and laughter, I went to see the movie "Milk", with Sean Penn. It was a well-done film, and Sean Penn did a wonderful job of playing t he part of the late Harvey Milk. Well worth seeing, imo.
ok, admit it: on
ok, admit it: on Thanskgiving, while around your family and friends, you found yourself at least humming that "There's a place for us" song.
And then, just as someone began to carve the Turkey, you blurted out in song "I wanna live in America..."
(Laughing) Well....
okay, I admit that I end up humming bits and pieces of various WSS songs, especially "Somewhere", and "America", and even walking around snapping my fingers and/or imitating the Jet gang whistle a little bit. Nothing that I don't normally do. LOL
LOL re: the Jet stuff and
LOL re: the Jet stuff and your last line.