we should rob our children of any chance they may have

Sure wish I had Children so I could Give A Shat about All These Important Thangs you people Go On About.

My View is that a big ole fat virus only affecting People would wipe out Most Of Humanity.

And We Could Start Dumb Again.

With No Message Boards. [SMILE] [GRIN] [LOL] [and all that Other Rot]

SterileAsDeathDullNanDo

"Idiocracy (2006)" wrote:

[first lines]
Narrator: As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[last lines]
Narrator: Joe and Rita had three children, the three smartest kids in the world. Vice President Frito took 8 wives and had a total of 32 kids. Thirty-two of the dumbest kids ever to walk the Earth. OK, so maybe Joe didn't save mankind, but he got the ball rolling, and that's pretty good for an average guy.

Well, this thread sure has been a massive exercise.

The thing is, as I noted a LONG time ago, it is an exercise in exposition.

When one party has an absolute faith - efforts to come to an understanding of any middle ground are doomed to failure.

ID has his faith. Many here get upset when he misdirects his faith as being science. Fair enough, but it should be painfully evident to all, that there is no shaking ID's faith in his view (whether it passes a 'is it science' smell test or not -- and it doesn't matter one bit to ID).

All elements of this thread that try to relate to science are in essence off topic. There is no language to equate science with religion. While a number of us can integrate our faith with science, in order to do that as part of our faith, we treat the holy texts as texts -- subject to interpretation and in many ways dealt with best as literature and an imagined history.

ID is in a different place -- literalists generally are -- faith for him is very concrete and not interpretive at all. What many of us consider metaphorical language or mythologies are simply Truth.

I noted earlier, that the discussion between ID and most of here is simply a case of 'talking past' one another. I've seen nothing added to this discussion in the past two or three days to change that.

There is nothing more I can say to ID. All I can say I have said.

"Wow. Just Wow."

A unique perspective to be sure.

An epic failure to convince anyone here they had a valid point.

And an epic failure to comprehend that.

So again,
Wow. Just wow.

---

Janice

Lol. Let's try to change the subject.

So how bout that Jesus guy, I hear he was a real cool dude.

I kid. But as someone who was raised around religion, I often wondered what that guy did to become so popular as to have his stories passed down, improved upon, and end up in scripture.

---

#resist

ID. You is Da Man.

I Love it when All These Brainiacs Go To Battle.

I Barely read A Smidgin of What You Posted Mr. ID, but if it gets The Brainiac Bunch to Post Excessively In Response, it Makes Me Happy.

I have A Deep Faith. Faith the Brainiac Bunch will Continue The Quest For Message Board Domination.

I read E.O. Wilson's book Creation. Made Me A Believer.

FaithfulAsADogDullNanDo

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I gotta agree.. in the stories about him, he was a cool dude. Paul was a bit of a donkey though.

---

Janice

I am not sure what to say here......
A debate? I am not sure 'faith' is debatable. You either have it, or you do not.
Where it came from, or did not, as one was raised from a child, may be debatable.

But one need not justify why or whether one has it.

I happen to have faith in a single God above. He has guided me much more in my recent years than when I was an idiot alcohol fueled maniac kid. Wrecking cars and lives at will. And they were many.

I spend many quiet moments these days praying for my Lord to forgive me for what I did in my misspent youth, and asking for His forgiveness for same. There were some nasty things done.

And He shall grant that forgiveness to me, my friends.
Because I have faith.

Because I ignored Him for soooooooo long, but finally turned the corner, I believe I make Him smile sometimes.

And THAT, my friends, is faith.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Soft, well there you have it, ID has been endorsed for his achievement in imcomprehensibility by none other than the Dullstar himself <giggle>.

People who point out the margins and limits of science seem to only do so in an effort to somehow vilify science as a whole, so they can continue to justify their beliefs (usually in spirituality) as being just as valid as evidence based science.

Yet you have no evidence that I have forwarded such beliefs, attempted to vilify science or tried to suggest something is as valid as evidence-based science.

Feelling defensive much? I used the word "people", not "Sarge". Unless you are trying to tell me that you indeed are trying to villify science...

I have provided evidence of how math (and so science) proceed.

Yes, and I'm wondering why you felt it important enough to point out something I (we) already knew.

Trying to vilify science in my position would be incredibly stupid.

Then don't.

BTW, try replacing in one of your previous posts "mathematician" with "statistician".

Ok.... nothing changes.

As Sarge is telling you, at times logic [weaker of science] and math flow as one.

I make no claims that logic is weak. In my posts, in thar respect, I am countering you when you claimed that earlier.

Just so everyone knows, when I post here, it is to provide information, and not to attack others. I am attempting to use critical thinking about a subject that seems to evade critical thinking. I have a lot more to say as my time permits. I am using this as a venue to post my views in a non-threatening way. The posts I make are more like highly abreviated chapters. The information is not directed at anyone in particular, but for all to read and form their own opinions. Later when I have time, I will address prayer.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

After you joined in with the others in belief that Im Guy, I find myself not willing to believe in a thing you post. You lack credibility.

Please provide a link to a post I have made that leads you to believe I have joined in with others in this belief. I cannot recall making such a post, and if you can't find one, please apologize, or it will be you lacking credibility.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

After you joined in with the others in belief that Im Guy, I find myself not willing to believe in a thing you post. You lack credibility.

Just thought I might log into my other account to show you he still exists.

WHOOPS! I mean... "I" still exist.

WHOOPS! I mean... as a computer algorythm.... well, never mind.

I gave up in here when nobody expressed any examples of right/wrong/absolutes. I have seen references to the idea that having moral values is not predicated on the idea of the existence of God. Which tells me everything I need to know about most of you in here.

Guy, I responded to your post making the request for right/wrong/absolutes after your earlier post noting that it had been unanswered. What kind of absolutes are you looking for us to respond with? So far the discussion with ID has been about those found in morals (e.g. murder) and physics (e.g. the speed of light). ID has not yet been able to define murder in a coherent fashion, and it has been shown that the speed of light varies.

On the question of atheists and moral values, it seems to me that for an atheist to be moral then s/he must find a way of establishing values that are not predicated on the existence of God, otherwise they will cease to be an atheist. Is it your contention that atheists must acknowledge the existence of God before they can adopt a set of moral values, i.e. they have a choice between being moral or being an atheist?

ID, round squares, square circles--great one! For others, it depends on which undiscovered dimension of the universe you view them from.

GivingAHandoToDullNando

clap clap clap!

...automated spell check complete
Do you wish to continue? (Y/N):

Your automated spell checker is in need of an update, "algorithm" does not have a "y" ;-).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

As Sarge is telling you, at times logic [weaker of science] and math flow as one.

I make no claims that logic is weak. In my posts, in that respect, I am countering you when you claimed that earlier.

Wellllll, ummmmmm, O-Kay then.

I have seen references to the idea that having moral values is not predicated on the idea of the existence of God. Which tells me everything I need to know about most of you in here.

Oh? Do tell...

I'm really curious what you mean by that statement.

---

#resist

Haven't posted here in a while since I realized all it was doing was adding to global warming.

ID believes what he was taught so strongly that even if his eyes, ears, mouth, nose and skin tell him otherwise, he thinks his deity is just testing his faith. You can not reason with such a person as logic does not apply to them. Most of the rest of us do believe our senses and believe in logic. We can be reasoned with as long as we explain all the preconditions in an argument.

---

ID, round squares, square circles--great one! For others, it depends on which undiscovered dimension of the universe you view them from.

Q.I - Square Triangle Circle Shape

I have seen references to the idea that having moral values is not predicated on the idea of the existence of God. Which tells me everything I need to know about most of you in here.

Oh? Do tell...

I'm really curious what you mean by that statement.

So am I.

I'll make a statement that it is impossible to be moral and believe in a deity that cares or not if others believe in him as that results in bigotry.

---