LOL!

Salud, Carl!

---

LOL!

Salud, Carl!

Hey Carl, but did she give him hell?

---

flaming balloons

LOL!

Salud, Carl!

Hey Carl, but did she give him hell?

It might've been the other way 'round - she may have been calling from above for help.

---

Saludos NA-
Apologies to Sarge, I'm just not much for this discussion.
But I had to laugh when I read this little tale.
People seem to believe any goofyness they care to,
And that's OK with me as long as they let others
Do the same....cc

Saludos NA-
Apologies to Sarge, I'm just not much for this discussion.
But I had to laugh when I read this little tale.
People seem to believe any goofyness they care to,
And that's OK with me as long as they let others
Do the same....cc

I found it funny.
And obviously one thing is not clear to people, so I will make it clear. I was raised Christian but ... I am not set in my belief. The whole point of recent posts is that Chuck's approach is not a good one or a helpful one.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

---

me@rescam.org

So you do understand!

You just want to proselytize to us and convert us to your religion.

You either can't read, or you're an idiot. Science requires proof for a definitive answer. Proof is NOT solely a mathematical term by the way, (much like the mathematician would like to claim); it means to reliably demonstrate something is true. ( I can PROVE to you Japanese traffic lights have GREEN to mean go and not BLUE as they claim, by ripping one off its post, bringing it overseas to you, and plugging it in so you can observe it for yourself. So Sarge can go and try to think about that awhile, aside form the fact that his 'mathematical proofs' in the cases of science need to be presented for review.)

Just because an answer is definitive doesn't mean it can't be changed due to new evidence. It is definitive until it is disproven. A fool might believe everything spoon fed to him, but if you mistake me for that type, (after everything I've written about scientists who fail to think scientifically) you're really blind. There is NO religion in there, so Hyland, whether being stupid or trying to gain an advantage in pissing me off with accusing me of being the same type of moron he is, is WRONG again.

who are you to decide who is a scientist and who is not?

I am not deciding. The definition is in the name itself. Go back and read, if you can.


Carl Sagan discusses religion distinctly in the scene where the camera is aimed up at him, and he is on a moving boat in the episode 'The Edge of Forever', where he says that some religions attempt to answer the question of 'Where did the universe come from?' with a creator - but if we are brave in our questioning we must ask 'well what made the creator then?' Why not save a step and conclude there was NO creator. Or if one claims the creator was always there, why not save a step, and conclude the universe was always there?

There is NO need for a creator. The need is only psychological.

Why does all of this annoy me and put a cactus in my backside? Because I detest seeing people mislead and abused - and religion sure abuses females, aside from others. It's not worth the dubious 'good' it does (always at a price). If some mathematics teacher wants to subvert the very foundation of what he's teaching by believing in religion and/or communicating that belief to those he teaches, then he's a bloody idiot and deserves no respect at all. He can't prove there is a creator. So what does he do to support his unjustified belief? He uses ancient philosophical arguments that are for the most part, not even applicable (what axiom would you claim the physical world rests under? The fact that one apple and one apple might one day give you THREE apples in total? Or that smoking isn't PROVEN to cause cancer? Or that there might be a planet somewhere where gravity pushes things away instead? Twerp.) all in a bid to weaken the alternative (science) to the assesment of religion that I give - that unproven fantasies should be abandoned as unproductive, unneeded, and downright detrimantal.

I never once advocated BLINDLY following science as if it were another religion; that is not much better. Any scientist views ANY piece of information with a critical eye; something that is clearly in short supply around here.

Now I'm sure everyone will be reading the edited version of this text in case it gets moderated. But I hope the disdain for fools is still intact.

The only thing I would disagree with Es99 on so far, however, is that she is far less combative than I am. I don't even think she is wrong to do that; it might not be in her nature. However she is wrong in trying to get me to change my nature. I see a great need to combat religion's detrimental effects very vigorously. Most religious people are too stupid to listen anyway, so why worry about whether they are brave enough to fully question their fantasy? Sarge won't question his, and he's pretty intelligent! ...though only to a certain point.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

You either can't read, or you're an idiot. Science requires proof for a definitive answer. Proof is NOT solely a mathematical term by the way, (much like the mathematician would like to claim); it means to reliably demonstrate something is true.

I am not sure if you're agreeing with me on something here or not. I have recently clarified myself (in Message 450074) ...

Chuck, you seem fixated on this idea of proof. Proof is a mathematical term and not really applicable to science. In science we look for evidence, and construct the best theory to fit the evidence. To suggest proof would mean there is an absolute answer...but no scientist in their right mind would suggest that we have all the right answers and they are never going to change. We have the best answers based on the evidence we have. As that evidence changes, we will adjust our theories accordingly. It's not a matter of faith and it's not a matter of absolute facts.

Es, proof is not a term which belongs solely to mathematics, though the systematization of axiomatic systems, deductive reasoning and proof is something largely used mostly in philosophy, followed by mathematics. (The Greek geometers … mathematicians … that established the techniques we follow 2000-2500 years later were better known as philosophers.) In non-mathematical contexts, proof “means … [many] … different things. To a judge and jury it means something established by evidence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. To a statistician it means something occuring [sic] with a probability calculated from assumptions about the likelihood of certain events happening randomly. To a scientist it means something can be tested – the proof that water boils at 100oC is to carry out an experiment. A mathematician wants more – simply predicting and testing is not enough – for there may be hidden assumptions” (Tall, 1989, p. 28). (Tall, D. (1989). The Nature of Mathematical Proof. Mathematics Teaching, 127, 28-32.) (David Orme Tall, Professor in Mathematical Thinking at the University of Warwick.)

... or ...

(Message 451972) ...

Saludos NA-
Apologies to Sarge, I'm just not much for this discussion.
But I had to laugh when I read this little tale.
People seem to believe any goofyness they care to,
And that's OK with me as long as they let others
Do the same....cc

I found it funny.
And obviously one thing is not clear to people, so I will make it clear. I was raised Christian but ... I am not set in my belief.

Or (Message 450342) ...

An idea of the existence of something called 'god' must entail a definition of what this thing called 'god' is.

The problem with religion is that nobody that believes in 'god' can define what it is they believe in.

You tell me that one defining characteristic and we can talk.

Zero, you've already said that.
One, my responses to you were about intellectual honesty, use of words and language and how these things evolve.
Two, why don't you ask your defining characteristic question of someone who's obviously set in their belief?
Three, that which is exists is definable is a questionable statement anyway. You seem to know a lot about philosophy. Then you should, far better than Chuck, about UNDEFINED TERMS, followed by definitions, then axioms, then theorems. What are the points of undefined terms and axioms? TO AVOID CIRCULAR REASONING. From the sounds of it, this is something YOU *should* know. It didn't come as a surprise when Chuck didn't know about it.

I am not deciding. The definition is in the name itself. Go back and read, if you can.

O.K., a rephrasing, then. Yes, we have a definition of what a scientist is. We also have a definition of what a musician is. When I see someone who claims to be a musician again, if they are not currently making music or listening to or creating (c)rap (which we all know is not music!) ... [Humor on]I will lambast that person for not being a true musician. ;)[/Humor off].

... but if we are brave in our questioning we must ask 'well what made the creator then?'

How did such a natural thing such as questioning get turned into a matter of bravery? Do you really think in some of my if-then scenarios I have not considered this or that others in here have not?

It's not worth the dubious 'good' it does (always at a price).

Among things you've mentioned, as well as problems with religion I myself have raised, let's add to the list "extreme life-long feelings of guilt." So, I ask again: what's the appeal of religion? I do not think as many people spend so much of their lives cowering in fear of what will happen to them after they die as you do.

If some mathematics teacher wants to subvert the very foundation of what he's teaching ...

Nope, no subversion.

...by believing in religion and/or communicating that belief to those he teaches ...

If I did that, I'd be fired in a heartbeat. The ACLU would probably help prosecute me, claiming I forced my religious beliefs on my students.

Furthermore, I have not even been attempting to prove there's a creator! Don't you get it? I've been questioning your wording and technique and asked you to engage in some if-then scenarios. That's all. Tell me what ancient philosophical arguments I've used. I think you're beginning to confuse me with somebody else now.

Twerp.

Nice. Put words in someone's mouth, attribute thoughts to them which are not theirs, then throw that word in there. LOL, LOL, LOL.

... all in a bid to weaken the alternative (science) to the assesment of religion that I give - that unproven fantasies should be abandoned as unproductive, unneeded, and downright detrimantal.

Chucks needs to see how I battle the paranormal in that other thread. LOL, LOL, LOL. He'll be so confuzzled!

Sarge won't question his, and he's pretty intelligent! ...though only to a certain point.

Then again I direct you to the links I posted at the beginning of the message.
Once again, I am INACTIVE: meaning, I have been to 3 services in 2.5 yrs. Attendance has declined steadily over the last 6 years. I have my doubts. How in the world you could not pick that up is beyond me. My only reasons for debating you are: your wording; your technique; to engage in some what-if, if-then thinking scenarios; MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have agreed with you on some ways religion can be a negative, adding some other ways on my own (why can't you ever go, hey! Thanks! Nice we agree on something! ???) ... BUT ... you place too much blame on religion, particularly when there are some basic evolutionary/biological or psychological reasons instead. And I've demonstrated it.

On that note, my data collection for my dissertation research begins next Monday and I will be fading away.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Just found this while looking for some stuff to beef up my literature review in my dissertation. It winds up having nothing to do with my research, but is germaine to the discussion here.

In 1980 Professor Morris Kline wrote an excellent book about the current crisis in mathematics titled, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. Here is what he says right at the outset, in the Preface to his book:

This book treats the fundamental changes that man has been forced to make in his understanding of the nature and role of mathematics. We know today that mathematics does not possess the qualities that in the past earned for it universal respect and admiration. Mathematics was regarded as the acme of exact reasoning, a body of truths in itself, . . . . How man came to the realization that these values are false and just what our present understanding is constitute the major themes [of the book]. . . .

Many mathematicians would perhaps prefer to limit the disclosure of the present status of mathematics to members of the family. To air these troubles in public may appear to be in bad taste, as bad as airing one’s marital difficulties. But intellectually oriented people must be fully aware of the powers of the tools at their disposal. Recognition of the limitations, as well as the capabilities, of reason is far more beneficial than blind trust, which can lead to false ideologies and even to destruction

(emphases added).

Whether I subscribe to these views is not the issue. The issue is that it is of concern to some mathematicians and so should also be of concern to scientists in general. So, if you want to blame someone for misleading others, blame those I am quoting. Or, question yourself as you ask others to question themselves and determine if there really are limitations to mathematics and science ... ? (Just like there are deep questions that should be asked of religious people.)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

OK, I was just told I could re-post this if I remove some of the offensive stuff that was in the content of some quoted portions. So, let me try again and hopefully nothing offensive remains.

Science requires proof for a definitive answer. Proof is NOT solely a mathematical term by the way, (much like the mathematician would like to claim); it means to reliably demonstrate something is true.

I am not sure if you're agreeing with me on something here or not. I have recently clarified myself (in Message 450074) ...

Chuck, you seem fixated on this idea of proof. Proof is a mathematical term and not really applicable to science. In science we look for evidence, and construct the best theory to fit the evidence. To suggest proof would mean there is an absolute answer...but no scientist in their right mind would suggest that we have all the right answers and they are never going to change. We have the best answers based on the evidence we have. As that evidence changes, we will adjust our theories accordingly. It's not a matter of faith and it's not a matter of absolute facts.

Es, proof is not a term which belongs solely to mathematics, though the systematization of axiomatic systems, deductive reasoning and proof is something largely used mostly in philosophy, followed by mathematics. (The Greek geometers ... mathematicians ... that established the techniques we follow 2000-2500 years later were better known as philosophers.) In non-mathematical contexts, proof
"means ... [many] ... different things. To a judge and jury it means something established by evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. To a statistician it means something occuring [sic] with a probability calculated from assumptions about the likelihood of certain events happening randomly. To a scientist it means something can be tested ... the proof that water boils at 100^oC is to carry out an experiment. A mathematician wants more ... simply predicting and testing is not enough ... for there may be hidden assumptions" (Tall, 1989, p. 28). (Tall, D. (1989). The Nature of Mathematical Proof. Mathematics Teaching, 127, 28-32.) (David Orme Tall, Professor in Mathematical Thinking at the University of Warwick.)

... or ...

(Message 451972) ...

Saludos NA-
Apologies to Sarge, I'm just not much for this discussion.
But I had to laugh when I read this little tale.
People seem to believe any goofyness they care to,
And that's OK with me as long as they let others
Do the same....cc

I found it funny.
And obviously one thing is not clear to people, so I will make it clear. I was raised Christian but ... I am not set in my belief.

Or (Message 450342) ...

An idea of the existence of something called 'god' must entail a definition of what this thing called 'god' is.

The problem with religion is that nobody that believes in 'god' can define what it is they believe in.

You tell me that one defining characteristic and we can talk.

Zero, you've already said that.
One, my responses to you were about intellectual honesty, use of words and language and how these things evolve.
Two, why don't you ask your defining characteristic question of someone who's obviously set in their belief?
Three, that which is exists is definable is a questionable statement anyway. You seem to know a lot about philosophy. Then you should, far better than Chuck, about UNDEFINED TERMS, followed by definitions, then axioms, then theorems. What are the points of undefined terms and axioms? TO AVOID CIRCULAR REASONING. From the sounds of it, this is something YOU *should* know. It didn't come as a surprise when Chuck didn't know about it.

(EDIT: I was tired and a little angry when I posted that.)

I am not deciding. The definition is in the name itself. Go back and read, if you can.

O.K., a rephrasing, then. Yes, we have a definition of what a scientist is. We also have a definition of what a musician is. When I see someone who claims to be a musician again, if they are not currently making music or listening to or creating (c)rap (which we all know is not music!) ... [Humor on]I will lambast that person for not being a true musician. ;)[/Humor off].

... but if we are brave in our questioning we must ask 'well what made the creator then?'

How did such a natural thing such as questioning get turned into a matter of bravery? Do you really think in some of my if-then scenarios I have not considered this or that others in here have not?

(EDIT: children naturally question things, up until at least age 5, before it gets educated out of them by stale educational systems.)

It's not worth the dubious 'good' it does (always at a price).

Among things you've mentioned, as well as problems with religion I myself have raised, let's add to the list "extreme life-long feelings of guilt." So, I ask again: what's the appeal of religion? I do not think as many people spend so much of their lives cowering in fear of what will happen to them after they die as you do.

If some mathematics teacher wants to subvert the very foundation of what he's teaching ...

Nope, no subversion.

... by believing in religion and/or communicating that belief to those he teaches ...

If I did that, I'd be fired in a heartbeat. The ACLU would probably help prosecute me, claiming I forced my religious beliefs on my students.

(EDIT: even more likely, since the Dems have regained some control ... woo hoo!)

Furthermore, I have not even been attempting to prove there's a creator!

(EDIT: see the folly of that as described in my posts to R/B.)

I've been questioning your wording and technique and asked you to engage in some if-then scenarios. That's all. Tell me what ancient philosophical arguments I've used. I think you're beginning to confuse me with somebody else now.

(EDIT: In going MUCH further back in time in this or related threads, I can see a few others have made points similar to the ones I have.)

BTW, please don't put words in someone's mouth, attribute thoughts to them which are not their, etc. ... . (Had to edit that to leave out the quoted "T" word.)

... all in a bid to weaken the alternative (science) to the assesment of religion that I give - that unproven fantasies should be abandoned as unproductive, unneeded, and downright detrimantal.

Chucks needs to see how I battle the paranormal in that other thread. LOL, LOL, LOL. He'll be so confuzzled!

Sarge won't question his, and he's pretty intelligent! ...though only to a certain point.

Then again I direct you to the links I posted at the beginning of the message.
Once again, I am INACTIVE: meaning, I have been to 3 services in 2.5 yrs. Attendance has declined steadily over the last 6 years. I have my doubts. How in the world you could not pick that up is beyond me. My only reasons for debating you are: your wording; your technique; to engage in some what-if, if-then thinking scenarios; MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have agreed with you on some ways religion can be a negative, adding some other ways on my own (why can't you ever go, hey! Thanks! Nice we agree on something! ???) ... BUT ... you place too much blame on religion, particularly when there are some basic evolutionary/biological or psychological reasons instead. And I've demonstrated it.

(EDIT: I respond to almost every point you make if I am capable. I do the same for others, if it seems it is worthy and has not been brought up while I have monitored the thread. Why don't I respond to your statements/questions about peer review of research? Because it's an obvious thing! Where's the discussion in that? I'd almost take it to be "axiomatic," lol. The researcher in South Korea that falsified data or whatever it was that involved in his unethical research paid the price because of such peer review. So, other than those little things I leave out, I answer pretty much everything else. Please don't be so much more selective in what you choose to read or respond to, for that seems to smack of misdirection much more than any of my posts.)

On that note, my data collection for my dissertation research begins next Monday and I will be fading away.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Also popped up in a literature search. (Posted to help Chuck explain science to some others.)

http://www.ped.gu.se/kollegier/lit/PLIKT/Material/Koschmann96.pdf

In his well-known essay on the nature of scientific revolutions, Kuhn (1972)
theorized that scientific research proceeds through long, relatively stable
periods of normal science intermittently punctuated by briefer, more tumultuous
times in which new paradigms for research may emerge. He characterized
normal science as “research firmly based upon one or more past
scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community
acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further
practice” (p. 10).
A scientific achievement represents a paradigm for Kuhn if it raises a
compelling set of researchable questions and attracts a following of workers
intent on pursuing those questions. The paradigm supplies its practitioners
with “topics, tools, methodologies, and premises” (Lehnert, 1984, p. 22). It
provides purchase in attacking what might previously havebeen considered
intractable problems. A paradigm is not fixed, however, but is refined and
extended through use. In Kuhn’s words, it becomes “an object for further
articulation and specification under new and stringent conditions” (1972, p.
23). Over time, competing paradigms may emerge, potentially leading to one
paradigm’s abandonment in favor of another. Such shifts are always revolutionary
occurrences. As Kuhn observed, “the transition between competing
paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral
experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not
necessarily in an instant) or not at all” (1972, p. 150).
Oneinteresting feature of Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions is what he
referred to as the “incommensurability of the pre- and post-revolutionary normal-scientific traditions” (1972, p. 148). Adherents to a new paradigm
adopt an altered Weltunanschauung, prescribing a new way of observing,
reflecting on, and describing the world. Though the notion of incommensurability
is asource of controversy among philosophers of science (Biagioli,
1990; Kitcher, 1978),Kuhn held that the effect of a paradigm shift is to produce
a divided community of researchers no longer able to debate their respective
positions,owing to fundamental differences in terminology, conceptual frameworks, and views on what constitutes the legitimate questions of science.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Though the notion of incommensurability is a source of controversy among philosophers of science (Biagioli, 1990; Kitcher, 1978), Kuhn held that the effect of a paradigm shift is to produce a divided community of researchers no longer able to debate their respective positions, owing to fundamental differences in terminology, conceptual frameworks and views on what constitutes the legitimate questions of science.

When I read that, the controversy attending the advent of quantum theory came to mind.

George Carlin as the Bishop was inspired casting.

Ya. Like I thought, the thread was deleted. So here, again, with the rough parts bleeped out, is my message, I trust the bleeped out parts are not still too offensive to your tender ears, knightmare?:

So you do understand!

You just want to proselytize to us and convert us to your religion.

You either can't read, or (bleep). Science requires proof for a definitive answer. Proof is NOT solely a mathematical term by the way, (much like the mathematician would like to claim); it means to reliably demonstrate something is true. ( I can PROVE to you Japanese traffic lights have GREEN to mean go and not BLUE as they claim, by ripping one off its post, bringing it overseas to you, and plugging it in so you can observe it for yourself. So Sarge can go and try to argue about the paradigm of 'colors', aside form the fact that his 'mathematical proofs' in ALL cases of science need to be presented for review first.)

Just because an answer is definitive doesn't mean it can't be changed due to new evidence. It is definitive until it is disproven. A fool might believe everything spoon fed to him, but if you mistake me for that type, (after everything I've written about scientists who fail to think scientifically) you're really blind. There is NO religion in there, so Hyland, whether (bleep) or trying to gain an advantage in pissing me off with accusing me of being the same (bleep)he is, is WRONG again. Sarge, in the meantime, is appearing very much like Douglas Addams' "Ruler of the Universe", suprised anew every day that a pencil makes a mark on a paper, etc. etc. etc. (made to mock philosophers)

who are you to decide who is a scientist and who is not?

I am not deciding. The definition is in the name itself. Go back and read, if (bleep).


Carl Sagan discusses religion distinctly in the scene where the camera is aimed up at him, and he is on a moving boat in the episode 'The Edge of Forever', where he says that "some religions attempt to answer the question of 'Where did the universe come from?' with a creator - but if we are brave in our questioning we must ask 'well what made the creator then?' Why not save a step and conclude there was NO creator. Or if one claims the creator was always there, why not save a step, and conclude the universe was always there?"

There is NO need for a creator. The need is only psychological.

Why does all of this annoy me and put a cactus in my backside? Because I detest seeing people misled and abused - and religion sure abuses females, aside from others. It's not worth the dubious 'good' it does (always at a price). If some mathematics teacher wants to subvert the very foundation of what he's teaching by believing in religion and/or communicating that belief to those he teaches, then he's (bleep) and deserves no respect at all. He can't prove there is a creator. So what does he do to support his unjustified belief? He uses ancient philosophical arguments that are for the most part, not even applicable (what axiom would you claim the physical world rests under? The fact that one apple and one apple might one day give you THREE apples in total? Or that smoking isn't PROVEN to cause cancer? Or that there might be a planet somewhere where gravity pushes things away instead? (bleep)) all in a bid to weaken the alternative (i.e., science) to the assesment of religion that I give - that unproven fantasies should be abandoned as unproductive, unneeded, and downright detrimantal. People do this all the time; they try to make science appear weak when it's their position that science is utterly destroying. Sarge is simply another fanatic claiming that earthquakes are caused by the fury of 'god' when science can prove otherwise; the only difference is that Sarge's arguments are far more subtle, detailed, and wrapped in an educated half-truth instead of in ignorance.

I never once advocated BLINDLY following science as if it were another religion; that is not much better. Any scientist views ANY piece of information with a critical eye; something that is clearly in short supply around here.

Now I'm sure everyone will be reading the edited version of this text in case it gets moderated. (Whadya know! So they are!)But I hope the disdain for (bleeps) is still intact.

The only thing I would disagree with Es99 on so far, however, is that she is far less combative than I am. I don't even think she is wrong to do that; it might not be in her nature. However she is wrong in trying to get me to change my nature. I see a great need to combat religion's detrimental effects very vigorously. Most religious people are too (bleep) to listen anyway, so why worry about whether they are brave enough to fully question their fantasy? Sarge won't question his, and he's pretty intelligent! ...though only to a certain point.

As for Knightmare, I disagree also that the message should be brought across any less venomously than I do. It is MY style to speak with forthrightness. If I must speak otherwise in these forums, well, fine, they my forums. However, you must realize that you are removing the freedom of expression from me. I don't irrevocably hate others. I have only disdain for any person, no matter his or her "color" country, sexual orientation or politics IF they refuse to think critically. The moment they ask critical questions, and start down the path to advancing humanity, for sure they will find an ally in me. So no, it isn't "hate propaganda".

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

You say the same thing over and over, lie and put lies in the mouths of others. Goodbye, Chuck. You are not worth speaking with.

Ya. Like I thought, the thread was deleted. So here, again, with the rough parts bleeped out, is my message, I trust the bleeped out parts are not still too offensive to your tender ears, knightmare?:

So you do understand!

You just want to proselytize to us and convert us to your religion.

You either can't read, or (bleep). Science requires proof for a definitive answer. Proof is NOT solely a mathematical term by the way, (much like the mathematician would like to claim); it means to reliably demonstrate something is true. ( I can PROVE to you Japanese traffic lights have GREEN to mean go and not BLUE as they claim, by ripping one off its post, bringing it overseas to you, and plugging it in so you can observe it for yourself. So Sarge can go and try to argue about the paradigm of 'colors', aside form the fact that his 'mathematical proofs' in ALL cases of science need to be presented for review first.)

Just because an answer is definitive doesn't mean it can't be changed due to new evidence. It is definitive until it is disproven. A fool might believe everything spoon fed to him, but if you mistake me for that type, (after everything I've written about scientists who fail to think scientifically) you're really blind. There is NO religion in there, so Hyland, whether (bleep) or trying to gain an advantage in pissing me off with accusing me of being the same (bleep)he is, is WRONG again. Sarge, in the meantime, is appearing very much like Douglas Addams' "Ruler of the Universe", suprised anew every day that a pencil makes a mark on a paper, etc. etc. etc. (made to mock philosophers)

who are you to decide who is a scientist and who is not?

I am not deciding. The definition is in the name itself. Go back and read, if (bleep).


Carl Sagan discusses religion distinctly in the scene where the camera is aimed up at him, and he is on a moving boat in the episode 'The Edge of Forever', where he says that "some religions attempt to answer the question of 'Where did the universe come from?' with a creator - but if we are brave in our questioning we must ask 'well what made the creator then?' Why not save a step and conclude there was NO creator. Or if one claims the creator was always there, why not save a step, and conclude the universe was always there?"

There is NO need for a creator. The need is only psychological.

Why does all of this annoy me and put a cactus in my backside? Because I detest seeing people misled and abused - and religion sure abuses females, aside from others. It's not worth the dubious 'good' it does (always at a price). If some mathematics teacher wants to subvert the very foundation of what he's teaching by believing in religion and/or communicating that belief to those he teaches, then he's (bleep) and deserves no respect at all. He can't prove there is a creator. So what does he do to support his unjustified belief? He uses ancient philosophical arguments that are for the most part, not even applicable (what axiom would you claim the physical world rests under? The fact that one apple and one apple might one day give you THREE apples in total? Or that smoking isn't PROVEN to cause cancer? Or that there might be a planet somewhere where gravity pushes things away instead? (bleep)) all in a bid to weaken the alternative (i.e., science) to the assesment of religion that I give - that unproven fantasies should be abandoned as unproductive, unneeded, and downright detrimantal. People do this all the time; they try to make science appear weak when it's their position that science is utterly destroying. Sarge is simply another fanatic claiming that earthquakes are caused by the fury of 'god' when science can prove otherwise; the only difference is that Sarge's arguments are far more subtle, detailed, and wrapped in an educated half-truth instead of in ignorance.

I never once advocated BLINDLY following science as if it were another religion; that is not much better. Any scientist views ANY piece of information with a critical eye; something that is clearly in short supply around here.

Now I'm sure everyone will be reading the edited version of this text in case it gets moderated. (Whadya know! So they are!)But I hope the disdain for (bleeps) is still intact.

The only thing I would disagree with Es99 on so far, however, is that she is far less combative than I am. I don't even think she is wrong to do that; it might not be in her nature. However she is wrong in trying to get me to change my nature. I see a great need to combat religion's detrimental effects very vigorously. Most religious people are too (bleep) to listen anyway, so why worry about whether they are brave enough to fully question their fantasy? Sarge won't question his, and he's pretty intelligent! ...though only to a certain point.

As for Knightmare, I disagree also that the message should be brought across any less venomously than I do. It is MY style to speak with forthrightness. If I must speak otherwise in these forums, well, fine, they my forums. However, you must realize that you are removing the freedom of expression from me. I don't irrevocably hate others. I have only disdain for any person, no matter his or her "color" country, sexual orientation or politics IF they refuse to think critically. The moment they ask critical questions, and start down the path to advancing humanity, for sure they will find an ally in me. So no, it isn't "hate propaganda".

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

You say the same thing over and over, lie and put lies in the mouths of others. Goodbye, Chuck. You are not worth speaking with.

So Sarge, you do have a limit to your patience. I am surprised you took so long to reach it.

Then Chuck posts this little bit of irony:

Why does all of this annoy me and put a cactus in my backside? Because I detest seeing people misled and abused - and religion sure abuses females, aside from others.

. . . from perhaps the most abusive poster these boards have seen in a very long time. And yet Chuck has the nerve to complain that he is being deprived of his "freedom of expression", as if he has some right to be as rude, intolerant, close minded and verbally abusive as he has so consistently been.

Well, it looks like the Berkeley folks are going to close this place down anyway. Is it any wonder why?

Hello, just thought I'd drop in for a brief moment. It is very difficult to see religion from an insider's point of view if you are an 'outsider' and do not practice the faith. It is difficult also to make judgements about the experiences of others. For most people who practice any religion, many would take issue with the very word, 'religion,' since it denotes something that you practice on the side, a bit like a wierd cult or something that you only do on a Sunday.
But for most religious people, their faith is much more than this. It is a whole way of life rather than just a 'religion' which seems to denote the boxing and packaging of certain beliefs.
As to whether I think religion has caused great suffering, well - it has. But so has politics and other ideologies which may have nothing to do with God. The thing is, wishing to believe in something seems to be an integral part of who we are, a part of what makes us human. However, it could be argued that society can do without religion, but it cannot do without laws. The great Enlightenment monarch and philosophe, Alfred the Great of Prussia, said something along those lines.
Many of the Enlightenment thinkers were very much against religion, but there were also some who were not. Parliamentarians such as William Wilberforce was staunchly religious, but his faith in the dignity of human nature was the driving force behind his campaign for the abolition of slavery.
Religion has done good things for society as well as bad. Our whole culture in the UK is built on the foundations of Christendom. Without it, many of laws and customs we have today would not be with us.
Also not all religions have a god. Buddhism does not have a god at all. You could call it an atheistic faith, but curiously, it seems to possess all the markings of a typical faith; its liking for ritual, music, an ethical code created by a founder, its reliance on meditative contemplation to find the inner 'true' Self, or non-Self.
The situation regarding the reality of 'religion' in society seems to be a very complex one. It is too simplistic to simply say that religion causes suffering and that, therefore, it should be abolished. There is no way of knowing if the world would be a better place without religious faith.
I would suggest that the growth away from primitive ethnic religions or cults and towards universal religions encompassing all peoples from many different cultures is part of an evolutiionary drive towards a more universal consciousness. It may form part of our evolution. Who knows.

---

'No one can make you inferior without your consent.'
Eleanor Roosevelt.

As for Knightmare, I disagree also that the message should be brought across any less venomously than I do. It is MY style to speak with forthrightness. If I must speak otherwise in these forums, well, fine, they my forums. However, you must realize that you are removing the freedom of expression from me. I don't irrevocably hate others. I have only disdain for any person, no matter his or her "color" country, sexual orientation or politics IF they refuse to think critically. The moment they ask critical questions, and start down the path to advancing humanity, for sure they will find an ally in me. So no, it isn't "hate propaganda".

I never said anything about " hate propaganda ". Those are your wordsnot mine. If I recall correctly, when I modded that post I hit the " Other " option and simply told you to lay off with the insults.

Your " freedom of expression " argument is nothing more than empty rhetoric. I am not taking away anything that you wish to express. I am simply asking you to remove the insulting parts. If you can't express your thoughts and ideas without resorting to insults, then you are not nearly as clear in your thinking as you would like us to believe.

There is absolutely no reason for the people who read this thread to see you insulting people. It's as simple as that.

If you don't like my moderation, I'll be happy to give you an email address where you can complain about it. Until then, when you insult people ad call it " trying to get your point across ", you may as well get used to having your posts removed. I have seen this type of thing far too often to allow it to continue.

Oh and by the way....

Just so you know...my moderation of that post would have occurred no matter WHO posted it.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Also not all religions have a god. Buddhism does not have a god at all. You could call it an atheistic faith, but curiously, it seems to possess all the markings of a typical faith; its liking for ritual, music, an ethical code created by a founder, its reliance on meditative contemplation to find the inner 'true' Self, or non-Self.

To my recollection, Susan is incorrect in her assertions about Buddhism. The best way to find out for sure would be to go ask a Buddhist.
Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, which has multiple levels of heaven with multiple gods and goddesses ... and, of course, reincarnation. One could be reincarnated as a god/goddess in some level of heaven if one had accrued enough positive karma.
The goal of Buddhism is to achieve a zero sum of karma: no negative and no positive karma. In doing so, one achieves moksha (the final release) from the Samsaric cycle of reincarnation.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.