This is an open thread to permit people to bicker about communism, atheism and whatever other ism is bugging them today. In anticipation of the “argument by having male relative who served their country” and by “I fly flags”, I would like to mention:
- Popsie-Wopsie served during the Korean Conflict.
- GrandPa Lew, though too old to be drafted, enlisted and served in the Pacific theater during WWII. He was a doctor, was wounded and carried shrapnel near his spine. This shifted in later years, and he was confined to a wheel chair.
- My mother’s two brother’s were both Marines. I think both served during the Korean Conflict (but John may have been too young.)
- Dad Brother Chico also served during the Korean Conflict.
- My brother was an Air Force MD for most his career.
- Though they could have avoided the draft, Jim’s Father and two uncles naturalized at the age of 18 and served in the Pacific theater during WWII. All served in the army corp of engineers. None were wounded.
- Jim and I fly US flags regularly. Jim installed the pole the first spring we livedin this house.
- Jim and I have a replica of Washington Crossing the Delaware over the fireplace.
- Jim and I have both gotten compliments for singing “The Star Spangled Banner” in the stands during ball games, and before fireworks. (The best time was when Betsy was with us, and Jim and Betsy both improvised harmony. I have soprano sickness and can’t seem to improvise harmony.)
Now, all those who want to bicker about communism, atheism, religion in general, how communism is really atheism in disguise, how horrible it might be if some poor dear soul might come across a blog post that uses the word “communism” with out adding embedding some phrase like “the evil of communism” — this is the thread for that. Have at it. I’m going to go pour a glass of wine and read all the various theories.
Since we’re demanding apologies today, I’d like an apology from each of the Blackboard Warmers for regurgitating AGW nonsense for how many number of years.
Don’t knock each other over/crash the server with requests in your haste.
Andrew
liza,
Shoosh can presumably speak for himself.
As to politics, communism even 30 years ago was not held in wide disrepute globally. Its failings were not well known and the effectiveness of communist propganda was very high. I personally know a Cuban who fought with Castro and Che as a guerilla, but then spent many years in a horrific prison after insulting one of Che’s friends before he go the point about communism.
Just like after the American civil war, there is a time to look back at history without rancor and to move forward with grace. Giving a hard time to people who are long dead for the then reasonable beliefs they held dear is not a way to move forward with grace.
Oh yeah, I second Andrew_Ky’s request. Andrew, head on over to realclimate for the daily trash. Guess what, their doing new studies about how the medieval warm period was cooler than today. Apparently, all historic temperatures must be adjusted downwards so today’s temperatures look higher than any time in history. Everyone can thank Andrew and I for hammering those idiots for lying about it. The fact is, over the last 10,500 years, the temperature has been warmer 86.6% of the time. I don’t know if this is good, bad, ugly or neutral. What I do know is that it is a fact and realclimate is actively pushing stories that can be classified as either false and/or cheating!
Shoosh:
Uncouth behavior on your part has little to do with a lack of “political correctness.”
Grow up.
hunter (Comment#67285) January 28th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I’ll let you talk to my step daughter who I’ve raised since she was 8. She is half Korean. Tell her all about communism 30 yrs ago and the “”reasonable ideals they held dear”. Keep in mind she can’t talk about her family like Lucia can nor call up any old pictures on the net or anywhere. She knows her grandma and grandpa but that’s it. All the rest of her family, aunts, uncles, cousins, two sets of great grandparents are all lost in North Korea and never to see or to be found again.
Go ahead.
Anyway… If Shoosh had said that to me (I as a “man up” kinda girl) I would have said either “what makes you think that Shoosh?” or “Nah shoosh he was a lover not a fighter” etc. I don’t get offended that easily (which was the point of my comment).
I know what the truth is about my own dad (and the truth about communism for that matter). Nothing anybody could say on a blog would need me to have a bunch of men demand apologies for me; make me “shocked” or get upset even a minor way. Certainly not “online” especially. 🙂
hunter (Comment#67285)
January 28th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
“Giving a hard time to people who are long dead for the then reasonable beliefs they held dear is not a way to move forward with grace.”
I guess that depends on your definition of reasonable.
“As to politics, communism even 30 years ago was not held in wide disrepute globally.”
Not so sure about the veracity of that statement. There were a whole bunch of people who held it in disrepute, for example the Baltic States.
Communism doesn’t kill people. Communists kill people.
Tamara:
That’s an oversimplification.
Systemic problems lead to situations where abuses are allowed to occur. As an example, a governmental system employed by Mao, the “Great Leap Forward,” resulted in 10s of millions of death, most by starvation.
Good road infrastructure leads to fewer deaths, and in the places where the infrastructure is poor, you usually can’t point to any one person who is at fault.
Systems kill people too.
You are all pounding on Shoosh because he didn’t gush. That’s why he joked. He was trying not to gush. LOL
Lucia I really hope your dad gets better. My dad is having a rough time with his health too.
But… SteveF’s comment “Not sure he shares the same political views as you though. ;)” was glossing over and using a “winky” about something not so “winky” cute in my opinion. That’s the “PC” stuff Shoosh is referring to and why I brought up “tolerance” The glossing over was just as silly/stupid and it could even be offensive to some people as Shoosh’s joke was to you. And I didn’t mean that you glossed over these things (just all the “gushing men” did. The men I know would have said something else!) I don’t know how to explain it any better then that.
“Communists kill people.” Yep.
“That’s an oversimplification.”
Thanks, captain obvious. 🙂
Tamarra–
I think many people held communism in disrepute by 1980. Reagan did. But I’m really not sure why my noticing that based on his obit my father’s aunt Stella’s husband appears to have been a socialist/communist set Liza off.
There was a general anti-castro sentiment on the part of the those of Dad’s mother and cuban-ex-patriot aunts who I met, so it surprised me that Stella would turn out to be married to someone who seems to have admired the communists as much as her husband seems to have done. But I never met Stella– she lived in England. So, maybe unlike her sisters, she was not anti-communist and that might explain her being long married to a man who appears to have been what one might have called “a red”.
This discussion of communism has certainly gotten unpleasant. I’m sorry that some people can’t happen to find relatives on the web. I know I’m lucky to be able to do so.
@Tamara
Name me one Communist country that has treated the population better than America. Furthermore, no Communist system has ever achieved the true Communist state. After the revolution, the leaders are supposed to relinquish power. This never happens. Additionally, there are rich people in Communist countries, those that the government favors. Please read about the Dacha’s in Russia during Stalin.
Lucia, some people can’t find their family anywhere on Earth because of communism.
Liza–
I think you are misintepreting the winky as “glossing over”. I interpreted SteveF to be chuckling over the contrast that can be found in families. Would you have preferred it if SteveF found Sebastian’s internet posting, and written a 10 page diatribe suggesting we all catch a flight to New Zealand and collectively challenge him to a duel because he posted an opinion that seems to suggest that calling employees “human resources” somehow denies people their full humanity?
Reading that, I would have loved to have been at the table watching to see whether my cousin Bill and Sebastian decide to be nice and polite or to have at it with an rip roaring political conversation. (‘Cuz…. in another family story, too male on that side of the family once got in a fist fight over different opinions about Joe McCarthy. But, the family being what it is, they still visited all the time, and everyone laughed over it. )
At this time, I would like to make a prediction about Egypt. I think what will eventually happen will be a direct parallel to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The people protesting Mubarak are mostly misinformed fools. If he is thrown out, I think undoubtedly a hardline Muslim fundamentalist will take over and many of those people protesting will eat their words and actions, just like the many in Iran who thought their country would be better by helping the Ayatollah.
lucia (Comment#67307) January 28th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“Would you have preferred it if SteveF found Sebastian’s internet posting, and written a 10 page diatribe suggesting we all catch a flight to New Zealand and collectively challenge him to a duel because he posted an opinion that seems to suggest that calling employees “human resources†somehow denies people their full humanity?”
No that was the point. And you keep missing it. You being offended by Dr.Shoosh’s bad joke and causing all the men to get their knickers in a twist for you “online”- is the same sort of thing and apparently that’s what you prefer!
liza–
You are correct that I am missing your point; your point continues to elude me.
lucia (Comment#67311) January 28th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Holy cow. The point is that you and SteveF can chuckle over differences of opinion and political views in families over the dinner table whatever …even if some of those include communism or socialism.
Then Dr. Shoosh, (a kid you know, compared to the rest of us) doesn’t say something sweet and instead makes a bad joke about dad that gets all the “men” feeling all manly for you and demanding apologies for the “outrageousness”. Virtual fighting for “what’s right”.
So to point out the silliness (much like PC is silly!!) I mention a fellow human being who reads your blog could be offended by the conversation you are having too being that communism has hurt their family directly in REAL LIFE.
I just shared that my step daughter will never know her family. My father is disabled for life fighting to stop communism in war..yet Dr.Shoosh is the worst person ever and is outrageous And communism…well it’s just this thing that Carrick compares to bad roads when we point out it kills. sheesh.
Just if we point out that cold weather kills more then warm!
You warmers and “luke warmers” are cold cold people. 😉
liza–
I still don’t see your point.
If you like, I can create a “Thread for Those who Want to Discuss Communism” where you can feel free to let it rip. If you give me a little time, i can find affiliates who sell true-blue all capitalist, And Rand, Ron Paul American knick-knacks. That will assure everyone that we all stand for laissez-faire capitalist at its finest.
Popsie-Wopsie would approve of the thread. Especially if people wasted money on ridiculous knick-knacks and trinkets.
I’m going to the grocery store. Let me know what you think of the open thread post I have proposed.
Liza, you are sooo into victimhood that you do not see when people are basically on your side.
As for defending Lucia, you got that wrong too. Most of the guys and gals participating here know full well that Lucia can take of herself and give as well as she takes. Here I’ll make my point real clear: I think Drphd is a jerk and why are you concerned about Lucia being defended when you are overboard defending Drphd.
Sorry that must be some of the after-effects of Winter Welcome.
I think the Dirty Little Secret here is that Communism is the political extension of Atheism, which is the religion that prolly more than few of the participants here practice.
Bring on the Communism thread! 😉
Andrew
Kenneth, I am sorry. did you miss the part where I said how I would have handled Dr. Shoosh’s comment?
“Most of the guys and gals participating here know full well that Lucia can take of herself and give as well as she takes.” Of course. Not disputing that but look how she decided to handle it. Be offended. Who’s the victim again?
Family histories can be interesting. I like that lucia and everyone shared theirs.
Dr.Shoosh wasn’t funny and hello! communism is not funny either. It is a murderous awful philosophy.
People DECIDE to be offended. That was my point. I wasn’t offended at all about anything. Just pointing out how I could have been and you even believed it apparently.
Look at Carrick’s comment again. Guess what? I am going to be “tolerant” about it and just ignore how silly it is just like I do when I read some of the comments here about climate I know are wrong and silly and simplistic.
Luica, How about a thread on how ridiculous knick knacks and trinkets make people happy and therefore the world is a better place? 😉
Andrew_KY,
“I think the Dirty Little Secret here is that Communism is the political extension of Atheism, which is the religion that prolly more than few of the participants here practice.”
.
“Dirty little secret? That is a very odd comment.
1) Atheism is not a ‘religion’. (talk of oxymorons!)
2) I loath all of the ideas of communism and the social consequences of those ideas… yet I am an atheist, and have been for at least 45 years.
.
So lets see. I, who oppose almost any role for government beyond national security and deterring criminals, I am a communist? And Lucia, likewise an atheist, and who seems a social liberal but government conservative, is also a communist?
.
Are you serious? Get a grip man.
SteveF,
1) Atheism is a religion. It’s the professed belief that there is no God. It’s just as religious as any other belief system.
2). I’m not saying that Atheists can’t have various political persuasions. I’m saying that historically, the Communism we all have heard of was developed by people who professed and demanded Atheism.
Naturally, modern Atheists want to distance themselves from the genocidal actions of historical Communists.
Andrew
List of atheists (politics and law)
# Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971): Soviet General Secretary, 1953-1964.[72][73]
# Kim Jong-il (1941–): Korean politician, leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and officially referred to as the “Dear Leader”.[74]
# Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870—1924): Marxist revolutionary, Bolshevik Leader and President of the All Russian Congress of Peoples’ Soviets. Lenin considered atheist propaganda to be essential to promoting communism.[78]
# Mao Zedong (1893–1976): was a Chinese military and political leader, who led the Communist Party of China to victory in the Chinese Civil War, and was the leader of the People’s Republic of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. Under his leadership, China officially became an atheist state.[83][84][85]
# Karl Marx (1818–83): a 19th-century philosopher, political economist, sociologist, political theorist, often called the father of communism.[86]
# Pol Pot, birthname Saloth Sar (1925?–1998): genocidal dictator of Cambodia.[104]
# Joseph Stalin: General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953..[121]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28politics_and_law%29
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Nor do I believe little green men from Mars exist… is that also a religion?
I distance myself from nothing. I believe in the politics I believe because I think they are most constructive for humanity. I am as appalled by politically driven atrocities (of the left or the right) as anyone. But I am not responsible for these atrocities because I am an atheist. BTW, the word means ‘a’ (without) ‘theist’ (religious belief). You can’t make words mean what they do not mean just because you find it convenient to support your own peculiar view of the world.
Andrew_KY (Comment#67330) January 28th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
You and that word ‘belief’. People who believe in god have an ongoing battle with the word ‘faith’, the belief in something when there is no evidence for it. Atheists state that there is no evidence of god, and don’t have to worry about ‘faith’.
“Andrew_KY,
Nor do I believe little green men from Mars exist… is that also a religion?”
Dude, if the non-belief in little green men significantly influenced your behavior, it would be religious. Your atheism I suspect, significantly influences your behavior. You may not realize it or understand it, but It’s why you are choosing to argue with me. It’s part of your identity, as you have disclosed.
When you say “I believe in the politics” what politics are you referring to? Communism?
Andrew
bugs (Comment#67333) January 28th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“People who believe in god have an ongoing battle with the word ‘faith’, the belief in something when there is no evidence for it.”
But there is evidence for God. You just don’t want to address it.
Andrew
“I loath all of the ideas of communism and the social consequences of those ideas”
Ah so the winky face is gone the truth comes out! Thank you.
Now I can be un-fake-offended finally. lol
Andrew, “It’s the professed belief that there is no God.”
I don’t think it’s a belief or a religion.
Think of it this way : bald is not a hair color.
Its the absence of evidence they base their position on. And I don’t speak for Atheists so correct me if I am wrong in this definition.
But we who have faith would say : absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence 😉 I kind of like to think I have some and know some..but it’s personal and I guess you’d call it “paranormal experience” only (paranormal as in beyond science and it can’t be reproduced at will in a lab) 😉
opps sorry lucia; didn’t see your request until after I hit enter. You can delete my last comment if you want to.
And “Ignoring involves not posting a comment.” Yep do it all the time!
Life’s too short. I’d rather look at your charts and graphs.
Maybe some brave Atheist will answer this question:
Do you believe in the principle of “Live and let live”?
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
I find you very strange indeed.
tokein– I understand. But I need to get these off the what was a nice thread about my Dad.
“SteveF (Comment#67343) January 28th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Andrew_KY,
I find you very strange indeed.”
And I find that you don’t answer questions for some reason.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Because your questions seldom merit an answer. I am quite certain that (sad) reality is lost upon you.
“SteveF (Comment#67346) January 28th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Andrew_KY,
Because your questions seldom merit an answer. I am quite certain that (sad) reality is lost upon you.”
SteveF
What should I do to merit an answer from you? Is there some kind of fee involved? Is there a list of acceptable questions that you can share with us?
Do tell.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
“What should I do to merit an answer from you? Is there some kind of fee involved?”
.
Be rational. Entertain doubt. Don’t imagine that you can redefine words to your own liking. Don’t tell people that you know better what they think and believe than they do themselves. Stop imagining that your personal religious belief gives you some kind of special insight (it does not). Accept that you could possibly be wrong… especially about beliefs that are disconnected form any rational analysis.
.
Julio is a very religious man, and I like him a lot. So is my dear wife of 26 years, and I love her. I have no problem with either of them being religious. Indeed, I have no problem with most religious people. I do have a problem with religious people who are smug, pushy, and obnoxious because of their beliefs.
SteveF
Be rational.
I am.
Entertain doubt.
I do.
Don’t imagine that you can redefine words to your own liking.
I use dictionary definitions.
Don’t tell people that you know better what they think and believe than they do themselves.
I sometimes do know better.
Stop imagining that your personal religious belief gives you some kind of special insight (it does not).
Sometimes it does.
Accept that you could possibly be wrong…
Always.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Goodbye.
SteveF
This is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC_aETirWIQ
Andrew
Andrew comments on:
Don’t tell people that you know better what they think and believe than they do themselves.
I sometimes do know better.
My pet peeve strikes again. On the other hand, maybe this is finally my chance to understand this phenomena. Are you saying that God tells you what we are thinking ? That would explain why it doesn’t work for me so well ….
“Are you saying that God tells you what we are thinking ?”
Artifex,
No. When someone regurgitates words that have been seen before, chances are the thinking behind them has been used before. The perception of this not a supernatural gift. This is just recognition and memory usage. Everyone can do it.
Although, I will add, that Atheism is a symptom of confusion, so as soon a someone announces they are an Atheist, you know they are not thinking through some critical things.
Andrew
May I stir up the sewage with this?
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/28/texas-students-top-national-science-test/
Those redstate redneck creationist nutballs.
Who says a discussion about a Creator or such things is “disconnected from any rational analysis.” ? I find statements LIKE THAT very telling.
I suppose General Patton, or George Washington, or Mother Teresa or Galileo or my friend who is Native American were/are just “disconnected” .
Hi liza,
I guess Atheists think that all the billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews and other faiths, are disconnected from reality too.
Andrew
Didn’t the pilgrims try Communism?
AndrewKY,
I think we should have SteveF explain fractals. And see how he does it all rational-like. 😉 (that was a suggestion from the scientist guy I have in my house)
Goodnight! Peace, love, good health to our dad’s and all those good nice thoughts.
slimething,
Yes. And they discovered it communism/socialism didn’t work.
“Another possibility is Of Plymouth Plantation, written by the colony’s longtime governor, William Bradford. Therein, he details how the Pilgrims “languish[ed] in misery†sharing their labor and its fruits. The collectivism “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment.†Two years into the experiment ironically forced upon them by their capitalist underwriters, Bradford parceled common land out to individual families to exploit for their own selfish benefit.
“This had very good success,†Bradford explained, “for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.†The Pilgrim Father’s two-paragraph rejection of collectivism is among the most enduring and persuasive arguments for private property in the English language.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40196
Andrew
“Peace, love, good health to our dad’s”
I can definitely agree to that. 🙂
Andrew
Here is a true statement: Some people, including socialists and terrorists (Venezuala and Bin Laden, to name a couple), are using global warming as a tool to advance their own agenda.
Also true: Whether or not the ecological impact global warming is a clear and present danger to civilization is not determined by the former statement, but rather laws of physics.
As a result, we should stop politicizing global warming and get back to the science. There are a range of scientific interpretations, but the ad hominem partisanship is not good for finding out the truth.
My 2 cents: If global warming follows the predictions of many scientists, you’re going to get a lot of communism and terrorism as governments fall and refugees mount. Socialist idealogy will be embraced as a reaction to the failure of the conservatives to take climate seriously, and authoritarianism will rise as geopolitics destabilize. It always seemed to me that the conservative thing is to use the precautionary principle, or else we’re going to get a whole lot of what freedom loving people, including myself, don’t want.
I looked at an Atheist site and found this definition of Atheism:
“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.”
http://atheists.org/atheism
From the Declaration of Independence we have this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So Atheists where do our rights come from and does Atheism lead to doubt about the founding of America’s structure and premise of government?
Now that the Climate Etc thread has calmed down, is this the place to vent about Chavez and Nazism? Seems like the ism bug has been going round a bit lately.
I’m pretty tolerant of isms, but the New Atheism has been irritating me lately. I think I liked the old atheism better – sure it was meek and insecure, but now that it’s grown a spine it comes across as a bit of a jerk.
test: Fiddled with cache plugin which got scrambled and caused blog to suck too much memory. I want to see if comments still work.
With regard to Lucia’s #9 — I have never once been complimented for my singing of “The Star-spangled Banner.” I’d like to complain about key-ism, the prejudice against those who cannot sing on key.
[Not to be confused with Keyism, the belief that Francis Scott Key composed “The Star-spangled Banner.”]
[just to help Lucia prove that comments still work.]
Zajko–
I’m an atheist. But I don’t know the difference between the new atheism and the old atheism. What is it?
Lucia,
I think the New Atheism involves openly mocking coo coo for coco puffs like Andrew_KY
I’ve never seem a more impressive ad hom than that list of genocidal maniacs.
“coo coo for coco puffs like Andrew_KY”
That’s ad hom, too.
Andrew
Lemme guess,
Keith Kloor is an Atheist Warmer. 😉
Andrew
AndrewKy. You are in good company. I just heard President Obama read bible verses for the memorial in Tucson. I thought it a bit odd that the people like keithkloor didn’t protest. Especially since no official church representative read from the bible that day (unless I missed it) I was only allowed to see the person representing highest office in the land do it!! 😉
Your right–And I meant to say Guilt-by-Association.
And in your case, that particular comment warrants you being compared to cartoon cereal character. Hands down.
Liza,
Right about what? This dude cites a wikipedia page listing hundreds of atheists and cherry picks the homicidal maniacs.
It’s the most impressively outrageous guilt by association card I’ve ever seen played.
“Lemme guess, Keith Kloor is an Atheist Warmer.”
Even better: it was Stalin and Pol pot that inspired me to become an atheist.
Keith Kloor,
It’s not a coincidence that a list of Famous Atheists page has several homicidal maniacs listed. This is not an indictment of all Atheists, it simply shows there is some connection, historically.
Andrew
Keith Kloor,
So atheism inspires you?
Andrew
Andrew_Ky–
So… how would you define “new atheism” vs “old atheism”.
lucia,
I tend to agree with Zajko. Examples of militant New Atheists are Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They go beyond simple non-belief and blame organized religion for all the evils of the world. In my book, that’s proselytizing and it’s just as, or possibly more, annoying as proselytizing by anyone else who thinks they know the Truth.
There was a really funny couple of South Park episodes ( Go God Go )where Cartman gets frozen and revived in the future where everyone is an atheist, but there are still violent conflicts over doctrine between different schools of atheism.
keith kloor (Comment#67374) January 29th, 2011 at 10:18 am
I didn’t say anybody was “right”. And I missed the list. So sorry. I thought you were calling AndrewKY coo coo for believing in a Creator. I bet examples of homicidal maniacs are used all the time in discussions like this to bash believers too. It’s “data” and evidence you know.
(Still wondering about the lack of protest though… a debate like this has many levels!)
lucia,
I’m not sure there is a difference in thought between new and old.
Andrew
Andrew_KY
A historical connection for Christian maniacs can also be shown. King Clovis was just a blood thirsty after conversion as before. The sack of Bezier was no picnic– every single person in the city was killed.
The Spanish Inquisition? Burning of witches? Most of the Crusades. Lots of killing during the reformation. Do you really want to try to play this game?
Liza
Why? There is nothing mysterious about it. No one has to attend the state of the union address. It’s not like a highschool graduation where those being “honored” (i.e. the graduates) are forced to sit through a prayer. Etc.
Lucia,
It’s not my position that Christians don’t behave badly. There are certainly many examples that they do. It’s all evidence that needs to be evaluated, not ignored or glossed over.
Andrew
lucia “Why? There is nothing mysterious about it.”
I think there is plenty of mystery. If GW Bush even mentioned God or the bible he got ripped a new one and was assumed daft.
And wait..I don’t understand…I am talking about the Memorial Service not the state of the Union address. No official church person spoke…just the President was the allowed to offer up the bible quotes and spiritual healing words. I think that is odd!!!!
Re: lucia (Jan 29 10:31),
Ah yes, Arnaud Amalric: “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.)
But humans do that sort of thing anyway, any excuse will do: The destruction of Carthage by the Romans, the Terror during the French Revolution which may have inspired Stalin’s purges in Russia, Hitler’s Final Solution, etc, etc. Removing religion from the picture wouldn’t change anything.
Andrew says:
No. When someone regurgitates words that have been seen before, chances are the thinking behind them has been used before. The perception of this not a supernatural gift. This is just recognition and memory usage. Everyone can do it.
Hmmmm, I was pretty sure that when I first noticed you, you were arguing against AGW. Your point was that you refused to believe it because you couldn’t measure and you didn’t buy the abstractions. Do you care to amend that with the required “unless of course, I am defending a point that I passionately believe in ?”
How is discarding the only direct information about what is going on in someone else’s head (i.e. what they tell you) because you don’t want to believe it from a personal bias any different than chucking paleoclimate data because you are just sure the parts that don’t fit the hypothesis are noise ? From where I am sitting, your thinking process looks lot like the one displayed by Dr. Mann.
Care to reconsider your position ?
Liza,
I think Lucia should start organizing some Atheist volunteers to protest the President. 😉
Andrew
Artifex,
“Care to reconsider your position ?”
No. And I’m not following the pretzel logic of whatever your point is.
What someone speaks at a given moment is not the only direct information you can perceive about them. It’s only a bit that needs to fit into a larger context, sometimes.
Andrew
Precisely because they believe there is no God, atheists are in fact just as religious as those who do believe in a God, becasue just like those who believe in a God, atheists cleverly sidestep the fact that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
By defintion, religions and belief systems [whatever the beliefs] operate outside the realm of fact based analytical systems which require hypotheses with predictable and verifiable outcomes, which can be falsified.
Socialists and communists require the abolition of institutional religion, to be replaced by their own “scientif socialism” pseudo religion, the tenets of which also find themselves outside the realm of fact based analytical systems and lead to aberations like e.g Lysenkoism.
Sadly, the deep convictions voiced and displayed by a good number of AGW/ACC proponents are manifestations of a belief system which has become oblivious to the minimum requirements for a fact based analitycal system.
Amen.
I would just like to contribute this link to the debate:
http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_truth_truthisgod.htm
It is long, but well worth reading, IMO.
From this point of view, I confess that I regard people who believe in scientific truth as not “real” atheists, no matter what they may call themselves: by Gandhi’s “Truth is God” definition, I’d say that they half-believe in God already. 😉
I think a deeper and more troubling kind of atheism involves what I would call “the war on truth:” suppressing truth (something you find in all totalitarian societies, certainly including Communist ones), denying even blindingly obvious truths (something you find in many places, including, ironically, among religious fundamentalists), or undermining the very notion of truth, as in some cultural relativist and postmodern philosophies.
In any case, as Gabriel Marcel (I believe) once said, “when we speak about God, it is not really God we are speaking of.” Or, in other words yet, “the name that can be named is not the eternal Name”.
New Atheism differs from old mostly on attitude rather than belief. More recently parts of this movement (Dawkins not Hitchens) have tried to self-identify as “Brights” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement), but this is still hardly a belief system. If anything, it’s just scientism, with a double-shot of self-confidence bordering on arrogance. New atheism is often explicitly anti-religious, with little holding it together other than a self-righteous mission to expose all religion as irrational and dangerous.
I’m personally sympathetic to atheism (as well as some of the less-judgmental religions) but not a big fan of this approach, or groups who proselytize in general.
Julio,
“I’d say that they half-believe in God already.”
.
Honestly, not in my case; not half, not even 0.1%. I do agree that people are able to logically understand physical reality, and to make progress toward a better understanding of that reality, but the existence of human understanding of reality requires no religious belief.
Julio, I like that. “THERE IS an indefinable mysterious Power that pervades everything” I think so too. That’s why I brought up fractals for SteveF. I think they are fascinating.
Like the bumper sticker on my car asks “Why can’t everyone just get a longboard”?
Have a good weekend AndrewKy and everyone! I am off to dig in the dirt for gems with the hubs! (10 yr wedding anniversary) 🙂
Although Andrew_KY, showed this in spades by attempting to correlate atheists with the bad guys of the world, I think I see this silliness expressed by all sides of these issues. Obviously some small fraction of believers, professed religionists, atheists, agnostics etc. can be associated with the bad people in history.
The silliness of these correlations would be something like ignoring the effects of Communism and blaming all the ill effects of Communism on the atheism that it involves. Ayn Rand was an atheist and an ardent anti-communist. Lots of libertarians are atheists, and some are not, and all they want is for individuals to be free to follow whatever choices they make providing they do not initiate physical force against others.
A big part of the problem with discussions like these are that the generalities and labels seem to fly around and the important specifics and details of one’s individual philosophies never get mentioned or argued.
I find lots of things, including fractals (for that matter, even something as simple as irrational numbers) interesting, but hardly mysterious.
Re: SteveF (Comment#67398)
Hi Steve,
I said “by Gandhi’s definition.” You are obviously working with another (narrower) one. 🙂
If you read into the link I quoted above, you’ll find things like
“To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; God is fearlessness. […] God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist.”
If you believe in any of these things, then you believe in at least some aspect of God, by this definition.
Of course, this need not add up to a personal God, for you. In that narrow sense, you are certainly an atheist, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was just trying to point out that there can be a very large and important common ground between “atheists” and “believers,” possibly even more important–and more meaningful–than the labels we apply to ourselves.
Julio,
“I was just trying to point out that there can be a very large and important common ground between “atheists†and “believers,†possibly even more important–and more meaningful–than the labels we apply to ourselves.”
.
For sure. It is, I think, a question of good will or bad, and that good will, if it exists, includes a large measure of respect. I find (like Zajko seems to) that those who insist on proselytizing, even when proselytizing is not welcome, show a profound arrogance and disrespect.
.
While we do not share religious beliefs, that does not mean we need to automatically doubt each other in areas that are not directly related to religion. How someone chooses to live their life, and how they choose to treat others, especially those who they disagree with, is for me a far better measure of the person than their religious belief…. or lack of it.
Re: DeWitt Payne ,
Ok. Well, that’s obviously just as ridiculous as people trying to suggest all (or most) the evils of the world are due to atheism. Also, just as I could come up with all sorts of examples of evil theists, I can come up with examples of very wonderful, kind, beneficient theists.
There are evil theist and evil atheists. There are good theists, there are good atheists.
Dewitt-later comment.
No. But Andrew_KY felt the need to post a list of atheist who were evil. Does he really want to play this game? I’m not saying that religion caused those evils. I’m just asking Andrew_KY if he really wants to play the game were everyone hunts to create one sided lists of evil people who either are all theists or are all atheists to paint the “other side” as the bad ones? It’s silly. Anyone can do this because there are enough evil theists and enough evil atheists to create a substantial list of examples on either side.
Re: Zajko,
Ok. Sounds like your “new atheism” is what I always called “evangelical atheism”. It’s atheists who feel compelled to convert everyone else to atheism. Many atheists don’t really care what others believe provided no one is going to force theism on atheists. The same holds for quite a few theists– they don’t care so much what others believe as long as those others don’t try to force contrary belief on them. That seems like a fair balance to me.
Seems like the thing people forget about Communists is that they were the original anti-government activists — thought we could do away with government altogether, that the government was corrupt and greedy and needed a dose of what today we call “Second Amendment remedies.”
Both sets of activists tout an elaborate economic theory with which they plan to reorder society, and denounce anyone who questions their faith. Both exalt ill-educated rabble-rousers who promote anti-Semitism and racism even while mouthing platitudes about equality.
Historical Communists differ from their tea-party descendants mostly in that they were hostile to people with a lot of money and power, and identified with people who were poor and oppressed. Whereas our current crop of anti-government radicals are hostile to the poor and oppressed and identify with those with power and money. Yet the results if our latter-day Bolsheviks ever get hold of power are apt to be much the same.
Robert:
What rubbish.
Lucia,
Finding out who did what and why is not a game. If we are going to make judgements about how to proceed we need to know where we’ve been.
I’d love to see you make a comprehensive list of evildoers, so we know who not to emulate in the future.
Andrew
Andrew_KY — Jumping in and providing a biased list as you did is a game. If you want introduce the game or creating lists and then play the game of creating one that only slams atheists, I’m happy to point to Roman Catholics, Christians and Theists, who you omitted from your list of “who did what and why”. Otherwise, I have no particular interest in creating these lists. But if you really think it’s important to create a list of “who did what and why”, it might be wise for you to include your co-religionists so you don’t blind yourself to the fact that all the evil doers in history are not atheists.
Ideally, you will create your own blog for this exercise.
Communism is soooo yesterday, same like AGW. Time to move on to something more interesting (and lethal): To Big To Fail.
You mean like this Hoi Polloi?
As many crimes have been perpetrated in the name of religion(ism) as have in the name of communism and fascism.
But the underlying unifying factor is that all involve people who have a certainty that they are right and the views of others count for nothing.This doesn’t mean that everyone who participates believes in the ‘prevailing orthodoxy’, many are chancers only interested in themselves others go along just to survive.
We need to become more tolerant and accepting of others.
Re: Robert (Jan 29 14:18),
Change ‘identified with’ to ‘claim to identify with’ and you’re closer to the truth. You have heard the phrase “limousine liberal” haven’t you? You are trying to create a demonstrably false impression that when one side of the argument claims to be in favor of the poor and oppressed and hostile to the rich and powerful then the other side must then hold the opposite views. That’s a classic straw man argument and or false dilemma.
My favorite youtube clip on atheism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8-8WJxA-cI
Boris– that’s great.
“You are trying to create a demonstrably false impression”
So I’m wrong because I’m wrong? That’s argument by assertion and not at all persuasive.
” . . . that when one side of the argument claims to be in favor of the poor and oppressed and hostile to the rich and powerful then the other side must then hold the opposite views.”
Except what I said is exactly the opposite; that the groups are fundamentally similar, and on the same “side” in the end.
“That’s a classic straw man argument and or false dilemma.”
Or maybe a red herring or ad hominem and/or post hoc fallacy. As long as you’re throwing around rhetorical terms you don’t understand, why not go for broke?
Hoi Polloi (Comment#67412)
January 29th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“Communism is soooo yesterday, same like AGW.”
Actually, AGW is so tomorrow.
“Actually, AGW is so tomorrow.”
Owen, I beg to differ. It’s over. The President of The United States of America declared it so…
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
I’ll note your disagreement. 😉
Andrew
Communism, socialism, anarchism….pfft.
Believe in the invisible hand.
help contribute and discuss issues on http://theredstarreports.blogspot.com/
find your sense of ideology, community and identity
Re: the watermelon clip.
Note that the watermelon is green outside, but red inside.
Diego Cruz,
Which is why outside the US [where political red = GOP] dyed-in-wool environmentalists are known as “watermelons”: all green on the outside but really red [=socialist] at heart. Which taken as a belief system makes eminent sense.
Atheism is philosophically untenable. It takes as much faith to believe there is no God as to believe that there is one. Skepticism is the only rational course.
But to paraphrase one with neverending understanding: ‘Who believes nothing, is nothing’.
So, there it is.
===========
er, ‘Everlasting’ understanding. Oops.
============
Some readers in this thread might want to read about Russell’s teapot.
.
toto,
Here’s what he might have written today.
Owen:
http://rubmint.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/5440b_funny-pictures-cat-will-attack-at-dawn.jpg
Re: kim ,
Well… depends on precisely what one means by atheism. I think the existence of god neither be proven nor disproven. But I favor the view that he/she/it/they or whatever it is supposed to be does not exist.
I also think that many religions descriptions of their god don’t any sense to me. Am I certain god doesn’t exist? Nope. It’s unprovable.
But I find the general notion such an improbable thing that, for all practical purposes I am an atheist. I find many specific descriptions of god so ludicrous that I can’t imagine how anything that might be “god” would behave in the way that it/he/she/they are described as behaving.
I’m not sure how this notion is “philosophically untenable”.
“I can’t imagine how anything that might be “god†would behave in the way that it/he/she/they are described as behaving.”
Lucia,
A God who made such a wondrous universe would obviously be incomprehensible to you in significant ways. Also, there are claims about God, and then there is God Himself. A scientific-minded person would know they are different things.
So don’t let God’s mystery make you shut your mind off.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
My mind isn’t shut off. That said, theists trying to suggest that god is probable because he is to mysterious and impossible to understand strikes me as bizarre. Sure… if god existed, it/she/he/they might be mysterious and impossible to comprehend. So? Russell’s coffee pot would also be mysterious and incomprehensible, as are unicorns capable of living in the vaccuum on the outer reaches of the galaxy.
Mystery and incomprehensibility do not strike me as traits that make something plausible.
“That said, theists trying to suggest that god is probable because he is to mysterious and impossible to understand strikes me as bizarre.”
I never argued He is probable because He is mysterious. And I never argued He is probable because impossible to understand completely. You just straw-manned me.
There is evidence for God. You may not want to examine it, but that would be closed-minded.
Andrew
lucia, you’ve said it yourself. ‘It’s unprovable’. That’s philosophically untenable, by some philosophies.
Suppose I defined God as ‘Whatever brought the universe into existence’. Would you deny that God?
===================
And if Lucia will indulge me to add one more thing-
I think some Atheists subscribe to the Oh No, A God Would Spoil My Party thinking, therefore they do not want to allow the thought of Him to limit them.
My conclusion is that this thinking is in error. There is more to life than what is immediately apparent. To only go by what is immediately apparent is to not troubleshoot properly. (Forgive my Computer Guy analogy).
My job requires me to explore all the possibilities, because that works better than not. And out there is a bigger invitation to “Come and see”.
Andrew
“I’m not sure how this notion is “philosophically untenableâ€.”
This could possibly refer to a perceived need for an authoritative source for moral philosophy. Why is it bad to abuse a child, or commit murder or rape, or disrespect your parents? If we believe some actions to be morally bad and others to be truly praiseworthy, we face the problem that this is not a quality we can demonstrate empirically or deduce from the nature of the physical world. So if we believe in right and wrong as something other than genetic and cultural programs we are acting out — if we think it is wrong to commit genocide always and regardless of what “culture” says, for example — it might be argued that we believe in something other than the physical world, even if it is only the rules themselves.
lucia, the description of your ‘atheism’ fits within my description of ‘agnosticism’.
===================
Kim
That makes nearly everything philosophically untenable. Logical proof require assuming certain things true at the outset. Those things are never proven true– they are simply assumed to be true.
I’ve heard people advance this sort of definition. It strikes me as one of the untenable ones. Out of curiosity, are you under the impression that this definition makes god undeniable?
Andrew_KY
You may or may not be correct, but… uhm…so what if some do subscribe to this? Anyway, it seems to me there are plenty of theists who don’t let God spoil their party either. (I consider both our observations about people’s attitude toward having the party boring observation that tell me nothing about the possible or probable existence of god.)
Fine. I accept there is some possibility there is a god. I just think it seems very unlikely. Do you consider there is a possibility there is no god?
Robert
I don’t have a clue how what you write after quoting me connects to what you quoted. Carry on.
Lucia,
The point is that the question of Is There A God or Not is not going to be answered by throwing Theist-Shaped Strawmen at the question.
You gotta go find out yourself.
Andrew
Heh, lucia, the dorm proctor is banging on the door and saying that we’re being too effen’ loud about the ineffable.
==============
Shall I try this? An atheist denies the existence of God. That you admit the possibility of God’s existence means that you are agnostic. You stand in a philosophically tenable spot, or if you prefer, a logically defensible one.
==================
Re: kim ,
Yes. But when I call myself agnostic and then describe my beliefs other people tell me I’m an atheist. So, sometimes I say one, sometimes the other. I’ve been pointed to various philosophical tracts defining things and concluded that the precise boundary between agnostic and atheist is not clear.
Anyway, I know theists who admit that logically, you cannot prove the existence of god and admits the possibility they are wrong and that god actually does not exist. These people don’t call themselves agnostics, and few others call them agnostic. If they are inclined to believe in god, but admit that it’s possible they are wrong, they are generally classified as theists.
So, I don’t see why their mirror image– me– becomes agnostic. But, if you’d call theists who admit the possiblity they are mistaken agnostic, then at least you would be consistent when calling me an agnostic. I don’t really worry about the label so much.
Nice symmetry. Yes, those such theists are agnostic whether or not they choose to label themselves so or not. I’m glad you don’t worry about the labels; that is a philosophically tenable position. And a happy one.
=================
Kim
Some of them might be angry if they hear you call them agnostic though.
I’m still waiting to read Andrew’s response to my question in #67467
Yes, I’m careful not to challenge them. And is not faith a path to knowledge, too?
============
Actually, I’ve done a little challenging on both sides, and in my experience the ones who call themselves atheists resent more when it is pointed out that they are agnostic. The religious understand and admit that their faith is not a matter of reason. It’s the atheists who miss this point.
=================
“Do you consider there is a possibility there is no god?”
lucia,
Yes. I don’t think even the greatest saints had perfect belief. The thought pops in every once in awhile.
I don’t think it’s possible for a human being to never doubt something, you know, to have absolute belief. Life presents things you weren’t expecting, and you have to start from the beginning sometimes.
For me, it’s about daily practicing saying yes to God the best way I can (imperfectly of course), so that when my hour comes, and the things I don’t know become known, I will know how to do it face to face with Him.
Andrew
lucia, I’ve a feeling you might enjoy grappling with G.K. Chesterton. Try ‘Everlasting Man’, or ‘The Dumb Ox’.
=============
Dr. Shooshmon, phd. (Comment#67309) January 28th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
“At this time, I would like to make a prediction about Egypt. I think what will eventually happen will be a direct parallel to the Iranian Revolution in 1979.”
Sorry Shoosh. The writing had been on the wall for many years in Iran and so too it has been on the wall in Egypt.
Societal shifts in democracies take place with relative ease and lack of violence. Going ‘with the flow’ is mostly the easiest and best way to diffuse violent shifts.
In the US in the 60’s and 70’s we saw the rise of sex,drugs and rock and roll. In the 80’s we saw a resurgence of religious fundamentalism. Hot pants and halter tops sadly never returned.;)
Under the Shah Hot Pants and Halter tops were the clothing of choice for young woman in the early 70’s, just as it was in the US.
There was a resurgence of religious fundamentalism and the Shah attempted to suppress it instead of just accepting it as a boomerang effect.
I wish I could say I was saying all this as an ‘uniformed’ citizen. But I was one of the unfortunate few that got an all expense year long paid vacation to the Middle East courtesy of Jimmy Carter.
We learned a lot from Iran about societal shifts. Bush Jr’s national security folks had been telling Mubarak that he had a societal shift going on for years. Mubarak chose to ignore history just as the Shah did.
The outcome in Egypt will wholly depend on how quickly the leadership recognizes that a societal shift is occurring that can’t be stopped and manages to ‘go with the flow’ sufficiently to placate the citizenry.
The Iranian Army stuck with the Shah to the end.
At this hour, it appears that the Egyptian Army recognizes something is going on that can’t stop and is attempting to broker a peaceful transfer of power.
If we get reports of Egyptian Generals being shot then Egypt is lost to religious fundamentalism for at least a generation.
And I totally get what Robert said in his comment. That has never happened before. 😉
Andrew
Now here is some useful science-derived info presented very appropriately: 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU2E1AQSumY
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
That’s even slower paced than the Denial Crock of the Week! Can people actually sit through something that slow and boring?
Lucia,
It’s only 3.5 minutes. I’m sure you’ve sat through stuff for much longer than that.
I suspect your actual objection is to the content, to which I can only wonder why.
Andrew
Andrew_KY.
Sure. I’ve sat through all sorts of long and boring stuff. I’ve also left boring movies and changed the channel on boring tv shows, and picked up the remote during commercials.
I watched about a minute just to see if the pace would pick up from the first boring 15 seconds. It did not. I was presented with information I already knew– and it was all presented s_l_o_w_l_y. Am I required to continue watching it merely becuase you suggested I watch it? No.
As for your thoughts the problem was content: I would not watch a similarly slow paced boring pro-choice advertorial youtube video either. B_o_r_i_n_g.
Lucia,
Any viewing of the video on your part is voluntary and I never suggested it should be otherwise.
What would make it less boring in your opinion? Car chase? 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Watching it at fast forward so that I could just read the message at something closer to normal reading pace would be less boring. Or just putting each of the bullet points on one view graph so I could read all the information in 20 seconds– as would be possible with anyone whose reading skills exceeded that of a third grader.
Stretching 20 seconds of information over 3 minutes by slowly unfolding images, and keeping short sentences on the screen f_o_r_e_v_e_r is as boring as watching Barry Lyndon.
(I walked out of Barry Lyndon on a date. I repeatedly tried to get my date to walk out sooner. He wouldn’t. I declined a 2nd date.)
Lucia,
Well, you are welcome to your opinion. Thank you for sharing your thoughts/critique. I thought it was very well done and paced quite satisfactorily. But then, the subject is near and dear, too.
We should review movies together. You on one side of the aisle and me on the other, like Siskel and Ebert used to. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
You introduced it in a way that suggested that you wanted a critique of the video, and I supplied one. You could have thanked me two emails ago instead of suggesting that my negative opinion of the pacing was not due to the s_l_o_w pacing but to my holding an opposite view point and complaining that I’ve probably watched longer things in life.
But now that you’ve gotten around to thanking me for my review, you’re welcome. If you liked the pacing of that advertorial, I suspect we will not like the same movies.
harrywr2, are you saying you were one of the hostages?
I think he meant ‘uninformed’ when he wrote ‘uniformed’. I had the same thought you did, but looked at it several more times.
===================
Thanks Kim,
You’re probably right. However he does seem to know the subject intimately, at least from what I can surmise. And although I usually reject the appeal to authority argument in this case, if he was, I would have to give his opinion special weight. But your probably right, But I have to say you’re interpretation doesn’t quite make sense either. Even if he meant to say uninformed. harrywr2 ?
Everybody has a religion. It is the case that many of those that don’t believe in God, believe in government, therefore socialism. Therefore environmentalism. Conservatives like me believe government is a necessary evil and if left alone, the people will take care of each other. Now, all the social programs do is divide families. We no longer need to take care of familiy, since the government will provide all social services.
SteveF (Comment#67401) January 29th, 2011 at 11:36 am
“I find lots of things, including fractals (for that matter, even something as simple as irrational numbers) interesting, but hardly mysterious.”
So explain them as I asked, with a rational analysis (your words). From the microscopic to the universal.
http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fractals.html Doesn’t look much like chance/chaos to me.
All That Math just…. Is? Well I could say a Creator just Is too. God Is, I am. 🙂
Lucia,
It is impossible to be both an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. The key difference is that an atheist believes/is intimately convinced that God does not exist, which ironically makes the atheist as much a believer as those who do believe in the existence of God. Both positions are faced with the conundrum that the existence of God can not be proven. Atheist or religious, God is a tenet of faith.
The agnostic -like me, since my teens- simply takes the position that he or she does not know [from the Greek “a gnost” ] whether or not God exists, staying clear of whether the existence of God or absence thereof is provable or not.
liza–
The fractals, and many other things are deterministic is convenient, but hardly inexplicable. If you want to see that as “god”, fine. But it hardly seems so to me.
If you want an explanation of fractals, check Mandlebrot’s book out from the library. It’s not really something that can be fully explained in a short comments block. Once again, the fact that that a lucid explanation of a mathematical concept takes more than 4 paragraphs is not inexplicable. If you want to think everything that takes more than 4 paragraphs to explain is proof of god– once again fine. But “Wow! That’s cool! I don’t understand that! You can’t explain it in less than 4 paragraphs!” == “God Exists” does not seem like a convincing proof to me.
liza,
One doesn’t even need to go as far as fractals. A honeycomb or a beaverdam will do just as nicely to indicate a Mind involved in creation.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Baby’s diapers filled with diarrhea too, right? And blindness induced by syphilis? And blinding winter snow storms, leprosy and the smell of ammonia all indicate a mind involved in creation too–right?
As far as I can see, none of these things indicate a divine mind involved in creation. If you want to see otherwise… fine.
lucia,
Bees need information in their tiny brains that tells them how to build their honeycombs properly. Beavers need information in their little brains to tell them how to build their dams properly.
Where do you think this information came from?
Andrew
Andrew_ky– What do you mean by “information”? And can you define the sense in which you mean “where”? In your usage, would it make sense to ask “where” the color green came from?
Bees tiny brains have evolved and are a size that can hold a tiny amount of information which is sufficient to act collectively to build a honey comb. Scale up the argument for beavers.
As brains grown, they can begin to do more sophisticated things with their brains.
I’m not seeing a “where” in there.
AndrewKY,
they can explain the how all day long but not the why. As my link to the pictures of fractals says :
“””After a few dozen repetitions or ITERATIONS the shape we would recognize as a Perfect Fern appears from the abstract world of math. How and Why can this be?
The answer to why is that it Simply IS – and it’s quite surprising too! Answering How is that nature always follows the simplest & most efficient path. Fractals are maps of the simplest paths sliding up the scale of Dimensions (from 2-D to 3-D and so on). So maybe it’s simply an artifact of nature’s elegance that we find exact correspondences between these inherently existing mathematical forms and natural patterns, and even living creatures of many types. Fractals in nature are ubiquitous – clouds, plants, galaxies, shells and more. “”
God The Just Is.
BTW guess who scored a treasure at the tourmaline mine yesterday, found the best find of the day; and got their picture taken for the wall of fame? Me!
The mine owner even wanted to buy it from me for his collection. I said no. 🙂 picture:
http://i53.tinypic.com/14y8v43.jpg
Blue is rare.
lucia,
Obviously, for bees to build honeycombs they need to know how. They either taught themselves and tell their kids how to do it (no evidence of this), or some intelligence programmed bees to behave the way they do.
Anyway they now how have the blueprints (information) for building honeycombs.
“Bees tiny brains have evolved”
Evidence?
Andrew
Evil and Ugly?
String up the mind of God.
I shot the sheriff.
=============
Another intersting thing about bees:
“In short, bees have the ability to “dead reckon” after a scouting trip. They may take an outward path that meanders around the landscape, but when they want to head home, they can simply integrate their map and compass information and fly directly home. Without experience, or without these two sources of information, a bee cannot directly find her way home, but she may be able to do so after flying in a random search pattern.”
http://www.webworldarticles.com/e/a/title/How-do-bees-find-flowers-and-their-way-back-to-the-hive/
Andrew
Andrew,
http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/soapbubbles600.jpg
Programmed soap bubbles, or well-instructed?
Are those the only two choices?
Tamara,
Soap isn’t alive, so the comparison to bees and beavers isn’t quite like to like.
But, soap does have properties. Who arranged the soap bubbles like that? would be my question.
Is this pattern the result of an accident? And what kind of soap is it?
Also, who made the soap?
Andrew
This comment delay thing is annoying. Maybe not to you lucia 🙂 for moderating me ? but for having a conversation it is. I didn’t get to answer your comment to me as I was talking to Andrew, I didn’t see it. Then it told me to wait four minutes; then seven even minutes between posts.
Trying again…
you say:
“if you want to think everything that takes more than 4 paragraphs to explain is proof of god– once again fine. But “Wow! That’s cool! I don’t understand that! You can’t explain it in less than 4 paragraphs!†== “God Exists†does not seem like a convincing proof to me.”
Why do you put words in my mouth? I said fractals are fascinating and brought them up because SteveF stated that “you” “we” or “anybody” (not sure) cannot have a rational analysis about God. Okay- so have one about fractals…go ahead let’s see it. Because I am under the impression that those who do not think an idea of a Creator holds up, think that all this Life and Stuff (fractals and all) just sprang up by randomness and/or chaos. I also said these things do not look like randomness and/or chaos. (Or I think I did…!)
Good question Tamara.
Earth to Tamara…
Got any more info about the pic?
I’m curious.
Andrew
Sorry, Andrew. Can’t hang around all day.
Here is some more info:
http://homepage.mac.com/keithmjohnson/soapbubbler.com/page16/page21/files/Scrutinizing%20laws%20of%20suds.pdf
Thanks Tamara.
Androo 😉
Liza–
Everyone is comment delayed including me. I find the pause sometimes makes me reflect a little.
(Totally off-topic, but hey, it’s an open thread)
Some of our amateur atmospheric scientists may like this picture I just found at the National Geographic web site. Somehow I cannot link directly to the page with the caption, but it explains it as
“The Prandtl-Glauert singularity, also referred to as a vapor cone, shock collar, or shock egg”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/your-shot/weekly-wrapper/2011/img/0111wallpaperweek-3-6_1600.jpg
lucia (Comment#67649)
Sorry, I’d never seen that comment delayed message ever before. I thought it was a new feature. Guess I reflect and pause naturally. Did you reflect and pause before putting words in my mouth? 🙂 (comment delay is the same amount of time as AndrewKY’s video btw)
that’s a cool picture julio. 🙂
Hi liza,
I don’t think lucia realizes that The Miracle of Life in the womb they are talking about in the video was a description of her. Indeed, all of us.
And I don’t believe for an instant she thinks it’s b_o_r_i_n_g.
Andrew
Haven’t read the thread.
Just a few words about the blog post.
I won’t be endorsing the content, but the delivery was strong, honest and beautiful. One of the best on the Blackboard.
Lucia, the thinking man’s Sarah Palin, no? 🙂
Best wishes to Popsie-Wopsie and all your loved ones.
To the original question of communism vs. anything else. I spent my first 40 yrs of life in so called socialism and then the last 20 yrs in the “wild capuitalism” of post-commie state. I also read a lot about what happened in the West since the installment of the Iron Curtain.
Well – the only experience i derived from all this is something along the lines: If there are things about which is not advisable to talk publicly (and yes, it is not important if the price for saying those things is a societal and professional suicide or if you can expect the police coming at dawn for you), then there’s something wrong with the system. And I find this disconcerting tendency again.
Carrick above said that system kills people. It may be so. During the commie times, we were, so to say, equal in the living conditions (except the High Ones, but ain’t it so everywhere?) but we didn’t have homeless people and people dying from cold on the streets, as it is the case now.
My present point of view is, after 20 years,that one can have only such amount of freedom, that is proportional to one’s income.