hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/30/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > { From: arndt@lymph.DEC } > > > Piddly-shit out of the way, I'll address the main issue. If you are > > seriously a committed Christian, and do not admit of any other valid > > religion than Christianity (in other words, all else is heresy), then > > I am wasting my breath. I understand that you would not give any > > credence to anything I would have to say. But if you aren't, and you > > are interested in other ideas, then maybe this isn't a waste after > > all. > > ** Sigh. Please don't be a bigot ... Please recall your blatant bigotry in your anti-homosexual postings. If this is not hypocrisy abound, I don't what is. > I mean you've got me all > wrapped up and delievered in a nice neat little package already. All > I have to do is say I'm a 'committed' Christian and into the little > box I go. What does 'committed' mean? I really believe in > something? You use the word 'committed' like it was a disease. It IS a disease if you are committed. Why are you questioning the usage? Why don't you question the meaning of the accusation? The accusation was clarified by the points that you itemized later in your article. If the accusation is so clear, why are you sticking to one word? Incidentally, you ARE committed (in the sense that was originally intended). You incessant references to the Bible in support of what you claim as some scientific statements are among the evidences that point to your committance to fundamentalist Christianity. Of course this could be some false front that you are putting on, but your articles are the only things that I can go by. > Aren't you committed to something? Isn't everyone? YOU WANT TO OPEN > A DEBATE/DISCUSSION WITH ME AND START OUT BY MAKING ME GIVE UP MY > POSITION OR BE LABELED SOME KIND OF A NITWIT????? If your position is that science requires faith, then you starting with an incorrect assumption for a scientific discussion. Moreover scientific discussions require the primary assumptions of purely objective ideas. In other words, religion/faith/supernatural have no place in a scientific discussion. The difficulty lies in the ability to substantiate your idea to others. If subjective ideas are allowed (a la "blue is a nice color"), the discussion become meaningless. Incidentally, if you have been reading the articles in net.origins, you would have more than just a handful of articles to respond to in dealing with the differences between subjective and objective ideas. > Where did you learn debating or human relations? Where did you learn your writing skills? in addition to debating and human relations? You make countless subjective statements, claim they are scientific/objective and then return to your BS about science being based on faith. Hardly structured ... objective ... or scientific ... > Have I now resorted to saying > naughty things about you and lost you? Hope not. Look what you're > saying about me if I admit to being a 'committed' Christian: > > o I believe everyone else is wrong Oh no ... but just the homosexuals ... Jews (you have to if you are a believer in fundamentalist Christianity) ... > o you would waste your breath talking to me Yes. > o I wouldn't "give any credence to anything (you) have to say" You have done this to just every else in this newsgroup either by rejecting their statements via the Bible or by ignoring their questions. I bet you will ignore this post just as you have done with the rest of my posts directed toward you. > o I'm not interested in any other ideas This follows quite well. If you believe that everything is faith, then it followes that everything is equal in terms of validity. Therefore, why should you be interested in anything else? (given that you have made this type of statement: "If there is no one to whom we are responsible, then we might as well eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.") > Of course I reject all of the above. You are either a hypocrite or a liar. I can't wait to hear which one you would prefer. > I figure you must have been > mugged by 'committed' Christians somewhere along the line and you > still haven't gotten over it. I refuse to believe at this early > stage in our conversation that you are a 'committed' anti-Christian > bigot. Even though you have already accused her of being one. > ... { deleted } > > WE ALL LIVE THE RELIGIOUS LIFE!!! WE ALL WALK BY FAITH! WE ALL > 'WORSHIP' SOMEWHERE. WE ALL NEED GOD/S TO COMPLETE THE LOOP AND TAKE > THE NEXT STEP - OR ELSE WE JUST MAKE NOISE(an interesting question is > if we CAN really make only noise - if we can avoid making a logical > statement with real 'noise',either on canvas, in print, or on the > stage or music without being contradictory. Remember Theater of the > Absurd died because it contradicted itself (and was boring) by making > a meaningful statement that there is no meaning to anything). I deleted about 30-40 lies of purely religious nonsense that does not belong in net.origins. Here you have begun your silly notion about science being based upon faith. Here are some more questions (which you probably ignore and continue to babble nonsense as you have consistently done in the past): 1) Please define "the religious life". 2) Please prove that we "all" live by what you define in (1). 3) Please define "the loop". 4) Please define "the next step". 5) Please prove that we "all" need gods the complete (3) and take (4). 6) Please define "make noise". 7) Please prove that if we do not complete (5) we will simply do (6). Of course, I want objective answers to these questions, a class of answers that you have never provided. > So . . ., logical; also account for ME as I perceive myself, my > consciousness in other words, my desires, feelings, and the way the > world appears to me as I observe it. A religious/scientific > description of 'me', the world, etc. must 'fit'. I must be able to > live by it. By now you have perhaps read the example I have posted > of what I mean by 'fits' and live by it. The materialist who mourns > the death of his child has a conflict between his 'world view' and > his life. If you want to mold reality to fit your own pleasures and likings, I won't stop you. But if you try to push it as scientific, forget it. Here you mention the topic again. Care to expound on how "the death of his child" has significance in your explanations? Care to admit if you had a child that died? Sensitive subject perhaps, but you better not let painful memories rule your judgements, especially when you are dealing with objective ideas. (e.g. scientific topics.) > Your use of the word 'proof' in your previous posting which I replied > to on the net and below is fuzzy if not wrong. To the modern mind > 'proof' means degree of evidence - NOT CERTAINTY! Wrong. The correct phrasing is "degree of confidence held in an idea". There is no such thing as "degree of evidence". A piece of evidence either exists or it does not. (... just like you cannot be "sort of pregnant") > You seem to think > that there are 'hard' facts which science deals with and 'faith' > which religion deals with. Bosh! Read any number of modern > scientists and you will hear them say that they build their science > on faith! And I don't mean a particular religious faith. Wrong. They build their science with confidence. That's not the same thing as faith. Faith does not require evidential support; confidence does. > > I have nothing against any particular religion, except as I said, > > having some one else's religion rammed down my throat. > > ** Does that mean you hold all religions to be equal?? But how can > that be when they make opposing claims? Or does it mean you hold > them equally stupid. What about YOUR 'religious' world view? Your > starting point that of course is not based on 'fact', is it? Why do > you choose the starting points that you do? Ever think about that? > Who's 'ramming'? Does 'ramming' equal making claims to truth? My > saying that what YOU believe is untrue? Aren't YOU 'ramming' your > view in this sense? Listen Mr. Ken. If you don't a that everyone else is wrong, and you are right, then you are, in effect, saying that someone else could be right, and if so, you are wrong. (I am refering especially to mutually exclusive ideas, which you also bring up above.) Since you are saying this above, but also claimed the opposite earlier, you are a hypocrite (or a blatant liar, whichever you prefer). > > I do belive some odd things that I can't prove, any more than I can > > prove that Christ is the son of an omniscient deity called God or > > Yahweh or whatever. But I'm not saying that your believing so is > > baloney (or that what I believe is incontrovertible fact, > > conversely). What I am saying is that the grounds for argument are > > completely based on belief, not on physical laws. I can't prove the > > existence of God in a Michaelson-Morley type experiment, but I still > > believe in one. Religion and objectivity don't seem to mix. She is right. > ** Double bosh. Physical 'laws' are based upon faith. Physical laws are that which science are trying to approximate. They are assumed to be absolute and consistent. They are not models of the the world. Laws which are formulated by scientists are, hopefully, something close to the real ones. > They are > 'models' of the world. Ways of thinking that give certain results > and would give different results if different models were used. YOU > ARE TALKING 19C SCIENTIFIC EPISTOMOLOGY! Total 'objectivity' doesn't > appear to be possible for us. It's another model. A construct of > the human mind. RELIGION SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THE SAME BASIS AS > SCIENTIFIC MODELS! Logical and 'fits'. Reread my posting that spoke > to your 'fact'/'faith' posting. What color does sugar taste like? > Physical 'laws' are about one set of thoughts and religious questions > another. But all seems part of one reality. Remember > Michaelson-Morley doesn't 'prove' anything. Look, all science is > saying is that some things can apparently be repeated by independent > observers. Does that 'prove' anything? Of course not. I hope you do not drive a car. Who knows what really happens inside an engine. Those thermodynamic laws are just religious, atheistic statements anyway. (4 teaspoons of sarcasm please.) > ... { more of the same BS } > > PLEASE DON'T TAKE AN UNEXAMINED RELIGIOUS VIEW OF SCIENCE. Leave > that for Time-Life books and the anti-religious cranks. AND DON'T > CLAIM THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A NON-RELIGIOUS VIEW OF SCIENCE. Science cannot be religious. I don't know what other views of science you can dig up, but they are not valid. > Again, your statements confuse the notions of 'fact' and 'faith'. Wrong. YOU confused the notions of fact and faith. Read the dictionary. ___________________________________________________________________________ "F.O.A.D." Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }