RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 7:29:08 AM)

29 pages, and I am thinking did the pope say how he knew?  and did he get any detals from old el-Shaddai on how this was done?




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 8:09:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

So, when does self defense become a crime, well the way you use the word I suspect the answer is never. However that's clearly not quite how Sam Harris is using the word... This is a case where you're foisting a position on Sam Harris based on your connotations of the word self defense.

So unh... we are to understand that Harris is a bit of a loon who, when he composes an English sentence, cannot be assumed to be using the words it contains in their actual English meanings, and to interpret them that way is to "foist" upon the text unwarranted "connotations."

Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? ~Alice

Yes I see. Thank you for clarifying.

K.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 8:48:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

29 pages, and I am thinking did the pope say how he knew? and did he get any detals from old el-Shaddai on how this was done?

I believe it was channeled by the Belgian Monseigneur Georges Lemaître. [:D]

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 8:54:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
29 pages, and I am thinking did the pope say how he knew?  and did he get any detals from old el-Shaddai on how this was done?

I would suspect that he reasoned to a conclusion based on spectral evidence, the same way people determined that the earth was the center of the universe and that their neighbors were witches.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 9:22:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I would suspect that he reasoned to a conclusion based on spectral evidence, the same way people determined that the earth was the center of the universe and that their neighbors were witches.

You would? How curious.

I always thought they believed the Earth was the center of the universe because it appeared to them that everything was revolving around it. And as best I recall, accusations of witchcraft were usually based on witness testimony, which, when you were talking out of the other side of your mouth, you argued was a legitimate (manifestly not "spectral," albeit not the most reliable) form of evidence.

But hey, that's okay, I know you're just having some good clean fun. [:D]

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 10:37:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
It also bears mention that while the inadequacy of any physical proof makes it impossible, not just harder, to prove the existence of a transcendent reality to someone else, it remains possible to prove it to yourself, and "belief" is not a prerequiste.

Those who proclaim such a reality false, and refuse to undertake the necessary discipline, can be compared to those who knew Galileo was wrong and refused to look through his telescope. There is nothing to be gained from bothering to listen to people like that.


Certainly one can go on a vision quest or drop acid or engage in prolonged meditation or suffer from mental illness or don the god hat or huff toxic fumes et cetera and experience abnormal cognitive function no one is contesting that. It's the assertion that said abnormal function allows the experience of a transcendent reality as opposed to just causing hallucinations that's being contested.

The thing about Galileo's telescope was that it could be reliably used to see things, anyone could look through it and see the same thing. That's not the case with the telescope you're talking about, looking through it people see things which are demonstrably wrong according to actual reality or contradictory to what other people are seeing. After several millennia of people making faulty truth claims because of spectral evidence it's reasonable to conclude that they are using a kaleidoscope as opposed to a telescope.




mnottertail -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 10:53:11 AM)

But didn't Galileo's telescope recant the sun center gig for a time, two times, and half a time, until more favorable times?  So there is certainly a carnal component to the confluence (or not) of these idee fixe




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 11:37:39 AM)

Stop playing with unicorns for a second and notice that there's a non-trivial distinction between seeing a bear and hallucinating a bear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials#Spectral_evidence
Much, but not all, of the evidence used against the accused was spectral evidence, or the testimony of the afflicted who claimed to see the apparition or the shape of the person who was allegedly afflicting them. The theological dispute that ensued about the use of this evidence centered on whether a person had to give permission to the Devil for his/her shape to be used to afflict.


A distinction which eventually caused the ruling that witness testimony of the former is evidence and of the latter is not.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 12:09:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So unh... we are to understand that Harris is a bit of a loon who, when he composes an English sentence, cannot be assumed to be using the words it contains in their actual English meanings, and to interpret them that way is to "foist" upon the text unwarranted "connotations."

Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? ~Alice

Yes I see. Thank you for clarifying.

K.



I can certainly open a dictionary and find a definition where whether an act qualifies isn't contingent upon collateral damage:  2: the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

So does your meaning being somewhat different from this definition mean that you're a loon?




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 12:37:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Stop playing with unicorns for a second and notice that there's a non-trivial distinction between seeing a bear and hallucinating a bear.

Stop playing with words for a second and notice that there are non-trivial distinctions between the Salem Witch Trials, the naive but not unreasonable belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, and doctrinal pronouncements issued by the current Pope.

But hey, don't get me wrong. I think it's fine if you want to post these kinds of smart ass remarks. I know you enjoy them. And I like seeing you post them, because they expose your periodic whinging about reasoned commentary, free from insults and brimming over with intellectual honesty, as mere posturing.

You're familiar with that word, aren't you? [:D]

K.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 1:01:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I can certainly open a dictionary and find a definition where whether an act qualifies isn't contingent upon collateral damage: 2: the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

Jeeez, Steel, stop playing with your straw dolls... nobody said anything about it being "contingent on collateral damage".

defense
–noun
1. resistance against attack


self-defense
–noun
1. the act of defending one's person when physically attacked
2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack


Notice the word "attack" in there?

It's important. Honest. I wouldn't kid you. [:D]

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 1:25:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I always thought they believed the Earth was the center of the universe because it appeared to them that everything was revolving around it.

The objections presented to Galileo during his trial for heresy were scriptural not observational and the scriptural statements are most certainly not things that could be determined through actual observation.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 1:38:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Certainly one can go on a vision quest or drop acid or engage in prolonged meditation or suffer from mental illness or don the god hat or huff toxic fumes et cetera and experience abnormal cognitive function....

You lump meditation in with mental illness and huffing toxic fumes and expect to be taken seriously?

Would this be another example of your intellectual honesty? [:D]

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 1:39:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I can certainly open a dictionary and find a definition where whether an act qualifies isn't contingent upon collateral damage: 2: the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Jeeez, Steel, stop playing with your straw dolls... nobody said anything about it being "contingent on collateral damage".

My you backpeddle fast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
defense
–noun
1. resistance against attack


self-defense
–noun
1. the act of defending one's person when physically attacked
2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack


Notice the word "attack" in there?

It's important. Honest. I wouldn't kid you. [:D]

K.


Your loonacy is showing, are you actually going to try and argue that the use of a nuclear bomb doesn't constitute a physical attack?




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 1:48:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
You lump meditation in with mental illness and huffing toxic fumes and expect to be taken seriously?

Would this be another example of your intellectual honesty? [:D]


I don't expect you to take me seriously regardless of what I say because I'm not telling you what you want to hear, but all three that you're mentioning were considered valid sources.

Would using ridicule in an endeavor to keep the one and discard the other two be another example of your intellectual honesty? [:D]




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 1:54:00 PM)

I'll certainly agree that social pressure can make people profess or even believe obviously false things. Though in Galileo's case the pressure might have been a bit more literal than is common in our day and age.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 2:26:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

The objections presented to Galileo during his trial for heresy were scriptural not observational and the scriptural statements are most certainly not things that could be determined through actual observation.

Actually, the objection presented was the then current interpretation of scripture, which was based on Aristotle. The Copernican view had its supporters, as did Galileo himself, but they were in the minority. Foscarini was one of them, to whom Cardinal Bellarmine wrote:

if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.

Unfortunately, the majority of the intellectuals in the Church at the time revered Aristotle, and were disinclined to open-mindedness. They knew that meditation was no different from huffing toxic fumes -- oops, I mean to say they knew that the Earth was the center of the universe -- Aristotle had declared it to be so, and there was no need to waste their time looking through some silly fellow's kalidescope -- oops, I mean telescope.

Thus deprived of his only defense, Galileo succumbed to the Inquisition. But, more in a pro forma way than might otherwise have been expected, and he continued to work and write until he died in 1642 at the age of 70.

It should be noted that Galileo was never in a dungeon or tortured; during the Inquisition process he stayed mostly at the house of the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican and for a short time in a comfortable apartment in the Inquisition building. After the process he spent six months at the palace of Ascanio Piccolomini (c. 1590–1671), the archbishop of Siena and a friend and patron, and then moved into a villa near Arcetri, in the hills above Florence.

I realize, of course, that you would much rather blame scripture than Aristotle, but suck it up.

K.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 2:54:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

My you backpeddle fast.

I'll have link for that one, then. Where did I say anything about "self-defense" being "contingent on collateral damage"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Your loonacy is showing, are you actually going to try and argue that the use of a nuclear bomb doesn't constitute a physical attack?

The use of? Do you have an English comprehension problem? You do know what that "pre" means in pre-emptive don't you? It means "the use of" hasn't happened yet. Hence the word "first" in first strike. See? I know it's horribly obscure, but think about it.

K.




PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 7:32:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

29 pages, and I am thinking did the pope say how he knew?  and did he get any detals from old el-Shaddai on how this was done?


I've already posted the definitive answer to this, Ron. The Pope was lying. A ginormous chicken and bacon sandwich was behind the Big Bang. I have Peonal Infallibility, so if you continue to ask how I know I'll send some lads round to burn you.




PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 7:41:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Certainly one can go on a vision quest or drop acid or engage in prolonged meditation or suffer from mental illness or don the god hat or huff toxic fumes et cetera and experience abnormal cognitive function....

quote:

You lump meditation in with mental illness and huffing toxic fumes and expect to be taken seriously?



Would this be another example of your intellectual honesty? [:D]



Um . . . Kirata . . . Joan of Arc? How would you, personally, be able to tell the difference after the event, between the purported vision of someone who announces himself as a saint, and the delusions of a lunatic?




Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125