RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

AWittyDuo -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 3:14:06 PM)

"The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

My sense of God is my sense of wonder about the universe-
Albert Einstein

Thank you for the link to that video.  I love astronomy, and I have some vivid memories of taking my refracting telescope out into the middle of a wheat field, in 1994 (to avoid light pollution), with a patch over my viewing eye (to not damage my night vision), there to see the impact marks of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it hit the back side of Jupiter, and rotated into my field of view.

I find it interesting how a series of really good images from an orbital telescope sparked a debate on spirituality.  Inevitably, the realization that our piddling little solar system really does not amount to very much in the whole scheme of a 78 billion light-year wide universe (to get an idea of how many miles that is, multiply 78 billion, i.e, 78 followed by 9 zeroes by 6 TRILLION, or 6 followed by 12 zeroes) is humbling to some.

However, to give a supernatural or divine cause to something merely because it is not currently understood is wrong, and cheapens what makes us so wonderful.   Even if we ARE nothing more than a lucky and successful species of upright-walking naked scavenger ape, we are still an amazing species, and our ability to dream and imagine seperates us from every other animal on the planet (cetaceans like dolphins and orcas nonwithstanding, but no hands means no tool use, sadly).   To automatically and blindly assign faith-based supernatural causes to things merely because we are uncomfortable with randomness and uncertainty does us a supreme disservice as a species.

We need to know "why," as if everything has a purpose, is a cog in the giant cosmic wheel of causality.  How about the answer: "There IS NO PURPOSE.  That it exists is purpose enough."

As to if there is a God or not, I invoke Pascal's Wager:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager



Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 4:31:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AWittyDuo
As to if there is a God or not, I invoke Pascal's Wager:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager


A god that capricious doesn't deserve my belief.



Lordandmaster -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/19/2006 6:28:40 PM)

There's an "Atheist's Wager" too, you know.

Both are pretty absurd in my book.



AWittyDuo -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/20/2006 8:49:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: AWittyDuo
As to if there is a God or not, I invoke Pascal's Wager:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager


A god that capricious doesn't deserve my belief.


Eh.  Ultimately, it does not really matter.  If there was a supreme being, they would be so far above us in understanding that we "puny humans" could never hope to understand the being's motivations. Going on a premise that there is a being who can do literally anything, why would that being care one way or the other how they were worshipped, or even IF they had worshipers or not?

I would rather talk about how amazing that image from the Hubble that started this post was.



cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/20/2006 1:58:50 PM)

  The normal process during the countdown is that the countdown proceeds, assuming we are in a go posture, and at various points during the countdown we tag up on the operational loops and face to face in the firing room to ascertain the facts that project elements that are monitoring the data and that are understanding the situation as we proceed are still in the go condition.



Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/21/2006 7:07:33 PM)

There is something you should get straight on before you embarrass yourself any further, BA. The term ad hominem argument doesn't refer willy-nilly to any argument which indicates something negative about someone.

Yes the term itself can be loosely translated as "against the man" but the term doesn't mean "insult". It is the name of an informal logical fallacy. It is the name of the fallacy which operates by using a negative claim about a person to claim warrant to disqualify something that person says.

If I had said: "BA claims X is true, but BA is a knucklehead and knuckleheads shouldn't be believed, therefore, X is false," that would be an ad hominem argument.

In an ad hominem, the negative claim about the person is a premiss of an argument made against the truth of something that person said. So we see that an ad hominem argument isn't in the business of offering any negative conclusions about a person, as I did, provisionally against you--based on the evidence you have shown us in this thread.

My negative claims about you were (explicitly provisional) conclusions, based on evidence and argumentation which would have applied equally well to any person of good or bad character who happened to do precisely the things which you did. Ad hominem arguments are ad hominem because they rely on negative claims as premisses, not conclusions.

When I point out evidence that you don't know your way around rational discourse to support the claim that you don't know your way around rational discourse, the negative claim about you is the conclusion, not a premiss. The argument accordingly is not ad hominem. It may be a worthy or unworthy argument. It's conclusion may be true or false. The one thing it--by the very definition of the term--cannot be is ad hominem.

The same goes for when I conclude based upon the evidence that you are intellectually dishonest (which was so transparently true in your protracted, bold-type response which started out with the false claim that I had made no argument in paragraphs 1-6.)

To conclude based upon teh evidence something negative about your behavior without relying upon any negative claims about you as premisses is simply not ad hominem.

Or are you one of those folks who holds that a word should mean whatever you care for it to mean regardless of common usage and the lack of any effort to specially qualify your use of the term?

The amusing thing here is that your misuse, about a dozen times, of the name of perhaps the best known of all the informal logical fallacies provides anther rich source of evidence for the conclusion I was drawing.


I am pleased to see that whereas you plowed into the thread with a tone of condescension toward anyone who didn't share your prejudices you have for some reason modified that tone. I think the "noble but aggrieved" tone you have recently selected is preferable to the one you started with. It is amusing in a different way.

You entered insulting anyone who has ever held religious faith with your contention that this thing which you do not understand but which they hold dear is garbage. When I countered the arumentation you offerred to support this silliness you came out swinging--although as it happened all the punches missed. Now you are at least trying to present yourself as a calm, reasonable person. That's a step in a good direction.

I am pleased to note that whereas you previously claimed a radical dichotomy between poetry and truth you have since relinquished this claim. I won't jump to any conclusions as to what it was that provided this epiphany for you.

You offerred that: " I am trying to see things from your perspective, but can't seem to get my head that far up my ass. " which is of course not an ad hominem argument but what someone might call a rather ignoble comment tacked onto the end of a debatable claim.

It is hard to get behind your claim that you have been trying to see anything from anyone else's perspective, mine in particular, since you spent so much time trying to attack a claim I never made and in fact argued against at some length in this thread: the claim that God's existence can be successfully argued for (or against) in any way that mimics science or appeals to logic. Anyhow, if that was indeed your best effort at seeing someone else's perspective I'll thank you for the effort and reccomend additional practice.



Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/21/2006 8:25:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The fundemental flaw in claiming that science is a religion is that it isn't. It leaves itself open to be debunked. There is an open invitation to anyone to prove science is wrong. The fact that someone might consider they do not have the ability to prove it wrong, doesn't mean they have to believe in it as an act of faith because science doesn't put forward a truth, that is what religion does.


Okay meat. I suggest taking a step back and looking at this again.

Does science leave itself open to be debunked as a whole? That is, will science accept anything other than an application of scientific method as a showing that science--as a means of understanding the world, fails?

I mean even a narrow, dogmatic, scripturally oriented religion leaves itself open to be debunked. Tell the preacher from this cult that he's full of bunk and he can say that "if you can find it in my scripture that my scripture is bunk then I'll start listening." The trouble is that the only de-bunking he'll accept is his own religious debunking.

Now of course that is unsatisfactory for reasons obvious to both of us. But can't you see that the same situation obtains with science?

If the wacky preacher says: "Science full of bunk" the scientist will say something like "Show me scientifically acceptable evidence that science is bunk and maybe I'll believe you."

Each guy is making the same move in same game. Each is saying "I will review my faith in my (dogma/procedure) if you can present evidence in accordance with that very dogma/procedure.

Please note that what I am talking about is not this or that theoretical finding of science but rather the whole contention that science is the best way to understand stuff. While science invites verification or refutation of individual theoretical claims it just doesn't have a handle onn it anywhere by which science itself as an enterprise can be "proven" or "disproven" any more than religion does. At the fundamental level one accepts science despite its inability to prove itself, not because it has succeeded in proving itself as an enterprise.

And I think that's fine. I mean I think it must be in that that is the shape of teh world we happen to find ourselves in.

Look meat, there isn't a very open invitation at all to anyone to disprove science, since the only disproofs science will recognize (the only ones it can recognize, strictly speaking, are scientific proofs.

If someone shows science some contrary line of scripture as disproof of science, is science open to that? No. No more than the dogmatic religionist is open to science as a means of disproof of the truths he holds dear.

Now it is right and good that each of these should reject the other as a means of disproof. It would be idiotic of science to countenance scripture as disproof of a scientific claim just as it would be idiotic of religion to countenance science as a disproof of a religious claim.

Often enough religionists have tried --and still try in so sadly many cases--to use holy books to adjudicate scientific (non-religious) matters. This is a failing based on an an inability or refusal to see. It is horrible and responsible for so many of the world's ills. But it fundamentally a misapplication of religion,

By the same token scientistically oriented people--or anyway those who claim such an orientation--have tried and sadly are still trying to debunk strictly spiritual claims with tools of science and that is just as fucked as the other mistake. Not enlightened scientists, of course. Just as enlightened religionists scoff when some preacher tries to substitute scripture for the right content of a science or history course in your child's school.

I laud you for your statement that science puts forward no truth (beyond thre truth of modest claims of the usefulness of its results for predicting events in the world.) I wish this were more generally appreciated. If scientistic people would generally hew to this very defendable line so much needless trouble could be avoided. But of course we see again and again--even in this thread--scientistic people on quests as absurd as "disproving the existence of God." Or proving that "This material life is all there is."

Clearly those are not claims oriented toward event-prediction. They are metaphysical claims.

I am with you in rejecting religion as of any value in predicting the weather or planetary motion. And I am with you in rejecting any claim that "Science Yields Truth" in any but the quite circumscribed sense outlined above.

And I agree with anyone who notes that scads of religionists blunder far beyond the province where their enterprise should be carried out just as I agree with anyone who points out the very common misconception that science can replace religion in its role as part of the human experience.

I would like to point out, though, what seems so seldom to be featured in talks like this in venues like this: that very many religionists of very many different stripes recognize the boundary you and I are recognizing and work to keep things in their right place. They unfortunately get tarred, by narrow-minded or careless critics, with the same brush that marks the religious ingnoramuses and wack jobs.

As for the claims that religion has lots of horrible results but no good ones, well this is just such crazy talk I can hardly believe it can be said with a straight face. I mean is the idea of hospitals inherently evil? They were the brainchild of religionists. How many science teachers put their lives on the line in the battle for equal civil rights in the US? A few, I'll bet. I know that many of those brave efforts were organized and led by religionists.

I smile when Rule offers to "Define the Divine," and I about half think that is the reaction he's going for.

That something happens to be indefinable may be frustrating to people who have had a certain sort of upbringing but can anyone suggest that indefinability is proof of non-existence?

What if there just happene to be some aspects of reality which are by their nature not confirmable by one person for another? What if there just happen to be aspects of reality which can only be directly encountered individually? Well of course there are tons of these and we don't doubt the existence of any of them (well some philosophers have but no decent folk do) but so many people get their panties all bunched up at the suggestion that there is one more of these kind thing, the Divine one.

An awful lot of the misguided attempts to de-bunk religion (as opposed to the very worthy attempts to debunk the misapplication of religion) strike me as a scientistic person seeking to be comforted just as much as he berates religionists for seeking comfort in faith. This kind of scientistic person is made uncomfortable by spiritual claims and can't rest comfortably till he has blabbed and finger-waved at the holy folks for an hour or so. And I can never decide which side of this silly battle line has the most self-righteous combatants.





Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/21/2006 9:05:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Noah:

You make really long pointless arguments that merely show it is possible that a general statement doesn't cover all possible cases unless it is qualified to death. That doesn't actually achieve what you think it does. Just because you can imagine some hypothetical case that avoids the critique made in general terms doesn't mean you have defeated it - you have just imagined a case in which it doesn't apply. The general argument still applies to the general case to which it refers. And dammit, try to consider brevity the better part of wisdom - it's getting really hard to want to read these meandering posts that really aren't as clever as you think they are.


"... qualified to death"? How terribly dramatic. How about: "... qualified to precision," instead? I have never once offerred a counterexample to a claim which was "qualified to precision."

Chain, an argument--long or short, which shows that what is made as a categorical claim has instead only a limited range of application is not pointless. Its point is to show that what has been made as a categorical claim instead has only a limited range of application.

That is to say: a clearer picture results for the person interested in seeing it.

I may in one case point to an exceptional instance, as I did with Seeks and Napolean, to have some fun and in fact underline that the goal of his general-sounding claim is still met even though his point did not apply catagorically.

In other cases I may offer a carefully drawn counter-example to save my reader the trouble of stumbling on a weakly drawn one. Most often, when I offer a counter-example it is one of a very large number of types and kinds of counter-examples available to us all if only we look carefully. In those cases I try to choose one (or a few) which will tend to suggest for the reader the large number of similar cases standing behind it.

If I should show a general claim to fail as a general claim, but where a more modest claim can be well defended, I feel that I am doing a service by honing the discussion. I might defend the more modest claim or I might leave that for someone else with more motivation to do so.

Let us all make assertions which can stand on their own merits whenever we can instead of blabbing carelessly only to meet a questioning reader with "Oh you should have been able to read my mind and know that I only meant this and not that when I said "everything." I think that's a good idea. I realy do.

As for brevity, how do you like this pithy quote: "Any philosophy which can be put into a nutshell belongs in one."

I wasn't weaned on MTV and quick cuts, Reader's Digest and Cliff Notes, Chain. I came from a place where people love language and ideas and damn them they infected me with this cultural bias. One nice way to interact with others is to speak carefully and at length and listen carefully and at length. Yes, it is kind of old-fashioned. Certain other "old-fashioned" ideas are well accepted here at CM, though. Accordingly I'm not surprised at the positive comments I occasionally get in these forums and via e-mail.

If an effort at thoroughness doesn't suit someone else, that's fine with me. There are lots of good ways to be.

But really, some girls like a guy who can go for hours, you know.

Just between you and me I am very interested in not having my ideas considered by anyone whose attention span is limited to ten paragraphs. For me a more thorough written consideration of things is its own reward.

As for: "posts that really aren't as clever as you think they are" well I really don't hold cleverness in high esteem. If some stumbles out I can be as amused by it as anyone else but I don't invest energy in cleverness. Along that line though, what if those posts you refer to are actually much cleverer than you think they are?




Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/21/2006 9:07:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AWittyDuo
...

I would rather talk about how amazing that image from the Hubble that started this post was.



Okay.

How amazing was it?



BrutalAntipathy -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/21/2006 9:27:05 PM)

Noah,
 
I was not redefining the word ad hominem. You were attempting to discredit my statements by mustering personal attacks rather than addressing the issues. But if I have still somehow managed to misinterprit the usage, I suppose this puts us even due to your misuse of analogy as a tool for debate. Guess that makes us about even in our understanding of logic tools, or perhaps lack of knowledge.
 
And as for poetry and truth. I will grant that poetry may contain truth, but this is not the same as saying that poetry is truth. A can may contain green beans, but that does not make a can green beans.
 
I notice that you have continued to attempt to ridicule, but at least you hace talken a more humble approach to it. Perhaps now that you have fed your ego, you might be up to actually touching base with the points I made. I did notice that in your latest post you failed to address them, so i'll make it a litle easier for you.
 
1. Parallels/plagerisms in holy texts are found to have different theological meaning in the source writings than the revisions. How does this demonstrate a pedigree of antiquity?
 
2. Why do you feel that demonstrating that people believe untrue things sucks dick? 
 
3. Are you honestly unaware that religious zealots deny pagan  origins of their holy books?
 
4. How can you defend your position that meteorology and a statement such as " I know God is real because I feel Him in my heart. " each contain the same level of validity?
 
5. Would you consider the statement "  If we are to look at the ancient religions of the Near East, a very strong case can be made that the Christian god Yahweh is an amalgamation of the Canaanite gods El and Alyon Baal, the Sumerian sun god Shamash, and the Egyptian god Aten. " to be wacky shit?
 
I must say though  that having someone that is unaware of false analogy trying to claim that they have demonstrated evidence that I don't know my way around rational discourse is a side splitter. That my man is really some wacky shit.
 
 
 



meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/21/2006 11:52:13 PM)

I think it's fair enough to take a Socratic position and believe nothing, even though it seems something of a mute point since we are communicating across two continents using technology developed using scientific methodology but then it might have arrived in a burning bush. But the point is that science leaves itself open to be debunked, yes, by its own imposed methods but religion has no methodology that can be debunked. Theoplogy just seems away to work through paradoxes with questionable logic and since most believers of religion accept that religion has been proved wrong time and again but still don't question religion's conclusions, I guess one really does end up talking to a wall.



Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 4:37:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy
1. Parallels/plagerisms in holy texts are found to have different theological meaning in the source writings than the revisions. How does this demonstrate a pedigree of antiquity?

It shows that time has elapsed and that concepts have evolved or changed. It shows that religion is not static, but dynamic. Thus it shows pedigree.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy 
2. Why do you feel that demonstrating that people believe untrue things sucks dick?
As I recall, you have failed to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy
3. Are you honestly unaware that religious zealots deny pagan origins of their holy books?

I am scarcely interested in the claims of religious zealots. I already blocked two atheist zealots who contributed to this thread - after giving them a lot of opportunity to prove me wrong. The closed minds and the sloppy arguments and thinking and the near complete ignorance of what they were talking about soon became boring, eventually resulting in despair and finally in block. If such persons cannot contribute something of worth to this thread, they most certainly will not contribute anything of worth to any other thread either.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy
4. How can you defend your position that meteorology and a statement such as " I know God is real because I feel Him in my heart. " each contain the same level of validity?
You are comparing apples to oranges and it does not work. Instead you demonstrate that you are ignorant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy
5. Would you consider the statement "  If we are to look at the ancient religions of the Near East, a very strong case can be made that the Christian god Yahweh is an amalgamation of the Canaanite gods El and Alyon Baal, the Sumerian sun god Shamash, and the Egyptian god Aten. " to be wacky shit?

Yes.



AWittyDuo -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 4:52:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah


quote:

ORIGINAL: AWittyDuo
...

I would rather talk about how amazing that image from the Hubble that started this post was.



Okay.

How amazing was it?



"The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw


See for yourself.

The notion that secions of the heavens previously thought to be empty space contain thousands of galaxies, each with millions of stars, each star with a potential to have planets around them, is ashtonishing to me.  Even though we may never meet anyone from another star system, it dramatically increases the chances that there is other intelligent life in the universe.

I have wondered what the certain knowledge that humans are not the only spacefaring culture  would do to people with deeply-held religious beliefs.



Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 5:12:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AWittyDuo
I have wondered what the certain knowledge that humans are not the only spacefaring culture would do to people with deeply-held religious beliefs.


Dean Motter and Ken Steacy had a go at that idea in an early American graphic novel entitled "The Sacred & The Profane." It starts well but ends in a somewhat lackluster and predictable way considering the setup. But it is visually stunning.



LadyEllen -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 5:36:40 AM)

I have wondered what the certain knowledge that humans are not the only spacefaring culture  would do to people with deeply-held religious beliefs. (AWittyDuo)

It wouldnt make any difference to people with deeply held religious beliefs. They would do as all such people have always done when faced with the fact that another person is "awkward" to their worldview - they would categorise them as sub-human, vilify them, make war on them or enslave them, or attempt to exterminate them. They would do anything and everything to preserve their beliefs from the truth.

It wouldnt make any difference to people with deeply held spiritual knowledge either. The existence of such another culture would not make any difference to their gnosis either way, (though it would be interesting to compare notes with that culture of course), and would tend to support their knowledge, not undermine it.

This is where all these arguments in this thread seem to arise. There is a difference between religion and spiritual knowledge which is every bit as wide as the difference between common sense and science.
E




Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 5:58:04 AM)

Quite.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
This is where all these arguments in this thread seem to arise. There is a difference between religion and spiritual knowledge which is every bit as wide as the difference between common sense and science.

You have made this argument before. They did not understand it then, nor will they understand it now. They lack the necessary intellectual ability. You might as well try to explain to a colour blind person the difference between the colors red and blue.
 
They either were born without this ability, or they never used it and it atrophied as a result. You see the same in babies acquiring language: initially they are able to distinguish between all sounds, but as they acquire language the ability to distinguish sounds that are not used in the language is lost quickly.



BrutalAntipathy -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 9:56:11 AM)

Rule,
 
As for your response to #1, i'll actually grant that response as valid. Religion is not static. However this is in opposition to fundamentalist claims that their religion is unchanging. Thank you for admitting that Christianity is wrong in insisting that their god and religion are unchanging. This is a great step in bringing them out of the middle ages and into the present.
 
With number 2, I gave examples of how people believe untruths, such as salivary glands in raccoons and equal numbers of ribs in men & women. You choose to ignore this. Oh well,  mere fact does not the zealot sway.
 
Number 3. I note the cowardice in you which fail to address this key issue, one which I made clear was the reason for my original post here.
 
Number 4. Noah said that personal revelation or something to that effect was as valid as meterology. You are showing the ignorance of yourself and he, not mine. In fact, now is a good time to ask this.... are you and Noah one and the same? Noah has alluded that I attacked ' his ' argument here, when in fact I attacked your feeble attempts, not his. Noah then atacked my refutations of you, and seemed to take it personally. Why would it not surprise me to discover that you and he were one and the same? Did you goof up and respond to me with the wrong profile? Seems likely because the only person here cheering Noah on is you.
 
Number 5. And just why would you consider the amalgamation of various ancient gods to be so strange? It happened all the time back then. When cultures came into contact with one another, they assimilated portions of their neighbors religions and gods into their culture. The god Osiris shows features of several minor river gods, Marduk took on aspects of Alyon Baal, Ishtar borrowed much of Astarte, etc. This has been demonstrated time and again by historians and archaeologists, and Yahweh is not excluded from the process. So you and Noah just keep thinking it is wacky, because you demonstrate your own ineptness and ignorance while doing so.
 
 
 



LadyEllen -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 10:28:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

  
In fact, now is a good time to ask this.... are you and Noah one and the same? Noah has alluded that I attacked ' his ' argument here, when in fact I attacked your feeble attempts, not his. Noah then atacked my refutations of you, and seemed to take it personally. Why would it not surprise me to discover that you and he were one and the same? Did you goof up and respond to me with the wrong profile? Seems likely because the only person here cheering Noah on is you. 
 



Rule is clearly not the same person as Noah! Totally different language and style. Unless this single person has the uncanny ability to work from two personae, there would be clear signs in the language and style that they were one and the same person. But then again, it probably suits some to think that those who do not agree must be crazy, and MPD would qualify them for that.

On a more real level, "I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together", and it seems those who are posting from the one side of the argument on this thread have realised that whilst their opponents have not.

E (another of the multiple personalities of Noah and Rule, presumably)



BrutalAntipathy -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 10:35:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

 
In fact, now is a good time to ask this.... are you and Noah one and the same? Noah has alluded that I attacked ' his ' argument here, when in fact I attacked your feeble attempts, not his. Noah then atacked my refutations of you, and seemed to take it personally. Why would it not surprise me to discover that you and he were one and the same? Did you goof up and respond to me with the wrong profile? Seems likely because the only person here cheering Noah on is you. 
 



Rule is clearly not the same person as Noah! Totally different language and style. Unless this single person has the uncanny ability to work from two personae, there would be clear signs in the language and style that they were one and the same person. But then again, it probably suits some to think that those who do not agree must be crazy, and MPD would qualify them for that.

On a more real level, "I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together", and it seems those who are posting from the one side of the argument on this thread have realised that whilst their opponents have not.

E (another of the multiple personalities of Noah and Rule, presumably)


Ha! No Ellen, I don't think that you are someones alternate personality. I was basing my comment mainly on the observation that my original post was in response to Rule, yet Noah violently took the cause, even announcing that I had attacked HIS post. Perhaps Noah needs to learn how to read, or perhaps Rule is just an agent provocateur designed by Noah to troll the threads with inflamatory notions and nonsense. You have to admit that Rule does make Noah look more competent by way of comparison.



Sinergy -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/22/2006 10:42:10 AM)

Hello A/all,

I will jump into the Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism fray with a post I made to the topic "Religion" on these boards.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_21185/mpage_1/key_chickens/tm.htm#21195

I guess that for me, my purpose here is to learn and think and explore.  I have accepted the fact that my purpose here is not
to know everything or get an Answer.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125