How will we ever be moral if religion is absent from our lives, not there to guide us?
This argument is often used by believers to tell atheists and agnostics that the world cannot do without religions because they provide the moral compass that organise our social environment and interaction with each other.
My question to this type of illogical argument is why do you need an irrational belief system to create harmony and peace among humans? In fact, there are far better systems providing order in society but not linked to a belief where you have to pray to a mythical god to bring harmony.
My personal preference is humanism, a value system recently defined in an unambiguous way by Andrew Copson, director of education at the British Humanist Association (www.humanism.org.uk). Writing in The Guardian, Copson says it is vital that children are taught humanism’s answers to life’s “ultimate questions”. Instead of filling our children’s heads from a very early age with stories about mythical religious figures working purported miracles in their lives, we should expose them to the world of rational thinking.
“The noun ‘humanism’, as it is used by humanist organisations around the world today …, denotes a set of beliefs and values that characterise a world-view very widely shared by many people in modern Britain, and it is a mistake to define their beliefs purely negatively, by reference to what they don’t believe in (gods, ghosts, life after death and so on). It is true of course that humanists do not believe in these things, but the reason they do not believe in them is much more important. Humanists believe that the reality we perceive around us – the world and universe that we make sense of through experience – is the only reality we can know and that there is no ‘second layer’ to reality in which gods, demons or the ‘supernatural’ can exist.”
Copson emphasises it is this conviction “that also leads humanists to believe that this life is the only life we have, and that morality as we understand it is a natural product of our social instincts and not handed to humanity by some external divine source. Together with the belief that the aim of morality should be human welfare and fulfilment and that, in the absence of ultimate ‘purpose’ to the universe, we make meaning for ourselves, both individually and in community, these convictions form the basics of the stance on life described as humanism today” (my emphasis).
Children should be taught from the beginning “that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and experience; that morality comes from our own selves as social beings; that happiness, meaning and fulfilment are our own to create through the joy of intellectual endeavour, of social action, of human relationships,” writes Copson.
People talk a lot about the new spirituality that humankind needs. The hysterical frenzy of South African men (and their gullible, docile wives and partners), swept up by the tide of Angus Buchan’s potato-based faith, is very much a search for a new spirituality, a new connection with a mythical god they have never seen or have absolutely no evidence for. Unfortunately the 60 000 men and their uncritical spindoctor at the daily newspaper Beeld, Neels Jackson, look for a new spiritual revival in the old wine bags of traditional Christianity.
The New Reform Movement’s Sakkie Spangenberg of the University of South Africa’s department of religious studies, contrasts this traditional belief system (as followed by Buchan and his Mighty Men), with a new dawning of reason. I think this new dawning is very much linked to humanism as a rational belief system, an alliance with the findings of science.
“The traditional Christian spirituality goes with the ancient world view. According to that world view, the cosmos consists of three parts: a Heaven, an earth, and the space underneath the earth. We can also refer to this as the three storey universe. God lives in heaven and is surrounded by the angels. The devil lives in the space underneath the earth and is surrounded by the fallen angels. People live on earth and their lives are influenced by the two powers living on the other two storeys. People are thus influenced by both good and bad angels. The new spirituality goes with the conclusion that the earth is part of a solar system; that our solar system is in turn part of the Milky Way galaxy and that the Milky Way galaxy is one of thousands of galaxies in the expanding universe. No more are heaven and hell clearly indicated and habitable places. We do not interpret our lives and events on earth any more in terms of angels and powers that can influence our lives,” writes Spangenberg on the Nuwe Hervorming Netwerk.
No, humanism should be the new spiritualism, a spiritualism where reason prevails, where science gets it rightful place, and where the belief in gods, ghosts, life after death, miracles by supernatural beings, and other similar absurdities are put aside.
The Afrikaans poet D.J. Opperman summarises it well in his poem “Stelsel – naggeluid”:
… diep uit die nag se nok
Hoor ek die hart van die heelal: ’n klok
Wat tik en tik, afsydig tik …
(from Heilige Beeste, 1945).
Rougly translated:
… deep in the night’s ridge
I hear the heart of the universe: a clock
Ticking and ticking, indifferently ticking …
This life is indeed the only life we have … no warmblooded rush to a tent near Greytown will ever make an iota or a tittle’s difference to that detached, impersonal, withdrawn, aloof ticking of the universe.
In the words of John Lennon:
Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
Comment by Hendrik — June 12, 2008 @ 12:29 pm |
From the primary post as quoted:
So we replace the god myth with the social myth…god with society and we keep the imagination intact. Thus we promote reason by punting mysticism, knowledge by punting belief. We obfuscate the concept of nature by calling our ‘social instincts’ a product of nature.
You cannot reform xtianity from the inside as you cannot reform mysticism with what portends to be a less offensive form of mysticism.
“Humanists believe that the reality we perceive around us – the world and universe that we make sense of through experience – is the only reality we can know and that there is no ‘second layer’ to reality in which gods, demons or the ‘supernatural’ can exist.”
If we agree that the supernatural does not exist then how do we CREATE morality and how do we know we have social INSTINCTS? How do we CREATE meaning? How was it determined that the aim of morality should be human welfare and fulfilment ? How was this aim determined? Since I can disagree that such is the aim of morality am I going to be burnt at the stake if I do not conform to that aim in all my actions and values, or am I simply going to be excommunicated ? By what standard is human welfare measured? What precisely is meant with the term “welfare”?
“Copson emphasises it is this conviction “that also leads humanists to believe that this life is the only life we have, and that morality as we understand it is a natural product of our social instincts and not handed to humanity by some external divine source. “
Has the existence of “social instincts” been rationally derived, created by some unknown mass of people or simply conjured up in the imaginations of an unknown majority? How do “WE” understand morality? If it is created by social instincts and if social instincts are of the same variety as the concept “instincts” that refers to unchangeable behaviour in animals, (as output of some evolved biological structure) why is it that the social instincts of HUMANITY are not all the same? How is it that we have murderers and thieves and rapists in our midst when our social instinct should (surely) contradict such behaviour? If morality is a NATURAL product of our social instincts then how is it that science has never discovered it? Does the term “natural’ have a specific meaning or must we assume that it changes its meaning depending on the expression of the creative urge of our social instincts?
“Together with the belief that the aim of morality should be human welfare and fulfilment and that, in the absence of ultimate ‘purpose’ to the universe, we make meaning for ourselves, both individually and in community, these convictions form the basics of the stance on life described as humanism today” (my emphasis).”
Do I need to ask how we make meaning for ourselves both individually and in community? Do we vote and determine that ‘natural ‘ now means that “social instincts” are now suddenly scientific concepts? Does a majority vote mean that the claim that we “make meaning for ourselves” is true? Or am I merely confusing the ideas of belief and truth again? Is it something like gravity that seems to be true for the moment but may change if we vote that it is bullshit and should be scrapped? And if we are not going to vote on these issues – point to some scientific study that can validate the existence of such social instincts or one that may demonstrate that we create morality by concensus.
“Children should be taught from the beginning “that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and experience;
Hell, most people including the quoted author, obviously do not know what reason is let alone evidence and experience so how are you going to teach children what reason is. How is reason the basis of knowledge? Must I take his assertions as rational? Must I take his claims as evidence? Can he point to any one experience that demonstrates the claim that we create morality, or that social instincts exist, or that meaning is created by concensus?
“… that morality comes from our own selves as social beings; that happiness, meaning and fulfilment are our own to create through the joy of intellectual endeavour, of social action, of human relationships,” writes Copson. “
J
ohn Lennon as quoted by Hendrik:
“Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man..”
Does Lennon even know what he is asking when he says: imagine no possessions?
How do you get rid of possessions (I assume he means “property”) intellectually? Surely he doesn’t mean physically because in order to live we have to consume and to consume we have to possess and to possess means to own and in order to own we need to conceive.
No need for hunger? Does he mean that somehow all will be fed from some social basket where none are condemned to slave in order to fill the basket while others will consume in order to relieve their need?
No Lennon is definitely not a dreamer – he is a mystic and his aim is to promote the goals and the aspirations of religion…of a land where one can smoke a joint under a tree and lie around leisurely while the mealies grow by themselves and god herds the sheep.
Again this entire post is clothed in the lingua franca of post modernism: words have no meaning except insofar as we create it from some unknown and unsubstrantiated and unsubstantiable source of meanings in OUR brain or a lonely neuron shared by all, that produces meaning on demand as and when it is required by the social instincts of society .
It is furthermore clothed in the mysticism of the power of the social, the collective, the communal, and then it claims to be an appeal for reason, for evidence and experience while simultanously insisting we should teach children this form of mysticism rather than the religious version.
Comment by Objective — June 12, 2008 @ 2:32 pm |
Hell, Objective, now you are showing your true philosopher roots! Postmodernism in this thread?
Where is the postmodernism? Derrida and his clan believed anything could be true, that science is just the way you interpret it, that there are no scientific facts/theories, but only how you experience it and believe it.
That’s why the postmodernists were so nakedly exposed by the fabricated article of Alan Sokal in Social Text.
Fact is, humanists believe in, and I quote Copson, “the reality we perceive around us – the world and universe that we make sense of through experience – is the only reality we can know and that there is no ‘second layer’ to reality in which gods, demons or the ‘supernatural’ can exist.”
Reason and rational thinking, not ghosts and supernatural beings.
Comment by George Claassen — June 12, 2008 @ 3:51 pm |
George #3
“Hell, Objective, now you are showing your true philosopher roots! Postmodernism in this thread?”
Thank you George.
“Fact is, humanists believe in, and I quote Copson, “the reality we perceive around us – the world and universe that we make sense of through experience – is the only reality we can know and that there is no ‘second layer’ to reality in which gods, demons or the ‘supernatural’ can exist.”
Yes i read what he says but he also says: … “that also leads humanists to believe that this life is the only life we have, and that morality as we understand it is a natural product of our social instincts…”
What are social instincts? how does he arrive at the conlcusion? how is morality a *natural product of our social instincts*? He treats these terms as if they are self evident or perhaps he is just lazy or pressured by space … or perhaps he really believes that we make our own meaning – in agreement with the post modernists – and therefor depends on his belief that his readers will somehow divine his meaning or simply retrieve it from their own personal store of meanings.
If Copson is serious with his claim re “….the world and universe that we make sense of through experience – is the only reality we can know and that there is no ‘second layer’ to reality in which gods, demons or the ‘supernatural’ can exist.” then surely he must apply this consistently instead of claiming that we create meaning and morality…. from what could we possibly create it if not from a ’second layer”…something like the mind?
“Children should be taught from the beginning “that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and experience;”
If that is true then “we create meaning” cannot be true except if we wish to argue that knowledge is what we create because knowledge is meaning. If we create meaning then the meaning of what he attempts to convey was constructed by him and/or his society and my attempts to understand him consists of the meanings that i/and or my society, creates in order to do so. This is a perfect post modernist stance. Of course he isnt a post modernist because he claims to be a humanist who only believes in this reality with no implied or accepted second layer reality.
Furthermore: if we do indeed create meaning …then perhaps there is a god or there isnt depending on who is doing the creation of knowledge.
Well i am truly confused…. what is he? a confessing humanist who doesnt believe in a second layer reality while rubbing the rabbit’s foot in his pocket?
Comment by Objective — June 12, 2008 @ 4:32 pm |
I have a rather less elevated and more pedestrian bone of contention. While it would be more than agreeable to be able to share in Sakkie Spangenberg’s enthusiastic optimism as cited in the main blog entry, I’m considerably less buoyant when I look around and see all of the other bogus notions that people have made their own. Such ill-founded conceptions as tarot, astrology, auras, assorted guises of alternative medicine, and a profusion of other superstitions and need-filling comforts draped in hijacked scientific jargon. These are the new cults, shortly to become religions, tailored to conceal our ongoing insecurities in an age when our genes are still trying to catch up with our experiences.
Comment by Con-Tester — June 12, 2008 @ 5:45 pm |
“..the Milky Way galaxy is one of thousands of galaxies in the expanding universe.”
More like one of 200 to 400 billion galaxies.
Comment by Savage — June 13, 2008 @ 3:24 am |
Con Tester #5
“Such ill-founded conceptions as tarot, astrology, auras, assorted guises of alternative medicine, and a profusion of other superstitions and need-filling comforts draped in hijacked scientific jargon. These are the new cults, shortly to become religions, tailored to conceal our ongoing insecurities in an age when our genes are still trying to catch up with our experiences.”
Indeed. Can i add to that the mystery of the suddenly elevated social organism, the power of the social to inform on reality, on knowledge and good and evil? Suddenly? –
its been around for thousands of years in a form known as racism/tribalism. Society has become the new concept to explain what appears to be non physical and in the name of society, most if not all the evils perpetrated by religion finds expression and will still find expression. If society after all has access to the inexplicable surely it must be the source of all that is good and true…the veritable goal who which our being issues and towards which all our actions must be directed.
Comment by Objective — June 13, 2008 @ 6:06 am |
Gents
Ek het ‘n paar vrae wat ek moeilik vind om vir yself te beantwoord:
Wat is lewe? hoekom ek vra is dat alles energie nodig het om te kan leef en ast ware “petrol” ( kos ) nodig het om die proses aan die gang te sit, ek wonder wat is die oorsprong van die’energie, is dit moontlik die son? of is daar ander bronne van energie? vir mense en diere om te kan bly voort bestaan.
Selfs die wind het energie nodig om te kan beweeg, watter prosesse vind plaas en waar kom die energie vandaan om die lug te laat beweeg, as ook water strome en see strome, selfs aardbewings moet tog energie of self beweeging iewers vandaan kry.
Bv soos ‘n hidroelektriese aanleg, waar kinetiese energie omgesit word in elekriese energie om die turbines te kan laat draai en op die manier omgesit word elektrisiteit gemaak.
skies as my terminologie nou so waffers is nie, hoop julle kan dalk dinge in perspektief sit
Comment by Thinus — June 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am |
Thinus.
Energie kan nie geskep of vernietig word nie, slegs van een vorm na ‘n ander omgesit word. Dit is wat die wetenskap al uitgevind het.
Alles is energie, tot materie. Dit was wat Einstein met E=mc^2 uitgefigure het wat die a-bomb moontlik gemaak het.
Comment by Renier — June 13, 2008 @ 12:23 pm |
Thinus,
hmmm look up ’strong interaction’ ‘weak interaction’ electromagnetic force, and gravitation. kinetic means movement – so you will need temperature, gravity, mass, molcular behaviour at specific temperatures and pressures and perhaps gasses which would include Boyles law and a few others…but im sure whatever you find will lead you to related subjects.
AS to what is life
– it is the activity and output of two specific molecules: RNA and DNA.
Comment by Objective — June 13, 2008 @ 12:34 pm |
Thinus skryf: “Wat is lewe? hoekom ek vra is dat alles energie nodig het om te kan leef en ast ware “petrol” ( kos ) nodig het om die proses aan die gang te sit, ek wonder wat is die oorsprong van die’energie, is dit moontlik die son? of is daar ander bronne van energie? vir mense en diere om te kan bly voort bestaan.”
Lewe word gedefinieer as iets met metabolisme wat kan voortplant en evolve (volgens een definisie). Lewe verkry energie uit chemiese molekule wat met energie gelaai is, of soos plante wat sonlig (Photons) vat en sodoende energe verkry. Daar is selfs bakterie wat radioaktiwiteit kan gebruik om energie op te vang.
Chemiese molekule bestaan uit atome uit.
Atome soos Waterstof en Helium is met die big bang “gemaak”. Alles energie.
Sterre gebruik van die energie (E=mc^2) om fusion te doen, die maak van swaarder elemente deur bv Waterstof (1 proton) saam te smelt om Helium (2 protone + los energie) te vorm.
Maar as ‘n ster SuperNova is daar genoeg energie om tot die swaarse metale te fuse. Dit is die oorsprong van die elemente wat swaarder as Helium is.
Lewe is eintlik niks anders as atome wat chemies reageer met mekaar nie. Dit verander niks aan die wonder van die lewe nie, inteendeel, alles deel van die natuur en die “forces” wat werksaam in die natuur is. Ons is kinders van die sterre, alles wat ons is (behalwe waterstof en Helium) kom uit die sterre uit.
Comment by Renier — June 13, 2008 @ 12:37 pm |
Sorry, net om tegnies te wees, Sterre maak ook Helium, maar die Big Bang self het ook Helium nagelaat.
Comment by Renier — June 13, 2008 @ 12:40 pm |
Thanks guys, by the way, Attie is at it again!!
Comment by Thinus — June 13, 2008 @ 4:35 pm |
I am neither scientist nor philosopher, so pardon my ignorance when I assert that humanism to my mind smacks of “racism” vis-a-vis the rest of the living world and the universe. Who the hell (or the heaven, if you’re that way inclined) ordained that humans are the centre-piece and custodians of all existence, of all morality, of all knowledge? We’re but a miniscule and fleeting millifraction of an immeasurable vastness in time and space.
Humanism? I doubt — the more I know of humans, the more I like a naturalist worldview. Ever heard of the Brights?
Ja, dis reg, Neef George — die natuur is alles. Die mens is eintlik fokol in die Heelal.
Comment by Oom Stoffel — June 13, 2008 @ 6:32 pm |
Humanism is not a philosophy. As Anthony Grayling puts it: “… [humanism] obliges us to think for ourselves. Since it does not constitute a body of doctrine, a sequence of arguments, and adumbration of principles, or a code of living, and requires no belief in anything beyond what empirical evidence defeasibly and revisably requires, it is as far from being a religion as anything could be, for a religion is all these things and more.”
Comment by Oubaas — June 14, 2008 @ 10:26 am |
Oom Stoffel, #14
“Ja, dis reg, Neef George — die natuur is alles. Die mens is eintlik fokol in die Heelal.”
Ek dink dit hang af wat die maatstaf is. Ten opsigte van grootte is die mens redelik klein in vergelyking met die res van dit wat bestaan. Dit is egter net die mens wat homself kan vergelyk en vanuit daardie perspektief is daar niks wat met die mens kan kompeteer nie. Elke letter van die sin “Die mens is eintlik fokol in die Heelal.” is uitsluitlik menslik. Geen ander dier, geen ander organisme, geen ander bestaande het die vermoe om beide die grootsheid van dit wat bestaan en die skoonheid daarvan te beskryf en te waardeer nie.Geen ander bestaande, hetsy organies of anorganies het die vermoe om sigself te evalueer nie – NET die mens. Gemeet aan hierdie vermoe is niks groter as die mens nie.
Ek vind dit altyd vreemd dat dit slegs die mens is wat kan ken, wat sy vermoe om te kan ken, ontken of gering skat….en sy grootsheid misken. Alle anders dinge, van bakterie tot ander mense is op groter reg, groter vryheid, groter vereering geregtig as die mens. Vir solank as hy lewe het hy bome, klippe, diere en spoke en idees vereer en aanbid en homself verafsku.
Die individu is niks, veragtelik ten beste: die gemeenskap, die mensdom, die kollektiewe is ‘n standaard en bron van alles, totdat daar gesoek word na ‘n offer vir die spoke, dan word die individu op die altaar van menslike onkunde vasgemaak. En as mens dit verder analiseer is dit die maagd, die kind wat daar geoffer word…synde as hoe dit die kind is wat eindom is….nie die familie nie.
Comment by Objective — June 15, 2008 @ 5:12 am |
‘n Gepaste aanhaling van Opperman. Welgedaan
Comment by Johan Swarts — June 15, 2008 @ 8:29 pm |
Objective (#16): Dankie vir ‘n interessante siening. Waar jy sê “Geen ander bestaande, hetsy organies of anorganies het die vermoe om sigself te evalueer nie – NET die mens. Gemeet aan hierdie vermoe is niks groter as die mens nie.” Dit lyk na die waarheid, maar moet dit nie gekwalifiseer word nie met “Vir sover ons huidige kennis strek…”? — Dit is tog moontlik (selfs waarskynlik) dat daar in die Heelal ander wesens is wat soortgelyke of beter (denk)vermoëns as die mens het.
Comment by Oom Stoffel — June 16, 2008 @ 8:55 am |
Three storey universe is naive cosmology. Sometimes it seems that those who claim that the Bible used the symbols of its day are merely trying to say that it used a naive as opposed to a scientific cosmology, or, to put it more popularly, it did not bother to correct the prevalent three-storey cosmology. If we assume for the sake of the argument that this is the case, then it should be clearly recognised that all we have established is that scientific dogma should not be made out of biblical cosmology. The argument has no relevance to other parts of the account like the creation of animals, man, etc. Unfortunately this argument is generally used without this careful delimitation. Generally it is argued that the fact that one element shows the use of non-scientific concepts proves that the whole uses naive ideas whose details may not be pressed.
Yet once more the validity of the basic premise must be questioned. Was there ever a pure ‘three-storey universe’ idea in antiquity? For the pagan contemporaries of the Bible writers, cosmology was theology. The heavens expressed and were controlled by the various divinities. The sort of abstract spacial/mechanical interest involved in the idea of a three-storey universe is a product of the demythologization of Greek rationalism and Euclidian spacial concepts. One should not try to project a late idea back into biblical times in order to explain the Bible. In its rejection of polytheism biblical cosmology is of necessity radically different to its surroundings. It is not popular cosmology.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 9:30 am |
What is the connection between humanism and the humanities? Is the humanities the language or doctrine of the humanist? If so we’ll be just creating a new religion and be no better off than believing in one or other god.
“I have always been rather very one-sided about science and when I was younger I concentrated almost all my effort on it. I did not have time to learn and had much patience for what is called the humanities even though at the university there were humanities you had to take but I tried my best to avoid somehow to learn anything and to work at it.” (Richard Feynman)
Comment by Savage — June 16, 2008 @ 10:38 am |
Humanism is a concept. Naive cosmology is a concept. What is so wrong about a ‘naive cosmology’? It is probably as close to the ultimate truth as modern cosmology. If we had not defied modern science we would not be embarrassed by those points in which biblical thinking diverges from prevailing modern ideas. Certainly biblical cosmology fits into a different structure of thought from modern cosmology, but it is the validity of that very structure of thought that is at issue. We tend to assume that the assumptions underlying modern physics are unquestionable. If we assume the validity of the structure of physics from any period with its philosophical presuppositions and concomitants we run the risk of accepting a structure which, because of its ultimate origin in a total humanistic philosophy, must clash with a biblical world view. What has generally happened is that the structure and method of modern science has been accepted as truth. When the conflict between this and a biblical view has been appreciated, an attempt has been made to give the biblical view a validity in some sort of restricted religious sphere. The basic question is whether our interpretation of the Bible is to be determined by the Bible itself or by some other authority. Once science has been set up as an autonomous authority it inevitably tends to determine the way in which we interpret the Bible. From the point of view of this discussion the outside authority may be Newton or Hoyle just as well as Darwin or Kant. The issue involved is still the same. Humanism… lol.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 11:03 am |
The real question I would like to table is Do anti-creationists have a scientific case? Savage?
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 11:06 am |
Hi, Hippocracy lovers… Why do I call you that? See below, and remember to thank God your alive and well to do as you please.
“Geseende Kersfees en ‘n Gelukkige Nuwejaar.”
Comment by Pierre Rousseau — December 21, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Comment by Christmas Spirit — June 16, 2008 @ 11:17 am |
I’ll answer myself on #22:
In a chapter titled ‘Thermodynamics and Evolution’ of the Skeptics’ book, Dr Ken Smith attempts to rebut the creationist use of basic and well-established principles of nature. The article reveals a profound misunderstanding of the argument (compare for instance Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith’s book, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution or The Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Ken Smith gives the usual ‘red herring’ of a flow of energy being enough to produce growth in complexity. Interestingly, he doesn’t use the usual evolutionary argument of a seedling growing into a plant. Many evolutionists say that this proves that all it takes is energy (the sun) flowing into an open system (the earth) to produce growth in complexity, and point to plant growth as an example. But this would only demonstrate the need for a programmed mechanism to harness and direct the random, undirected energy, which is what creationists have been saying all along.
Smith dismisses the ‘programmed mechanism’ argument with a reference to ‘orderly patterns of the flow of air in the atmosphere’. His argument would imply that the appearance of eddies and whirlpools from the energy of a fast-moving river, for instance, provides us with evidence that all that is needed to produce these ‘ordered structures’ is a supply of energy. This is true, but what relevance has this to growth in biological complexity? He says ‘this order arises because the input of energy is high enough’ (referring to the patterns of airflow in the atmosphere from the results of heating by the sun’s energy). But the really fantastic part follows directly after that quote:
‘As another example, food in a refrigerator stays fresh while the power is on, but turns into a disorderly mess if there is no energy being supplied from the mains.’
Note the context. Creationists say you need energy supplied plus specific machinery. Smith is in the process of dismissing this by saying, here in his atmosphere example, that energy is all you need. As another example, he tells us about the fridge. The average, superficial reader may well nod his head in agreement—‘yeah, that makes sense’—and Smith, who is familiar enough with our arguments to know better, will have succeeded. But the astonishing thing is that when one thinks a little about his example, it precisely makes the point for us.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 11:29 am |
And by the way, Christmas Spirit, bring something more open for discussion to the table, these guys will eat you for breakfast, an spit you out on the run. If you have a true comment to either the Atheists, or Me (The Christians), leave it here, and we’ll discuss and debate, don’t throw a spanner in the bucket thinking it will be used. Asshole.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 11:32 am |
Cobus #21: I see you are not only an avid reader of Answers in Genesis, but a quoter as well. From their site:
“Secondly, what is so wrong about a ‘naive cosmology’? It is probably as close to the ultimate truth as modern cosmology. If we had not defied modern science we would not be embarrassed by those points in which Biblical thinking diverges from prevailing modern ideas. Certainly Biblical cosmology fits into a different structure of thought from modern cosmology, but it is the validity of that very structure of thought that is at issue. We tend to assume that the assumptions underlying modern physics are unquestionable. If we assume the validity of the structure of physics from any period with its philosophical presuppositions and concomitants we run the risk of accepting a structure which, because of its ultimate origin in a total humanistic philosophy, must clash with a Biblical worldview.”
Next time, why not credit them with a little link? There is a huge difference between thinking and copying.
Comment by Oubaas — June 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am |
Cocus Coetzee in #24, you’re not answering yourself. You are copying verbatim from this page..
Really. This is getting tiresome.
Comment by Oubaas — June 16, 2008 @ 11:43 am |
Cobus Coetzee #21: “Naive cosmology is a concept. What is so wrong about a ‘naive cosmology’?”
Is naïve cosmology the understanding of the Universe as interpreted by The Bible? It may be a concept, but it is not science. Cosmology is the scientific study of the structure and evolution of the Universe, and these studies have found that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic; in other words very similar no matter in what direction you do the observations. Enter Einstein and other scientists to explain what we see through giant telescopes. You cannot even remotely compare the two because during The Bible’s time “naïve cosmology” thought Earth was the centre of the Universe. And you will agree we have come a long way since then.
Cobus Coetzee #22: “The real question I would like to table is Do anti-creationists have a scientific case?”
Again, creationism is a concept but not science. The evolution theory is a well tested scientific theory; it makes predictions that are verified by experiment and observation. Creationism makes no predictions and has not passed a single scientific test.
Cobus Coetzee #24.
Your understanding of thermodynamics is in question here. Read up about the subject and not from creationist websites but from scientific publications. If you wish to participate in meaningful discussions here you must make the effort to read scientific material. You can then come with questions which will be debated.
Comment by Savage — June 16, 2008 @ 12:23 pm |
Oubaas… you are an excellent googler, but no, your wrong. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5587/105/ and find out who copied us. Thank you for the tip though…
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 1:56 pm |
Cobus, thanks – I’ve read the text before, and saw it first at Answers in Genesis. But I suppose it does not really matter, as both sites cite Dr Noel Weeks (who has B.Sc. in Zoology) as the author.
I’m curious though: When you say “us”, should I assume that you are working for Creation Ministries International?
Comment by Oubaas — June 16, 2008 @ 2:54 pm |
From Cobus Coetzee’s website reference: check out, “Cave man in Africa.”
From the site: “hear state-of-the-art geological evidence that supports the Bible’s history of creation and not millions of years “
Now, gentlemen, that says it all! A bunch of cave men together in a nut-house.
Cobus, go somewhere else. You are just wasting your time on this blog. Here are some mean people who are going to eat you alive, pal!
Comment by Savage — June 16, 2008 @ 3:01 pm |
I notice my photo has disappeared. I’ll try again.
Comment by Savage — June 16, 2008 @ 3:21 pm |
Now don’t confuse me with one of your brethren, Cobus.
Comment by Savage — June 16, 2008 @ 3:22 pm |
What is wrong with people? Why do they NEED someone to tell them what is right and what is wrong? Are they really all sheep? Looks like there are just a very small percentage of people in the world that can make up their own minds, and who does not need some wanker telling them that this is right and that is wrong etc. “Humanism” reeks like the birth of another foothold for organized religion, cultism, control, money spinner, new age, lets all gather like innocent sheep bullshit. I guess Dawkins is absolutely right with the MEME theory. So now the people who shed the weight and the nonsense of believing in a personal god, will all run to the next newest best thing. Just to be lead again. For fuck sakes people, don’t they get it? I thought the whole idea was to forget about organized bullshit that tells us what is right and what is wrong!!!! And these things always start with good intentions, but gets taken over by scoundrels. And who will be the “leaders” of this new form of religion? I don’t know, but I am willing to bet a good bottle of wine that most of them will be spineless lazy arsed mother fuckers who can’t wait to send out the collection box, and get other to pay for their daily bread. And of course their new Mercedes. And I will rather sit and get horribly drunk than go to one of these stupid fucking gatherings where a bunch of sheep and losers go to listen to some dick-head tell them that this is good and that is bad and please drop ten bucks in the tin bullshit. And I will bet another bottle of good wine that it will not end there. They will also want to get their will forced on others, truly believing it is for everyone’s good. Maybe it will be better than all religions has ever done, but for fuck sake, can’t we see that it is just another fucking religion “in a cheap tuxedo”?
I truly believed that the whole reason for people to stop believing was to be liberated from all the shackles that come from organized religion, like having to sit and sweat in a room full of ignorant strangers, and to get on with the real stuff, like enjoying your life. This one short life we all have.
Maybe I am mad, but hell will freeze over before I ever go to this new age bullshit, no matter what the fuck they call it. I will rather drink myself to death that listen to anybody who believes he has better morals than me, and he is chosen to be my moral compass. I am so sick of these arrogant pricks, I don’t care what label they put themselves under.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 3:37 pm |
Ou Cobus Coetzee is just another “goddidit” believer. No matter how much he tries to bend science into fitting into his “god mold”, he will not be successful with people who know that everything he is talking about has already been debunked by many others. He will eventually run back to his cave and howl at the moon with his other fundie friends. There is a saying: “… in the land of the sterile, the one with one ball is king.” It is easy to convince a room full of fools of just about anything. These “goddidit” fundies are clasping at straws. They so want there to be an all powerful all mighty mystical god mother fucker who controls everything and everyone and created everything and has a special plan for humans, especially themselves, and the ones who agree with them.
Oubaas is right, this is getting really tiresome. Cobus sounds like he has a brain, but he does not have the courage to even contemplate that maybe, just maybe, there isn’t a god. So he will forever toil to prove to himself and to others that there is a god, that there has to be a god, that he can’t just die and just rot away, and that that is the end of it all. Maybe I am reading him wrong, maybe he doesn’t believe in heaven or hell, but he surely believes in a “godditit” theory.
He is one of billions of people who all at one stage during their existence, believed in one or more god or gods, and they were convinced they were real gods. The names of the gods chance, thousands of years go by, but still humans choose to believe.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 3:54 pm |
change, not chance, sorry
“The names of the gods chance”
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 3:57 pm |
Savage,
Thank you, I received the attention I was looking for. Hope you have a huge appetite. McBollocks (intentionally spelled), you one of those unhappy, flcid bastard who thought God was a guy that would have gold rain from the sky into your savings account at Postbank, but never realised… now He’s the guy who caused your sorrow. Maybe your actions speaks for themselves… Maybe, just maybe, you are the sorry motherfucker that has to rely on others to get what you want most out of life. The one who projects his problems on others, and is an extremely big mouthed oke in a blog, but cannot stand up for his wife when her boss wants to nail her for a raise… Savage… speaking philosphy, you over compensating name says it all, my friend. You never received the breast when you were small… 4 inches sound familiar? NOW GOD HAS TO PAY FOR YOU SHORTCOMINGS, and every guy who comes in here and gives his opinion is Quote…”a bunch of sheep and losers”…? Lets talk… opinion to opinion. Not about the theft case where one of you got locked up… but just opinions.
Shoot.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 4:00 pm |
Cobus, you have just shown your intellectual shortcomings. Also, for a christian, you sure curse a lot. Anyway, god does not exist. I don’t count on him to put money in my bank account. I take care of that myself. And my wife does get a raise when she bangs the boss, because she works for me. Pray to your silent and invisible god all you like. You don’t have the courage to even contemplate the theory that he does not exist. I bet you belong to a very specific christian cult who truly believes that all others will go to hell.
I have to go now, looks like my wife wants another raise.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 4:08 pm |
Cobus Coetzee #37: “Savage, Thank you, I received the attention I was looking for.”
What does that mean? That you feel ignored and thought by talking unadulterated bullshit here will draw attention? Well you got attention but unfortunately not the attention you were looking for. Creationists are probably THE dumbest people on Earth. At times I have to pinch myself when I read your nonsense to make sure I am not dreaming. I will not get into a debate with you because for me 1 plus 1 makes two; how on earth do you argue with someone who makes it 3, or 4, or whatever. So get lost and go fuck around somewhere else.
Comment by Savage — June 16, 2008 @ 4:24 pm |
Oubaas, # 14
“Humanism is not a philosophy.” Quoted Grayling.
Grayling also wrote the following:
“[that] central to the philosophical enterprise is the responsibility to think for oneself. All the great philosophers from Aristotle to Immanuel Kant have insisted on the fundamental importance of independent thought, because there is a world of difference between reaching a conclusion on your own, after considering the best that has been said on the matter, and simply accepting the say-so of someone else. The former sticks, it is your own, you worked for it. The latter [unless brainwashed into one early in life] is weakly attached, and soon falls away; it is second hand.”
“ The point is not that there are final answers in philosophy that one can accept, like buying a ready-made coat; to think this way is simply to repeat the mistake of hand-me-down nostrums. “ A.C.Grayling. The Heart of Things. P. 265-266
Taking good advice in hand, I think that thinking is an inherent quality that developes post natal when one is increasingly exposed to stimuli from the internal and external world, and that all thinking as a consequence reflects as a default, both the sequence, quality and quantity of such experiences and always reflect it in the present unless the thinker takes a hand in the process. Without both a biological structure that manages the sensory input and a sensory background humans cannot function – thus the ability to think, to reason, to question etc. has a history and it is this history that we call a philosophy when it manifests. AS such the philosophy always, either implies, or explicitly states its premises and conclusions and it must be evaluated within those parameters.
The subjective is only added once a large number of concepts are known and can be used to instruct by means of words. Example: since there is no “god” available to the senses and thus nothing to play a role in the historical build-up of the philosophy it is always learnt as a sound when the primary philosophy is already established (implicitly) – and whoever teaches the sound must explain the content in order for the concept to be functionally integrated in the structure.
Anyway the point is that there are no organisations that I know of (in fact no human that I know of) that can function outside his philosophy. Since humanism is an organisation that derived its premises, goals and values from humans it is based on the philosophy of those humans and reflect specific aspects of the philosophies of the contributors.
But the authors of humanism admit that theirs is a philosphy – perhaps you were playing devils advocate or I missed your message?
wikipedia
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29
“Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php
Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*
Premises: “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. The lifestance of Humanism-guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience-encourages us to live life well and fully..”
Epistemology:
“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for ….Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change…”
Morality:
“Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.”
Politics:
“Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 4:27 pm |
Oom Stoffel, #18
“Dit lyk na die waarheid, maar moet dit nie gekwalifiseer word nie met “Vir sover ons huidige kennis strek…”? — Dit is tog moontlik (selfs waarskynlik) dat daar in die Heelal ander wesens is wat soortgelyke of beter (denk)vermoëns as die mens het.”
Dat daar moontlik ander mense bestaan op ander planete is hoogs waarskynlik – indien wel het sulke mense dieselfde ewolusionere patroon gevolg as ons op aarde. Hulle is heel waarskynlik so oud as ons en ek dink nie dat hulle noodwendig slimmer as ons is nie.
Dat hulle ander wesens is as ons is moontlik maar hoogs onwaarskynlik want ons het nie in ‘n oomblik verskyn nie en ons brein ook nie. Die ontwikkeling van die brein ‘n ewolusionere verloop wat omtrent 550 miljoen jaar oud is.
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 4:34 pm |
Cobus Coetzee in #37: “Shoot”
You haven’t said anything worth replying to. You’ve also shown yourself to be a plagiarist. Just why would we want to talk to you?
Comment by Oubaas — June 16, 2008 @ 4:36 pm |
Oom Stoffel,
Ek wou nog byvoeg: wat sou ‘n “beter denkvermoe” verteenwoordig…hoe sou hy lyk? Sou hy kleiner eenhede as ons kon ken? sou hy enige kennis kon bekom wat ons nie kan ken nie?
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 4:37 pm |
Lets say for arguments sake that there are other beings out there, more intelligent than us, or just as intelligent as us. Lets say for arguments sake, they come to earth. I bet the fundies will immediately ask them what god they pray to, and why, and if they have heard the good news, and instantly try to convert them. If they say they don’t believe in gods, and that they didn’t see any gods in the universe on their way over here, I bet the fundies will want to declare war against them. The RCC has already put plans in motion to get them on their side, if they comply with their rules.
An intelligent alien race that comes to earth could really take the piss out of these fundies. They could pretend to be god, coming to earth, and get them to do just about anything they want them to do.
I bet the skeptics will not bend so easily.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 4:45 pm |
Cobus Coetzee in #37: “Shoot”
You haven’t said anything worth replying to. You’ve also shown yourself to be a plagiarist. Just why would we want to talk to you?
Comment by Oubaas — June 16, 2008 @ 4:36 pm #42
“The happy ending to erectile disfunction.”
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 5:35 pm |
Cobus
Can you give any credible evidence/theory to substantiate your/Fundie creationist findings?
Let me free your mind go to this link, here we play the ball not the man, and the one about Mcbrolloks’ wife was a poor one……
Please see
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/myth_and_miracle.html
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 5:56 pm |
“Pray to your silent and invisible god all you like. You don’t have the courage to even contemplate the theory that he does not exist. I bet you belong to a very specific christian cult who truly believes that all others will go to hell”
There is something I would talk about.
Yes, I do have my own thoughts on the whole “did Jesus die, Was Maria M His wife,How does the Apo books come into play, etc. Is there a heaven… or hell…? I personally… as Christian, do not think that most of it is true. And yes, I also think these guys were a bunch of chav pricks, all wound up in their own minds, never letting anyone near any truth. I also believ that if the Bible contained the truth… the real truth… It would have been a different book to the modern day best selling novel.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 5:57 pm |
Cobus #46
“Yes, I do have my own thoughts on the whole “did Jesus die, Was Maria M His wife,How does the Apo books come into play, etc. Is there a heaven… or hell…? I personally… as Christian, do not think that most of it is true. And yes, I also think these guys were a bunch of chav pricks, all wound up in their own minds, never letting anyone near any truth. I also believ that if the Bible contained the truth… the real truth… It would have been a different book to the modern day best selling novel”
Hahahahahaggggggg! Ffffffffggggghhhhh
It’s all bullshit!
C’mon Koos, who wrote the bible? God? angels?
We need stimulating arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 6:05 pm |
“…the real truth…”
There are unreal truths?
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 6:09 pm |
“…the real truth…”
Told by a theologian, who has seen god when? where? how?
Or maybe the bible, yes, the source of truth, my ass!!
The bible was founded 300 AD, at the council of Nicene, That when Jesus was made devine to appease the pagans…..sothat they could atleast have their sungod, to promote social and political stability…..?
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 6:18 pm |
Very nice reading, Thinus.
Bob Ingersoll was a very great leader, attorney and war hero contrary to some beliefs. But looking at what I read in this blog, and the way the authors of most of the material (research done in archives) it would much rather seem that atheist is not the correct term, or applicable word, but rather misotheism derived from theodicy that would be suiting. Using the name Prometheus Unbound? (as opposed to the speech filled greek myth tragedy. “Prometheus is being punished not only for stealing fire, but also for thwarting Zeus’ plan to obliterate the human race.” – (wiki).
You need a bigger audience.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:20 pm |
Thinus… Who did write the Bible?
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:22 pm |
dit het nou baie a-freak-aans geklimk… *Wrote
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:22 pm |
But I believe as I like, and also do you, as God gave all of us freedom of choice. Nice guy hey?
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:26 pm |
I am watching the US Open playoffs, between Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate.
One thing that really irritates me, is when those bonehead brain dead fans keep shouting “GET IN THE HOLE!!!!” every time someone hits the ball. As if that will make an iota of difference. I guess it compares to religion in some way. It is not only unrealistic, but very annoying. And these idiots makes a grand day out unpleasant for everybody else. They always have to be heard, so they shout their stupid crap out as load as they can. But don’t say anything against it, then they are fast to tell you “we have the right”. Well, you might have the right, but you are very annoying and irritating and you look and sound like a fool.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 6:27 pm |
Sure McBrolloks, but when do you think the Boks play better… when the fans are cheering Wales, or when they cheer the Springboks? All the noise is irritating in such a circumstance, but hell… i’ve been down there when the cheering starts, and it made me perform better at the sport I practised.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:29 pm |
No Cobus by your prompt response I can tell that you haven’t read the link…..oh and Prometheus is very mutch loose HERE
Try again
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 6:30 pm |
“Sure McBrolloks, but when do you think the Boks play better… when the fans are cheering Wales, or when they cheer the Springboks? All the noise is irritating in such a circumstance, but hell… i’ve been down there when the cheering starts, and it made me perform better at the sport I practised”
What sport? Talking Shit?
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 6:33 pm |
Haha… I wonder who cheered me most… Remember the guy with the hands in the air when I launched the javelin…???
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:37 pm |
lol… The blog is clogging your memory…
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:37 pm |
?????? Stick to the argument……nothing to say poor mouth?
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 6:38 pm |
Shouting “get in the hole” is not really the same as a stadium full of fans cheering on their teams. And I have been in many rugby stadiums in South Africa, and the worse thing is when a bunch of fans shout “BOOOOOOOOO” when someone is taking a penalty kick to the posts. I remember Newlands was the worst, but it has spread to almost every stadium now.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 6:40 pm |
Like losing a religion…
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 6:43 pm |
It is always the same. The cavemen come out ranting and raving, swinging their clubs, hunched over and tries to communicate in what sounds like grunts. Then they get their arses handed to them, and they run back to their caves to howl at the moon some more and read from their ancient scripture, which tells them to do all sorts of crazy things, and the rest they make up as they go, pretending that their mythical god told them to go and do this and do that.
They always fall apart when they are confronted after they make their crazy statements and their crazy theories. None of what they can prove, or even reason about in an intelligent manner.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 6:54 pm |
nother reason why I think your are misotheist rather than an atheist, Bigmac. Nice philosphy at you rbisness though… unlike at Johan’s business in Malvern… They do things in order. Printing business is kak… you have to believe in something to get ahead of your competitors.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:01 pm |
* your business
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:02 pm |
Speaking about stadiums… another fading religion in SA, rugby, is fading. Did you see the filling emptyness at loffies this weekend…. aai… another one bites the dust. And that, dear friends, is our government’s fault… they’re bigger assholes than u guys will ever be.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:04 pm |
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#21 or thereabouts):
No, we don’t, at least not at the cutting edge. There are plenty of studies, both scientific and philosophical, that look into questions like whether the Cosmological Principle is valid, or what it would mean for inference to fail and what the real-world implications would be of answers that are contrary to our usual assumptions. In any case, the selfsame criticism can be levelled at any and all forms of inquiry, so it is hard to see how it helps creationism’s case.
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#21 or thereabouts):
Again, no. All science does is highlight the deficiencies in assorted “naïve cosmologies” where they come up short against reality. As a point of order, on the whole science treats alternative conceptions of reality with remarkable restraint and circumspection, probably because it is acutely aware of its own fallibility. The same can rarely be said of science’s opponents.
Your comments #23 and #25 (or thereabouts) are deeply dishonest, pretending to be two different people. Shame on you.
Your comment #24 (or thereabouts) reveals a grotesque misrepresentation of thermodynamics, genetics and evolution. There are still plenty of hard questions to be answered in the fields of genetics and evolution. Postulating “energy supplied plus specific machinery” actually doesn’t answer anything useful because it’s no more than stating the obvious. It is, of course, the origin of the “specific machinery” that we would differ over.
Your comment #37 (or thereabouts) is like a coarser personality profile of Johan Swarts with Tourette’s Syndrome on a diet of amphetamines washed down with espresso: unfounded and premature declarations of sneering superciliousness. Is this the hand of friendship and compassion religion supposedly holds out? More importantly, who the fuck do you think you are? God’s gift to, well, god maybe?
Your comment #50 (or thereabouts) suggests a further neologism: “misopistoism,” which would actually be more accurate. It’s believers who give your god a bad name.
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#53 or thereabouts):
Only if you’re a bloodthirsty and sadistic pervert.
Comment by Con-Tester — June 16, 2008 @ 7:13 pm |
Thank you, Con-Tester, comment to follow.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:18 pm |
Cobus,
# 51 “Very nice reading, Thinus.
Bob Ingersoll was a very great leader, attorney and war hero contrary to some beliefs. But looking at what I read in this blog, and the way the authors of most of the material (research done in archives)..”
At least he read more than that crappy book that seems to be the only your have ever read (or that was read to you?).
And the authors who did research the archives gave credit where credit is due rather than paste stuff here as if it is their own as you did …attempting to create the impression that you possess a functional brain.
#54 “But I believe as I like, and also do you, as God gave all of us freedom of choice. Nice guy hey?”
Now someone must have implied that somewhere and you copied and pasted it …right? It just has to be because your quoting it clearly demonstrates that you dont know what you are saying.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is to tell me what youve implied.
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 7:18 pm |
Cobus wrote “Thank you, Con-Tester, comment to follow”
Try hard !!!!! this time !!!!
Comment by Thinus — June 16, 2008 @ 7:24 pm |
Yes, blood thirsty and perverse. I actually have nothing to comment on, you leave no room for discussion. Except that your on the wrong track, but will find out that you are just before it is too late. By then, I think you should have had your mind read about all the blasphemy you spew out that fat head of yours.
Markus 14:72 : “En onmiddellik het die haan ‘n tweede keer gekraai. Dit het Petrus toe bygeval wat Jesus vir hom gesê het: “Voordat die haan ‘n tweede keer kraai, sal jy My drie keer verloën.” En hy het in trane uitgebars.”
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:29 pm |
ROFL….that must be the best joke weve ever had on this blog!
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 7:39 pm |
All you have to do to prove me wrong is to tell me what youve implied.
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Ek sal stadig tik, want ek sien jy kannie vinnig lees nie. Kortliks, dit wil net meer voorkom dat mens claim dat die Bybel tekens en gedagtes gebruik om sekere gebeurtenisse uit te beeld is absoluut ongeken, en kannie bewys word nie etcetera. Dit is naief. Dis is soos om (Dankie DDT) temperatuur te meet met ‘n metal verklikker. Dit kannie as ‘n three storey cosmology afgemeet word nie. (Bybel = Figuurlik). Wetenskap, en weteskaplike findings en ongegronde resultate (dogma) kan dus nie uit die Bybel se figuurlike spreke gemaak word nie. Punt. uKhuluma isiZulu?
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:55 pm |
ROFL….that must be the best joke weve ever had on this blog!
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Thats Meme…
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 16, 2008 @ 7:56 pm |
Cobus,
You will have to get someone to help you with the following:
#54 “But I believe as I like, and also do you, as God gave all of us freedom of choice. Nice guy hey?”
Now someone must have implied that somewhere and you copied and pasted it …right? It just has to be because your quoting it clearly demonstrates that you dont know what you are saying.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is to tell me what youve implied.”
Can you address yourself to the question instead of regurgitating the shit that Con Tester put you to bed on or dont you have a clue?
I already know that the bible consists of stories about ghosts (daddy ghost, little boy ghost and a fairy ghost) and angels and devils….
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 8:24 pm |
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#73 or thereabouts):
Does that equivalence also apply in the case of the scripture you cited in #71 (or thereabouts)?
It should also be fairly obvious that for me to “find out that [I am on the wrong track] just before it is too late,” presumably about the dire consequences in store for me for “all the blasphemy [I] spew out that fat head of [mine],” there must be a premenstrual, variously menopausal, deity to get upset with me. That assumption goes to the heart of your problem. Sprechen Sie sinnvolles Deutsch?
Comment by Con-Tester — June 16, 2008 @ 8:24 pm |
Cobus,
Markus 14:72 : “En onmiddellik het die haan ‘n tweede keer gekraai. Dit het Petrus toe bygeval wat Jesus vir hom gesê het: “Voordat die haan ‘n tweede keer kraai, sal jy My drie keer verloën.” En hy het in trane uitgebars.”
LOLOLOL. It is all just figurative isnt it? no reference to reality at all is it?
#74 (Bybel = Figuurlik). JFC, Marc and the crowing cock! rofl.
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 8:31 pm |
Con Tester
snap!
Comment by Objective — June 16, 2008 @ 8:34 pm |
Is “misotheist” a word the fundies invented? Maybe someone can post the definition here for me please.
The same old shit again. The only ammo these fundies have is quotations from their ancient fairy tale book.
Well, here is a quote from another fairy tale book:
“It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more.” – Albus Dumbledore
from Harry Potter
Comment by McBrolloks — June 16, 2008 @ 8:58 pm |
Siestog, neef Cobus beroep hom op daardie liegbek, wyle AE Wilder-Smith (#73) :
Getroue lesers sal seker onthou – en hopelik nie omgee as ek vir neef Cobus daarop attent maak – dat dit die einste AE Wilder-Smith was wat in sy boek, ‘Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny’, vekondig het dat die paleontoloog Roland Bird mensvoetspore tussen die van dinosourusse in die Paluxierivierbedding in Texas ontdek het. Helaas, diegene wat die moeite doen om die verwysing na Bird se artikel in ‘Natural History’(Mei 1939) na te spoor sal vind dat dit ‘n tipiese kreationistiese liegstorie is en dat hy glad nie so iets beweer het.
Ligloop, neef! En gaan doen bietjie navorsing oor die herkoms van die heilige boek waarop jy jou so beroep.
Comment by Karel de Pauw — June 16, 2008 @ 9:40 pm |
Skies, neef Cobus. My verwysing na jou was effe foutief. Dit was nav (#24.
Mea culpa maxima …
Comment by Karel de Pauw — June 16, 2008 @ 9:43 pm |
lol… jissis… julle is misguided. Praat later.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 17, 2008 @ 5:21 am |
Misotheism is the “hatred of God” or “hatred of the gods” (from the Greek adjective μισόθεος “hating the gods”, a compound of μίσος “hatred” and θεός “god”). – Wiki
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 17, 2008 @ 5:40 am |
Something that I have been thinking about for some time now is this: are the lack of rational thinking and intelligence displayed by the fundies on this blog a good reflection of the general, run of mill fundie, or do we just see the imbeciles? If I sound condescending I am trying not to be. This is a genuine question.
Comment by Savage — June 17, 2008 @ 6:17 am |
Savage in #84: “do we just see the imbeciles?”
Yes, very worrying indeed. But then, Cobus as Fidei defensor probably believes that we are extremely evil and wicked, and that it is justified to employ vile tactics when fighting the “atheist enemy”. Darting in and out, never really showing his face, trying to be brave but shitting himself in the process, all the while believing that god is on his side in this holy war and that we, the “misguided”, are looking for his blood. In short: He is afraid. And fear without reason is always a terrible thing to witness.
Comment by Oubaas — June 17, 2008 @ 7:00 am |
Cobus skryf: “(Bybel = Figuurlik)”
So ‘n figuurlike Adam en ‘n figuurlike Eva (Nice!) het ‘n figuurlike vrug in ‘n figuurlike tuin figuurlik geeet en daarom het figuurlike sonde in die figuurlike wereld beland waar ‘n figuurlike god ‘n figuurlike Josef se figuurlike girlfriend figuurlik pregnant gemaak en toe figuurlike die figuurlike kind doodgemaak aan ‘n figuurlike kruis om vir figuurlike te sterf vir ons figuurlike sondes en daarom moet ons figuurlik dankie se?
Jy sal my moet verskoon Cobus, maat dit klink na figuurlike riool.
Cobus skryf: “Wetenskap, en weteskaplike findings en ongegronde resultate (dogma) kan dus nie uit die Bybel se figuurlike spreke gemaak word nie. Punt.”
Inteendeel, ek dink jy sal vind dat dogma baie lief vir die Bybel is… Sien jy al daardie figuurlike kerke met die figuurlike kruisse en die figuurlike funnies wat binne figuurlik vir ‘n figuurlike god sing en figuurlik hulle figuurlike geld in die figuurlike bordjie plaas terwyl hulle figuurlik hard probeer om figuurlik alles te doen wat ‘n figuurlike boek figuurlik aan hulle figuurlik beveel anders gaan die figuurlike god hulle in figuurlike vlamme vir ‘n figuurlike ewigheid folter?
Cobus wrote: “By then, I think you should have had your mind read about all the blasphemy you spew out that fat head of yours.”
Why don’t your god just take it as “figuurlike” blasphemy? After all, it seems the expectation is that God can have a book with a load of rubbish and myths in it, but we have to find some “figuurlike” meaning out of all the incoherant crap. Perhaps your god can find some “figuurlike” nuggets of gold from all our blasphemy, since we are expected (by you and your “figuurlike” god it seems) to find value in something that has none.
Cobus wrote: “En hy het in trane uitgebars.”
Shame, arme dude. Maar wag, dis net figuurlik, so dis okay!
Cobus wrote: “they’re bigger assholes than u guys will ever be.”
Hey blokes, take notice. We need to put more effort into the “militant” part again, we are loosing ground.
Cobus wrote: “you have to believe in something to get ahead of your competitors.”
What, such that a god will make it all better if you mess it up? Does it really work?
Cobus wrote: ” i’ve been down there when the cheering starts, and it made me perform better at the sport I practised.”
This must only be true for people. Many humans has been cheering for god(s) for thousands of years now and the poor bloke never even pitched for the match. Cheer harder! Come on God, you can do it, don’t be scared to show yourself! All hail God, All hail God. Come one God, believe in yourself and take the first step! Is it working yet? Anyone see anything yet? Rats, perhaps we need Jesus te restore our ESP connection with god. Jesus? Halloooo? Anyone there? Crap! Holy Ghost, can you hear me? Hallloooooo? Anyone home? Sorry dudes, match cancelled until futher notice. No, you don’t get your ticket money back asshole, the church used it to, uhm, care for the poor and spread the “good news” infection. Mommy, I have an infection and can’t find my brain! Praise Jeebus!
Cobus wrote: “But I believe as I like, and also do you, as God gave all of us freedom of choice. Nice guy hey?”
Yeah, like Mafia freedom of choice. Heaven and hell, bribary and blackmail. Would you mind if we tell the Tyrant meme to f-off with the threats and bribes.
Cobus wrote: “Yes, I do have my own thoughts on the whole “did Jesus die, Was Maria M His wife,How does the Apo books come into play, etc. Is there a heaven… or hell…? I personally… as Christian, do not think that most of it is true.”
Well then. When you figure out why *you* think some parts are not true then you *might* figure out why we reject the rest.
Cobus wrote: “The real question I would like to table is Do anti-creationists have a scientific case?”
Once they start researching and start publishing in peer-reviewed journals and it gets accepted, then yes, only then will they have a scientific case. But until now it has just been religion, propaganda and very very dishonest tactics. But it is time they stop crowing “scientific evidence” from the roofs of the curches and actually start showing the science they claim they have. Are you also one of the loons that think T-rex ate coconuts in the Garden of Eden because there was no death before sin? If you think it’s funny, then consider that coconut munching T-Rex is the type of “science” the creos think they have. To the rest of humanity, it is not science but humor.
Cobus, help me out here. I read you comments but still cannot see/understand what point you are trying to make. It might be a comprehension issue on my side but then perhaps you need to keep it simple. Make the point/statements you want to make in a clear non-vague manner. Back it up with arguments and proof/evidence then respond to the attempted refutations or if you think we are in agreement, then state it.
So, my simple question is, what are you trying to say? Sum it up in one or two sentences please.
Comment by Renier — June 17, 2008 @ 8:09 am |
Savage wrote: “Something that I have been thinking about for some time now is this: are the lack of rational thinking and intelligence displayed by the fundies on this blog a good reflection of the general, run of mill fundie, or do we just see the imbeciles? If I sound condescending I am trying not to be. This is a genuine question.”
Remember the bloke who tried to cast the demons and dirty, ehm, unclean spirits from us a thread or two ago? Now picture a thousand of them together in a church… But Savage, make a trip to a fundie church in your area and *see*… evening services are normally more “happy” and “fun”…
According to what I read about Cobus, his rejecting of certain hard to believe parts of the Bible (if he was honest about it), well, he is not a fundie, he is a moderate… perhaps Objective was right after all.
Comment by Renier — June 17, 2008 @ 8:13 am |
Cobus wrote: “Misotheism”
We hate the meme… how can we hate something that we do not think exists? You should perhaps try and under5stand this. I don’t hate god, I hate the concept of god that some people worship.
Comment by Renier — June 17, 2008 @ 8:16 am |
Actually, the real problem with “misotheism” as a concept is that it is semantically void, even bankrupt. How can one properly be said to detest something that at best has only a very blurry definition? Thus, one could say with equal force that the antonym of “misotheism” is “wibblephilia.”
Comment by Con-Tester — June 17, 2008 @ 8:59 am |
Con-Tester wrote: “How can one properly be said to detest something that at best has only a very blurry definition?”
Understood, as far as Deist definitions would go. But we do have a more clear picture of the Old Testament god for instance. In all honesty I detest such a character, real or mythical.
Comment by Renier — June 17, 2008 @ 9:12 am |
To clarify: “wibblephilia” = love of incoherent babble.
Comment by Con-Tester — June 17, 2008 @ 9:13 am |
Renier wrote (#90 or thereabouts):
I’m not sure that’s sufficiently accurate. The interminable and heated theological disputes over the bible’s god’s nature are merely a microcosm reflecting the fairly plain view that there are as many different notions about that god as there are believers in him/her.
Renier wrote (#90 or thereabouts):
Agreed if we read the bible as literally true. In that case, the new testament god isn’t much better, having only extended the dynamic range of his/her good-and-evil repertoire, not actually shifted its mean value (pun intended). Doen’t “hell” as a chamber for “eternal damnation” put in its first appearances in the new testament? Before inventing this charming novelty, god was content merely to smite and kill his/her enemies (and their descendants), whereas afterwards they were additionally despatched to suffer everlasting torment.
Comment by Con-Tester — June 17, 2008 @ 9:28 am |
Misotheism is the “hatred of God” or “hatred of the gods” (from the Greek adjective μισόθεος “hating the gods”, a compound of μίσος “hatred” and θεός “god”). – Wiki
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 17, 2008 @ 5:40 am
You are grossly confused.
We think the gods do not exist. We are also rational people so we dont make non existents the focus of hate. I doubt that anyone on these pages hate anythin or anyone. Since you are he one thinking in terms of *hate* perhaps what you should do is look in a mirror.
AS Oubaas correctly points out… for you it is the fear that drives you and it is never nice to observe. What drives us is the question of how existence function – not how the unknown ghosts and gremlins function.
Comment by Objective — June 17, 2008 @ 9:30 am |
We think the gods do not exist
Comment by Objective — June 17, 2008 @ 9:30 am – - – THINK?
Hi… can you tell me one thing please. Is there evidence that suggest that God does in fact not exist, and that He did NOT create the universe?
Now, I now this is difficult for you, but can you answer that question without referring to the old “can you prove that he DID create warra warra…”.
Comment by Cobus Coetzee — June 17, 2008 @ 1:10 pm |
Cobus in #94 asks “Hi… can you tell me one thing please. Is there evidence that suggest that God does in fact not exist, and that He did NOT create the universe?”
Yes, of course there is evidence pointing in that direction – or, as you rightly say, suggest that god does not exist. How about starting with the simple fact that we have no evidence that gods (including your god) exist?
Comment by Oubaas — June 17, 2008 @ 1:21 pm |
“I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.” – Bertrand Russell
Comment by Oubaas — June 17, 2008 @ 1:28 pm |
“Math is not a science, it is a religion. All these equations are like miracles. You take two numbers and when you add them they magically become a new number! No one can say how it happens. You either believe it or you don’t. As a math atheist I should be excused from this.” (Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson)
Calvin is right. Let us excuse all fundies from the requirement to know a bit of science to understand Nature seeing they are science atheists.
Comment by Savage — June 17, 2008 @ 1:44 pm |
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#94 or thereabouts):
Yes, quite a lot actually. In fact, wherever science has turned its penetrating gaze, it has found that your god is unnecessary to account for observable phenomena. This non-necessity suggests your god’s non-existence in the same way that the tooth fairy’s non-necessity to account for small change being swapped for teeth suggests the tooth fairy’s non-existence. Also, your god’s purported actions are indistinguishable from chance occurrences and misperceptions, further pointing towards spuriousness through failing repeatability and parsimony criteria. Then there are assorted logical difficulties, for example the Problem of Evil and ontological objections over your god’s origin that theology simply cheats its way past. In addition, the plurality of gods that humanity has revered in conjunction with assorted characteristics of their attendant mythologies strongly suggest that these gods were uniformly cooked up in the fear-suffused cauldrons of man’s imagination. All in all, the god hypothesis has little to recommend it and a whole lot of reasons to reject it.
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#94 or thereabouts):
If s/he doesn’t exist, how can s/he have created anything, let alone a universe?
Cobus Coetzee wrote (#94 or thereabouts):
The onus of proof rests firmly on the claimant. There’s no onus of disproof on the doubters, notwithstanding the earlier answer by Oubaas and the above one by myself. So this little gem you wrote is nothing more than a pre-emptive subterfuge that seeks to obscure your own weighty evidentiary obligations, doubtless as a move towards shirking them.
Comment by Con-Tester — June 17, 2008 @ 1:49 pm |
Cobus, the plagiarist. He thought he could throw his arguments around as if they were his own, but was caught out.
Why should we take a plagiarist seriously? And a Christian one at that too! Why is it that these fundamentalists rely on the Bible but don’t practice what it preaches? As far as I can remember, there is somewhere in the 10 commandments one that stipulates that you should not steal (your neigbour’s donkey, tractor, car, pencil etc.) How is it that Cobus Coetzee thinks he may steal other people’s words and ideas and still call himself a Christian? And preach to the atheists on this blog and swear at them when he is laughed at?
To answer Savage’s question: “… are the lack of rational thinking and intelligence displayed by the fundies on this blog a good reflection of the general, run of mill fundie, or do we just see the imbeciles?”
My view is that any defender of a non-existent object like a god, is irrational, shows basically little intelligence. The fact is the inability of these fundamentalists to formulate a rational argument in defence of whatever they believe in and especially their gods/God, just shows the danger that lies in a man of one book. Thomas Aquinas warned us against these analphabetes with the phrase “hominem unius libri timeo”, meaning “I fear the man of a single book.”
The moment people such as Cobus Coetzee, Brendon Schafer (where has he disappeared to?) and their friends use arguments based on just that one book (the Bible, the Koran), you have fundamentalism defined.
I say: give them more books, floods of them.
Thinus, just by reading Ingersoll, you have finally slayed that monster god you have believed in. That’s where enlightenment starts, to cast the one book aside and open your mind to other ideas, ideas not formulated by a group of ancient Middle Eastern men who knew nothing about science but a lot about superstition.
Comment by George Claassen — June 17, 2008 @ 2:22 pm |
Cobus, here are some proofs of God’s existence. Please apply liberally.
ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY
(1) I am stupid.
(2) God made man in his own image.
(3) There are all horrible disasters going around the world.
(4) God is omnipotent in power.
(5) God is too stupid to do anything about these things.
(6) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
(1) Atheists are spiritually blind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
MORAL ARGUMENT
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can’t be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we’re all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I’m afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Hundreds more here.
Comment by Oubaas — June 17, 2008 @ 2:22 pm |
I have said this before, but for Cobus’ sake I will repeat it.
Cobus, if your god made you in his image, he is a real asshole. You would expect better from a supreme being. But if you fundies insist to put your selfs on a par with your invisible god, then he must be a real dick.
We need some more Algae-go here.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 17, 2008 @ 2:52 pm |
I have posted this here before, but once again, this is for Cobus.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
So says Richard Dawkins.
Now if you know your bible Cobus, you should be able to agree with that statement.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 17, 2008 @ 2:56 pm |
George Wrote “Thinus, just by reading Ingersoll, you have finally slayed that monster god you have believed in. That’s where enlightenment starts, to cast the one book aside and open your mind to other ideas, ideas not formulated by a group of ancient Middle Eastern men who knew nothing about science but a lot about superstition”
Not only did do as you have said, but now I see people for what they are, I’m twice as sharp as I use to be, I’m more successful in my job, I speak different, I think different and reason differently.
So, Like being here, will not believe anything anymore, not even here on this blog, but I’m sure that is encouraged.
Tiens
Comment by Thinus — June 17, 2008 @ 3:02 pm |
Objective, I only now see your #40: “But the authors of humanism admit that theirs is a philosphy – perhaps you were playing devils advocate or I missed your message?”
No, I think you read me (or rather my understanding of what Grayling wrote) correctly. I agree that “humanism” fits nicely into your definition of philosophy, but it’s a bit broad for my puritan mind
I think those whom you call the “authors of humanism” are simply philosophers who build their ideas from what I agree with Grayling to be the two simple premises (”philosophies” according to your definition?) of humanism, namely 1) that human beings exist in a natural universe and 2) that human good must be shaped accordingly. There are many philosophies about what constitutes the “good”, based on the general “outlook” of humanism – which, as Grayling said, “requires no belief in anything beyond what empirical evidence defeasibly and revisably requires”.
Comment by Oubaas — June 17, 2008 @ 3:44 pm |
Cobus,
#95 “Hi… can you tell me one thing please. Is there evidence that suggest that God does in fact not exist, and that He did NOT create the universe?”
Lets deal with the first question because a solution will solve the second.
1. Your demand for proof of a non existent equivocates on the concept of “proof”. Since you believe in miracles and irrational conjectures what would constitute proof to you? Obviously nothing physical. Notwithstanding the fact, as Con Tester pointed out that the onus of proof is on him who asserts (because you cannot PROVE the absence of a fact – the concept ‘PROOF’ requires EVIDENCE) I will once again reiterate an epistemological argument to prove that god does not exist.
2. It is well known that an organism cannot survive if you remove its access to the environment by removing its sensory organs. Helen Keller was deaf, dumb and blind and if it wasnt for the brilliance of Annie Sullivan she would have remained ignorent of much of the world for her entire life. If you should have been able to remove her remaining exterioceptive sensors (smell,taste and touch) you would have simultaneously removed her proprioceptive sense and she would have died not long after birth. It is furthermore generally accepted that all your knowledge starts at the sensory level.
3.No human can learn about gods, gremlins, devils, spirits, angels and the social organism unless he/she is taught these concepts by someone and that someone also fills in some attributes for them. Without attributes a concept is meaningless. Such concepts however cannot be learnt until you have acquired the ability to form concepts – the formation of concepts is initially an automatic [physiological] process in the Human brain, that science is on the verge of describing and in some respects already described.
4. False concepts are formed by combining concepts in an irrational fashion: flying pink elephants, minotaurs, centaurs, unicorns are examples, as are gods and other spooks. These things are not available to the senses because they do not exist and thus the brain cannot form a concept of them via the natural process.
5. The brain however is not by itself a discerning organ and it does not ‘decide’ that ‘this is acceptable’ and that is ‘unacceptable’. It takes whatever is given and organise it automatically in a hierarchy with the rest of your knowledge. That is why you have so many religions and so many variants of those religions: because they are taught to children both implicitly and explicitly and since children do not have the ability to discern between truth and bullshit they accept whatever they are taught.
6. Since early man in his ignorence saw that plants and animals require form by what appeared some magical process he postulated that all things must have a similar magical source. He could also not explain the source of his knowledge or the nature of his concepts and he was forced by his ignorence to create “forces” and “supernatural beings” to account for both. It is obvious today that for the first argument to be consistent one would have to explain what the source of the “forces” and “supernatural beings’ are. Who created the spooks and the ideas in our minds.
7. We do however live in the twenty first century and no longer have need of that kind of hypothesis, as Con Tester pointed out, because we have in the interrim discovered logic, mathematics and reason. Unless you can provide sensory PROOF for the existence of your god YOU are the one to find the means to explain how the concept is both true and valid.
“Biologically, we are just another ape. Mentally, we are a new phylum of organisms. In these two seemingly incommensurate facts lies a conundrum that must be resolved before we have an adequate explanation of what it means to be human.” (Deacon, 1979. The Symbolic Species. P. 23)
Comment by Objective — June 17, 2008 @ 3:53 pm |
Oubaas,
#105 .. [what] I agree with Grayling to be the two simple premises (”philosophies” according to your definition?) of humanism, namely 1) that human beings exist in a natural universe and 2) that human good must be shaped accordingly.
Ok im with you.
No the premises by themselves do not present a philosophy but must have inevitable conclusions such as that there is such a thing as “human good” [in which i read "some collective good formulated by some scientist king"
]apart from individual good. It is only to individual living organisms that things can be good or evil and if there is a collective good then it is simply a universal good that applies to evry single individual: iow no socialism, no statism, no redistribution of natural or *human* wealth.
I agree with the premises however but simply offers the caveat of extending science into an arena where science is not yet comfortable or competent. The concept “humanism” does not simply include a scientific approach to the empirical but as a collective term implies attributes to the human mass that are simply not there (not even in many of the scientists and philosophers) who profess to be humanists.
Comment by Objective — June 17, 2008 @ 4:08 pm |
“Religion is a joke told by the irrational, believed by the brainless, and propped up with flapdoodle and moonshine.” (P Z Myers from his blog Pharyngula.)
I’m not so sure about the moonshine, though. A little bit of booze chases all devils and demons (and gods) away.
Comment by Savage — June 17, 2008 @ 4:18 pm |
Cobus wrote: “Hi… can you tell me one thing please. Is there evidence that suggest that God does in fact not exist, and that He did NOT create the universe?”
I’ll give you evidence if you provide evidence that there are no invisible pink unicorns in the universe. Think about it. Can you provide evidence that there are no fairies in your garden? No? Once you figure out why you don’t believe in fairies you might understand why we don’t believe in your god.
But let’s ask Cobus a question. How can one differentiate your god from something that does not exist?
Objective, great post @ 106!
Comment by Renier — June 18, 2008 @ 6:51 am |
Cobus has disappeared, his “hope you have a huge appetite” and “shoot” notwithstanding…
Comment by Oubaas — June 18, 2008 @ 6:58 am |
I quess Mac really does has a new “law” with the caveman behaviour…
Comment by Renier — June 18, 2008 @ 8:06 am |
The Music Makers
We are the music makers
And we are the dreamers of dreams.
Wandering by lone sea breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;
World losers and world forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world, forever, it seems.
With wonderful deathless ditties
We build up the world’s great cities,
And out of a fabulous story
We fashion an empire’s glory:
One man with a dream, at leisure
Shall go forth and conquer a crown;
And three with a new song’s measure
Can trample an empire down.
We in the ages lying,
In the buried past of the earth,
Built Nineveh with our sighing,
And Babel itself with our mirth
And o’erthrew them prophesying,
To the old of the new world’s worth;
For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.
Arthur William Edgar O’ Shaugnessy(1844-81)
Comment by Objective — June 18, 2008 @ 10:43 am |
Gents,
I know it is out of place but after reading all your posts above its been mulling in my head all day long and I thought to share it.
Comment by Objective — June 18, 2008 @ 10:48 am |
“#111
I quess Mac really does has a new “law” with the caveman behaviour…
Comment by Renier — June 18, 2008 @ 8:06 am”
Yes Renier. Looks like it. Where is old Cobus now? How did he act while he was in this blog? What nonsense was he talking about? I think the term “caveman” might be too kind for his sort. He is somewhere now with others of his kind, talking about the good news and other mythical crap, and what bad guys we are, and how they are soldiers for christ and how they will keep doing the good work and how they are always persecuted. Then they will agree that praying for our souls might be the best thing to do.
Another thing with the cavemen are that they usually show their intellectual shortcomings, which is in most cases a result of just reading one book all their lives.
They are also cowards, who run back to their caves as soon as the heat gets turned on a bit, and they have to start to reason. They don’t have the guts to even think for one second, that maybe there isn’t a god out there, and maybe they are wrong, maybe their religious leaders are wrong, maybe their parents and forefathers were all wrong, maybe their ancient holy book is wrong. They don’t have that kind of courage. These cavemen are very weak in the mind, and they quickly show it. That is why we won’t ever see many of them here, and why most of them will only come in to leave a stink and then run back to their caves.
They run to their caves, howl at the moon, read from their fairy tale book, and refuse to use the brains they claim god gave them. Sometimes I think god wasn’t very generous with a lot of his most loyal followers when he was handing out brains. Or maybe they were standing in the back of the line, and by the time they got to the front of the line there wasn’t much left to go around.
The big problem with these cavemen is that they are willing to go to extremes to protect their fantasy. Imagine if children threatened serious revolt if grownups keep telling them that there really isn’t a Santa Claus, or Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny. Thats how these dumb bastards react when people disagree with them about the existence of their god. They act like cavemen all trying to drive off a serious threat to their tribe.
Hence forth:
They come running out of their caves, hunched over, swinging their clubs, talking in what sounds like grunts, make threats, throw rocks, then run back to their caves again where they howl at the moon, hunched together for a feeling of security and righteousness, asking their god to save and protect them from all the evil out there in the world, and to keep a safe and nice place ready for them for when they die on this world, so that they can live longer for ever and ever in a heaven where they will be with all their friends and relatives and of course in the presence of this god they believe in.
If you say anything about this fantasy, you are fair game to any torture they can put you through, because somehow they also believe that is what their god would want.
I think I am holding myself back by calling them cavemen.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 18, 2008 @ 4:04 pm |
George wrote: This life is indeed the only life we have … no warmblooded rush to a tent near Greytown will ever make an iota or a tittle’s difference to that detached, impersonal, withdrawn, aloof ticking of the universe.
Ek stem saam met die ‘aloof ticking of the universe’ tog kan ons nie seker wees hieroor nie, is die sielkundige waarde van die geloof aan die gelowige nie genoeg om die wat wel glo toe te laat om te glo in die privaatheid nie?
Solank hulle nie inmeng met ander se regte nie!
Lennon: Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
Ja, verbeel jou maar, miskien as ons net van die ‘greed’ kan ontslae raak.
Dit vat nie veel verbeelding nie. Om te verbeel wat se verskil dit sal maak as ons die menslike selfsug en gierigheid verwyder uit politiek, geloof, wetenskap en amper enige ander tydverdryf. Miskien sal die res spontaan volg.Net soos die Tien gebooie n mors van skryf is, die reel “om jou naaste so lief te he soos jouself” beskryf en sluit tog al die ander ook in.
Objective: …you cannot reform mysticism with what portends to be a less offensive form of mysticism.
Why is mysticism in itself offensive?
Welfare and morality? I always thought this was just a different way of saying ‘do unto others as you would whish them to do unto you’. We see good and bad and we think, either I would not want that to happen to me, or, that was nice, hope it happens to me too.
in the absence of ultimate ‘purpose’ to the universe, we make meaning for ourselves, both individually and in community, these convictions form the basics of the stance on life described as humanism today
It feels to me as if we, humans, lose the plot in a bigger way when we become communities.
I quote Pink Floyd from memory so my words can be wrong: “Jesus, Jesus, what’s it all about? Trying to clutch these little ingrates to shape. While I was there when all the lights went out…no use to whine and mope around.”
Don’t we get together and whine and mope to make sure that when the lights go out we share the opinion (for something we want or against something we fear) in numbers?
No Lennon is definitely not a dreamer – he is a mystic and his aim is to promote the goals and the aspirations of religion…of a land where one can smoke a joint under a tree and lie around leisurely while the mealies grow by themselves and god herds the sheep.
Mag ek Koos du Plessis aanhaal: “Wie weet? Iewers is daar dalk n land van rus en …wie weet? Waar die swerweling eindelik rus, waar die vlugteling veilig is en as daar is…neem my saam.”
Alles is relatief! As ons terug gaan toe ons voorsate geleef het soos jy se John se droom is, Objective, dan is daar baie meer eenvoud en minder stress, maar relatief tot nou bly alles tog min of meer dieselfde. EK vermoed dat as jy ons uit die vergelyking verwyder, dan sal ons almal vind die mielies groei self en die skape loop waar hulle bestem is om te loop.
words have no meaning except insofar as we create it from some unknown and unsubstrantiated and unsubstantiable source of meanings in OUR brain or a lonely neuron shared by all, that produces meaning on demand as and when it is required by the social instincts of society
…hierdie woorde beskryf vir my die oorsaak van meeste van ons kommunikasie probleme.
Objective skryf vêrder:“It is furthermore clothed in the mysticism of the power of the social, the collective, the communal, and then it claims to be an appeal for reason, for evidence and experience while simultanously insisting we should teach children this form of mysticism rather than the religious version.,”
Dit is maklik om die “Tien Gebooie” te volg as dit simbolies gelees word as reels om moraliteit te bevorder.
Dit is n baie groter uitdaging om die onderstaande n lewens leuse te maak.
IF
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master,
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
Comment by Riaan — June 19, 2008 @ 9:06 am |
Good post Riaan,
I agree with this part very much: “EK vermoed dat as jy ons uit die vergelyking verwyder, dan sal ons almal vind die mielies groei self en die skape loop waar hulle bestem is om te loop.”
Daar sal antuurlik ‘n nuwe balans geskep word, bv. die skape mag dalk nie meer lank bestaan nie, maar die dag sal wel kom waneer die mens nie meer op hierdie planeet bestaan nie.
Comment by McBrolloks — June 19, 2008 @ 3:29 pm |
“..die dag sal wel kom waneer die mens nie meer op hierdie planeet bestaan nie.”
Except the fundies, their god will protect them. But then again, you could hardly call them ‘mens’.
Comment by Savage — June 19, 2008 @ 3:56 pm |
this is a tragedy and its unfortunate that her life was cut so short. However, death is owed to us, so we need not worry about the length of our life on earth, but the seeds we have sown while we on earth. We are one people and we need to identify that and begin to live as one people rather than animals in the wild.
I am a youth advocate who lends my voice to disadvantage, broken abuse teens and those who are struggling with their sexual identity, having to go on living among family and parent who do not accept their choice of partners. I’ve written a book, a parent, youth, teacher handbook that will be out this July, 2008 that is very powerful and can help us understand differences and how to deal with it.
Please drop me an email if you would like a sign copy. denopellis@yahoo.com
Thanks
Comment by Dr. Luvtuch — June 19, 2008 @ 8:55 pm |
Riaan in #115: Great comment. Just a few personal observations:
“is die sielkundige waarde van die geloof aan die gelowige nie genoeg om die wat wel glo toe te laat om te glo in die privaatheid nie? Solank hulle nie inmeng met ander se regte nie!”
This goes without saying. But it becomes slightly irritating when they wank in public and ejaculate on passers by. This may be a crude way of putting it, but Christians seem to be responsive to sexual metaphors, and I trust some will be reading this.
“Om te verbeel wat se verskil dit sal maak as ons die menslike selfsug en gierigheid verwyder uit politiek, geloof, wetenskap en amper enige ander tydverdryf.”
Reminds me of what George Carlin said about the 8th commandment: “This one is just plain fuckin’ stupid. Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy going!”
“Why is mysticism in itself offensive?”
Well, mysticism is all about experience and rejecting objectivity. Mystics think they know, but in reality they base everything on how they feel. They always say that you don’t really know the truth because you have not yet arrived at their level of experience or “understanding”. This is offensive, as there is no way to objectively look at their conclusions.
“Alles is relatief!”
Meaning?
Comment by Oubaas — June 19, 2008 @ 9:03 pm |
Just read this from PZ Myers’ blog, Pharyngula, “The consequences of the erosion of critical thinking.”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/the_consequences_of_the_erosio.php
This religious have the same attitude. They make up their own stories about how god-must-have-done-it-because-I-can-not-explain-it.
Comment by Savage — June 20, 2008 @ 5:07 am |
Where do you pitch yourself?
http://xkcd.com/435/
“Biologists defer to chemists. Chemists defer to physicists. Physicists defer to mathematicians. Mathematicians defer only to God”
From Ben Webster’s math blog.
Comment by Savage — June 20, 2008 @ 6:55 am |
Riaan,
“As ons terug gaan toe ons voorsate geleef het soos jy se John se droom is, Objective, dan is daar baie meer eenvoud en minder stress, maar relatief tot nou bly alles tog min of meer dieselfde. EK vermoed dat as jy ons uit die vergelyking verwyder, dan sal ons almal vind die mielies groei self en die skape loop waar hulle bestem is om te loop.”
Hoe sal alles dieselfde bly as jy die mens uit die vergelyking verwyder? Ek vind dit nie meer vreemd as mense hierdie voorstel doen nie – Dit is die dogma wat vir baie eeue reeds aangebied word…die mens is inherent euwel en moet vernietig word…alle ander lewende goed is inherent goed….want hulle is steeds net soos “god hulle geskape het”.
Wanneer daar egter aan die hand gedoen word dat misdadigers in kettingboeie moet werk ten einde geld te verdien om hul slagoffers te vergoed…staan almal op hul agterpote…. wanneer daar voorgestel word dat die onproduktiewe en intellektueel gestremdes uit die vergelyking verwyder word gebeur dieselfde. Waarom is dit? Is mense bang dat ons god sal ontneem van die geleentheid om genadig te wees of om te sit en kyk hoe die donders in die hel brand?
Maar ek vegeet deurgaans dat christene hul medemens liefhet….en hul hoop op die dood en vernietiging van alle mense bloot die hoop is dat god gouer sal kom…
Comment by Objective — June 20, 2008 @ 7:30 am |
Oubaas,
But it becomes slightly irritating when they wank in public and ejaculate on passers by.
Nou gaan ek sukkel om my lag te hou as ek weer n fariseër op n straat hoek sien staan!
Well, mysticism is all about experience and rejecting objectivity. Mystics think they know, but in reality they base everything on how they feel. They always say that you don’t really know the truth because you have not yet arrived at their level of experience or “understanding”. This is offensive, as there is no way to objectively look at their conclusions
Ek stem saam dat ek die oorgrote meerderheid “mystics” nie kan hanteer nie. Maar ek is mal oor “mysticism”, n raaisel is altyd welkom, dit hou die lewe interessant.
Ek sien tog die meerderheid definisies verwys na spirituele sisteme of openbaringe en dan stem ek saam met jou, ek het die vraag gestel omdat ek die definisie in gedagte gehad het: “vague or unsubstantiated thought or speculation about something”. Daar is vreeslik baie onderwerpe wat nog nie op n wetenskaplike manier ontleed is nie, en van die onderwerpe is nog steeds belangrik. Byvoorbeeld Liefde en Vroumense
Alles is relatief tot n verwysings raamwerk.
Comment by Riaan — June 20, 2008 @ 9:57 am |
Savage,
PZ sê This is what happens when a culture tells people that reason and evidence are optional, and faith is touted as a virtue. I’m sure that educational assistant thought she was doing a good thing and was trying to protect Victoria…but the filters had been stripped from her brain, she had no tools to make rational assessments of the evidence, and so she charged in to do something vile and destructive, instead.
Dit is vir my n moeilike onderwerp in n land waar babas verkrag word, ek weet nie of ek heeltemal met PZ saam stem nie.
As ons vir eers heeltemal van geloof en ‘meta-physics’ en sieners vergeet, dan sal ons graag wou glo dat die instansies wat aangestel is om sulke sensitiewe sake te ondersoek, voordat hulle reageer, hulle goed genoeg van hulle taak kan kwyt om te kan ondersoek instel weens enige ‘poep in n sandstorm’ aanmerking sonder om te oor regeer en sodoende skade aan te rig.
Hierdie onus berus by die instansies wat reageer, nie by die oorsaak vir die ondersoek nie.
N ruk terug het ek n berug gehoor van n man wie se lewe verwoes is nadat n kind n aanmerking gemaak het dat sy gemolesteer is. Nadat die betrokke instansies ge-oorreageer het en die man se karakter permanent geskend het, het die kind blykbaar self vorendag gekom dat sy gegrap het. Bly om dit te hoor, was my gevoel, maar dit vergoed nou niks meer vir die onskuldige man se leed nie.
As dit by my eie kind kom gee ek nie om of die naaste dronk bergie n hallusinasie weens n Grandpa oordosis gehad het nie, as daar n rokie is gaan ek die brandblusser uithaal, ek sal wel versigtig wees om slegs die sneller te trek vir n regte vlam.
Comment by Riaan — June 20, 2008 @ 9:57 am |
Riaan, I think what PZ and participators on his blog tried to say is not dissimilar to the story you tell about the kid who lied about being molested. Seeing the PA was very inexperienced she should have gone to higher authority (school principle?) to tell her story, and not to phone the mother with such news. I am sure the principle would have handled the matter totally differently and would have seen through the bullshit the psychic dished up. I mean she did not even get the pupils name correct, but just shot from the hip with, “do you have a pupil in your class whose name starts with “V”.” Now I ask you!
Comment by Savage — June 20, 2008 @ 10:14 am |
Savage,
I agree!! Hind sight is always 20/20.
Comment by Riaan — June 20, 2008 @ 11:21 am |
Objective,
Ek het geskryf “As ons terug gaan toe ons voorsate geleef het soos jy se John se droom is, Objective, dan is daar baie meer eenvoud en minder stress, maar relatief tot nou bly alles tog min of meer dieselfde. EK vermoed dat as jy ons uit die vergelyking verwyder, dan sal ons almal vind die mielies groei self en die skape loop waar hulle bestem is om te loop.”
Jy vra, Hoe sal alles dieselfde bly as jy die mens uit die vergelyking verwyder?
Ek vermoed alles sal nie dieselfde bly nie? Miskien verstaan ek jou, of jy vir my, verkeerd?
Met betrekking tot die vorige vraag sê jy “Ek vind dit nie meer vreemd as mense hierdie voorstel doen nie – Dit is die dogma wat vir baie eeue reeds aangebied word…die mens is inherent euwel en moet vernietig word…alle ander lewende goed is inherent goed….want hulle is steeds net soos “god hulle geskape het”.
Ek dink dit is n relatiewe stelling, ek sal nie die dogma verdedig nie, want ek stem saam met jou, ek dink die karma het die dogma dood gery, maar dat die mens in staat is tot groot skade maak is duidelik, kyk maar na die besoedeling wat ons veroorsaak, ek sal nie dadelik oorgaan en se ons is euwel nie, ek dink ons het die potensiaal vir goed en kwaad in ons, maar ons deurdink nie altyd in die geheel die gevolge van ons kollektiewe aksies nie, dit gesê het baie mense al die mensdom as n virus beskryf…daar is tog ooreenkomste.
Jy sê Wanneer daar egter aan die hand gedoen word dat misdadigers in kettingboeie moet werk ten einde geld te verdien om hul slagoffers te vergoed…staan almal op hul agterpote….
Ek dink ons moet vir hulle fietse gee met dinamo’s sodat ons krag kan opwek, fok Eskom!
Die bliksems kan dan ook in een sel bly tot sy straf geheel en al uitgedien is, hy kry mos oefening, geen tronk bewaarders nodig nie, dit kan soos n ‘vending’ masjien werk. Ek kan die regter in my geestes-oor hoor sê: “Ons bevind jou skuldig van moord, jou vonnis is twintig megawatt ure!”
wanneer daar voorgestel word dat die onproduktiewe en intellektueel gestremdes uit die vergelyking verwyder word gebeur dieselfde.
Dit sal bietjie aan die hartsnare van baie trek, maar dit is immers natuurlike seleksie soos dit in die (baie) ou dae was. Ek wil nie graag die een wees wat vandag die lyn moet trek en besluit wie bly en wie kry n ‘genade’ dood nie.
Waarom is dit?
Ek weet nie, kan seker spekuleer, maar ek dink, volgens die christelike geloof, jy is reg met die, Is mense bang dat ons god sal ontneem van die geleentheid om genadig te wees Ek spekuleer sekere ouers sal dieselfde genot uit die bestaan van die gestremde kind put, en terselfdertyd sal die kind dieselfde of selfs meer liefde kry, maar aan die ander kant is daar tog sekerlik ook hartroerende verhale waar die dood van die gestremde n genade sou wees. Alles is relatief tot die verwysings raamwerk.
of om te sit en kyk hoe die donders in die hel brand?
Bedoel jy die gestremde se lyding in die ‘hier’ en ‘nou’?
Maar ek vegeet deurgaans dat christene hul medemens liefhet….en hul hoop op (dat?) die dood en vernietiging van alle mense bloot die hoop is dat god gouer sal kom…
Sarkasme? Miskien veralgemeen jy hier, maar ek dink nie die christelike geloofs instansies waarmee ek al te doen gekry het (redelik min, en maklik meer as 15 jaar terug) verkondig moord nie? Ek is seker ek verstaan jou nie reg nie?
Comment by Riaan — June 20, 2008 @ 11:29 am |
Riaan,
#127 “Jy vra, Hoe sal alles dieselfde bly as jy die mens uit die vergelyking verwyder?”
“Ek vermoed alles sal nie dieselfde bly nie? Miskien verstaan ek jou, of jy vir my, verkeerd?”
Ek dink ek verstaan jou verkeerd – het die nare manier om woorde te interpreteer asof dit bepaalde betekenis het.
“Ek dink dit is n relatiewe stelling, ek sal nie die dogma verdedig nie, want ek stem saam met jou, ek dink die karma het die dogma dood gery, maar dat die mens in staat is tot groot skade maak is duidelik, kyk maar na die besoedeling wat ons veroorsaak, ek sal nie dadelik oorgaan en se ons is euwel nie, ek dink ons het die potensiaal vir goed en kwaad in ons,..”
“konteks” in terme van die fisika het ‘n bepaalde betekenis. Jy pas die term toe op menslike kennis en ek stem nie dat dit toepaslik is nie. Indien ‘n stelling gemaak word tov ‘n bepaalde saak sal so ‘n stelling waar of vals wees ongeag die konteks…indien die stelling egter ‘n waardeoordeel is moet dit binne konteks gelees word waar konteks die historiese agtergrond van die spreker/skrywer is of die logies geskiedenis waaruit die oordeel gevel word.
Ek praat van die christelike/godsdienstige stelling dat die mens inherent sleg is…in sonde ontvang en gebore. Dit is nonsens. Soos alle ander lewende organismes streef die mens eerstens die goeie na…daarsonder kan hy nie lewe nie – dit beteken nie dat al sy aksies goed )pro lewe ) gaan wees nie…. rasionaliteit is ‘n keuse….net soos die aksies wat mens neem…maar net soos ‘n parasiet in onkunde sy voedselbron vernietig doen die mens dikwels tov sy omgewing en sy naaste….wanneer hy egter sy rede op ‘n probleem rig los hy dit gewoonlik op.
Comment by Objective — June 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pm |
Objective wrote (#128 or thereabouts):
I have the same, er, “problem.”
The trouble with metaphorical speech is that it has been abducted from the artist’s realm and co-opted into common parlance as if it was a valid means of communication. It’s no more than a cheap attempt to get more bang for your verbal buck. In short, it encourages postmodernism.
Comment by Con-Tester — June 20, 2008 @ 5:28 pm |
Riaan wrote: “Ek stem saam met die ‘aloof ticking of the universe’ tog kan ons nie seker wees hieroor nie, is die sielkundige waarde van die geloof aan die gelowige nie genoeg om die wat wel glo toe te laat om te glo in die privaatheid nie?
Solank hulle nie inmeng met ander se regte nie!”
En solank hulle (moderates/privaat geloof dudes) bietjie hulle eie deel bydrae om die fanaticals in hulle eie tent bietjie vas te vat, want die fundies meng juis in. Soos ‘n muis infestation soek fundies altyd gaatjies om hulle neuse (fantasie) in te druk, skole, politiek, wette…
Ek stem saam daar nie issues is as mense hulle geloof in privaatheid praktiseer nie. Maar wat van die mense se eie kinders? So maand of twee terug was daar die geval van die ouers wat gebed verkies het bo wetenskaplike medisyne en hulle kind het gesterf daarvan. Die vraag is dus, wat is ons rol, ons verantwoordelikheid om onskuldige mense (soos kinders) te beskerm van geloof? Ander mense se geloof wat in privaatheid beoefen word mag *ons* dalk nie raak nie, maar wanneer die irrationele geloof hulle kinders in gevaar stel, wat moet *ons* doen?
Ek het al baie my mening gelig dat ek nie issues met die moderates het nie, want hulle beinvloed my nie. Inteendeel, ek ondersteun hulle reg om te glo. Maar…. maar… Kom ek probeer ‘n analogie maak. Dink aan drie lande. Land A en C is in ‘n toestand van oorlog, en land B is neutraal. Maar land B verskaf skuiling (en ammo) aan die troepe van land C vanwaar land C weer land A raid. Dis die geval hier met ons “culture wars”. Land B is die moderates, die “aanvaarbare” gelowiges… en Land C is die fundies. Sien jy die probleem? En dinks selfs aan ander rustiger “mystics”, soos die New Agers. Is hulle onskadelik? Wat gebeur wanneer mense meer “geloof” plaas in kruiekak en homeopathic magic? Of mense wat good luck charms vertrou om met magic hulle kinders gesond te maak, hulle huwelike te red en vir hulle geld in te bring? Miskien is die onskuldige krukkie van private geloof ‘n illusie, en mense wat daarop leun sal vind dat wind jou nie so goed ondersteun nie al glo jy wat. Sal ons dan maar nod and smile wanneer mense hulle krukke verdedig, of sal ons ten misnte probeer eerlik wees en die moontlike gevare uitwys. En sal ons maar weereens as astrante, arrogante, militante patronizing assholes genoem word die oomblik wanneer ons nie saamstem nie of sal ons openlik eerlike kritiek lewer?
Riaan skryf: “Why is mysticism in itself offensive?”
Is dit offensive vir reason wanneer mense glo in healing crystals? Is dit offensive vir reason wanneer mense in spoke glo? Is dit offensive vir die wetenskaplike medisyne praktyk, en doktors, en chemists, en rationele mense wanneer mense openlik verkondig dat kruie of skoon water beter werk as wetenskaplike medisyne? Die issue hier gaan eintlik meer oor eerlikheid as offensive. Is daar enige mysticism wat eerlik is, wat hulle geloof sal uitgooi sodra daar bewyse uitkom dat dit twak is? Sal die Dalai Lama erken die Tibet mense is beter af onder kommunistiese China as wat hulle ooit onder enige Lama was?
Riaan wrote: ‘do unto others as you would whish them to do unto you’
I disagree. You would like your neighbour’s porche, but would you give your car to your neigbour that only has a bicycle? The rule that works better in reality (in my opinion) is “Do NOT do to other what you DO NOT want them to do to you”. Sounds almost the same but very different in practice.
Riaan wrote: ” It feels to me as if we, humans, lose the plot in a bigger way when we become communities.”
What plot? We are social animals and tend to herd in communities. We evolved that way. It is natural for us just like it is natural for Lions to hunt. I don’t get the “plot” thing. Should we act in a unnatural way to perceive some greater plot? Am I making to much of the plot question or did I perhaps miss your meaning?
Riaan wrote: “As ons terug gaan toe ons voorsate geleef het soos jy se John se droom is, Objective, dan is daar baie meer eenvoud en minder stress”
I used to hold this view, but the I asked myself a question. To live in the old way without modern technology and science… The first time your child picks up a possible deadly infection that a simple penicilin would cure… less stress? Would life quality really be better or are we just longing/imagining an idealistic world that never really existed in the first place?
Riaan wrote: “EK vermoed dat as jy ons uit die vergelyking verwyder, dan sal ons almal vind die mielies groei self en die skape loop waar hulle bestem is om te loop.”
Nitpick, sorry. “Bestem” is om te loop? duer wie, wat?
Savage wrote: “Except the fundies, their god will protect them. But then again, you could hardly call them ‘mens’.”
Damn, what is taking god so long with the darn Rapture? I can’t wait
Is # 118 bot generated or is Dr. Luvtuch for real?
Savage wrote: “Just read this from PZ Myers[...]”
I have been lurking on PZ’s blog for years now, even in the “old” days when he was part of the Panda’s Thumb crew.
Comment by Renier — June 25, 2008 @ 5:41 am |
Riaan wrote: “Ek stem saam met die ‘aloof ticking of the universe’ tog kan ons nie seker wees hieroor nie, is die sielkundige waarde van die geloof aan die gelowige nie genoeg om die wat wel glo toe te laat om te glo in die privaatheid nie?
Solank hulle nie inmeng met ander se regte nie!”
En solank hulle (moderates/privaat geloof dudes) bietjie hulle eie deel bydrae om die fanaticals in hulle eie tent bietjie vas te vat, want die fundies meng juis in. Soos ‘n muis infestation soek fundies altyd gaatjies om hulle neuse (fantasie) in te druk, skole, politiek, wette…
Ek persoonlik beskou myself nie as n teïs nie, ook nie n ateïs nie, om eerlik te wees sal ek myself as geestelik maar nie religieus beskou. Vir my moet God inpas by realiteit en ek herken die wetenskap as die mees doeltreffendste manier om realiteit te pyl tog is daar sekere tasbare konsepte soos liefde en hoop, sielkunde, ens. wat nie maklik deur die wetenskap verduidelik word nie.
Ek sal self eksperimenteer en analiseer as dit by ‘God’ kom, ek verkondig niks, dit is privaat. Aan die hand van n voorbeeld: As my vrou my kind gedoop wil hè sal ek ewe gelukkig dit toelaat, dit is n simboliese ritueel wat geen skade maak nie, die kind se opvoeding is n saak tussen my intellek en die kind sin, dit is my verantwoordelikheid om die wêreld se invloed op die kind te analiseer en te beheer, om die kind voor te berei teen alle aanslagte van die lewe, dit was immers my besluit om die kind tot hier te bring.
Watter onus berus by my om die fundies aan te vat? As daar baklei word in my teenwoordigheid voel ek vere vir die dogma, ek sal regverdig en streng optree teenoor albei partye, maar ek sal nie (uit my pad gaan om) n bakleiery aanhits nie.
Êrens op die blog het iemand geskryf “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity” ek het al van teveel tonele weggestap met bebloede vuiste om te weet dat niemand n bakleiery wen nie, al was ek regverdig in my optrede (en ek was altyd) het ek nie n enkele keer soos n wenner gevoel nie.
Ek stem saam daar nie issues is as mense hulle geloof in privaatheid praktiseer nie. Maar wat van die mense se eie kinders? So maand of twee terug was daar die geval van die ouers wat gebed verkies het bo wetenskaplike medisyne en hulle kind het gesterf daarvan. Die vraag is dus, wat is ons rol, ons verantwoordelikheid om onskuldige mense (soos kinders) te beskerm van geloof? Ander mense se geloof wat in privaatheid beoefen word mag *ons* dalk nie raak nie, maar wanneer die irrationele geloof hulle kinders in gevaar stel, wat moet *ons* doen?
Dit is tragies! Ek stem heelhartig hiermee saam, ek kan net nie onderskeid tref tussen hierdie soort optrede, teweeg gebring deur geloof, of kultuur, of politiek, of selfs wetenskap nie, verkeerd is verkeerd, net omdat dit in die geval religieus is maak dit nie vir my erger nie. Gaan jy almal aanvat? Indien nie is daar n rede hoekom jy geloof uitsonder? wat van die Xhosa wat sy kind bos toe stuur weens kultuur. Wat van die Vegan wie se kind n yster tekort opdoen omdat die Ma weier om die kind vleis te gee. Wat van die Pa wat sy dogter versuip omdat hy n seunskind wil hê in n land waar politiek slegs een kind per gesin toelaat?
Ek het al baie my mening gelig dat ek nie issues met die moderates het nie, want hulle beinvloed my nie. Inteendeel, ek ondersteun hulle reg om te glo. Maar…. maar… Kom ek probeer ‘n analogie maak. Dink aan drie lande. Land A en C is in ‘n toestand van oorlog, en land B is neutraal. Maar land B verskaf skuiling (en ammo) aan die troepe van land C vanwaar land C weer land A raid. (dit is nie neutraal nie, dit is slinks) Dis die geval hier met ons “culture wars”. Land B is die moderates, die “aanvaarbare” gelowiges… en Land C is die fundies. Sien jy die probleem? (Ek is nie vertroud genoeg met jou definisie van n ‘moderate’ nie, ek verstaan nie heeltemal die analogie nie, behalwe die islamiete weet ek nie van kerke wat moord aanstaan nie, daar is n verkil tussen oorlog en geloof, oorlog is polities, geloof kan gebruik word om volgelinge te manipuleer of op te sweep, ja, maar dit is die politikus wat die kak maak nie die geloof nie, vat die geloof weg en die politikus sal n ander middel vind. Vat die politikus weg? ) En dinks selfs aan ander rustiger “mystics”, soos die New Agers. Is hulle onskadelik? Wat gebeur wanneer mense meer “geloof” plaas in kruiekak en homeopathic magic? ( nie alle homeopatiese middele is kak nie, soos alles is daar die middele wat getoets is en die wat nie is nie, maar dit is ook waar vir gereguleerde medisyne, korrupsie is orals en wetenskaplikes is menslik) Of mense wat good luck charms vertrou om met magic hulle kinders gesond te maak, hulle huwelike te red en vir hulle geld in te bring? ( Ek stem saam, ken n dom vrou wat nou n graad in meta-physics verwerf het, wat die hond se medisyne – regte medisyne, een of ander antibiotika – onder die hond se waterbak gesit het, die hond sal blykbaar so die goeie deel van die pille absorbeer, nou ja, dit kos my elke keer om nuwe pille te koop en die pille in n 70kg Boerboel se keel af te druk. Tog sal dit nie help om haar te konfronteer nie, ek sal niks vermag nie, net my eie bloeddruk opjaag, en as ek dit wil aanvat hoekom nie ook met haar baklei oor die tien bottles wit wyn wat sy elke dag uitsuip nie. Ek is nie verantwoordelik vir almal wat nie vir hulleself kan dink nie, ek kry die hond jammer, want hy kan nie vir homself opstaan nie.) Miskien is die onskuldige krukkie van private geloof ‘n illusie, en mense wat daarop leun sal vind dat wind jou nie so goed ondersteun nie al glo jy wat (My[konsep van]God is soos gravitasie, geen mate van jammer wees gaan vergifnis bring as ek by n tien verdieping gebou se dak afloop nie, god helps those who helps themselves, maar ek verstaan jou punt) . Sal ons dan maar nod and smile wanneer mense hulle krukk[i]e verdedig, of sal ons ten misnte probeer eerlik wees en die moontlike gevare uitwys. ( n mens verdedig tog net as jy aangeval word, ek sal nie inmeng nie nee, ek sal net glimlag en my by my eie sake bepaal, tog as jy my met n krukkie probeer slaan sal ek jou met jou eie kruk donner) En sal ons maar weereens as astrante, arrogante, militante patronizing assholes genoem word die oomblik wanneer ons nie saamstem nie of sal ons openlik eerlike kritiek lewer? ( Iemand wat openlik en eerlik kritiek lewer word selde arrogant, astrant of militant genoem, die verkleinering mag dalk iets daarmee te doen hê. Ek sal nie weer met diegene wat hier teenoor my verkleinerend is argumenteer nie, ek verkies n bedagsame gesprek, n argument kan mos lekker warm word sonder dat n mens nodig het om soos n meerderwaardige doos op te tree)
Riaan skryf: “Why is mysticism in itself offensive?”
Is dit offensive vir reason wanneer mense glo in healing crystals? Is dit offensive vir reason wanneer mense in spoke glo? Is dit offensive vir die wetenskaplike medisyne praktyk, en doktors, en chemists, en rationele mense wanneer mense openlik verkondig dat kruie of skoon water beter werk as wetenskaplike medisyne? Die issue hier gaan eintlik meer oor eerlikheid as offensive. (oneerlikheid is altyd n probleem, die kwessie is wanneer om dit teen te staan, en hoe.), Is daar enige mysticism wat eerlik is (ek herken die fout wat ek gemaak het onder die volksmond betekenis van die woord, maar volgens die basiese leksikale betekenis van die woord is dit nie goed of kwaad nie, soos alles hang dit af van deur wie, en hoe dit toegepas word), wat hulle geloof sal uitgooi sodra daar bewyse uitkom dat dit twak is? (dit sal goed wees) Sal die Dalai Lama erken die Tibet mense is beter af onder kommunistiese China as wat hulle ooit onder enige Lama was? (Glo jy hulle is? Ek weet te min om regtig te kan sê, maar van wat ek al gesien het sou ek vermoed die Chinese owerhede was nie baie vriendelik nie. )
Riaan wrote: ‘do unto others as you would whish them to do unto you’
I disagree. You would like your neighbour’s porche, but would you give your car to your neigbour that only has a bicycle? ( within reason, if my neighbour gave me his Porche I would most readily give my fucked up opel to the bloke with his bike) The rule that works better in reality (in my opinion) is “Do NOT do to other what you DO NOT want them to do to you”. ( Jy het n goeie punt ) Sounds almost the same but very different in practice. ( ek het miskien versuim om dit vroeër duidelik te maak, maar die laasgenoemde is presies waarop ek my definisie van morele waardes baseer)
Riaan wrote: ” It feels to me as if we, humans, lose the plot in a bigger way when we become communities.”
What plot? We are social animals and tend to herd in communities. We evolved that way. It is natural for us just like it is natural for Lions to hunt. I don’t get the “plot” thing. Should we act in a unnatural way to perceive some greater plot? Am I making to much of the plot question or did I perhaps miss your meaning? (You are making too much of the plot thing, when groups are small everyone has to work together to make things happen, there is less infighting, resources are plenty, when the groups grow to become crowds, people require leaders to make rules, commonsense goes out the window, corruption sets in, or at least becomes easier to set in manually, stupid things happen, innocent people get left behind or hurt etc.)
Riaan wrote: “As ons terug gaan toe ons voorsate geleef het soos jy se John se droom is, Objective, dan is daar baie meer eenvoud en minder stress”
I used to hold this view, but the I asked myself a question. To live in the old way without modern technology and science… The first time your child picks up a possible deadly infection that a simple penicilin would cure… less stress? Would life quality really be better or are we just longing/imagining an idealistic world that never really existed in the first place? (Alles is relatief tot die verwysings raamwerk, toe sterf die kind van griep, vandag word hulle verkrag en uitmekaar gekerf, vandag is ons meer afgestomp maar relatief is dit eintlik maar dieselfde…simpel voorbeeld, maar n goeie begrip het miskien n halwe woord nodig. Vra jouself maar hoe effektief is penicillin vandag, en hoekom is dit so?)
Riaan wrote: “EK vermoed dat as jy ons uit die vergelyking verwyder, dan sal ons almal vind die mielies groei self en die skape loop waar hulle bestem is om te loop.”
Nitpick, sorry. “Bestem” is om te loop? deur wie, wat? ( hulle natuurlike instink om vir die groen gras te gaan waar die leeus min is, sonder om deur mens gemaakte heinings belemmer te word)
Renier, ek waardeer jou inset, ek is enige tyd gewillig om n gesprek oor die onderwerp in persoon vêrder te vat met enige een, hier is dit te maklik om in die gewoonte te verval om groepies te maak en ’saam’ te praat en mekaar op die skouer te klop. As enigiemand in my teenwoordigheid wil verkleinerend wees is hulle welkom om te probeer. Ek ondervind hierdie emosionele op hol jaag taktieke wat ek hier sien te veel soos kerkgaan, dit help nie om een kerk vir n ander te verruil nie.
Dit is n doellose gejaag na wind, sonder diskresie en eer as die een weens politieke redes nie die ander se punt probeer verstaan voordat verskille uitgewys word nie. You can only judge a man when you have walked a mile in his shoes, and then it should not be only because you are a mile away and you have his shoes.
Comment by Riaan — June 25, 2008 @ 12:57 pm |
Riaan, thanks. ‘n Baie nice en oop response. Ek sal my reply optik en binnekort post. Thanks vir jou tyd.
Comment by Renier — June 25, 2008 @ 1:52 pm |
Riaan skryf: “Ek sal self eksperimenteer en analiseer as dit by ‘God’ kom, ek verkondig niks, dit is privaat.”
En ek ondersteun jou reg daartoe.
Riaan skryf: “Watter onus berus by my om die fundies aan te vat?”
Vir een Riaan, jy moet verstaan presies wat hulle agenda is. Hulle wil *jou* kind bitter graag vol parasitiese memes prop. Hulle wil graag he die land moet met Bybelse wette regeer word. Hulle wil homos verbied om hulle self te wees, met die wet. Hulle verkrag wetenskap en vooruitgang alles ter wille van hulle mites. Hulle wil nie aids mense medikasie gee nie, want dit is god se straf. Hulle worrie nie oor die environment nie want Jesus sal alles binnekort weer nuut maak. Besides, hulle god het gese hulle moet “heers” oor die aarde. Dit sluit jou (en my) as ongelowige in, om oor geheers te word. Miskien is die fundie threat nie baie groot in SA soos bv in Amerika nie, maar ek sal maar doen wat ek kan om hulle nie ‘n kat se kans te gee nie. Jy moet ook verstaan dat my voorbeelde hierbo nie reg deur die bank van toepassing is nie, maar in ag neem dat daar fundies is wat openlik verkondig dat hulle dink “hekse”, “homos” en ongehoorsame kinders gestenig moet word. En ons weet een ding, as mens hulle los, dan wurm hulle hulleself baie goed oral in, veral in die areas waar wette gemaak word en kinders geleer word.
So nee Riaan, daar is seker nie ‘n onus op jou self om astrant met die fundies te raak nie. Miskien is ek paranoid, maar ek doen ook maar net wat ek dink die beste vir almal is, fundies included.
Riaan skryf: “ek sal regverdig en streng optree teenoor albei partye, maar ek sal nie (uit my pad gaan om) n bakleiery aanhits nie.”
Ek sal ‘n “fight” (nie fisies nie!) aanhits as hulle enigsins probeer om hulle dogma erens in te druk, al is dit op ‘n blog. Ek was ‘n fundie (soos almal seker al weet) en sien ‘n baie groot gevaar. Maar miskien verbeel ek myself en is hulle heeltemal onskadelik?
Riaan skryf : “Êrens op die blog het iemand geskryf “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity” ek het al van teveel tonele weggestap met bebloede vuiste om te weet dat niemand n bakleiery wen nie”
Mens “fight” vir peace as die ander klomp fight om jou vryheid te ondermyn. En dis waaroor dinge hier gaan. Vryheid en fairness, nie politeness en good feelings nie. Maar miskien is ek maar net paranoid en is daar geen gevaar van die fundies af nie.
Riaan skryf: “al was ek regverdig in my optrede (en ek was altyd) het ek nie n enkele keer soos n wenner gevoel nie.”
Ek het al. Dink bv aan Thinus wat genoeg moed bymekaar geskraap het om vry te word, in sy eie woorde. Maar ek verstaan jou punt, dat die debatte en beledigings selde vrugte afwerp.
Riaan skryf : ” Dit is tragies! Ek stem heelhartig hiermee saam, ek kan net nie onderskeid tref tussen hierdie soort optrede, teweeg gebring deur geloof, of kultuur, of politiek, of selfs wetenskap nie, verkeerd is verkeerd, net omdat dit in die geval religieus is maak dit nie vir my erger nie.”
Ek stem ook heelhartig saam. Ek is net beter toegerus om my deel te probeer bydra met die stryd tussen geloof (sekere gelowe) en vryheid. Maar die ander faktore wat jy noem is net so valid.
Riaan skryf: “Gaan jy almal aanvat? Indien nie is daar n rede hoekom jy geloof uitsonder? wat van die Xhosa wat sy kind bos toe stuur weens kultuur. Wat van die Vegan wie se kind n yster tekort opdoen omdat die Ma weier om die kind vleis te gee. Wat van die Pa wat sy dogter versuip omdat hy n seunskind wil hê in n land waar politiek slegs een kind per gesin toelaat?”
Ja, ek sal myself uitspreek (en ek doen) teen die ander goed wat jy opnoem ook. Ek het al vir Vegans gese hulle is dof om nie hulle kinders vleis te gee nie, want daar is wetenskaplike data wat toon dat vleis noodsaaklik vir die ontwikkeling van die brein is. Kindermoord is kindermoord en ek gee nie om wie de fok dit doen nie, ek verdoem dit. Ek spreek myself ook uit teen besnydenis, hetsy dit “kultuur” is of pseudo-wetenskaplike stront.
Riaan skryf : “daar is n verkil tussen oorlog en geloof, oorlog is polities, geloof kan gebruik word om volgelinge te manipuleer of op te sweep, ja, maar dit is die politikus wat die kak maak nie die geloof nie, vat die geloof weg en die politikus sal n ander middel vind. ”
Die sad ding is dat jy reg is. Ek haat politiek, want ek sien dieselfde korrupsie as wat daar in die fundie geledere is. Geloof is nie *noodwendig* die oorsaak van ‘n slegte ding nie, maar ek is van die opinie dat dit baiekeer die deurslaggewende faktor kan wees. Hoe meer ons kan wegkerf aan die justifications wat die mense het vir hulle onregverdige en onderdrukkende optrede, hoe beter, dan nie? Maar jy moet verstaan, BAIE mense stem vir ‘n party net op grond van geloof. Geloof is ‘n baie groot faktor.
Riaan skryf : “Tog sal dit nie help om haar te konfronteer nie, ek sal niks vermag nie, net my eie bloeddruk opjaag, en as ek dit wil aanvat hoekom nie ook met haar baklei oor die tien bottles wit wyn wat sy elke dag uitsuip nie.”
Maar jy doen tog “iets”. Dit is die groot verskil. Wat kan ek doen om die fundies uit die skole/staat/wetenskap te hou? Ek kan maar net my woorde tik op die blogs en hoop dat neutrale mense nie val vir die nare memes wat in baie gevalle monsters van goeie mense maak nie. En weereens, dis nie deur die bank nie. Baie fundies (meeste) is goeie mense, dit is ongelukkig hulle geloof wat maak dat hulle onregverdig optree, soos om ander mense se kinders die “goeie nuus” te vertel. Hulle doen sleg maar onder die indruk dat hulle die beste doen. Ek kan nie die boerboel die pille gee nie, maar ek kan probeer uitwys dat pille onder die bak so goed soos skaap bollies aan ‘n halsband sal werk.
Riaan skryf: “Ek is nie verantwoordelik vir almal wat nie vir hulleself kan dink nie”
Ook baie waar. Dis fine as mense nie dink nie, solank hulle “nie-denke” my nie beinvloed nie. In die geval van geloof beinvloed dit my wel. Kyk om jou rond… geloof is oral! En omdat ek dink geloof is gevaarlik (nie noodwendig *altyd* nie) probeer ek dit teenstaan sodra dit sy nek in die openbaar uitsteek.
Riaan skryf: “My[konsep van]God is soos gravitasie, geen mate van jammer wees gaan vergifnis bring as ek by n tien verdieping gebou se dak afloop nie, god helps those who helps themselves, maar ek verstaan jou punt”
Watter verskil is daar tussen jou [konsep van] god en die natuur?
Riaan skryf: “n mens verdedig tog net as jy aangeval word”
Ja, presies. Wie is dit wat leuns oor die wetenskap versprei, wat hulle dogma in skole vorseer, wat hulle fantasie op die regstelsel wil afdwing? Wie is dit wat mense gebonde aan hulle boek wil maak. Sien Riaan, dalk is ek regtig paranoid, maar ek ervaar wel ‘n aanslag, ‘n aanslag wat al vir amper 2000 jaar op die mensdom afgedwing word. Ons doen nou beter, maar dit is alles te danke aan mense wat wel opgestaan het teen geloof (ironies genoeg, selfs gelowiges).
Riaan skryf: “tog as jy my met n krukkie probeer slaan sal ek jou met jou eie kruk donner”
Riaan skryf: “Iemand wat openlik en eerlik kritiek lewer word selde arrogant, astrant of militant genoem”
Nee Riaan, mense word die dinge genoem omdat hulle durf waag om te verskil van dogma. Ek se nie atheists is onskuldig in dat hulle ook sleg kan reageer indien mense ook van hulle verskil, maar dit gaan hier oor mense (atheists) wat ge”demonise” word (vir duisende jare al) omdat hulle die “arrogansie” het om konsepte van god uit te roep en op die tafel te ontleed, en dan te verklaar dis stront. Party mense raak offended daaroor.
Riaan skryf: “Ek sal nie weer met diegene wat hier teenoor my verkleinerend is argumenteer nie, ek verkies n bedagsame gesprek, n argument kan mos lekker warm word sonder dat n mens nodig het om soos n meerderwaardige doos op te tree)”
Ek se nie jy doen dit nie, maar mens moet oppas om dit nie persoonlik op te neem wanneer mens se opinies of idees verkleineer word nie. Ek het vroeg vroeg geleer dat mens nie sensitief kan wees op die blogs nie.
Riaan skryf : “ek herken die fout wat ek gemaak het onder die volksmond betekenis van die woord, maar volgens die basiese leksikale betekenis van die woord is dit nie goed of kwaad nie, soos alles hang dit af van deur wie, en hoe dit toegepas word”
Ek het maar respond soos wat ek jou siening verstaan het. Ek kan nie mysticism goedpraat nie want ek is regtig oortuig dat dit gevaarlik *kan* wees. Ek sien wel hoe mense se beursies deur die mystics geskud word. Mense wat produkte verkoop wat nie werk nie en sodoende die desperate mense uitbuit vir geld. Dis wat ek sien. Maar sodra ek uitvra hoe ‘n healing crystal werk, en dan uitwys dat die verduideliking van “cosmic energy” en “positive enrgy flow” en “absorbtion of negative energy” soos loutere kak klink, dan is ek gewoonlik die nare atheist wat met sy meerderwarige houding die arme onskuldige mense patronize.
Riaan skryf: “Ek weet te min om regtig te kan sê, maar van wat ek al gesien het sou ek vermoed die Chinese owerhede was nie baie vriendelik nie. ”
Ek was ook geskok om te lees oor hoe dinge in Tibet was *voor* die nasty kommuniste dit oorgeneem het… fok die Lama.
Riaan skryf : “ek het miskien versuim om dit vroeër duidelik te maak, maar die laasgenoemde is presies waarop ek my definisie van morele waardes baseer”
Ek het vermoed ons stem eintlik saam oor wat fairness is.
Riaan wrote: “You are making too much of the plot thing”
I thought so. Sorry man.
Riaan wrote: “when groups are small everyone has to work together to make things happen, there is less infighting, resources are plenty, when the groups grow to become crowds, people require leaders to make rules, commonsense goes out the window, corruption sets in, or at least becomes easier to set in manually, stupid things happen, innocent people get left behind or hurt etc”
I am not going to agree outright. Civilization started when people could live in very large communities, made possible by farming. My opinion is that we are better of than people were in the tribal times. We can go into detail if you want, but consider education, specialization, farming (more resource) and when art and music really got going.
Riaan skryf: “Alles is relatief tot die verwysings raamwerk, toe sterf die kind van griep, vandag word hulle verkrag en uitmekaar gekerf, vandag is ons meer afgestomp maar relatief is dit eintlik maar dieselfde…simpel voorbeeld, maar n goeie begrip het miskien n halwe woord nodig. Vra jouself maar hoe effektief is penicillin vandag, en hoekom is dit so?)”
Kinders was moontlik baie meer verkrag in die ou tyd. Kinders was as slawe verkoop. Kinders was ook doodgemaak op bitter wrede maniere. Weereens, ek dink ons is beter af. Kyk maar na die gemiddelde lewens verwagting wat aanhou opgaan…
Riaan skryf: “hulle natuurlike instink”
O ja, dan stem ek saam. Die woord “bestem” is net bietjie erg gelaai met dubbelsinnigheid, maar ek verstaan nou die konteks.
Riaan skryf : “hier is dit te maklik om in die gewoonte te verval om groepies te maak en ’saam’ te praat en mekaar op die skouer te klop”
Partykeer het ons almal maar ‘n bietjie van ‘n skouerklop nodig. Soos jy weet verg al die geskrewe stukkies nogal tyd en is dit goed wanneer mense iets van waarde daaruit kan haal.
Riaan skryf: “As enigiemand in my teenwoordigheid wil verkleinerend wees is hulle welkom om te probeer.”
Jy sal nooit daarvan af wegkom nie. Mense is mense. En wat maak dit tog saak as mense verkleinerend is? Ignoreer hulle en komminikeer met die mense wat jy meer gemaklik mee voel, dis jou reg. Ek self mind nie as mense my probeer verkleineer (op die blogs) nie. Mense is baie dapper op die blogs en ek is beslis nie die politeness police nie.
Riaan skryf: “Ek ondervind hierdie emosionele op hol jaag taktieke wat ek hier sien te veel soos kerkgaan, dit help nie om een kerk vir n ander te verruil nie.”
Dit is jammer dat dit jou ervaring is. Sterkte ook in jou soeke na waarheid, want dit is tog waaroor al hierdie debatte en “fights” gaan. Ek geniet die blog. Ek kan se wat ek wil. Ek geniet die kritiek, want ek heg waarde daaraan dat my opinies geweeg moet word. En ek raak baiekeer giftig en insult mense, veral wanneer dit duidelik raak dat die mense hulle riool met room toesmeer, dit heilig verklaar en weier om te oorweeg dat dit stink. Maar nou ja, elke keer wanneer ons die room van die riool tert afkrap, dan voel mense offended.
Riaan skryf: “Dit is n doellose gejaag na wind, sonder diskresie en eer as die een weens politieke redes nie die ander se punt probeer verstaan voordat verskille uitgewys word nie.”
Ek verstaan die ander kant se punte, ek was self daar, sover dit fundie punte aangaan. Dis juis hoekom ek probeer weerstand bied.
Riaan wrote: “You can only judge a man when you have walked a mile in his shoes, and then it should not be only because you are a mile away and you have his shoes.”
I judge them by their deeds and the motives they preach from the pulpit. I don’t have to respect them nor their psycotic [concept of] god nor their story book. in fact, I don’t have respect for faith at all. Faith never taught us anything, yet people sing it’s praise. I mock it for what it is, delusion. I’ll stop once people provide evidence of how good faith is or how it does lead to truth. So far, nothing, so I will disagree that it has any more value than a placebo pill until I am shown to be wrong.
Comment by Renier — June 26, 2008 @ 8:36 am |
Jy maak n paar baie goeie punte, ek respekteer jou siening en veral jou manier.
Ek skuld jou tog n antwoord:
Watter verskil is daar tussen jou [konsep van] god en die natuur?
My antwoord is: Geen verskil nie.
Ek wens jou ook sterkte toe, Renier!!
Comment by Riaan — June 26, 2008 @ 10:23 am |
Riaan skryf: “My antwoord is: Geen verskil nie.”
Wel, as ek mag vra, confuse jy mense nie dalk onnodig deur dit dan god te noem nie? Ek vra maar net omdat dit presies is wat met Einstein se quotes oor god mee gedoen word en dit het mense bitter erg verwar. As Einstein “god” skryf dan juig die Xians. Jare na sy dood is daar nogsteeds mense wat sy quotes oor “god” aanhaal om te probeer bewys dat hy in die teistiese kamp was, wat ons weet hy nie was nie.
Geez, my taalgebruik hierbo is crap. Hoop jy kan uitmaak wat ek probeer se, want selfs ek sukkel
Comment by Renier — June 26, 2008 @ 11:50 am |
As woorde maar goed genoeg was om te verduidelik?
Die eenvoudigste antwoord is omrede ek nie n Theist of n Atheis, of enigiets met n hoofletter kan wees nie.
Practice senseless and random acts of kindness!
Ah, but I bet you already do.
Cheers
Ri
Comment by Riaan — June 26, 2008 @ 6:53 pm |
Riaan skryf: “Die eenvoudigste antwoord is omrede ek nie n Theist of n Atheis, of enigiets met n hoofletter kan wees nie.”
Okay, dus, as ek jou reg verstaan, hou jy nie daarvan om deur klasifikasie in ‘n boks gedruk te word nie?
Comment by Renier — June 27, 2008 @ 6:49 am |
“Only two things are impotent – the universe and the stupidity of man.” Albert Einstein.
Comment by Al Lovejoy — June 30, 2008 @ 8:47 pm |
Amen brother!
Lets face facts the only manifestation of god we are likely to see, would be the FACT of devine inspiration, this is also the only level of devine intervention we can prove.
Since the apearance of user unknown on the Orkut chanels I have followed these clues he mentioned and inspired by some of what he had to say I have done a few experiments of my own.
Yousser Unnoun as he named himself on Orkut devised two experiments I thought to be ingenious.
One was with cats, you see they are the masterts of Telepathy, and we can all prove the existence of telepathy through them. easy and clean, repeatable and verifyable. knock yourselves out!
The second was devine ionspiration. Simple watch for a moment of profound ispiration and document the complete follow up. then study it, one or two examples is enough it boggles the mind and it leads to further exmples.
I used to be an atheist now I am an agnostic slash deist. I never thought I would say that…..
Comment by nicholas.linear@gmail.com — July 6, 2008 @ 6:09 pm |
So why don’t you take the initiative, User Unknown/Nicholas/Aijo, and go do your own “ingenious” experiments. Then you can write them up and publish them in a parapsychology journal instead of wasting your time, blowing bulldust in some Internet backwater.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm |
A PERSPECTIVE ON THE VALUE OF RELIGION
Hi Folks
As Introduction the following statement was made:
“How will we ever be moral if religion is absent from our lives, not there to guide us?”
Claiming that this is the argument used to convince atheist and others why Religious structures are necessary for creating harmony and peace. I agree with the writer with my whole heart; if religion was able to bring peace, we would have lived in a far better world. As a matter of fact, I see Religion as the problem that caused all or rather most of the problems on earth. Look at history for the proof of that as well as our present world situation!
Let us see what is the meaning of “RELIGION”
religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods :
When we look at different, so called Christian Organizations for example, then we find they differ as far from one another as day from night. Some claim secret revelation, that’s why they do what they do (Gnosticism). Others claim they “stick” to the Bible and do what it requires. Then you will find that they has lost step of God’s progress with man – here I have the people in mind that hang on to Jewish Laws and try to find peace and Salvation by try keeping these Laws and condemn all other Christians who do not practice the Jewish laws. I think the reason for this view is that people start reading the Bible from the beginning, but as soon as they strike the Genealogy Registers or the Prophetic books, they become discouraged and don’t read to the end to get a full picture and the place of the Law. (SMILE) (”The Law in perspective” no man could get justification with God by keeping or trying to keep the Law, because man’s efforts to do this is just not good enough to meet God’s criteria! However, the Law is very important! With out it we never would have realized the need for salvation and of a Savior!)
Then you have those groups, so called Christians – who add to there believe system things relating back to ancient or Babylonian idolatry worship, worshiping and honoring statues and carvings, which is creations of human hands and even glorify deceased human beings to objects of prayer and worship! God strictly forbids such practices as these. Through the ages the latter groups persecuted thousand of faithful believers in Jesus.
All of this rather had a repellant effect on the world and did not demonstrated God’s love and care to draw human creation back to Him!
Back to “RELIGION” all of the above groups are involved in boring and endless “RITUALS” stripped from truth and power to give hope, encouragement, warmth, love and numerous other things that human beings are in need of!
So, now you can see why I give credit to the writer’s first statement. However, I don’t agree with his view that humanism is the answer. I believe the writer’s view is due to negative experiences with the Afrikaner or other Church scene. No denomination excluded! Then an alternative was offered, namely “HUMANISM” I think it is Pascal who is claimed to have said: “Each human being has a God-shaped hole on the inside which can only be filled by God Himself” Well, what happened with the writer, when disappointed by the “Church or Religious” people? He tried to fill that need after God with an alternative: “Humanism” It look so good, so caring, but still, when you get to the end of it, you will find it is without substance, not able to fill the void in your life!
NOW WHAT IS TE ANSWER THEN?
I do not claim to have a secret revelation, no, not at all! But before coming to the essentials, just another
quote from the writer of the article under discussion:
” ‘Children should be taught from the beginning “that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and EXPERIENCE (my emphasis); that morality comes from our own selves as social beings; that happiness, meaning and fulfillment are our own to create through the joy of intellectual endeavour, of social action, of human relationships,” writes Copson’”
Pleas note the emphasis “EXPERIENCE”: I despise RELIGION because in my search for meaning, peace, order and all the other spiritual comforts an ordinary human being needs, I was disappointed in the available religious systems and you and I are not alone, the religious systems not only let you and me and thousands of other down, they also let God down. But let us not be hard on them or without forgiveness, because I am not perfect and neither are you or any other human being.
Fortunately, I kept on searching and if you are serious in your believe about “EXPERIENCE”? Well, without much human involvement I encountered and EXPERIENCE God through JESUS CHRIST. He became a reality to me, he changed my life and He guides me through life now for almost 28 years. My EXPERIENCE of God is real and no Human being has the right to accuse me of not having such EXPERIENCE. Faith in God is not always logic, yes, that is true, but that is a concept that no real believer has a problem with: We cannot understand God, if that was possible He wouldn’t be God!
(I see also that the writer launched and attack on Angus Buchan and his EXPEREINCES with God and his willingness to share it with others! Probably the writer should get a copy of Angus’ book and read it himself. I don’t know Angus personally, at least not yet, but my impression of him from the book is that he is honest, sincere and that he is preaching a message unadulterated by religion!)
WHY RELIGION DOES NOT MAKE AN IMPACT ON THE WORLD:
1. BECAUSE IT IS NOT DONE GOD’S WAY
Jesus said: Matt 15:9
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”
2. BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Jesus said: Joh 13:35
By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Especially in South Africa, in some churches there are more spiritual violence than in the darkest hell holes of Johannesburg!
3. THE ABSENCE OF RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD – WHICH LEADS TO HIS NOTICEABLE PRESENCE (He is omnipresent but not always noticeable)
Matthew 7:21 –
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the WILL of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never KNEW you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!
In the above Scripture quotation two words are emphasized; “WILL” and “KNEW” To meet the demands of your country’s LAW, you at least need to know the basics of the Legal system. When you enter into a relationship with the opposite sex, you need to get to know him or her in order for you to get to know what will please them!
To get to know God’s will, just to read the Bible is not enough, because much of it will make no sense to you – See what the apostle Paul said to this effect:
1Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But when you enter into a relationship with God the Father through God the Son which is Jesus Christ, this scenario
change all together!
To get to know God’s will you have to get to know God. Irrespective of the good deeds and miracles as mentioned in the above Scripture, Jesus will command them to depart because He never knew them! Why not? Because they never entered into and maintain a relationship with Him!
HOW DO I ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?
Romans 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.
Only God through Jesus can give us perfect peace, order and every thing we ever might need!
All the best
Peter
Comment by Peter Cilliers — July 7, 2008 @ 2:52 am |
Peter Cilliers wrote (#141 or thereabouts):
That’s a very bad start because you’re either deluding yourself or lying to your readers. If you “despise RELIGION,” why do you spend the better part of 1,400 words defending and promoting your own understanding of your god and his/her idiotic book? And all of that verbiage doesn’t actually address the central questions of whether your god even exists in the first place and why mankind actually should need him/her at all. No, I’m afraid that, judging by the above comment of yours, you’re no better than any number of other religious fruitcakes who pass through here from time to time, armed with little else besides passion and scripture, and holding forth with authoritarian solemnity on how you, and you alone, are better informed, wiser and more knowledgeable in these matters than any other mortal. See, that’s just where the trouble with all religions already begins: they seek no less than to subjugate people by fear and intimidation into living their lives according to a set of wholly artificial standards. A false belief remains a false belief, no matter how good the intention behind it may be, and false beliefs more often than not eventually prompt inappropriate, even harmful action.
Oh, and one other thing: those affectations of unctuous joviality and “aw gee” country bumpkin affability? Drop them because they add nothing to your arguments except a measure of disingenuousness that will only piss people off in the long run.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 7, 2008 @ 8:06 am |
Hi Peter Cilliers.
We have heard all about this “relationship with god” many many times before. Many people here are ex Christians and “eperienced” it. From my side, I came the the conclusion that you have a relationship with your own make-belief friend. Could you please provide proof that you do *in fact* have a relationship with god so that we may differentiate it from your imagination?
Oh, and please try to answer the questions instead of slinking away with the hope that you have sown God’s seeds and it is now up to him to make them grow. It is very irritating when we often take the time to respond to Christian readers while they often just dissapear and in my opinion are therefore just a waste of everyone’s time. I hope you will try and do better.
Comment by Renier — July 7, 2008 @ 11:17 am |
Im serious find a cat that is minding its own business on a fence somewhere far enough from you, keep your mind clear by adding sums, or singing songs. Observe this cat and jot down what it does. Then when you have observed it long enough change you mind/thought to attaching it, or ripping it apart or throwing it with stones, just make sure you think something horrible and whatch the cat get nervous and leave. It works nine times out of ten.
Comment by Nicholas — July 7, 2008 @ 1:14 pm |
Nicholas. Well dude, why don’t you do this whole experimentation thing right? Get some scientists to assist you in setting it all up in such a way that you are not cherry-picking the cat’s “supernatural” reactions and thus fooling yourself. I mean fuck man, if what you say is true it should be established and shared with all of humanity. Do it the right way, that will convince us that you are on to something. So that cat runs away when you think nasty stuff? Does it get an orgasm when you think nice stuff? wtf?
Comment by Renier — July 7, 2008 @ 1:38 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
Why, so am I! Do your “ingenious” experiments and write them up for a journal. That way, you might actually learn something useful about the scientific method because you are clearly of the opinion that I am just being dense and difficult.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
And this joke is, according to you, an “ingenious” experiment to “prove” the reality of telepathy? Exactly what experimental controls have you put in place? Do you even know exactly what you are testing for and how to eliminate bias and subtle cues? Ever heard of a horse called “Clever Hans” that allegedly could do arithmetic – but alone for its owner when he was wearing a broad-brimmed hat? Have you ever encountered the concept of “body language?” Because most small animals that are subject to predation are extraordinarily sensitive to it. It should be obvious, in fact, that their very survival could depend to some considerable extent on just such sensitivity, so it can be accounted for on an evolutionary basis. No telepathy required.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown wrote (#144 or thereabouts):
Aside from the thumbsuck flavour of that success statistic, if telepathy were real, it should work every time.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 7, 2008 @ 1:53 pm |
Con-Tester wrote: “Aside from the thumbsuck flavour of that success statistic, if telepathy were real, it should work every time.”
Or only 9 out of ten cats has super-natural senses to read human minds. Pity the cat next door had no feeling for the dog’s mind… it cost him all 9 of his lives.
I was watching a spider the other day. You won’t believe it! After 5 minutes it moved! I must have held in a super-natural ESP grip, paralised and then lapsed my concentration, allowing the spider to move again. Fuck! Now if only it could work on some creos… hmmm. But hey, try the experiment, i dare you, I dare you, huh huh! Stare at a spider, think nasty thoughts and watch it move a bit! A miracle! ESP! And besides, if the spider does not move, then your thoughts are just not nasty enough.
Comment by Renier — July 7, 2008 @ 2:05 pm |
Renier, I sense, via my sixth one, that you have a supernatural grasp of the ways and methods of pseudoscience. The only way you could have come by such knowledge is by somehow tapping into the universal consciousness and remote-viewing my mind. We should meet in an alternative dimension in order to ruminate further on these deep matters – by telepathy, of course, so that we can finish our conversation the same moment it starts. Just say when, and I’ll start up my zero-point energy powered perpetual motion cycle…
Comment by Con-Tester — July 7, 2008 @ 2:37 pm |
Renier and Con-Tester.
This iwas not my idea and I have no need to check it scientifically.
I have tried it a couple of thousand times just for fun, and I stil do every time a see a cat sitting far away from me, you dont have to use science to prove this, the cat is far away enough from you to not be influenced by you, usually you see one sitting outside while you are insisde your apartment eh.
When I say it works 9/10 it can just as well be 99/100.
I dont realy care if it is possible to get a scientific award for this, it is realy just interresting, go on try it and let me know if you have the same effect.
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 6:26 am |
what you say about the spider is true. and I have kept this in mind, but it is still unbelievably effective with cats, not dog, not birds, but with cats it works.
Con-Tester, even with speaking to someone sitting next to you it doenst always work 100% why should telepathy be so strictly judged?
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 6:30 am |
LOL @ 146.
Nicholas wrote: “This iwas not my idea and I have no need to check it scientifically.”
So, you are saying you have no need to verify your “results”? What a shame. Would it not be better to make sure you are not bullshitting yourself?
Nicholas wrote: “When I say it works 9/10 it can just as well be 99/100.”
You, uhm, have some verified figures to show? I mean fuck, 99% is a very indicative figure that would convince me should it be verified in a scientific way.
Nicholas wrote: “I dont realy care if it is possible to get a scientific award for this, it is realy just interresting, go on try it and let me know if you have the same effect.”
The cat yawned. Perhaps my evil violent thoughts towards it was not bad enough?
Nicholas wrote: “what you say about the spider is true.”
Yeah, sorry ’bout that. I thought with all the ESP and telepathy going on the usage of a [/sarcasm] tag would not be needed. My mistake, silly me.
Nicholas wrote: “Con-Tester, even with speaking to someone sitting next to you it doenst always work 100% why should telepathy be so strictly judged?”
Because you are pulling the figures out of your ass and Con-Tester is calling you on it. Your subjective opinion about your ESP powers is very telling when you start farting figures. Verify the goddamn figures then come back to us. I promise you we will be *very* interested in seeing the study and the results and thus the *verified* figures. But you appear to be just as scared of verification as the cats are when you start thinking nasty thoughts about the poor little kitties.
The hallmark of pseudoscientific crap: Fear of verification and controlled experiments. You should go into Creationism Nicholas, I think you will meet many like-minded people.
Comment by Renier — July 8, 2008 @ 7:18 am |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown (or whatever other names you go by), let me be clear: your methodological masturbations and onanistic ooohings may well be thrilling and meaningful to you, but they are of nil scientific or factual consequence. That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without reason. The knowledge content of such notions is and remains precisely zero for as long as they have not been thoroughly tested against reality. To blandly assert, then, that “you dont [sic] have to use science to prove [a cat’s telepathic receptivity by thinking anti-cat thoughts]” is the arrogated big-headedness of New Age woo-woo nuts who always dismiss the methods of science as inapplicable to the latest unadulterated baloney that has grabbed their fancy.
These New Age morons are so self-absorbed that instead of first looking for a rational or physical explanation, they think they know, oh, sooo much than those who disagree with them, and they go all gaga over the supernatural. They happen to see something that doesn’t immediately fit inside the tight confines of their tiny crowded crania and promptly go, “Oooh, it must be paranormal!” followed shortly by an obligatory, “Hey, man, it’s, like, wow, man!” The latter declaration signals that they have now convinced themselves of this idiotic bullshit without actually entertaining any other possibility or conducting a proper investigation. From that point onward, the crap in their heads sets like cement and they are unmoveable in their conviction that anyone challenging, criticising or calling for actual proof is closed-minded without realising that they themselves suffer from calcified-brain dementia. Meanwhile, they carry on believing in all sorts of infantile magic because they’re too stoned on visions of their own nigh-infinite wisdom and infallibility to contemplate the possibility that they might be mistaken, variously way too darned dense to realise that possibility – and in that respect they’re no different, in fact, from religious nuts.
And that, in short, is why I have no patience for this kak. So my advice to you is to get an education, stop punting fairground entertainment rubbish as fact and stop equating the biggest Wow!-factor with the most likely explanation.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 9:15 am |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#150 or thereabouts):
In addition to the answer given by Renier in #151 (or thereabouts), because you’re claiming to be able to project telepathically the mental equivalent of an enraged and furious bellow along the lines of, “I’m about to fuck you up seriously!” – a behavioural mode quite a bit different from ordinary conversation, mainly in that it’s considerably less susceptible to misinterpretation, wouldn’t you agree?
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 10:30 am |
Renier
Realy try it, you lied here!
The cat yawned. Perhaps my evil violent thoughts towards it was not bad enough?
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 10:33 am |
Renier
‘The hallmark of pseudoscientific crap: Fear of verification and controlled experiments. You should go into Creationism Nicholas, I think you will meet many like-minded people.’
I said I didnt use statistics to check it but I also said that it works almost every time, so what should be so difficult in this, I am not saying I have exact figures nor do I have to , I am not on a scientific tribunal here.
It is interresting how the occurence is almost always in favour of a particular reaction.
Funny almost every time I jam a knife into my neighbors vehicle tyre it goes flat, but I havent done a scientific study to check if the knife has anything to do with it yet, so I asume I have to write a scientific paper before I can conclude the knife punctures the rubber.
Your argument is fucking daft!
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 10:38 am |
Con-Tester/Paranoid/Dictionary
‘Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown (or whatever other names you go by), let me be clear: your methodological masturbations and onanistic ooohings may well be thrilling and meaningful to you, but they are of nil scientific or factual consequence.’
Yeah I know, never claimed they were infact I claimed they werent so get a nobel on the way out. I am not Aijo, he is a rude dick, I will be happy to take Users credit though, but I am not User either,
‘That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without reason.’
Yeah! See the knife vs. tyre bit above, you are obviously correct[moron].
‘The knowledge content of such notions is and remains precisely zero for as long as they have not been thoroughly tested against reality.’
How do you know they are precisely zero, I mean did you suck that figure out of your arse or did you actually verify it? In your own words you better write a paper before you say that again.
‘ To blandly assert, then, that “you dont [sic] have to use science to prove [a cat’s telepathic receptivity by thinking anti-cat thoughts]” is the arrogated big-headedness of New Age woo-woo nuts who always dismiss the methods of science as inapplicable to the latest unadulterated baloney that has grabbed their fancy.’
Again, I didnt throw [fuck] science out of the window, I am not a [hic] scientist, you are, that would be why I mentioned it [fart] here. But then I dont have to check if the sun is up every time someone says good morning, you do!
‘These New Age morons are so self-absorbed that instead of first looking for a rational or physical explanation, they think they know, oh, sooo much than those who disagree with them, and they go all gaga over the supernatural. They happen to see something that doesn’t immediately fit inside the tight confines of their tiny crowded crania and promptly go, “Oooh, it must be paranormal!” followed shortly by an obligatory, “Hey, man, it’s, like, wow, man!” The latter declaration signals that they have now convinced themselves of this idiotic bullshit without actually entertaining any other possibility or conducting a proper investigation. From that point onward, the crap in their heads sets like cement and they are unmoveable in their conviction that anyone challenging, criticising or calling for actual proof is closed-minded without realising that they themselves suffer from calcified-brain dementia. Meanwhile, they carry on believing in all sorts of infantile magic because they’re too stoned on visions of their own nigh-infinite wisdom and infallibility to contemplate the possibility that they might be mistaken, variously way too darned dense to realise that possibility – and in that respect they’re no different, in fact, from religious nuts.
And that, in short, is why I have no patience for this kak. So my advice to you is to get an education, stop punting fairground entertainment rubbish as fact and stop equating the biggest Wow!-factor with the most likely explanation.’
I wasnt punting anything you prick, but I suppose you have a bad case of verbal doeria and the slightest thing can set you off.
I am frankly surprised that Aijo didnt stick around because he loves tunnel vision idiots like you, egotistical emotion. You get a bigger kick out of atheist vs. theist arguments than a televangelist out of counting his bucks.
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am |
Nicholas wrote: “Realy try it, you lied here!”
My apologies once again. It seems ESP is no match for a [/sarcasm] tag. I was hoping your amazing telepathy abilities would have helped you out. I did however think it was obvious.
Nicholas wrote: ” I am not on a scientific tribunal here.”
Feeling persecuted already? You stated your ESP/telepathy with cats as fact, and therefore we hammer you from a science perspective. You must understand Nicholas, that “faith” and “just believe” are not virtues to us. With that in mind, can you perhaps now comprehend why we request hard proof for your statements of fact?
Nicholas wrote: “Funny almost every time I jam a knife into my neighbors vehicle tyre it goes flat, but I havent done a scientific study to check if the knife has anything to do with it yet, so I asume I have to write a scientific paper before I can conclude the knife punctures the rubber.”
This is your fucking allegory for your ESP crap? WTF? We understand and have proof of the mechanisms and forces involved in puncturing a tyre. What is the mechanism for your ESP crap? What forces/fields are involved in your telepathy nonsense? Does it violate Einstein’s calculations and travel faster than light? At what speed does the mystical signal travel? What receives the signal? What frequency is the signal at? Is there an organ in the friggin cat the receives the signal, decodes the signal and send reaction impulses to the cat’s brain? How does it work? Where is it? What *evidence* is there that it works? Compare this to your stupid tyre puncturing example and smell the flaws. If you still don’t get the point, try your ESP because for someone claiming to have telepathic abilities you sure do suffer in the comprehension area. Nasty blokes asking for hard evidence. How close minded, how unfair!
Nicholas wrote: “Your argument is fucking daft!”
At least I have an argument and not some fancy notion of fucking with cats’ heads via divine remote control without proof!
Comment by Renier — July 8, 2008 @ 11:13 am |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
So all that talk about “facing facts,” “ingenious experiments,” “repeatable and verifyable [sic],” “being serious,” “work[ing] nine times out of ten” and “[having] tried it a couple of thousand times” is just so much idle hot air for the sake of making conversation. I’m glad we got that out the way, then. Now all you have to do is realise just how inconsistent you’re being.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
Funny. That “rude dick” bit, I mean. The problem I’m having is that the crap issuing from Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever is indistinguishable both in content and in presentation style, so I’ll call you a liar.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
No, you’re the [moron] here. We have a coherent mechanistic explanation for the knife-pierces-tyre-producing-a-flat-tyre phenomenon. There is no equivalent for telepathy, so you are obviously wrong.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
No, the figure follows logically and inevitably once you understand what the requirements are for something to be considered “knowledge.”
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
Setting aside your noisy bodily emissions, which are of a kind with those of your brain, there’s an established branch of science called “astronomy” that you might want to investigate before you end up with both your feet firmly wedged in your mouth. There’s no established branch of science, say one called “cerebroteledynamics,” that covers what you’re pushing. The reason for this absence is a dearth of evidence – well below the subsistence level, actually.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
Yes, you were punting your own brilliance, insight and superior knowledge, you prick, but I suppose you have a bad case of the brainfarts and the slightest thing can prevent you from seeing the bleeding obvious.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#156 or thereabouts):
And I am frankly surprised at your ongoing dishonesty. Maybe you ran away because things were not going your way, or maybe you had a transient episode of lucidity, but I’d be guessing at your motives and reasons. You get a bigger kick out of presenting, in your own words, “fucking daft arguments” than you do trying to scare cats. I find it highly amusing how the thick irony in pronouncements of “tunnel vision idiots” and “egotistical emotion” fails to register on your detectors. Could mean it’s time to get a refund.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 12:04 pm |
sorry, being a bit pedantic here…
To once again repeat this:
Nicholas wrote: ”I am not on a scientific tribunal here.”
and yet you wrote: “One was with cats, you see they are the masterts of Telepathy, and we can all prove the existence of telepathy through them. easy and clean, repeatable and verifyable. knock yourselves out!”
So prove it alreay, like you promised. You also promised easy, clean, repeatable and verifyable. So where is it or were you just lying? Own up to your claims and promises. Prove it to us like you promised and stop whining like a hurt little ninny when we ask for it.
Comment by Renier — July 8, 2008 @ 12:14 pm |
Con-Tester wrote: “Setting aside your noisy bodily emissions”
Shhh… be quiet… he is receiving some figures via ESP again…
Comment by Renier — July 8, 2008 @ 12:17 pm |
Let me see, this guy, my alter ego sais to me that you can influence Cats with your thoughts, telepathy is close enough for me, then I go and try it, the first time just out of curiosity, the secon because the first time it worked, I watched the cat for a quarter of an hour, it was pretty much asleep, then the moment I start thinking about hurting it, the ears start moving in all directions, then the cat gets paranoid and next thing it gets up and dissapears.
I have been doing this for what three or four years and it still works. I dont care how it works, it works, and if it isnt telepathy then call it what you like, it works!
What I find interresting is your fear.
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 2:10 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#161 or thereabouts):
You are perhaps unaware that this magnificent ability of yours can earn you one million US dollars. Just Google “JREF million dollar challenge” to find the link – actually, there are several other monetary prizes you’ll be able to claim from a basket of similar challenges. See, they too don’t care how it works, only that it does work. All you have to do is negotiate a mutually acceptable test protocol with the JREF, and then demonstrate that you can perform as you say you can. By your previous comments, that should be the easiest million anyone ever made and will cost you no more than a few hours of your no doubt precious time.
Now I await with bated breath all of the fabricated excuses about not being interested and/or how the prize is a sham and/or doesn’t exist or any number of other canards that people have invented to avoid putting their mouth where the money is. So, how about proving us all wrong?
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#161 or thereabouts):
What do you think we fear? I think that you are the one doing the fearing, namely of being found out to be deluded or a bullshitter, but that’s just my suspicion which you can easily allay by doing as I suggest above.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 2:52 pm |
It looks like you fear telepathy.
I read everything i wrote again, and then I read it again using my supersonic x-ray vision and then I used my advanced telepathic ability to scan my own thoughts after a quick time travel back to when I thought them, and nowhere do I see that I ever claimed to be telepathic.
I also dont see the cat thing anywhere in the JREF chalenge. I would not be able to guess your thoughts nor to pick the correct flash card.
‘Now I await with bated breath all of the fabricated excuses about not being interested and/or how the prize is a sham and/or doesn’t exist or any number of other canards that people have invented to avoid putting their mouth where the money is. So, how about proving us all wrong?’
Youre wrong, also you dont seem to read and understand very well.
Everyone (whithout this sceptical fear of anything different taht does not have to be supernatural at all) can play this game with cats, you dont have to fit any steriotype crazyness, you just you know, be normalish.
So, honestly now, have you tried it yet?
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 4:39 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#163 or thereabouts):
Fear telepathy!? Me!? Are you insane? I’d positively welcome it, considering the amount of confusion and misunderstanding it’d avoid!
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#163 or thereabouts):
Ditto, and nowhere do I see that I ever claimed that you were. Not that it really matters, but, as a point of order, you’re being despicably dishonest here because you started by claiming to have an “ingenious experiment” to demonstrate telepathy with cats, an experiment you claim to have performed thousands of times with a success rate of above 90%. By implication, that translates to a claim of your own telepathic ability, so I’m curious about the reasons for this humble disclaimer of yours. More evasion would be my guess. But, as said, it doesn’t actually matter. Apply at the JREF. I guarantee that if you can demonstrate your cat-influencing trick as you have claimed to be able to in prior comments, the JREF will arrange to test you.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#163 or thereabouts):
So it’s your belief that because your claimed talent isn’t explicitly mentioned in agonising detail by the JREF, you can’t take the challenge? That’s simply not true – just read the appropriate threads on the JREF forum. No, I’m afraid that it looks a lot like you’re starting to make excuses, much as expected.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#163 or thereabouts):
Well, then perhaps you haven’t been sufficiently clear.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#163 or thereabouts):
I see. So now everyone can do it, and if they can’t, well, then they’re too fearfully sceptical of anything different. More inventing of excuses, I hazard. So, why don’t you who are so free from fearful scepticism of anything different do us fearful sceptics the honour of an unequivocal demonstration of your abilities.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#163 or thereabouts):
No, I haven’t – for want of a suitably relaxed cat within sensory range. But here’s a hint: I don’t need to stick razor blades in my eyes to know that that activity is harmful.
Your turn: Honestly now, have you tried applying at the JREF?
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 5:30 pm |
Righto, now I can honestly say that I have tried it. And Mrs Con-Tester’s cat didn’t even blink. It yawned, closed its already slitted eyes and carried on snoozing. That cat and I have, to put it mildly, a somewhat uneasy relationship. Now I suppose you’ll try to tell me that I wasn’t sincere about doing the cat harm, but you’d be sorely mistaken, as the cat has on occasion found out when it got vigorously and very bodily shoved off the bed.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 6:28 pm |
I have not been clear enough, clearly I must spell everyhting out slowly and in detail, but then I think you are just being difficult, masterfully difficult.
The cat is in your house it is your cat, it is used to you it will obviously not respond to you just because you are squinting.
but thanks all the same for your willingness to try.
You can swing the JREF carrot all you like, even if I was a blazing telepathic master I would never reveal myself, not for a million million pounds.
Seriously money would not be a difficult thing to get with a skill like that. I recon this cat thing has more to do with the cats ability than yours.
I think maybe your cat is smarter than you.
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 7:18 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#166 or thereabouts):
Yes, that’s usually a good tactic for avoiding confusion.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#166 or thereabouts):
No, just thorough, notwithstanding your backhanded compliment. But then I think you’re being slapdash, masterfully slapdash, so I suppose we’re about even on that particular score.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#166 or thereabouts):
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that it’s Mrs Con-Tester’s cat. Anyway, I wonder whether you can even smell what it is you’re shovelling. If I mean the cat harm with enough conviction, then the fact that it is used to me should, if anything, be even more alarming to the cat – assuming, that is, that it is sensitive to the extent that you claim.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#166 or thereabouts):
So let’s see if I got this straight: (1) you can influence the behaviour of cats at a distance through telepathy, only it might not be telepathy; (2) you have performed this feat thousands of times with a success rate of at least 90%, only it might have been just three times during which it appears to have worked once; (3) anyone who isn’t sceptical can do it, only when they try and it fails you have no end of excuses to “explain” the failure away, and (4) you want people to believe that you have this miraculous ability, only you won’t prove it when called on to do so.
All in all, that’s just about par for the course for the seasoned New Age twerp.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#166 or thereabouts):
And I think maybe any one of the slugs in our garden is both smarter and more honest than you.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 8, 2008 @ 8:35 pm |
More honest yes, smarter no.
The distance is probably a way to lessen the chance of your own interference with the animal, but I think the experiment still works. Let me know when you have tried it.
What is Mrs Con-Testers must be Mr Con-Testers.
Poor fucken kitty!
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 8:49 pm |
Just dont kick it, they are smarter than most of us, you shouldnt take it personally.
Comment by Nicholas — July 8, 2008 @ 8:51 pm |
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#168 or thereabouts):
So you admit that any one of the slugs in my garden is more honest than you. That means you’re probably lying about, among many other things, being smarter than them.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#168 or thereabouts):
What on earth are you gibbering about?
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#168 or thereabouts):
I did again this morning. With the neighbour’s Maine Coon. It was perched atop a wall. Contemplating the world from on high. About 15 metres from me. Separated from me by a cane window blind and a window pane. I tried for at least three minutes. The cat didn’t so much as twitch. Another total failure. So what’s your excuse now?
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#168 or thereabouts):
Only in theory.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#168 or thereabouts):
Not really. Mrs Con-Tester absolutely spoils it, if you ask me.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#169 or thereabouts):
No, I’d rather intimidate it telepathically. That way Mrs Con-Tester won’t scold me.
Nicholas/Aijo/User Unknown/Whoever wrote (#169 or thereabouts):
I won’t, but certain others might when it eventually sinks in that cats generally being smarter applies only in their own particular case. Now please excuse me while I brush up on my differential and integral catculus theory.
Comment by Con-Tester — July 9, 2008 @ 10:35 am |
Nicholas wrote: “they are smarter than most of us”
Yeah, I heard the cats designed a new particle collider about to go operational.
Nicholas wrote: “The cat is in your house it is your cat, it is used to you it will obviously not respond to you just because you are squinting.”
Fuck, you never took this possible failure of your pet (pun intended) theory in consideration? Sounds like you are making excuses Nick. File them among the pile of cherries you carry around.
Comment by Renier — July 9, 2008 @ 12:05 pm |
“I did again this morning. With the neighbour’s Maine Coon. It was perched atop a wall. Contemplating the world from on high. About 15 metres from me. Separated from me by a cane window blind and a window pane. I tried for at least three minutes. The cat didn’t so much as twitch. Another total failure. So what’s your excuse now?”
I have no more, and I thank you, I will contact your JREF.
Comment by Nicholas — July 10, 2008 @ 2:27 pm |
“I have no more, and I thank you, I will contact your JREF.”
Now your talking. In honesty Nicholas, if your ESP stuff works it will be big news, *as it should*. Let the professional people help you to discover how much truth there are in your perceptions. I am sure you, just like us, are really interested in the truth. Good luck dude!
Comment by Renier — July 11, 2008 @ 6:57 am |
Ons as mense is nie deur God geskape nie! God is deur die mensdom geskape. God is dus in die verbeelding van ‘n klomp onlogiese mal mense.
Comment by De la Rey — February 8, 2009 @ 7:12 pm |
good info.
Comment by marisa — July 3, 2009 @ 5:54 am |