PDA

View Full Version : "This House Proposes........"


blaireau
10th Feb 2004, 22:57
that far from being too powerful and unaccountable, the US Government has insufficient force to prevent the often combined, and frequently simultaneous, dividing effects of those free enough to express excessively liberal Western thoughts, and those of the arguably extreme savageness of primitive Western religions, as predominately characterised by Muslims, (who are, paradoxically, the most modern of the prominent three.)

maninblack
10th Feb 2004, 23:05
Come on, you are dealing with aircrew and engineers here.

Stop using grown up words.

:O

timmcat
10th Feb 2004, 23:14
Come on, you are dealing with aircrew and engineers here.
Bug*er, thought I was in Jetblast.

ORAC
10th Feb 2004, 23:15
All three are offshoots of the same aggressive monotheistic meme old sport. Pantheistic memes, such as Buddhism, seem to provide some resistance. Alas Nontheistic memes such as communism seem to provide no defence system, and their sufferers rapidly fall victim to the same symptoms. :hmm:

Ozzy
10th Feb 2004, 23:38
What ORAC said...

Ozzy

Wholigan
10th Feb 2004, 23:43
Flaps ------- you better watch this one as you speak Dutch. Thought maybe you spoke double-Dutch too!!!!
:E ;)

Grainger
11th Feb 2004, 00:03
Dom't know about nontheistic memes, ORAC - I'm more inclined towards objective noncognitivism myself . . .

Onan the Clumsy
11th Feb 2004, 00:36
In some parts of the world, animism is still practised :E

T_richard
11th Feb 2004, 00:56
Can someone please tell me how to get back to the english speaking version of PPRUNE. I seem to locked in this version where everyone speaks gibberish

Jerricho
11th Feb 2004, 01:25
WHAT did ORAC say?????????

tony draper
11th Feb 2004, 02:14
I'll get me coat.
:uhoh:

Ozzy
11th Feb 2004, 02:15
It were good Jerricho, I think I got the bit about the nihilistic enemas but have to admit he lost me after that:confused:

Ozzy

Caslance
11th Feb 2004, 02:44
"Nihilistic enemas".......

Are they the same as colonic derogation?????:confused:

Jerricho
11th Feb 2004, 02:59
Wait up Drapes, I'm coming with you.

(Maybe if we come back after a couple of beers it will makes sense!?)

The Invisible Man
11th Feb 2004, 03:23
What ORAC meant was......

There is a DISTINCTLY MEMETIC explanation of what
caused monotheism: In a society where numerous god-memes accumulate in a population, they start subdividing their access to their host's replication faculties (host resources). This creates an advantage for a new god-meme which says "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no false gods before me."


Simple really !!!!:D

I'll get my coat too !!!

av8boy
11th Feb 2004, 03:36
Yeah. But he used the term "old sport" when he did it. Gave it sort of a nice touch.

Dave

Capt.KAOS
11th Feb 2004, 04:06
Christian: I'll pray for you.

Atheist: Then I'll pray for both of us.

surely not
11th Feb 2004, 04:30
so which comes first, Monotheism or Atheism? I suppose we have to have a Monotheism in order to have an Atheism in present society, but was Monotheism around before Atheism? Which came first belief or ignorance of the need for belief?

I knew I'd talk sh!t if I carried on drinking Fosters instead of wine! :O

Grainger
11th Feb 2004, 04:59
But isn't Athiesm also a form of belief . . . ?

Now a long time ago, a lot of people believed that the World was flat . . .

Turns out it's not. :=

I remain to be convinced of either the usefulness of, or, as you put it, the need for, belief.

maninblack
11th Feb 2004, 06:41
God and ITV

opiates of the masses.

One at the start of the century, one at the end.

Makes me think that perhaps God looks like Dale Winton.

Gainesy
11th Feb 2004, 13:19
Its all part of the modern "MeMe" culture.

surely not
11th Feb 2004, 15:26
Surely belief is required to be able to form an opinion. Without that ability indecision would reign supreme. What a mess we would be in if that was to be the case.

Grainger
11th Feb 2004, 15:49
For someone with the apellation "surely not" to start a logical proposition with the word "surely" seems a bit of a tautology to me :confused: .

Like I said earlier, believing that the world was flat didn't make it flat. To find out whether it's flat or not you poke a stick in the ground and measure the shadows at different times of year. Or you sail around it and get back to where you started. Or you go into space and have a look. That's how you decide whether it's flat or not. Belief and opinion don't come into it.

Now I accept that not everything is susceptible to the scientific method - particularly the type of social and ethical problems that are all too common these days. I just don't think that a method that's fared so badly on the simple things (round vs. flat) is going to be any more use in sorting out the more complicated things.

surely not
12th Feb 2004, 04:34
Hey, I got me an 'ology..............thanks Grainger:ok:

Re the Round vs Flat point, wasn't the truth discovered because someone believed that the flat earthers were wrong and set out to prove it?

I believe that religions have had long enough for their beliefs to be discredited and discarded, however proving it is unlikely to be achieved...

A scientist during experimentation is trying to prove something that they believe to be true, sometimes against the beliefs of others who do not believe.

ORAC
13th Feb 2004, 16:27
Science and rationality provides a method that produces a product that is clear, definite, testable and repeatable. It aspires to free will through rigorous choice.

Belief is fixed, based on three main identifiable traits. Tenacity, through the process of conditioning; authority, where the participants believe they are parts of an indivisible and eternal system; and apriority where conclusions arise naturally from an underlying and unchallengable statement of reality.

That doesn't mean that one is better or worse, just different, and many scientists are also firm believers. Just don't try and see them as equivalent systems, they're not.

Grainger
13th Feb 2004, 16:43
"A scientist during experimentation is trying to prove something that they believe to be true"

Absolutely not. The whole point of the scientific method is that you don't know ahead of time what's going to happen. Now you might devise an experiment to test a hypothesis, but that is quite a different thing.

ORAC has it about right - there really isn't any conflict between science and religion because they are not for the same thing.

Chaffers
13th Feb 2004, 17:48
Theres also the small point that Science always breaks down on the edges of a system, though as time and knowledge increases the edges become smaller, though not necesarily less important. Philosophy, and to an extent religion, fill in the gaps that science cannot positively confirm. It has always been thus hence the march of science has mirrored the decline of religiosity.

Then again as many epistomological statements are being justified by post-positivist assumptions / theories lately it could even be argued that science itself (or the pseudo-sciences at least) is becomming somewhat memetic in places. Certainly the verisilimitudinous nature of certain sciences is based upon the demographic who affirm, often with self-interest a factor, the disquisitions as being correct.

Pardon my barathrumic propensity for sesquipedalianism.

ORAC
13th Feb 2004, 17:57
Ye'r a wee bit of a balatron Chaffers........ ;)

It is unfortunately true that presently accepted scientific knowledge is uncritically accepted as truth rather than theory, and those who question decried as heretics and fools. Until, of course, they are proved right and their theory, in turn, because the accepted gospel of the next generation of disciples.

A true sceptic is a treasure to be nurtured in any culture or organisation. :cool:

noisy
13th Feb 2004, 18:53
If I get hold of a small child, who has never seen what a hammer can do to an egg and ask them what will happen when the hammer strikes the egg, what will they say?
The child knows what a hammer will do to nails and the child also knows what eggs are like, but does it necessarily follow that the hammer will shatter the egg? Would that necessarily be a truth? Therin lies the difference between belief and knowledge.

I'll just stop talking b*ll**s know and take my medicine

Grainger
13th Feb 2004, 19:46
Would anything that the child said or anything that they believed make any difference to what will happen when the hammer eventually strikes the egg ?

The Nr Fairy
13th Feb 2004, 21:14
I thought a nihilistic enema was where someone shoved a tube up your bum but nothing happened.

And as for "colonic derogation" - I'll have you know my colon is as good as anyone else's especially when it's treating food items from the brassica family.