View previous topic | View next topic

Ejected from Salt Lake City

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Rudolph Hucker
403804.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:32 am Reply with quote

Yes, it may well be that but perhaps this particular particulate stream was focused by the almost simultaneous arrival of two newcomers coincidentally sharing the same absurd belief system.

 
barbados
403813.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:07 am Reply with quote

Way to make people feel welcome Rudolph

 
Neotenic
403849.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:03 am Reply with quote

On which calender are posts made in April, then September 'almost simultaneous'?

I know as one gets older time seems to move more quickly - would Noah Hucker be a more appropriate nom de plume?

;-)

 
jaygeemack
403852.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:07 am Reply with quote

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
Yes, it may well be that but perhaps this particular particulate stream was focused by the almost simultaneous arrival of two newcomers coincidentally sharing the same absurd belief system.

What particular objective belief system do you espouse, RH?

 
Rudolph Hucker
403876.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:05 am Reply with quote

Isn't your phrase 'objective belief system' self contradictory? Doesn't the word 'belief' imply subjectivity?

Whatever I choose to belive in, it is certainly not something based on messages written in a previously unknown language, translatable by only one man, from gold plates that were buried on a hill in America and then lost forever.

 
CB27
403931.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:55 am Reply with quote

Leave your handbag on the floor and walk away... :)

I think the best resolve to the original question is for someone who might be familiar with Stephen (Flash or other?) to ask him about it.

 
jaygeemack
403938.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:07 am Reply with quote

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
Isn't your phrase 'objective belief system' self contradictory? Doesn't the word 'belief' imply subjectivity?

Not necessarily. Ask Dicky Dawkins, who would claim that his belief system was entirely objective. Read Descartes' philosophy about the objectivity of belief.

 
Rudolph Hucker
403978.  Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:40 am Reply with quote

My recollection of reading both Dawkins and Descartes differs from yours - any chance of an example from each or either?

 
teddeler
404778.  Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:03 pm Reply with quote

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
Yes, it may well be that but perhaps this particular particulate stream was focused by the almost simultaneous arrival of two newcomers coincidentally sharing the same absurd belief system.


Just about any belief system can be found to be absurd (for a given level of absurdity) but I also find that only believing in what is considered to be absolutely proven makes for a very small universe. It also makes for an incorrect view of the universe since everything thought to be proven to be true now will turn out to have been false in a decade or so (with the exception of those truths simple enough to become engineering).

So I'm willing to risk absurdity. :)

 
Rudolph Hucker
404857.  Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:58 pm Reply with quote

The size of the universe is as yet unconfirmed but I believe that whether or not you believe in that which is 'proven' or that which is absurd does not materially affect its dimensions.

As for 'truths simple enough to become engineering', you belittle the giant leaps of imagination and belief that have delivered that which you, by reason of familiarity, consider simple. You prefer a construct based on a very dubious mythology.

I am sure that you and others like you are content to ignore the patently bizarre foundation of your faith and probably draw comfort from it - you're welcome to it - just don't knock on my front door and try to save me.

 
jaygeemack
405120.  Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:06 am Reply with quote

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
My recollection of reading both Dawkins and Descartes differs from yours - any chance of an example from each or either?

I thought Descartes' philosophy, "I am aware of my existence, therefore I must exist" (I think therefore I am), was an attempt to establish the objectivity of belief. His own existence was all that could be objectively established, as described by his famous slogan.

 
teddeler
405322.  Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 am Reply with quote

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
The size of the universe is as yet unconfirmed but I believe that whether or not you believe in that which is 'proven' or that which is absurd does not materially affect its dimensions..

I was, of course, referring to the universe as perceived and interpreted by the individual through their belief system, not the absolute size of the universe. You misunderstood (possibly intentionally for comic effect :) ).

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
As for 'truths simple enough to become engineering', you belittle the giant leaps of imagination and belief that have delivered that which you, by reason of familiarity, consider simple. You prefer a construct based on a very dubious mythology.

My apologies. I did not mean to belittle anything. I'm aware that our current engineering feats required great leaps of imagination and the willingness to study anything, no matter how strange and contrary (bizarre, even) it may have seemed, for the truth that may be within. My point was that scientific truths that do not manage to be moved to the level of egineering (actually doing something practical with them) are often found to be false within a decade (or a few decades) after a time that anyone disputing them was considered an idiot or worse.

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
I am sure that you and others like you are content to ignore the patently bizarre foundation of your faith and probably draw comfort from it - you're welcome to it...

I don't ignore the foundation of my faith. I've looked into it and studied it over the years. It's no more bizarre or absurd than just about any other religion (I personally find the concept of atheism bizarre). If you're willing to accept the existance of angels and that Jesus Christ was ressurected and ascended into heaven, there's nothing impossible about the foundation of the mormon religion. The only question is whether or not it happened, not whether it is possible for it to have happened.

If you don't accept the possibility of angels or Christ then you're talking about the bizarreness inherent in any religion that claims to be based on truth bestowed from above (whether by angels or God speaking directly). Can't help you there, I'm afraid. It's all going to seem a bit bizarre to someone who only believes in what they see.

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
- just don't knock on my front door and try to save me.

No worries. If mormon missionaries do show up at your door a polite 'No, thank you' is generally enough to send them away (Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand...).

 
Rudolph Hucker
405942.  Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:38 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Rudolph Hucker wrote:
The size of the universe is as yet unconfirmed but I believe that whether or not you believe in that which is 'proven' or that which is absurd does not materially affect its dimensions..


Quote:
I was, of course, referring to the universe as perceived and interpreted by the individual through their belief system, not the absolute size of the universe. You misunderstood (possibly intentionally for comic effect :) ).


Quote:
Rudolph Hucker wrote:
As for 'truths simple enough to become engineering', you belittle the giant leaps of imagination and belief that have delivered that which you, by reason of familiarity, consider simple. You prefer a construct based on a very dubious mythology.


Quote:
My apologies. I did not mean to belittle anything. I'm aware that our current engineering feats required great leaps of imagination and the willingness to study anything, no matter how strange and contrary (bizarre, even) it may have seemed, for the truth that may be within. My point was that scientific truths that do not manage to be moved to the level of egineering (actually doing something practical with them) are often found to be false within a decade (or a few decades) after a time that anyone disputing them was considered an idiot or worse.


This is a strange distinction you have chosen to make; The ridicule that was heaped upon non-believers in flawed scientific theories can be compared to the deaths that were and continue to be heaped upon the heretics and non-believers of any religious sect. Further, it denies the current scientific method which does not declare truths in the way that you followers of the absurd do.

For example, the 'laws' of physics are that only in title. The scientific community proceeds on the basis that what we have at the (any) moment is the best guess we have at an understanding of the physical world. There are no immutable laws, just some that seem to withstand the tests of time and investigation and are therefore accepted as the basis for advancement. I (along with many others) cannot concieve of a theory that would supplant the laws of conservation of energy. This does not mean that one will not be deduced. The scientific community is thus 'open' in the same way that the religious communities are closed.

Nothing would give physicists more pleasure than to discover that the LHC experiments about to be conducted demand that the rulebooks be re-written.

Nothing makes the religious community more defensive than to suggest some of their basic tenets do not stand up to scrutiny and that there is a fundamental absurdity on basing a view of and a way of life on what is truly fabulous.

Quote:
Rudolph Hucker wrote:
I am sure that you and others like you are content to ignore the patently bizarre foundation of your faith and probably draw comfort from it - you're welcome to it...


Quote:
I don't ignore the foundation of my faith. I've looked into it and studied it over the years. It's no more bizarre or absurd than just about any other religion (I personally find the concept of atheism bizarre). If you're willing to accept the existance of angels and that Jesus Christ was ressurected and ascended into heaven, there's nothing impossible about the foundation of the mormon religion. The only question is whether or not it happened, not whether it is possible for it to have happened.


I quite agree, it is entirely possible that an almighty creator exists and that he chose to communicate with his creations by inscribing life instructions and guidance on gold plates, in a language hitherto unknown to his subjects and buried them in a field in America. It is also possible that these were happened upon by the only person able to translate them and that once translated, they disappeared. Quite possible.


Quote:
If you don't accept the possibility of angels or Christ then you're talking about the bizarreness inherent in any religion that claims to be based on truth bestowed from above (whether by angels or God speaking directly). Can't help you there, I'm afraid. It's all going to seem a bit bizarre to someone who only believes in what they see.


I accept the possibility of angels and christ and also the bizarre nature of all religions. It's the likelihood of rightness that concerns me, particularly when there is so much patent flim-flam surrounding religion in general and creationists in particular.

The reason you people appear absurd to me is not because I only believe what I can see. I believe in many invisible things: such as the basic good nature of the human animal, it's ability to imagine, invent, understand, sympathise, comfort and help its fellows, not because of some imagined godhead or fear of the eternal but because of innate goodness, intelligence and desire for improvement of lot.

Quote:
Rudolph Hucker wrote:
- just don't knock on my front door and try to save me.


Quote:
No worries. If mormon missionaries do show up at your door a polite 'No, thank you' is generally enough to send them away (Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand...).


But the reason you and your ilk (you are no different from the JWs) choose to disturb my Sunday afternoon is because you are convinced, beyond argument that you have been Chosen and your mission in life is to interrupt me, during my limited leisure time to spout on about your crackpot theories.

When was the last time your Sunday was interrupted by an evangeligal sub-atomic particle physicist trying to convince you of the existence of the 'god' particle? (See LHC experiments)

 
teddeler
406403.  Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:02 am Reply with quote

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
This is a strange distinction you have chosen to make; The ridicule that was heaped upon non-believers in flawed scientific theories can be compared to the deaths that were and continue to be heaped upon the heretics and non-believers of any religious sect.

"any" is a bit of a stretch. I haven't heard of the quakers or taoists setting up inquisitions. Other than that, I agree completely, they are comparable. Defending dogma is part of human nature. Unfortunately, as pure as science tries to be, scientific theories occasionally become dogmatized and their defenders start using unscientific means to defend them.

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
Further, it denies the current scientific method which does not declare truths in the way that you followers of the absurd do.

For example, the 'laws' of physics are that only in title. The scientific community proceeds on the basis that what we have at the (any) moment is the best guess we have at an understanding of the physical world. There are no immutable laws, just some that seem to withstand the tests of time and investigation and are therefore accepted as the basis for advancement. I (along with many others) cannot concieve of a theory that would supplant the laws of conservation of energy. This does not mean that one will not be deduced. The scientific community is thus 'open' in the same way that the religious communities are closed.

Nothing would give physicists more pleasure than to discover that the LHC experiments about to be conducted demand that the rulebooks be re-written.

Ideally, what you say is true (apart from the 'followers of the absurd..' part :) ). Unfortunately, when an ideal encounters human nature it becomes less than ideal. This is true with both scientists and christians (if all people claiming to be (or trying to be) christians actually did bless them that cursed them, did good to them that hated them and prayed for them that despitefully used them and persecuted them, history would be a lot different (but to be fair, I find it difficult to live up to those ideals myself)).
Three examples of scientists (or people trying to be scientists) not welcoming contrary theories with joy are global warming, the HIV/AIDS connection and the electric universe theory. Yes, I've been reading James P. Hogan's website. Check it out, I find it mind-expanding:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
Nothing makes the religious community more defensive than to suggest some of their basic tenets do not stand up to scrutiny and that there is a fundamental absurdity on basing a view of and a way of life on what is truly fabulous.

Nobody particularly likes someone coming up to them and saying "Everything you've been taught your whole life is absolutely wrong!" (with the exception of QI fans).
Some have fun with it, though:
http://jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
I quite agree, it is entirely possible that an almighty creator exists and that he chose to communicate with his creations by inscribing life instructions and guidance on gold plates, in a language hitherto unknown to his subjects and buried them in a field in America. It is also possible that these were happened upon by the only person able to translate them and that once translated, they disappeared. Quite possible.

Um, I'm not sure where you got all that from. For the sake of accurate absurdity I'll resummarize:
God didn't inscribe the gold plates, He gave revelation to men who then recorded those revelations. Around 400 A.D. Mormon (a prophet) edited those revelations into a single volume and inscribed them (along with some history) on golden plates (not necessarily (in fact, probably not) solid gold). As their civilization was being overrun by their enemies his son Moroni took those plates along with some others that had been inscribed on a thousand years earlier and buried them to keep their enemies from destroying them. This all took place in the Americas, we don't really know exactly where (apart from where the plates were found) but we have fun speculating.
The language used on the earliest inscribed plates is described as Reformed Egyptian. We don't really know what that is either but I don't know why it would be described as '...a language hitherto unknown to his subjects..' Presumably it was known by the people that used it.
The plates weren't just 'happened upon' by Joseph Smith. Moroni told him where they were (yes, the Moroni that buried them around 400 AD). And the plates didn't just disappear, Joseph Smith gave them back to Moroni after the translation was done.
As for Joseph Smith being the only one who could translate the plates - the translation was done by the power of God (something similar to the gift of interpretation of tongues) not through any particular skill Joseph Smith had acquired previously.

Not much more believable than your summary, I know, but there you are. :)

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
I accept the possibility of angels and christ and also the bizarre nature of all religions. It's the likelihood of rightness that concerns me, particularly when there is so much patent flim-flam surrounding religion in general and creationists in particular.

The reason you people appear absurd to me is not because I only believe what I can see. I believe in many invisible things: such as the basic good nature of the human animal, it's ability to imagine, invent, understand, sympathise, comfort and help its fellows, not because of some imagined godhead or fear of the eternal but because of innate goodness, intelligence and desire for improvement of lot.

Good reasoning. More power to you, I wish you luck.

Rudolph Hucker wrote:
But the reason you and your ilk (you are no different from the JWs) choose to disturb my Sunday afternoon is because you are convinced, beyond argument that you have been Chosen and your mission in life is to interrupt me, during my limited leisure time to spout on about your crackpot theories.

When was the last time your Sunday was interrupted by an evangeligal sub-atomic particle physicist trying to convince you of the existence of the 'god' particle? (See LHC experiments)

Sorry to have offended.

 
CB27
406477.  Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:13 pm Reply with quote

All these quotes and no one mentioned a singing moose wearing spats???

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group