Sip Posted July 22, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2002 Oh believe me, right now, anything, even you is more interesting than all these damn 0's and 1's ... I have some data that just looks like noise and I am trying to make heads and tails out of it ... working on a Journal paper which was due two days ago!!! But it's almost done ... The cool thing is that at least my figures "look" nice ... they look pretty complicated with lots of dots and lines and dashes. I even have a few equations that are long and had to wrap them along several lines. It has all the elements of a top notch paper ... a catchy title, an ambiguous abstract, a long boring intro, some references to other people and what they have done (in case they read the paper), some technical preliminaries showing I can copy paste things out of books in the library, some complicated formulas and equations that no one will understand, and the all important "experimental results" figures ... yup, I have it all!!! Paper done We definitely will come back to this but I am about to pass out ... (just got back home) ... in the mean time, take a look at this and you'll know what I am takling about when writing "technical papers" ... so much for "science" :barf: It's how IEEE authors would write 1+1=2 (taken from the Stanford SMIC (Microwave Integrated Circuits Lab) ... really hillarious stuff http://www-smirc.stanford.edu/images/ieee_guide.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sen_Vahan Posted July 22, 2002 Report Share Posted July 22, 2002 "What happened to Egypt? I am no history buff but I thought they had a great civilization before Jesus showed up!!! The chinese seemed to do fine as well. What about the Inkas in South America? Didn't they have an advanced civilization with "modern"-type cities where they all gotalong fine? Are you telling me there were no morlas and ethics before God and Jesus showed up with the Bible about 2000 years ago? I agree that the Church has had a strong influence on the development of science in Europe in the past centuries. It makes sense ... they had the money and science aint cheap!!! But the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, etc etc didn't do too bad without Christianity either. Oh and should we turn this thread into the "immoral" things that the church has done? Howmany witches did they burn? How many scientists did they destroy ... those who dared to saythe Earth was round ... those who dared to say we revolved around the Sun? Those who dared to say evolution can and does happenThe "church" may have helped science a lot but I am SURE it did more BAD than GOOD " Sip, you contradict yourself many times. First of all, all these civilizations mentioned by you were "religious". At least they had pantheon of Gods. Christianity is only one of the religions on the Earth. And why do you mix two separate things such as the belief in God and the Church?? Church is an institution which obviously consists of people!Me and you can live in the same society (and we actually do now) , and you may not believe in God but I can. Are you going to tell me that you will be more civilized that me? Belief in God is a deep feeling and it does not depend on how civilized or educated one is. One may believe in God or not - that is the religious freedom.Vahan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted July 22, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2002 Dear sen_vahan, I agree that I let Acc. drag me down several orthogonal paths of discussion in this thread !!! So here's my position. I brought up the "other" civilizations in response to Acc.'s statements that say: quote:By Acc:... If it wasnt for the Church we would be many hundred years behind. quote:By me:Ethics and morals do not have their roots in religeon.I think you are very WRONG in this statement. Ethics and morals have evolved, but their roots lie in Christianity (in the Western World anyway)Ultimately, all I started off saying is that in MY definition of a "trully enlightenend" or "trully civilized" (I used those interchangably) society, morals and ethics will (and should be) based on reason and thought and NOT religion. I am saying in such a society (as I have defined it in my head), religeon and spirituality are useless. So, the arguments above were NOT about this. They seemed to me (at the time) to be about Acc's claims that Chirstianity has been responsible for all the wonderful things we have (such as our advanced science, our great set of moral values, etc etc) ... I on the other hand, believe that the Christian church, although helped science in many cases, actually did more harm to it than good. So I think it all comes down to this: "Is religeon in general the true force behind our morals and ethics or can there be strong ethical and moral values even without this all important religeon"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted July 22, 2002 Report Share Posted July 22, 2002 quote:Do we really equate power with truth? In most cases yes because it is the winners who write the history. quote:powerful Turks should always be considered in the right and the weak Armenians contribution to humanity should always be considred as worthless Turks may have the political clatter and millitary strength, but we have contributed to the world as much if not more than them, despite our inferior population quote:points being that in fact Aninet China, the Incas, the Sumarians etc did dominate their worlds to the extent that they were known Wrong, China for one refused to venture outside its political 'domain' to engage the rest of the world. They were always inward looking. While the Europeans 'expanded' their known world not through superior technology but through the prospect of glory and heavenly rewards (for spreading the Gospel). quote:But this doesn't mean that Christianity is true In my opinion there is a God, and since we are descndants of Christians we should seek to live our lives as Christians, even if we believe that the Bible has contradictions, it is the closest things we have to the original Gospel. quote:"Is religeon in general the true force behind our morals and ethics or can there be strong ethical and moral values even without this all important religeon"? For the tenth time religion IS the true force behind our CURRENT morals and ethincs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted July 22, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Accelerated: quote:"Is religeon in general the true force behind our morals and ethics or can there be strong ethical and moral values even without this all important religeon"? For the tenth time religion IS the true force behind our CURRENT morals and ethincs.... for the 11-th time, what about the second part of the question? I seem to get the feeling from you that you think there can't be morals without religeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted July 22, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2002 quote:Originally posted by THOTH: quote:Originally posted by Sip: Note also that I think all childeren are stupid!!! Obviously then you know nothing about children.Common Thoth ... how many 10-year olds do you see solving complicated engineering problems? How many 11-year olds do you see making speeches in front of scholars? How many 12-year olds do you see in this forum? (ooop, bad example Are you seriously telling me I am so "lost" and I don't know anything about childeren? Granted, I haven't seen all the childeren in the world but the ones I have seen, all of them, have been very stupid. Note that many of them have the potential to learn and become very capable thinkers. But at the time they are young, their brains are not that capable (their brains simply have not developed enough yet). [ July 22, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Sip ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Well Seaphan I must disagree with you concerning children being stupid. I think if you ever took the time to listen to the things children say - how they proces what they observe and expres themselves you would be of a very different opinion. Obviously - as in adults - there are differences in intelligence - but lacking the full range of adult knowledge/experience does not make them stupid - in some cases in makes them smarter as much of what most adults concentrate their (sometimes meager) intellects on is pretty banal IMO. And I would put money on my 9 year old against you in either chess or checkers. In both (but the latter in particular) he can best most adults. So if he beats you does that make you stupid? Additionally of course he exhibits tremendous creativity and some of his ideas & insights just blow me away. For this and other reasons i still think you statement is in error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 Accel - Religion may be a means of expressing or codefying morals and ethics (and thus passing them on) - but by definition I would say religion does not preceede these things. Much of what we hold for morality is shared by all human religions - each basically codefying what are natural human norms (obviously with some variation - as can be expected). Please don't try to tell me now that the Chinese had no civilization. And they were not always strictly inward looking though their beliefs certainy stressed the idea of Chinese civilization as the center of all things. And I fail to see how your pont changes mine - they ruled all they cared to rule and what does it matter - if we judge civiliztion by conquest then the Turks must have been the most civilized people in history - no? Prove to me that your gospel is divine. If God created everything who created God? This idea that this being God existed forever (from the void as it were) has no substance in reality - it can not be proven in any way - only claimed. And why is it just one God - not many. And what makes this God(?) so all powerful (even if she does exist?) - again - just a claim (and by humans regarding an unseen abstraction. Sorry bub - just your word against mine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted July 23, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 quote:Originally posted by THOTH:... And I would put money on my 9 year old against you in either chess or checkers. In both (but the latter in particular) he can best most adults. So if he beats you does that make you stupid? I think we had this discussion some time ago. Are "chess" and "checkers" good benchmarks for smartness? Well, my computer can kick both my and your 9-year old's butt. Does it mean it's smarter than both of us? But in any case, I am honored that you would consider me as a "benchmark" for smartness against which to measure your 9-year old (who I am sure is very "capable") but I somehow I still doubt at the age of 9, a child has the ability to process complex thoughts as well as the average adult. I find this forum pretty amzing and extremely fun. Even statements such as "snow is white" can be shot down as "in error" and "not always true". Once again, I am not (or have I ever) made any absolute statements about my abilites. All I am saying, is that the average child is VERY STUPID relative to the average adult. Exceptions? Sure, there often are exceptions to a general statement such as that. But I do think I could kick your 9-year olds butt in ANYTHING and ANYTIME... bring it ON (ok, I admit, I suck in chess and checkers ... but no one can beat me in tic tac toe ) Actually, I would NEVER give into a challenge like that. It's a lose-lose situation for me. If I win, I have beaten a 9-year old (big deal). If I lose (I don't even want to think about it). So what do I get out of it? [ July 22, 2002, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Sip ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted July 23, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 quote:Originally posted by THOTH:Religion may be a means of expressing or codefying morals and ethics (and thus passing them on) - but by definition I would say religion does not preceede these things. Much of what we hold for morality is shared by all human religions - each basically codefying what are natural human norms (obviously with some variation - as can be expected).Ooooh Well said. I couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Sip: I somehow I still doubt at the age of 9, a child has the ability to process complex thoughts as well as the average adult.I think you might be very surprised if you ever had a conversation with him. You would be blown away. I don't think its a limit of the brain for complex thoughts (at a young age) - but the need to build up a baisis/foundation for understanding such. I'm convinced that right now he could (quickly) learn just about anything if he put his mind to it. And he would whip your but in chess or checkers. He can't beat me in chess - but we are fairly even in checkers - and I'm not a bad player. his grandad has tought him tricks and strategy (which he learned with a vengence) and he has been beating most adults for over a year now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 quote:Much of what we hold for morality is shared by all human religions Really? And what about the Aztecs? quote:if we judge civiliztion by conquest then the Turks must have been the most civilized people in history - no?They were, at the peak of the Ottoman Empire... As for God, naturally I have little in the way of proving it to you except for my FAITH and those billions (of Christians, Muslims, Jews...) before me who had FAITH, and in many cases died defending it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 23, 2002 Report Share Posted July 23, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Sip: Note also that I think all childeren are stupid!!! Obviously then you know nothing about children. And concerning religion - etc. Someone (Accelerated?) said somthing here to the effect that the Chinese/Inca etc never dominated the world - infering that this means that there religions are somehow lesser then Christianity under which (for the most part) European civilization has spread accross the world. Well - several things here. Do we really equate power with truth? (might makes right - etc?) If so then perhaps the powerful Turks should always be considered in the right and the weak Armenians contribution to humanity should always be considred as worthless - etc. And I can just see things 2,000 years from now - when we have adopted some new religion and are looking back on planet earth from some far off solar system and someone makes this statement: "Well Christianity was certainly no good because all the Christians were able to do was dominate a world - they never took over the whole galaxy as we have." points being that in fact Aninet China, the Incas, the Sumarians etc did dominate their worlds to the extent that they were known (foot/sail/wagon etc traffic being more slow then jets etc) and , again, what kind of standard is this might makes right argument anyway. Certainly one can make many arguments concerning how christianity fueld the mercantile revolution and made possible all of the technologies and achievements of today - etc (likely a good thing - though the jury is stil out). But this doesn't mean that Christianity is true - only that its belief set allowed for an environment where humans could achieve certain things. IMO we always make the mistake of seeing ourselves as being at the end of time. The jury is still out dude - and the changes (which are becomming even more rapid) are going to lead to something that we cannot even envision. Admittedly Christianity has had a certain amount of longevity - but it is clear to me that it is (and should be) soon eclipsed and our worldview is soon to expand beyond our little planet and who knows what we may uncover. And in the meantime humans continue to evolve (even artificially), machines get faster/more capable/(and will get) more alive and the bacteria keep on feeding away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 This is a pretty tough subject. I see where most of you are coming from and I have only this to add: Since as human beings we are still too unevolved and too primitive to cope with our primal emotions (i.e. love, hate, fear, anger, jealousy, etc.), we all feel the need to believe in something beyond our control so that it can give us some sense and direction. This "something" could be anything from an existing religion, to philosophy, science, astrology, our inner selves, our personal God(s) or even alcohol and drugs. I believe that most people, if not all, have something "irrational" they truly believe in. Even among the people on this forum. You may call yourself an atheist and claim you don't believe in anything. But you do firmly believe in atheism and in nothing, and this is enough to prove that you do believe in something. And this "something", in this case 'atheism and nothing', forms your worldview, your norms and values. Concerning this, we are all obsessed and fanatic about something beyond our control. Even if we call it 'nothing'. In short, without some sort of "religion", "faith" or "belief", all human beings fail to be rational and moral, simply because we haven't learned to control and deal with our primal emotions yet. As for a multiple religious country, I wouldn't dare say, except, one too many total opposite religions in the world and one too many religions eager to dominate. Unless you can overcome this, there's not much chance for a complete multi-religious society. Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Nairi -Well said (as usual) However I disagree on your depiction of Atheists. Some of them (such as myself - if one would call me an Atheist - though I'm not sure that is a totally acurate description) are defined not by what they believe - but by what they reject. I think most Atheists reject the notion of this all imposing God figure (kn whatever form) - others perhaps only reject the Christian (or Judeo/Muslim/Christian) God concept and dogma associated. To reject these things is not to define any specific set of beliefs however - as much is possible outside of these two narrow concepts. I am a Daoist BTW. (at least sometimes...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 quote:Originally posted by nairi:we all feel the need to believe in something beyond our control so that it can give us some sense and direction. I am not afflicted with this particular shortcomming. Instead I am very accepting of the knowledge that in fact there are many things beyond my ability to know (and I have no need to invent constructs to explain such in order to satisfy my lack of proper explanation). I admit it is enjoyable/intruiging to speculate and investigate (to the extent my limited ability/perception allows) - but I do not feel the need to assume that I truly know any answers. (and its certainly not something to get anxious over - or kill someone for...etc). I know that I am unusual in this. Perhaps its because I (inately?) know some things that others do not...LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Just thought this might be of interest to some here - it concerns some of Albert Einstein's thinking on the nature of God, religion, etc http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/einst...tein/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 An interesting article on Deism writtn by one of the USA's founding fathers Thomas Pain. BTW - it is a myth that the founding fathers of the US were Christian - this is largely untrue - they were mostly Deists. (which ends up being closer to being a Daoist then a Christian - and by a long shot) http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm And more on Deism http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm [ July 24, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: THOTH ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Dear Thoth, However I disagree on your depiction of Atheists. Some of them (such as myself - if one would call me an Atheist - though I'm not sure that is a totally acurate description) are defined not by what they believe - but by what they reject. I think most Atheists reject the notion of this all imposing God figure (kn whatever form) - others perhaps only reject the Christian (or Judeo/Muslim/Christian) God concept and dogma associated. To reject these things is not to define any specific set of beliefs however - as much is possible outside of these two narrow concepts. I am a Daoist BTW. (at least sometimes...) "Rejecting" is also a way of life, a worldview, and a concept you base your norms and values on. Therefore you are still a believer in something that is beyond your control. I am not afflicted with this particular shortcomming. Instead I am very accepting of the knowledge that in fact there are many things beyond my ability to know (and I have no need to invent constructs to explain such in order to satisfy my lack of proper explanation). I admit it is enjoyable/intruiging to speculate and investigate (to the extent my limited ability/perception allows) - but I do not feel the need to assume that I truly know any answers. (and its certainly not something to get anxious over - or kill someone for...etc). I know that I am unusual in this. Perhaps its because I (inately?) know some things that others do not...LOL "Not being afflicted with something" is also something that you believe in and base your worldview on. As well as "to be accepting of the knowledge that there are many things beyong one's control". That's also a belief beyond your control. Thanks for the links btw. Nairi [ July 24, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: nairi ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Nairi - I have to disagree with you. Just because I reject someone's particular view does not proscribe any particular view that I might have - only that I do not buy into theirs. If I say that I don't believe in Santa Clause how does this proscribe a particular world view or such on my part? It only says that I understand certain things to be fairy tails or such that are not true. After that it is entirely wide open as to what I may or may not believe. Obviously we all make certain assumptions concerning the validity of the reality of what we are exposed to - so on a certain level this cannot be avoided. But to claim that one is necessarily buying into a particular belief set only because we reject a certain set of beliefs doesn't do it for me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Oh - and Accelerated - concerning your contention about the Aztecs being unique - i came accross the following: HE SUPPORTS HUMAN SACRIFICE: Ex. 22:29-30 says, "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for 7 days, but give them to me on the 8th day." And Lev. 27:28-29 says, "Nothing that a man owns and devotes to the Lord--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." He also permitted human sacrifice according to Ezek. 20:26, which says, "I let them become defiled through their gifts--the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." HE ORDERS CANNIBALISM: Lev. 26:29 says, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughter shall ye eat." Jer. 19:9 says, "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives." Ezek. 5:10 says, "In your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." Isaiah 49:26 says, "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine...." And in John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...." LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted July 24, 2002 Report Share Posted July 24, 2002 Dear Thoth, Fair enough. I merely thought I'd share MY 'religion' with you guys. It's my personal outlook on life and humanity and it's what I base the rest of my worldview on. The theory itself may be true or false. And that's the point: it's beyond my control. But for the time being this theory, among many others, gives me a sense of direction in this life and allows me to be a "good" person. Although I'm almost sure that if you analyzed why you have certain norms and values and why you don't have others you'll constantly fall back on the phrase: "Well... it's because I BELIEVE in (education, atheism, Daoism, children, the truth, being neutral, down-to-earth, honest, myself, etc. etc. etc.)" and "I reject these norms and values because I don't BELIEVE in (Christianity, God, spiritualism, acupuncture, herbal medication, science, education, fairy tales, Coca-Cola, myself, etc. etc. etc.)". At least that's how I experience it, but you don't have to agree Nairi [ July 24, 2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: nairi ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted July 25, 2002 Report Share Posted July 25, 2002 THOTH, Firstly, I dont believe in quoting from texts, it in most cases takes things out of context Secondly, Christianity is largelly defined by the New Testament (you have quoted from the old), the Old Testament is more of a Prologue if you like. Teachings introduced in the New Testament supersede those in the Old. Thirdly, the Aztec religion (if I remember correctly) basically required for them to raid surrounding tribes on a regular basis in order to capture men (women & children) to be sacrificed in mass (sometimes 10s of thousands at a time). And besides you dont see Orthodox Jews sacrificing their young today, or as far as history (in proper) has been recorded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted July 25, 2002 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2002 Pretty interesting discussions I must say (Nairi and Thoth). I had to look up a several words in the dictionary!!! I personally, am not "well-read" enough to have a word to describe myself ... I basically reject anything which is not "testable". If someone proposes a model which describes something, if I test it and find it to be true to a reasonable extent, I accept it. If there is no way for me to test it, I reject it Einstein's theories are certainly testable. That's what makes him trully exceptional. He said light would be effected by mass ... and sure enough, we conducted experiments and found out his predictions were true (or matched our observations). The thing with God ... not testable Yah, he did everything, he created this and that, he is all knowing and such. But how can I test this "God" model??? And no Jug, your "FAITH" means nothing to me (it's not a proof of the model) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted July 25, 2002 Report Share Posted July 25, 2002 Dear Sip, I personally, am not "well-read" enough to have a word to describe myself You should add "I'm not dumb enough to know everything" to your signature. That's another one of my eccentric outlooks on life and humanity. The more educated and well-read people become, the dumber they get. More often than not, instinctive behavior make more sense to me than an intellectual's analysis. And whenever I meet or chat to "well-read" people, they almost seem inhuman to me. They'll even go as far as to describe in detail what they potentially feel, what they should hypothetically be feeling and how they should probably react. "Well... since my mouth is parched, and I am beginning to feel drowsy and weak, it must mean that my anatomical organs are demanding my assistance. If I recall correctly, this is what my grade school teacher taught me in a biology lesson. Let's see. According to Darwin, Hughes and Perlman solid food will help me fill my stomach and make me less dizzy, however it won't necessarily eliminate the parchedness in my mouth, unless the food is moist enough and not too saline. Ah! This is interesting! Freud and Eriksson claim that the parchedness of my mouth has an unconscious psychological tinge. According to them, my parchedness will vanish once I solve my "anal stage" complications. However, this is contradicted by Fraser who speaks of a 'natural phenomenon', which can only be controlled through intensive practice... etc. etc. etc. Oooh all this is actually quite fascinating. I might even publish an acclaimed essay about this someday... Although I still haven't found an answer as to how I should expunge this parchedness from my mouth... Hmmm. Let me have a night's sleep over this and I'll resume my research first thing tomorrow..." And then when your uneducated dumb ass comes along and says some simplistic (or instinctive) crap like "How about drinking some water?", the intellectual will reply with: "Oh my! You must be really smart! This is a proposition Aristotle analyzed more than 2000 years ago..." Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.