Robert Bronsdon (Hollywood Rob) September 2018
This video was made some years ago. Perhaps you have seen it. If you have, perhaps you have forgotten it as I have. Be that as it may, I see that many of you struggle with issues surrounding the science of evolutionary biology and rather than rely on videos produced by somebody that I don’t have the background on, Trey Explains, I would like to suggest that you spend an hour listening to these two discussing it. If your time is too precious, perhaps you can skip the q&a at the end.
I can’t wait to have you all weigh in on the biblical justification for the wasp’s mothering techniques and I love the bit about the nerve that connects the brain to the larynx.
Thanks. “Selfish Gene” is on my list to read, but haven’t gotten to it yet.
Old science. Dawkins was wrong on the selfish gene because of Eusociality .(E?O . Wilson)
So now we know the advantage of genetic fitness transfer to the group even at the disadvantage of the selfish gene.. Being honest hurts you personally but advantages your tribe. Your tribe has a greater advantage then the other tribe.
Yes, it’s possible that good evolves.
Wow mouse, did you actually listen to what he said?
The evolution of eusociality occurred repeatedly in different orders of animals, particularly the Hymenoptera (the wasps, bees, and ants). This ‘true sociality’ in animals, in which sterile individuals work to further the reproductive success of others, is found in termites, ambrosia beetles, gall-dwelling aphids, thrips, marine sponge-dwelling shrimp (Synalpheus regalis), naked mole-rats (Heterocephalus glaber), and the insect order Hymenoptera (which includes bees, wasps, and ants).[1] The fact that this behavior has evolved so many times in the Hymenoptera (between 8 and 11 times [2]), but remains rare throughout the rest of the animal kingdom, has made the evolution of eusociality a topic of debate among evolutionary biologists. Eusocial organisms at first appear to behave in stark contrast with simple interpretations of Darwinian evolution: passing on one’s genes to the next generation, or fitness, is a central idea in evolutionary biology.
Current theories propose that the evolution of eusociality occurred either due to kin selection, proposed by W.D. Hamilton,[3] or by the competing theory of multilevel selection as proposed by E.O. Wilson and colleagues.[4] No single trait or model is sufficient to explain the evolution of eusociality, and most likely the pathway to eusociality involved a combination of pre-conditions, ecological factors, and genetic influences.
How is that not one of the topics that he covered? Or do you have a divergent viewpoint that you would care to share with the class.
The arguments seemed perfectly cogent to me, but then I’m agnostic. I find it interesting that whenever I or someone else voices anti-religious or areligious opinions, many here attack the same way leftists do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. They seem to take it personally as if they, themselves, were being attacked.
I once said on a reply to an sgtreport piece that trashed the theory of evolution and favoured creationism, that they were essentially saying an invisible man in the sky was more believable than the well-backed concept that we evolved from lower animals. Many readers took umbrage, most resorting to personal attacks as opposed to countering the argument. I didn’t care; it was entertaining.
They both seem a bit smug. And Richard says “we understand where we came from”. Ya right.
The world has truly spun out of control this 4th Turning. Whosie Susie has posted a brief observation without personal bias with just a hint of sarcasm.
Dear Lord, help me. I’m in agreement with You Know Whosie!
Well you don’t understand where you came from, but then you don’t understand much. I am sure that you and your book have much more to teach us than someone who has actually studied the topic. After all, how could you be wrong?
Ummmm, you talkin’ to me? I understand much and my UCR degree in Biology tells me hubris tends to be fatal to someone’s belief system. And I do not pretend to understand the unknowable.
But ima jus parroting random thoughts of etiology distilled from 70 years of experience. Do hive minds exist or serve any purpose? And the collective unconscious doesn’t exist either? I can’t prove some kind of spiritual power higher than myself is imbued in all things living and in all substances physical; and I cannot prove love exists either. But I can say whoever changed my diapers and fed me, loved me.
Somewhere above the skyline the vigilantes are having sex…are you?
Can I get an Amen?
amen and amen
You are impressing me more and more You Know Whosie. I think you are doing a fine job of standing against this bigoted asshole whose opinion of his own opinion is so much more valuable than yours or my simpleminded opinion.
Glad to see HollyO here.
Grab a handful of HUBRIS HollyO and start flinging it with me and you know whosie. You and I get it. You are invited and will be welcome in Narnia, should that day arrive and you find yourself needing community and close to my gate.
Hollywood Rob, I won’t be spending one second looking at your replies to anything I say unless someone I respect replies to to some drivel you spew here. Because my time is valuable. God is not done with me yet.
Have a big serving of HUBRIS on white bread, you pompous ass.
I’m Maggie, I approve this comment completely and I think you are a complete and total ass for your relentless attack on those with faith.
Admin could elevate this to featured post should he want to. I can’t imagine why he would want to except it appears HollyO showed up again and if that is so, I am humbled if I played even a small role in bringing my TBP sister back to stand with me against the Tyrant that Hollywood Rob has decided to stand with.
I do have to admit to some confusion. I don’t see any comments from Holly. I am also at a lost to see where you get your definition of hubris.
Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/ from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence,[1] often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.[2] In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods, and which in turn brings about the downfall, or nemesis, of the perpetrator of hubris.
Maybe you think of it in the “Challenges the gods” sense. Yes, I do challenge the gods. Your’s included. But I don’t suspect that you have that definition in mind. I suspect that you believe that I am overconfident or arrogant. You know, I defy your norms of behavior. Yes indeed, I do defy your norms of behavior but your norms of behavior are slowly slipping beneath the waves of history. Your overconfidence in your god, your arrogance in your belief that he and his word is better than allah, or odin, or buddha demonstrates hubris as well. Don’t ya think?
So hubris – it is displayed here in abundance. One could say, in fact, that if we all didn’t display hubris there would be no comments here at all. And is hubris a bad thing? When you display hubris in the defense of your lord is that bad. Your overconfidence and arrogance in your belief that jeebus is your savior is the bedrock of your life. Clearly hubris is a positive thing as long as it supports your world view and a negative thing as it opposes your world view. What could be more hubristic than claiming that your god has some use for you. How is that not arrogance?
Oh and thanks for using the word hubris. It led me to the definition of hubris which also included hubristic which oddly enough is not in the spell checker and was not a part of my vocabulary.
Good response hollywood. Thoughtful and received in kind thoughts.
“Your overconfidence in your god, your arrogance in your belief that he and his word is better than allah, or odin, or buddha demonstrates hubris as well. Don’t ya think?”
But my heuristic experiences go beyond religions describing an indecipherable cause.
“What could be more hubristic than claiming that your god has some use for you. How is that not arrogance?”
I only claim I have use of a higher power whom I call göd most of the time, and is beyond my comprehension in totality. Not the other way around.
Do you see a difference?
KS. I haven’t replied because I wanted to consider your question carefully. I also want to avoid a long answer so to be precise, I do see a difference. But for you it is a significant difference while for me, it is (let me see if I can recall this properly) separating the fly shit out of the pepper. No I most surly have that wrong but you get my point. The things that I found exciting about the video were the times when opinion was set aside and facts such as giraffe necks and nerves to the larynx were held up as examples of unintelligent design. And these examples, of which this is only one and you with your education most assuredly know far more, are clearly showing us that evolution through natural selection is the only way that such things could come to be.
To me, the video was not about atheism or god or anything so trivial as that. They were peripheral to the main point of the discussion and that seemed to me to be that the concept that Darwin stumbled upon in his studies has been shown to be true in millions of tiny details. Your experience in the divine do not inform this discussion. They inform your world view but they can not be entered as evidence because you can hold forth no fact. I think Stucky hit the nail on the head when he said that what we have here is a confrontation between those who seek facts, and those who seek faith. I don’t, however, agree with him that no minds can be changed. If no minds can be changed then we are indeed doomed.
Rob, no need to rush to respond, I am not going anywhere any time soon; and thank you for your considered input and response above. Though my doxology came at times from doxies, more of it came from long and hard meditations and reading big thinkers like the ones who post here.
Peace be with you and also with my Maglita.
My hubris has cost me more than you know. I strive for humility.
“Hubris is often associated with a lack of humility. Sometimes a person’s hubris is also associated with ignorance. The accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in Greek mythology.” Wikipedia
I am fond of what Ben Franklin says about how to be humble. ‘Imitate Jesus and Socrates’
I always add: But don’t get crucified or drink the hemlock.
just a reminder that I will not respond to this ignorant ass unless someone I respect wants to talk to him and then I might read what he said that caused them to waste their time.
Well Susie, I can see where that video would strike close to home for you. They spend some time talking about people who have studied biology and teach biology and yet, even though they know that the earth is only 6000 years old, they teach that dinosaurs walked the earth 65 million years ago. I can’t see how you can see them as being smug. They are simply stating facts. Useful facts that point most biologists to an understanding of how life evolved. Is it smug to state facts? Is it smug to seek understanding? Or is it smug to contend that a book written before toilet paper was invented accurately represents how the world was formed and how life evolved? Is is hubris to suggest that knowledge is a good thing? Is it hubris to accept the facts as we understand them now and to throw out those facts when new ones reveal more about the world around us? Or is it hubris to suggest that you know all of the answers already because somebody 2000 years ago wrote them all down in a book. Well, not actually a book. They wrote them down on pieces of skin and plants that they harvested beside the river. They used pieces of skin and plants because that is all they knew how to do. Now we type on computers because people like the smug guys you seem to despise were willing to accept new facts that didn’t comport with your arcane views. Who displays the greatest hubris? Those who smugly promote their god, or those who question him?
Speaking of dinosaurs, a good friend sent this to me last week. Not long, watch to the very end!
Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists (intelligent ones anyway) Abandon Theory…
Note how evolutionists, as always, resort to harassing the speaker when faced with scientific evidence.
My god man. (obviously not your god.) How can you offer this up. Have you no knowledge at all about the process of fossilization? Are you truly that unaware or are you just trying to fool the troglodytes that you shepherd? Look, I have living tissue from a T Rex! Look, dinosaur footprints with humans. Look, I can change water into wine. Hell, most magicians can change water into wine. But literally nobody believes that some bible thumper has trudged all over the world and has managed to find the only piece of dinosaur meat left over from 65 million years ago. No one is baffled by the fraud that is this man. It is exactly the fraud that has driven the young from your church. Well, that and the sexual abuse that the catholics seem to like.
Rob from the hollyhood, I believe you have me confused with someone from your past. Did you even read what I said? I am not asking you to believe what I said but do NOT put words in my mouth that are not there. Obviously you have different heuristic discoveries than I.
time4teeth
continue, KS… You are now in the ranks of those I will read responding to this pompous ass to see if your time is well wasted. I don’t need to go read Pompous Ass’s comment to know he did not read or consider what you said. You are doing fine.
Let me see if I can paraphrase here. “Wow, that’s some real hate you have going there.” Can’t remember who might have said it.
That was me, Rob. I’m flattered you remembered the quote, even if not who said it.
Hate is a waste of time and energy. Anger is useful if you channel it properly and sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t.
I was reading through the comments again because I think this is an important thread.
Thanks MC. Maggie seems to think that she said it but of course, that wasn’t the point. I agree, hate is a waste of energy. Having a heated argument however is not a waste of energy.
Only responding because I wanted to remind my dear friend, MC, that there are times God expects a little righteous hatred. Especially toward Pompous Assholes.
It’s righteous anger, not righteous hatred, Maggie.
There’s been entire books written about anger. I’m very careful to assess my anger before I declare it righteous.
God doesn’t need to be defended. I don’t waste my time trying to defend him to the blind. I was blind once so I know how we believe what we want to believe. Whatever suits our needs at the time.
Is this keeping your blood pressure up? Do you need it to be up? Then maybe this is a good exercise for you.
I prefer drink coffee to get mine up.
I can’t have coffee yet.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+110&version=NIV
I think I am quite capable of determining whether I have the mental acuity to determine whether my anger (or hatred) is righteous.
My blood pressure sits around 120 over 70 unless it drops precariously due to problems with my hydrocephalus or my current blood loss, which has curtailed drastically since the wound vac has been properly attached.
Ettu?
My nanny goat is now Bessie.
I never said you didn’t, Maggie. I can only assess my own anger and it’s rarely righteous. But that’s me. When I get angry, I better just keep my mouth shut, lest I get myself in trouble. If I keep it shut long enough, my anger subsides enough for me to think things through. Sometimes I misread other peoples intent. Sometimes I expect too much from others.
My blood pressure is high at 120/70. I think it’s my thyroid.
I am assuming you are now angry with me. I didn’t mean to draw your anger towards me but it seems that you need someone to be angry at right now.
You are assuming I was judging your anger. I am only saying that MY anger is rarely righteous and more often then not, it gets me in trouble.
https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/smyth/righteous_hatred.htm
Don’t let yourself fall into the “trying to change hearts and win minds” trap I stumbled into, my friend. You might end up with a wide open gaping wound.
As Rob titled this essay..I don’t know why you bothered.
And, no one here can wound me, no one here is that important to me.
As you said, a friend is someone you can call in the middle of the night to help you out. I don’t see that happening with anyone on this blog. It’s just a place to vent and toss around ideas.
“While here, Jesus’s hatred was not expressed with ranting and raving at false doctrines and ungodly religious activity. Though he rebuked the hypocrisy of God’s people, Jesus is never recorded to have “preached against” the major false religions of his time, the Mithratic worship of the Roman soldiers, the Zoroastrianism of the Persians, the Olympians of the Greeks, etc. He merely had nothing to do with those unordained religions, teaching and doing only what his Father told him to do (Jn.6:38; 8:28). That is the “perfect hatred” of evil mentioned in Psalm 139:21.”
http://www.isaiah58.com/questions/q_oftheweek43.html
It is amusing to watch you here trying to bring everyone’s attention to the quite stunning athleticism it takes to sit alone sucking your own dick.
Hollywood Rob
You are talking about science and biology and how those FACTS … and they ARE facts … compares with religion, which is absolutely NOT based on science (although more than a few Christians DO think the Bible is a science book, unfortunately).
So far, so good. I like your viewpoints and the role of science. But then the hubris starts. You give a definition of hubris, and then in the same post accuse others of a different persuasion that they are “overconfident and arrogant”. Heh heh … I don’t need a Webster’s definition of hubris …. I know it when I see it.
Not picking on you. The other side has just as much hubris — if not more, especially that sneaky passive-aggressive know-it-all known as GCP.
It’s an emotional topic that always elicits fiery passion. Just look at how the normally sweet-as-sugar MagMag reacted!! I think you are missing One Big Aspect in all of this. Let me tell you what it is, briefly, via a book.
I am currently reading “Red Mars”. I’m not even half done with it, and I’m already thinking it will be the best Sci Fi book I’ve ever read , and I’ve read a lot. The link below gives a summary, in case you’re interested. Let me get to the point, quickly.
A group of the 100 smartest humans on Earth travel to Mars to colonize it. The group includes Americans, Russians, engineers of every type, and …. BOTH religious people (including some Muslims) and atheists. As one would expect, the religious people (the Christians, not the Muslims) and the atheists get into a heated discussion of who is right. It’s a GREAT section of the book, many of the same arguments that you make are included …. and the argument concludes when the religious person says (paraphrasing, don’t have the book with me) before walking away —— “Well, you will never understand because it’s all about faith.”
That is The One Big Aspect. I’m sure you’re underwhelmed, and I bet you were expecting something more profound, or original. But, imho, you really ought to think about that for a while. And, you might come to understand that, because of their faith;
—- You will likely NEVER EVER “win” an argument with a believer. Do you think you can convince someone to reject their faith via arguments made over the internet? So, why try?
—- You, yourself, will go crazy trying to talk sense into them … or, more likely, you will grow ever more angry with them for what you perceive to be their obtuseness. You might even become bitter. You will make enemies. Is it worth it?
—- A better way to go: THEY make their points as best they can, and YOU make your points the best you can …. and if neither side convinces the other, just agree to disagree and part as friends. Can you give it a try?
Whatever you do, don’t be like me. I think BOTH sides make excellent points. In some specifics I’m 100% on the atheist side, while in others I’m 100% on the religious side. This leads to people calling me wishy-washy, without balls, and lacking in integrity. I am hated by all.
MagMag … if so inclined, you may NOW comment directly to that “ignorant ass”.
Red Mars trilogy overview —> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
I am responding to you, stucky, and telling you I’m enraged. Enraged. Enraged.
The fire in my gut is burning and I will indeed read what ever it is you think Pompous Ass might say that is worth reading but I’ve been on here fighting his bigotry alone for a few minutes and need a little break to evacuate the wound vac, dump a bottle of alcohol in the gaping wound, relishing in the agonizing burn since it tingles like sassafras. I would digress into a discussion of the many values of sassafras, but I am ripping the bandages off all my wounds today.
I have a powerful mind at my disposal and I’ve decided to stop acting as if I can’t stay on topic. I am sharpening my fangs now, so will be offline for at least an hour.
Am wishing I was sweet and sugary, but my damn husband can’t seem to FIND the organic maple syrup at the grocery store, so I’m all out of sweet.
I may have to get hold of the Death Nurse just to have quality backup at my side.
“I am responding to you, stucky, and telling you I’m enraged. Enraged. Enraged.”
Maggie San, may I suggest a little Mister Myaggi (sp?)
[img
?itemid=6193885[/img]
Iwill ask my Nick to help me let go of the anger… it really does work, that Zen shit.
https://bible.org/seriespage/14-righteous-anger-ephesians-426-27
MagMag …. don’t forget to put on the whole Armor of God …. and that pompous sonuvabeeatch will run for the hills faster than your bunny that still has his nuts.
[img
[/img]
Got it. Pallettes and all.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/art/dict/armor.htm
I almost Hate it that I can’t double and triple upvote you Stucky. But, TMWNN has done a really good thing here, ending the nonsensical game that seriously distracts from Admin’s true goal here.
If I had any other friends I’d ask them to come do give you some Thumb Lovin’, but alas, it is lonely only I, a weak damsel in distress. You are my knight in shining armor, Mr. Lumberjack. I await your rescue.
Big. Cheesy. Grin. You online for a while or should hurry back to see what topics of interest you are following today.
Me rescuing you. heh heh
I think I’m about done. I’m trying to write a small/funny article about why giving power to the states will not really work … but, I keep getting interrupted …. and now Ms Freud is hungry and wants to go to lunch.
Maggie, think about your health please. I hope you are doing better. You seem to have a few fights going on at the same time.
Let go and let God.
Am meditating and considering the Will of the Cosmos.
http://inspirationtravels.com/quotes-thoreau-walden/
Stucky, you are of course correct, and I know that pissing into the ocean does not accomplish anything but I also know that pissing into the wind is not a good idea. You have to piss with the wind at your back. But the argument between the faithful and the factual has deep implications and to avoid it simply allows it to fester. If nobody stands up to them, then they will never change their minds.
It is faith that allows an otherwise sane person to accept that the flesh of a dinosaur has been found. Now this is an obvious fraud as are the footsteps that were found showing that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together. These frauds are innocuous if one considers them only as lies told to children but if people can believe such lies, then what else will they believe. Will they believe that Hillary would have been their bestest buddy? Will they believe that a bunch of ignorant muslims figured out how to navigate three planes into building (not just hitting the buildings, they had to find the buildings in the first place) and then go to the desert to slaughter the muslims in the name of their god?
You see, I worry that believing in gods is a gateway drug to a world of horrible things. Either you stand and oppose this greatest evil, or you are doomed to live with the consequences.
Oh and thanks for the book, although I have not been interested in SciFi for a while.
“You see, I worry that believing in gods is a gateway drug to a world of horrible things. Either you stand and oppose this greatest evil, or you are doomed to live with the consequences.”
What would you suggest be done with “evil” such as would tell you that God Himself loved you enough to die on a cross to pay for your sin? That there was nothing you had to do to receive such a gift (no religion necessary)… except to accept it and, perhaps say thank you, then go live your life as you see fit knowing that Gods forgiveness is yours.
Christian Fundamentalism defined.
1 Tim 2:3-4… “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
I don’t think Pompous Ass is capable of understanding that sacrifice by our Lord, preacher man.
“If nobody stands up to them, then they will never change their minds.”
A faith statement if I ever heard one. The whole free will thing, right?
You really get it don’t you?
Yes.
Past is prologue.
Neither – past nor future – is subject to debate, argument, facts, logic.
Minds aren’t “changed.”
Minds are made up.
Hard & software comes pre-installed.
Routines just loop.
So, if sparring is not an end in itself, you’re doing it wrong.
Christians believe a lot of things they shouldn’t believe. But unbelievers also believe a lot of the same things. You are assuming we all think alike. That’s hardly the case, otherwise there would not be all of the different denominations.
Many people fervently believe Marxism or some form of socialism will bring about some kind of utopia, instead of tyranny. Those people don’t usually claim to be Christians but some do.
All I can say is, I would be a horrible person if I didn’t have my faith to guide me. But I know unbelievers who are honest and reliable people.
If you are happy, then believe what you want. Don’t make assumptions that all Christians are going to believe all the lies that we see going on right now.
I need another reason for why you think you need to convince Christians to switch to atheism.
MC, I am not trying to step on your fine opinion. But I just want to add my own here, in a tiny little post that does not ramble.
Hollywood is smarter than any stupid Christian. I am listening to the Diabolical Narcissist discussion. Ann just spoke to this issue at the 38 minute mark.
I decided to shore up my armor and refresh my memory about why Diabolical Narcissists are such a threat to all of humanity, not just believers.
I think she does a great job of dissecting the DN personality. Even with that, they are very crafty and can display whatever kind of emotion they think is necessary. Except for HRC, she’s not so good at it.
Peace out. I gotta get busy. I’m starting the get the “look over the top of the glasses” look from my husband..lol!
Have a blessed day and keep up the good fight. The truth is there.
Because not posting would mean I didn’t care…
…and my hatred for how satan has corrupted this world and everything in it (myself included) knows no bounds.
Sometimes there is no improving on the old memes.
Stucky told me to read you directly, Pompous Ass. So, here you are trying to act like you are clever.
I referred to this when I asked if I made Stucky laugh at the link posted below. Stop trying to act like you thought of it.
You haven’t had an original thought that I’ve seen since I first read and tried to make sense of your drivel some months ago.
Here is the post and time I posted it in case you think I’m rambling, unable to stay on topic. I’m finished playing that game.
On the MSM thread…
“Now ask yourself, as I requested you do in a comment regarding Muck. Why do you resent and hate what I say? Why do you want to criticize and resent my willingness to stand up and fight back? Could it be…. SATAN?
Made you laugh, didn’t I Stucky?
10
Reply
September 5, 2018 9:10 am”
Next.
Oh, and I am still waiting for Pompous Ass to explain to me how I do NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT REQUEST, which he so arrogantly proclaimed as he skittled, roachlike, here there and everywhere on the blog the other day blessing his minions and followers with his grand and glorious grasp of the First Amendment.
Did you evenbother to do a little reseach about Prior Restraint asshole? or are you sufficiently smarter than everybody about that too?
I am not sure how you see this as germane to the argument.
Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship[1] or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government or institution, on expression, that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship which establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place.
In some countries (e.g., United States,[2] Argentina)[3] prior restraint by the government is forbidden, subject to certain exceptions (such as classifying certain matters of national security), by a constitution.
Prior restraint can be effected in a number of ways. For example, the exhibition of works of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority (sometimes referred to a classification board or censorship board) before it can be published, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship as is the revoking of a license. It can also take the form of a legal injunction or government order prohibiting the publication of a specific document. Sometimes, a government or other party becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it: to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are considered prior restraint because potential future publications are stopped in advance.
Try to work on both your vocabulary and your grasp of Constitutional Law History.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation09.html
Now, you should be able to continue sucking your own dick here while you read that explanation of why prior restraint is “germane.”
You will not be able to watch this because it is about you. Perhaps others will enjoy it while you suck your own dick here.
I know you are trying to stand against the ignorance of the Enemy, my friend, but God does not require you to make the same sacrifice his precious Son made. It is sometimes a better route to walk away and let the demon screech and demand attention all by itself.
If you’re an atheist then you don’t know and have not the will to find out… so you’re not relevant.
thanks… good point
Mark. If you are a christian then you don’t know and you will never bother to find out so you are not relevant. As your children abandon your churches and your pews stand empty you cry out in the name of your god and yet no answers are given.
I’ve been reading TBP for some time and only recently have decided to comment from time to time. I have observed there appears to be a divergence of thought regarding how we all got here, and often the discussions have become very vitriolic.
I am amazed that so many are willing to accept that there is no Higher Power and everything is just one big happy accident. But it that’s what you wish to believe, I’m perfectly okay with that. I certainly am not smart enough to argue either side of the equation. I’m not a scientist or a religious scholar. But I base my beliefs on my observations of over 70 years, and accept that I cannot explain it or defend it. There’s a lot of stuff that I don’t understand, like electricity, that I must accept that it IS.
But what I do know is this site stands for the right to be an individual and think and feel and more importantly, write about those ideas.
It is that later principle that is worth arguing about. And that is the principle that we are in so much danger of losing.
And on that, CW, I think most of us would gladly agree.
Just wondering where that force came from to make so many things happen. Also where the stuff that made stuff happened came from. It’s good that we ask these questions. Part of our humanity is our curiosity – which sadly seems out of style these days. But I must admit to getting more than slightly irritated with those who seem to have all the answers and dismiss all other opinion. I feel rather certain that we will NEVER have ALL the answers. Isn’t that really quite wonderful?
You bet CW. The most wonderful thing is that we will most likely never find all of the answers. Learning new things every day is what makes me want to get out of bed. I find it stimulating when I reach the knowledge boundary on any science and I suspect that you fill find that most scientists feel that way.
For some strange reason, in a world where actions have reactions and decisions bring about consequences, intended or otherwise, Pompous Ass prefers to believe an accidental collision of space dust brought on the beginning of Cosmological existence.
And that any suggestion of Divine control is not only proof of ignorance, but is outright evidence of his superior way of thinking. Hubris will bring you down, boy.
https://centra.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/media/cms_page_media/436/Mimoso.pdf
There are some really smart people that believe some of that bible thumping shit.
Sorry Maggie. I didn’t say any of the things that you brought up in the first two paragraphs and I doubt that you can find any proof of the last sentence. This video was about evolutionary biology. I would suspect that KS has a far greater understanding about the things that are discussed than either of us could ever hope to have but it is you have swung the discussion into the issue of hubris. It is you who has resorted to name calling. It is you who is enraged. And that is not good for you at this time. You need to not be enraged. You need to be relaxed. Let the medicine do it’s job. I have two friends who have just suffered through the exact same operation that you have and they took months of rest to recover.
Now is not the time to be enraged.
Pompous Asshole. There.
I am righteously indignant and it is ALWAY the time for righteous indignation when forced to stand against the bigotry of a Pompous Asshole.
Now, Stucky cleared me to respond to you but he’s gone. I will read you no more.
Now is EXACTLY the time for righteous anger.
Rob.
I consider us buds so please take this as a friend.
You’re allowing GCP to get under your skin and drag you to his level. Playing his game will drag you down quicker than you’ll lift him up. Remember Little John Omega Shock.
They are the Insufferably smug. You weren’t like this before he started his personal attacks and on one of them I hit back at him because he was giving bad Christians like me a bad name.
He just has to be right, his entire sense of self depends on it.
Just look at his Rapture Chart that Stucky posted when I challenged GCP’s conceited Rapture Theory back when he attacked You, Rins, Stucky by name. The chart tells you all you have to know about his arrogance.
I was once an evil black-hearted rotten to the core God hater. I my darkest hour of despair I asked Him to help me and he didn’t hesitate but I wouldn’t dream of trying to force that on anyone else. Besides that, it’s just too personal. When he pisses you off to the point of posting an article he won.
Just saying.
Crazy Uncle Frankie Fleabaggs who lives in the attic.
We should all have a crazy uncle like you, Flea.
Flea, I appreciate your concern but I am not letting him get under my skin. I suspect that he would find that place to be difficult. Most people find debate to be uncomfortable. They find it difficult to allow others to have dissenting opinions. I, and this has always been the case, enjoy the debate. To me it is stimulating, causing me to challenge my own assumptions and to do some research into the points presented. I like to learn new things. Not everyone does.
GCP is lobbing softballs here. And these, even I can comfortably handle. And I ain’t no rocket scientist.
Rob..
Ok.
don’t talk to the pompous ass unless you intend to give him room to squat to pee
Mary C.
Aw shucks, stop it.
Uh, did you notice I got down voted for that comment? I just had to smile.
Good comment Flea…I didn’t mention the smugness of the Fundamentalist Christian in my long post, but it is certainly prevalent and equally useless in the pursuit of truth as it is on the atheist side.
One point I will make:
“I was once an evil black-hearted rotten to the core God hater. I my darkest hour of despair I asked Him to help me and he didn’t hesitate”
I have heard many stories like this and never a single one that could be counted its opposite. The one in which a man with is back against the wall, in the depths of despair, cast aside all faith and was thereby saved. Proof of nothing of course, but worthy of contemplation.
“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.” – Rumi
One week ago, I was on my knees on my bathroom floor faced with a vacuum canister that appeared to have bloody pieces of my guts clogging its hose and I was terrified because the single home health care nurse who had been here since my hospital departure had left before noticing the bloody mess that was filling the tube he’d just installed.
On my knees, alone, after being shunned by late night cyberfriends who treated me like chattel, then strolled off to pat themselves on the back, I cried out to God to help me survive.
He sent my husband, my helpmeet, my life partner downstairs to help me figure out what to do.
And, here am I, Lord.
Or you could just watch video after video on YouTube from the Northwest Creation Network that presents scientific facts that prove evolution to be false and impossible and that man, the earh, and the universe we’re created by a Creator whose intelligence is unfathomable. Or you could watch the YouTube video “Why I’m Not An Atheist” by Ravi Zacharias at Princeton University. Be blessed Hollywood Rob!
The smugness of the very title of your article completely aligns with the general mood of the audience in the video and with the tone of every single bit of atheist content that I have ever seen or heard. It goes something like this: “How can anyone be so stupid to believe in God?” It permeates the subtext of all these discussions and allows these two can sit comfortably in their little echo chamber, all the while claiming to have zero emotional involvement whilst also claiming the logical high-ground unopposed.
Again, I will attempt the logical framework as I see it and how all these discussions go off the rail before they begin, namely that three very distinct concepts get conflated and detached at will and it goes unnoticed by all–these three concepts being Faith, Religion and God. Now, I understand well that definitions play heavily into these types of discussions, as everyone will bring their own preconceived connotations of each word to the table, but this is easily ameliorated by defining terms up front–you will notice how this is NEVER done in these types of discussions and I would then argue that they become hopelessly mired in the vagaries of semantics.
And once again, my standard disclaimer, I AM MAKING NO ASSERTIONS here, only defining terms and setting up a logical framework:
Faith, I define, as a person’s willful belief in in essentially anything. There is a major rabbit hole their, I know, but for my purposes here, the most important thing is the locus boundary. It is contained entirely within the consciousness of a single individual.
Religion, I then define, as humanity’s historical attempts to define the concept of God. Literally billions of pages of description would be required to entirely describe this concept, so again, it is only important to apply the proper boundary. This MUST (a logical word with a very specific meaning) be limited to humanity, period. On planet Earth and go back as far as you care…it matters not.
God, as a concept, is Universal, Cosmological. Again, as a CONCEPT. I AM MAKING ZERO ASSERTIONS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH.
So, when a person asks himself “Does everything happen for a reason?” it is a question of Faith and of God, but not logically one of religion–even though all of us, being highly illogical creatures, go right there.
The fundamental question of religion is “Why does it exist?” The stock atheist answer, is of course, the selective advantage of positive false assumptions vs. negative ones., ie. assuming there is a tiger in the rustling bush is safer that assuming there is not one and over time those that assume the latter die out. Sound reasoning, but certainly not Universal in domain, and Domain Bloat is the major logical sin of the atheist. This is the the failure of the “there are 4000 gods and the only difference between us is that you don’t believe in 3999 of them, while I don’t believe in all of them” argument. Conflating the concepts (domains) of God and Religion.
In any case, the ONLY question that applies at all levels is this: PURPOSE vs. ACCIDENT. Or as Einstein stated it: YOu must believe either everything is miracle or nothing is a miracle. (As an aside, I find myself questioning this more and more. Is this entirely logical? I go round and round.)
But the point is, and this is ironclad logic, is that if you believe that there is no overarching purpose to the Cosmos, then you believe (whether you realize or admit it or not) that every event in the history of the Cosmos is equally and entirely random. PERIOD. There is zero wiggle room here. Plus, this logical fork in the road occurred 14.8 billion years ago, or at least 14.7 billion years before the CONCEPT of religion was born. Do you not then see how silly the 4000 Gods argument (along with the flying spaghetti monster and teacup orbiting Jupiter arguments) really are. It’s all nonsense.
The only truths I am sure of is we have no fucking clue how we got here or what the nature of the Cosmos truly is. Genesis defeats us, infinity defeats us, nothingness defeats us. These three concepts are so fundamental to everything that is and yet we cannot even begin to understand them. I am also aware that faith can have profound benefits to at least some individuals. I have seen it in others and myself. And whether that benefit is due to some connection to God, the Creator, The Purpose of all the Cosmos, or just to the equally ridiculous notions (but far more provably extant) of my own consciousness, will and psyche, doesn’t really matter much in the face of genuine, measurable benefit.
And don’t go down the ridiculous path of why don’t you just have faith you can fly, instead of trusting to the science that allows airplanes to fly. Such bullshit it makes my head spin. Hope, Faith, Belief in the Afterlife, whatever floats your boat, but never let it drive your actions, only your attitudes.
Always assume the person you’re speaking with possesses knowledge or understanding that you do not. This is how to think critically and to grow (Believe me I have sinned greatly and continue to sin on this front, but I recognize it and am continually attempting to rectify it). You defeated yourself on this front the instant to titled this post.
Drud..
I agree with the parts I can grasp(meant as a compliment). I think you should have reinserted “equally useless in the pursuit of truth”, pretty profound little sentence.
I was just telling a friend that I can’t discuss my faith or my walk with God. Much like the sweeter a man gets on a gal the less he will say about her to others. He can only say simple things like she sure makes a good supper.
Great post Drud. But I take exception to one of your contentions.
if you believe that there is no overarching purpose to the Cosmos, then you believe (whether you realize or admit it or not) that every event in the history of the Cosmos is equally and entirely random.
You are suggesting that there is no cause and effect with that statement. There I can not agree. While we may never know the causes and may never understand all of the effects, we can clearly see that cause and effect is a thing and therefore the cosmos can not be entirely random.
Other than that, I liked it. More More…
Oh and you appear to be the only one who bothered to read the title and certainly you are the only one who saw the irony in it.
I am not assuming there is no cause and effect with the statement, I am saying that in that paradigm neither is driven by overarching purpose, both the causes and their effects are random.
But mentioning cause and effect does really get to the heart of why Genesis defeats us…it is the ultimate effect without a cause. I see no way around this and yet we are here.
Another thing about cause and effect as a concept is very Newtonian (third law) in both origin and paradigm. The issue is that this is very anthropocentric thinking when applied to the Cosmological. I often wonder if we are way off base in some of the fundamental assumptions we make for things that happen outside of our Solar System (the scale upon which Newtonian Physics work almost perfectly).
Yes, why are we here? We are here because a long line of unbroken genetic mutations have led to us being here. Or because some old man in a bath robe reached out his loving hand and created the heavens and the earth and guides your life with his grace. One answer has facts that support it. The other answer has not one single fact that supports it.
Your choice.
Oh and Einstein had to add the effects that made Newtonian physics work perfectly. And at the risk of spinning this conversation off into a totally different direction, I personally don’t believe in space/time. I consider it to be a bit of mathematical legerdemain. Parlor tricks if you like.
” We are here because a long line of unbroken genetic mutations have led to us being here.”
This is NOT the concept of Genesis.
Again the “debate” between evolution and creation always goes of the rails before it begins. “because some old man in a bath robe reached out his loving hand and created the heavens and the earth and guides your life with his grace.” A very common straw man atheists routinely employ. The image of God as an old man is NOT a scientific one, of course, because science was not yet a thing when the vast, vast, vast majority of religions were set in motion. And, again, the domain mismatch is glaring.
Evolution as a process that does indeed occur is not debatable, but again one must avoid domain bloat. And none of it answers the notion of “why?” as in “Why does life try to survive?” The individual atoms in each and every life form has no concept of try, so where does it come from. IDFK. I cannot begin to grasp such. Lawrence Kraus’s stock answer is that “how” is “why.” I’m sorry, that just doesn’t work for me. The whole truth must include a why.
There was a reason I said out to the Solar System and “Almost.”
Interesting comment about spacetime being a bit of mathematical legerdemain….Einstein himself said roughly the same thing: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
I wonder about the Standard Model in general…it seems more and more fudge factors are generated all the time (ie, dark matter and dark energy) and astrophysicists are always “baffled” by what they see out there. At some point, if your model cannot predict anything it may need to be rebuild from the ground up. But Jesus, you want to see rigid adherence to dogma, question a physicist about the dogmatic assumptions of Universal Gravitation and Velocity Model of Red Shift (you know the foundations of all Standard Model Astrophysics). They could give Grace Country Pastor some lessons.
You sure are right on that one Drud. It is one of my favorite pet peaves. I chalk it up to people who can study the information, pass the test, get their degree, and teach the class, but have never actually understood the thing that they worked so hard on. To me they seem to have knowledge without understanding.
To bring it back around, those who seek faith seem to have neither knowledge nor understanding. They are pleased to have faith and that is enough for them.
I said I would not read you directly but God drew my eye to this.
Pompous Ass.
We’re here to break down energy gradients faster than would have occurred otherwise.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237080275_Maximum_empower_A_foundational_principle_linking_man_and_nature
Yes,I am familiar with the idea. It still does nothing to explain the bigger Why’s…as in why do we have energy at all? (why do the Fundamental Forces exist?) And why is it necessary to efficiently dissipate this energy?
Drud…I won’t give you the genesis thing, but I will definitely give you the others. Physicists will clearly say that they don’t use infinity because you have to get a real answer in Physics. Mathematicians will throw infinities around all day long because they don’t have to get a real answer. You can’t fly to the moon with an infinity in your calculations. So this creates the very dilemma that you are speaking of. If space is infinite, and we can’t know one way or the other, then a few of our cherished laws of physics go right out the door. If space is infinite then energy is infinite and if energy is infinite then entropy can not be forever increasing. And if entropy can’t be increasing then there has to be some mechanism that restores the energy to maintain the energy balance.
But we don’t understand gravity. We don’t understand magnetism. We can’t explain why our models of the incredibly small don’t match up with our models of the incredibly large. We don’t understand any of the fundamental laws that govern our universe as you so eloquently point out.
And those who seek faith will always be driven to distraction by not knowing. They must know and all that they can know is through faith. It just is because – reasons. Most who seek facts are not upset when the answer is not given. They are happy to confront the problem in the hope that they might learn something useful. They don’t need a god because they don’t care if they don’t understand gravity right now. They are happy to know that someday, if the seekers of faith don’t blow us all up first, that we might actually understand gravity, and magnetism, and infinity. But for now, unless you are working on advanced astrophysics right now, we are just going to have to wait.
“But we don’t understand gravity. We don’t understand magnetism. We can’t explain why our models of the incredibly small don’t match up with our models of the incredibly large. We don’t understand any of the fundamental laws that govern our universe as you so eloquently point out.”
Is there meaning in this drivel?
Actually, yes, Maggie, there is. Rob is bringing up two of the biggest conundrums in our understanding of Cosmology….the Fundamental Forces and the lack of a Grand Unified Theory.
First, the Fundamental Forces. In the Standard Model, these are Gravity, The Electromagnetic (EM)Force, the Weak Force (which was proven to be identical to the EM Force) and the Strong Force. The Standard Model assumes that the Strong Force applies ONLY over very tiny (subatomic) distances, the EM/Weak Force applies over short distances (maybe inches, maybe feet, hell call it miles, but not further) and that Gravity applies EVERYWHERE, over immense distance (light years +) constantly and Universally. Now, EVERYTHING that is (ALL matter and Energy) rely upon these forces to exist, and yet we have ZERO understanding of why these forces exist at all. We can measure that two particles of like electrical charge repel each other and that two particles of opposite electrical charge attract each other, but we do not understand WHY this happens. Same with Gravity…we can measure it (here on earth, on a small scale) but do not know why it is happening. Again, all matter and energy rely on these forces to exist. Max Planck said:
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Now, while I definitely disagree with his use of the word “must” here, the semantics oddly align in my mind with this quote, which you will surely recognize:
“Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.”
No assertion here either, just something I contemplate from time to time.
Now, on the other front, our lack of Grand Unified Theory. One can think about this as being a problem of three different levels: the tiny, the human sized and the massive beyond comprehension. We understand how things work on the human scale (Newtonian Mechanics). We have a theory that explains the behavior of the very tiny very well (Quantum Mechanics) and we have twin theories (Special and General Relativity) that explain the the very, very large fairly well. The issue is that the tiny does not appear to add up to the human sized very well and the human sized does not add up to the cosmic well at all. In a rational Universe (which I am not sure ours entirely is) the tiny MUST add all the way up to the Cosmic.
We are missing something.
Thank you for clearing that up. I admire you for being willing to weigh in.
I was a radar technician who really loved radar theory. I would talk about the implications of there being signals within signals for hours with the other technonerds in AWACS.
I am quite capable of grasping higher math as well as the theories surrounding imaginary numbers. I can follow the idea that the minute does not add up to the cosmos. Even Einstein grasped there was something in relativity that was not quite relative.
Now, I sent a simple request to one of my academic connections and got this response immediately, My friend is a Canadian Professor of Economics with whom I’ve corresponded for many years. While searching for information on Canadian political theories while editing a book for a political science professor, and with her credentials backing my online presence, I “joined” a discussion group that included several very smart college professors from the north. Most of them stopped chatting with me after they discovered I was a lowly grad student working for the professor not with her. But, one of them has maintained an email relationship with me all these years, because we discovered we have interesting perspectives that allow us each to look at things through one another’s eyes. The way the relationship works is this. I frame a question in a way I hope will elicit a response that helps me see the issue through his very intellectual perspective, distanced from the world around me. I do not always get answers that help, but I usually get answers that make me think.
My question to him was seriously flawed. I prefaced the question with a brief explanation of what I wanted, which biased his answer. I realize that now.
Here is my flawed question:
Hello, I hope this doesn’t startle you in the middle of the first days of school, old friend. I am discussing some issues on an economic/political/bickering site with someone who brought up the idea of a the rational universe (the cosmos) being composed of sum of all the smaller components of it. He posed the following to me:
“We have a theory that explains the behavior of the very tiny very well (Quantum Mechanics) and we have twin theories (Special and General Relativity) that explain the very, very large fairly well. The issue is that the tiny does not appear to add up to the human sized very well and the human sized does not add up to the cosmic well at all. In a rational Universe (which I am not sure ours entirely is) the tiny MUST add all the way up to the Cosmic.”
My question that followed yours:
So, physics relies on the fundamental idea that the universe follows certain laws which are rational, right? If we knew what all the laws were, then we would be able to rationally explain the entire universe. Now, humanity is part of the universe and we know humans are not always rational.
How do we reconcile the two (rational versus human) to explain events that happen in our “rational” world?
(After you see his answer, you will see that I framed his response unintentionally by suggesting it was an economic/political/bickering issue. Perhaps later he will clarify for me, but his response came quickly with a follow-on email that suggested he could not discuss the idea further now but perhaps this weekend. I am glad you put me onto it. I look forward to talking to him about current events.
Now, again, I am not quite sure what he is currently working on at his academic post, but this is the reply I got and it made me laugh…
TARP: All Imaginary Numbers, All Imaginary Plans from Irrational Humans
Seven hundred billion was a number out of the air. It was a political calculus. No one knew how much money was enough to cover the troubled assets since there was no rational way to know. Someone suggested a trillion but Hank Paulson said “No Way” Congress would approve that. So, someone suggested 700 billion and they figured that was a rational enough sounding number that sounded like it could possibly hold up the world.
So Martha from Oklahoma, I am glad to hear from you and hope my brief response helps in some way. Perhaps we will continue this Saturday.
Drud, I know it doesn’t necessarily answer your question. But, I can’t help but read between his lines.
In a world where the tiny must add up to the large, why did Hank Paulson get to proclaim that 700 billion dollars would be enough to settle the troubled assets for the bankers. when there really was absolutely zero rationality for making that number the targeted number except that it SOUNDED as if it would be enough.
Thanks for the reasonable response to my comments. I do enjoy discussing real ideas with people who have real thought and opinions formed on their own. I like big dogs because they think for themselves.
Interesting the way discussions spin, is it not. I had not heard about Paulson conjuring the 700 billion out of thin air., but the whole situation makes as near to complete sense as it could being that financial systems, just like human beings, are very irrational things. The most interesting part of it to me, is that economies are not things that exist in nature and therefore do not (necessarily) obey natural laws. Paulson was able to conjure the system through his experience at being at or near the head of the most massive con game in the world–the US economy. That’s what it essentially is, a massive con game that works only if nearly everyone buys into the con. Hell, that’s what money IS. It’s all ephemeral, conjured into being through faith. Now, if that’s not irrational I don’t know what is, but it does EXIST. A deeper question, aligning with yous about how people can seemingly play outside the laws of nature, is this: does the type of faith, belief, call it magic that allows economies and societies function work at the Cosmic level?
Yes!
See, I think his distanced perspective did help. I was stuck on the idea of trying to make the rational theory rational. But, he immediately answered with an example of a very irrational situation. Now, I don’t know if Paulson just made up that number or not, but he really is a very highly published Econ professor (thank God I was working on another editing job… he sent me his current book and yawn). I am betting there was some element of guesswork in the 700,000,000,000. How could there NOT be? We still are not sure about all the troubled assets, are we?
Now, the rational versus the irrational.
I hope you do not mind if I take a bit and show you how my mind works.
Your response to me block copied here:
“the whole situation makes as near to complete sense as it could being that financial systems, just like human beings, are very irrational things. The most interesting part of it to me, is that economies are not things that exist in nature and therefore do not (necessarily) obey natural laws. Paulson was able to conjure the system through his experience at being at or near the head of the most massive con game in the world–the US economy. That’s what it essentially is, a massive con game that works only if nearly everyone buys into the con. Hell, that’s what money IS. It’s all ephemeral, conjured into being through faith. Now, if that’s not irrational I don’t know what is, but it does EXIST. A deeper question, aligning with yous about how people can seemingly play outside the laws of nature, is this: does the type of faith, belief, call it magic that allows economies and societies function work at the Cosmic level?”
1. situation makes sense because financial systems (like humans) are irrational
2. Economies do not exist in nature and do not obey natural law
3. Paulson, a human, used his authority and position to manipulate the TARP response
4. Irrational humans buy into the con
5.Money s conjured into being through faith
6 It is irrational but it does exist, so it is part of the rational universe (my jump to the if, but… so)
7. How does something like money, conjured into being by irrational humans, exist and function at the Cosmic level.
Now, that is how I dissect people’s arguments. One statement at a time, in order, in logical sequence. Yours reads to me as I’ve listed above. Do you agree with my summary? Because before I try to decide if I agree with the logic, I think it vital right now that we agree that is what you were trying to say.
If it is, then I will take a look at it through the structure of logic. I have a little guidebook I’ve used for twenty years to do this and it really helps me clean out the stuff from the good stuff. The data out of the noise.
I took a peek at this and find it quite similar to my little guide.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Toulmin.pdf
Just so we are in full understanding, I have not looked at the logic of your 7 posits. I just am trying to lay them out. I didn’t even clean them up much… I tried to leave in your words minus extraneous stuff… the chaff
So, if you would like to modify please discussion is supposed to invite and applaud.
Open and honest discussion should allow for misstatement or accidental comments that confuse meaning. Please modify as necessary so we are starting from the same page.
You summed up what I stated very succinctly…I can’t say I have been through all the logic of what I said myself, however, just some off-the-cuff thoughts.
Well, DRUD, that’s okay by me, but I just wanted you to know how I approach dissecting people’s arguments and why I immediately recognize the irrational jumping to confusion that occurs when emotional response gets confused into the mix.
I actually found the little book I use (a 2009 edition so I guess I better review it to see if logical progression has been modified since I learned this technique in Leadership School in the USAF.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/177782174/Anthony-Weston-A-Rulebook-for-Arguments-4th-Edition
It is a short little pdf and if you want to peruse it, fine. If not, fine. I have a little cheat chart I created and use, but I won’t share that.
Personally, I think your premises are fine and the logic flows without impairment, but I recognize the places open for attack in debate.
If you don’t mind, then I will compose my argument against your premises in the next comment.
1. situation makes sense because financial systems (like humans) are irrational
Situation makes sense because
Because signals a logical premise inbound.
Premise is financial systems are irrational. You qualified it by putting the human element in parenthesis, suggesting financial and humans are alike.
I don’t disagree, but here you invite some manic finance guru to attack you because he uses computer programs for all his financial stuff and he will swear there is not one little element of human error in his data. I think you are correct and accept this first premise.
Do you still stand with the way I’ve worded the First Premise here?
Financial systems are irrational actors in the natural world.
nomies do not exist in nature and do not obey natural law
2a Economies do not exist in nature.
2b Economies do not obey natural law.
Now, I do have a problem with these two and I think you are smart enough to see why. I ask you to review the two halves of the second premise and see if there is any qualifiers or conditional statements you might add to correct for the disconnect in something that does not exist refusing to obey the law.
Then we can move to the third premise.
, a human, used his authority and position to manipulate the TARP
We have already agreed that humans are irrational, so I simply substitute the terms to clear out more chaff and clutter.
3. Irrational but powerful human manipulated financial system, (which we already know is irrational from our agreement on the first premise.)
4. Irrational humans buy into the con. (This is actually a “then” of if, then fame, but since any argument requires if, then step, I accept this as a fair one: Paulson manipulated therefore humans believed the con
All right. I’m okay with these two and waiting to see the resolution of 2a and 2b before I proceed.
5.Money s conjured into being through faith
5. Money is conjured by faith.
I do have a problem with this one. Heads up.
I think this probably could be easily restated in a way you and I could agree. While I think “money” is a way to exchange one’s labor for the products of other people’s labor/money, I will agree that because we have accepted the premise that financial systems are irrational, we can agree that the money we depend upon for transactions is indeed “conjured” and that faith in that money is at least somewhat irrational.
But, am giving you time to qualify it however you would like.
6a. Although irrational, money exists
6b. Money is part of the rational universe
Which brings us to the conclusion, phrased as a question. Which is perfectly fine in argument.
7. How does something like money, conjured into being by irrational humans, exist and function at the Cosmic level.
So, please take a look at them and “feed” them back to me in 1 through 7 form, modifying or clarifying as you think necessary. I know you wrote them on the fly and to be honest, except for 2 and possibly 6. I’ve learned that anytime I feel the need to disagree with myself in a single sentence there is a flaw in the logic. I’m not saying there is, but just giving you the opportunity to analyse what I have parsed down to your basic argument.
I’m taking a walk and I’ll be back. I have NOT gotten out my little cheat chart for logical argument yet, but have tried to identify the problems I suspect I am going to identify. I think you might clarify them and we can proceed.
I’m enjoying this and yes, Hollywood Rob, your being willing to allow this discussion after I got really nasty today shows that you really do want to discuss things, but you can’t bring yourself to talk to me because I believe that God is taking care of me and my family in some spiritual way I can’t prove, therefore, you know I’m an idiot. I hope you are willing to take a look at my rational approach to discussion and that in the future, we can find shared ground to discuss things or perhaps we can just avoid one another here.
The value of money is dependent on the concept of future value which is, again as far as we know, entirely limited to humans. Therefore the value is dependent on faith because the future does not exist in any real way… ONLY through the faith of sentient beings.
Why maggie, you told us all that you were on deaths door. Hanging by a thread and only through the grace of your god and your good husband are you managing to hang on. And yet now you say you are taking a walk? I just don’t understand.
I’m replying too quickly cause i’m always in a rush…i would not say that economies do not obey natural laws or that they transcend them rather that they involve the notion of sentience which is, as far as we know, unique to humans. Humans are aware of the passage of time… this adds a new dimension/ variable to the natural.
As to the the mathematic predictability of economic systems argument…. chaos theory comes in big and bad. The sand pile tests in the article the other day was the perfect example. Piles of sand are predictable until the aren’t….add in the extra variable of sentience and irrational behavior and fuhgettabowdit.
Well, I’ll break from this and return later to see if you decided to continue or to summarize my points of disagreement (pretty much identified.) I think the biggest issue every single one of us faces in all of this mess is that no one really grasps what MONEY is and how it comes into being and use. Since they have no understanding of it, they accept what the “manipulators” tell them.
Money, which is irrational, is used in irrational ways by humans, who are irrational.
That does not contribute to the rational universe, does it?
Thanks for your patience and the opportunity to share the way I parse people’s comments. I’m not saying it is a good approach to arguments here, but it is an approach. At least I’ve got one other than instant thumbs down followed by a shout of DUCT TAPE.
so here we are having a reasonable discussion and someone hates it
BB, please intervene and straighten this thread out.
I’ll go make popcorn for this one. I should be cleared for crunchy stuff once the wound nurse visits today. I think BB can take Pompous Ass who thinks his title is clever when it simply is resignedly trite.
Alas, poor me, so smart with no one whose opinion is equal to my own…it is only because i hope to educate the little people that i bother to post. (And, because he considers himself, you know, schmart.)
Maggie, please go take a nap. Your vitriol is not actually adding anything useful to the conversation. If your goal is to let me know that you are pissed, you have most certainly achieved that goal. I really do know that you are pissed. There is no need to go on and on about it.
Just continue sucking your own dick until Stucky shows up.
♪♫♪ Where it began, I can’t begin to knowin’…forever in bluejeans, babe.
Carbon & copies life forms jus wanna be diamonds, & believe they’re neilin’ if they ain’t faceted & polished & fillin’ de beers warehouse vaults of held back inventory.
Curiosity is good, fun. But I also don’t care “where it began.” Or how. Any more than I care about tomorrow’s weather forecast.
Clear as the clearest diamond, tho: hand me down rituals offer the same valued answers as artificially pinched supply values diamonds.
Make work is waste.
& I left Levis for Carhartt long ago.
I see the author is a true-believer in the “aetheist creation myth”, otherwise knkown as darwin’s theory. I suggest y’all read Stephen Meyer’s book “Signature In The Cell” for some real science.
This stephan meyer?
Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[1][2][3] Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.[4]
Last word until someone I respect suggest there is anything worth reading here on this pathetic attempt by a moron to prove himself the smartest moron in the room.
POMPOUS ASS
You are starting to get your multiple personalities confused. Take a moment, regroup, and then back into the breach.
I merely said they seem a bit smug. A tad overconfident if you will. And it appears to me ‘smug’ has found new popularity here and elsewhere. My many thanks to all who chimed in. Drud especially, and maglita, thanks for sticking up for me. Craven, thumbs up for you too. I feel lucky to have Stucky opine his mind.
Rob, welcome to instigating another 100 comments club! Ya dun gööd, göd works in wondrous ways…..
For selfish reasons, I wanted to stay out of the conversation and see how this thread unfurled.
For me, in the random universe, I always question the math behind the ideological construct of design with no designer.
What force propels (positive) cause and effect in an entropic universe? Perhaps there are no answers but only choices? I often wonder if faith is simply that which we do, and if, therefore, some types of faith are more effective against that which we hate.
Personally, I am glad HR bothered. Thanks man
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Everyone needs one. Everyone uses one.
Not everyone insists on showing theirs to the world all the time all the day long uncleaned.
Hello Tadpole. How did you like my punny title regarding wound care. I was the ART, Airborne Radar Technician and Nick the Knife was the Computer Display and Maintenance Technician, giving me the run for the gold, not silver duct tape as I rambled an analogy about the tried and true practice of Pre-Mission Planning followed by Mission Planning followed by Pre-Mission Updates followed by Mission execution followed by Operations Debrief and Lessons Learned.
Review, review, review.
I have “heard” from a couple old comrades in uniform, but not the one I seek. But, I hear the chatter and still hope to see her soon.
I think free and open discussion is always good. In fact I hope Stucky comes back and okays me to engage HR directly again. But, he is my guide-on bearer in this matter and I await his wise counsel.
He has not failed me thus far much like my own Nick. Nicks are the best sort of good friends to have.
It is my honor to serve.
I’m not sure what exchange I missed, but someone sure is pissed at you.
On second thought, someone seems to pissed at quite a few folks these days.
Happily I was forgiven recently for my transgression from many, many months ago. You might be out of the doghouse as soon as 2021 if you play your cards right.
Not really a problem Rdwag. Having Maggie and all of her alter egos mad at me does not affect my life. And 2021 is a fine date to shoot at.
This is going to sound cray-cray, but I don’t think that is actually Maggie.
I have been following this site for many years. I have read dozens, if not hundreds of posts of hers. The writing style and personality of the “Maggie” of late are not at all recognizable.
Something is off.
I agree.
It’s the meds or possibly an overdose or too much Nitrous Oxide. Maybe she was replaced with an intoxicated robot.
You may have missed it when I said I was done playing the blog bitch game. I’m a very smart, savvy lady, having worked in a variety of positions with some very smart, savvy people. I learned early in life how to act stupid to get people to pamper and pet, thinking I was a dumb bitch in the room. I gathered information like a sponge and was very useful to everyone I worked for who won my loyalty.
What is off is called cognitive dissonance. You think I’m the blog bitch that runs with the trolls and curdogs.
I’ve been listening to everything you say and making notes.
Welcome to reality.
Thanks, it’s good to be here. Glad you’re making notes; that’s quite thorough of you. I must admit I have taken extensive notes as well. It’s utterly fascinating how much some folks will reveal willingly to complete strangers online, such as their full names, place of residence, immediate family members, past employment, legal history, you know stuff like that.
So this is some sort of coming out for you now; the “real” Maggie is thus revealed?
Tell us more about how very smart you are.