Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Deborah Harrell wrote: Perhaps I wasn't clear, but since no-one can get inside another's mind, no-one can be sure they are experiencing the exact same numinous event. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded; Yes, I know that. That is the problem and the point. Numinous experience is all in the mind of one person, and cannot be verified independently by others. Reliable knowledge, in contrast, can be verified or falsified by others in a repeatable experiment. Erik, you are right, it is true that what goes on inside a mind cannot be verified independently by others at this time. But that is not the issue. No one is arguing about unverifiable experiences. The question is the cause of reported numinous experiences. (Note that you or I could verify that reports occur. We could ask bunches of people. I have done this directly on a small scale, which is not very helpfult, and indirectly on a larger scale. I did this indirectly by looking at reports by others who have asked bunches of people. Of course, I first had to and did make a judgement about the reliability of those making these indirect reports.) As for cause: Deborah has hypothesized that something as yet unknown outside the human body is what a person having a numinous experience perceives. More precisely, Deborah said ..., I think it's the manifestation of another sense (call it sixth or seventh or spiritual if you like), which detects - albeit imperfectly - a level of reality that we cannot currently describe or measure, except in soft terms like metaphysical, higher plane, spiritual, etherial, etc. [Brin-l Digest, Vol 180, Issue 21; 18 Jul 2003] Others have hypothesized that numinous experiences cause a person to feel that they have had an undeniable experience caused by something outside the human body, but that the mind is simply confusing inner and outer experience, and that the body has this capability intrinsically. (Put another way, the hypothesis is that having this capability is in some ways similar to having the capability of distinguishing green, unripened fruit from red, ripened fruit easily by color, which most, but not all people have. Some, as we know, lack this capability.) In addition, this second hypothesis includes the notion that such a capability helped groups of symbol-making animals survive in paleolithic times better than groups whose members lacked this capability. At the moment, to decide between these two hypothesizes, one can use Occam's Razor: does an explanation that fits other already known understandings of the world do a better job or a worse job than an explanation that requires an additional, not yet known understanding of the world? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:09:12AM -0400, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Erik, you are right, it is true that what goes on inside a mind cannot be verified independently by others at this time. But that is not the issue. That may not be an issue you want to discuss, but that does not make it not the issue. Debbi attributes some real physical meaning (i.e., independent of just the working of the mind) to these numinous experiences, and yet she has no evidence for this link. Even worse for her claim, the extreme lack of such evidence for some independent (of the mind) reality of these experiences over hundreds of years is strongly suggestive evidence that there is no such thing. The question is the cause of reported numinous experiences. That is one question. A simple answer is something related to the functioning of the brain. That is of course, vague, and much more detail could be filled in. The problem I am discussing is that some people are attributing some information-carrying link between these internal, unverifiable, unreliable experiences and the physical universe outside the mind. Despite a pitiful lack of scientific evidence which is most reasonably interpreted as evidence AGAINST any such link. (Note that you or I could verify that reports occur. Um, duh? How many times do I have to say that I do not dispute that some people report that they have some numinous experience? As for cause: Deborah has hypothesized that something as yet unknown outside the human body is what a person having a numinous experience perceives. More precisely, Deborah said ..., I think it's the manifestation of another sense (call it sixth or seventh or spiritual if you like), which detects - albeit imperfectly - a level of reality that we cannot currently describe or measure, except in soft terms like metaphysical, higher plane, spiritual, etherial, etc. That is hardly worthy of the scientific term hypothesized. It is speculation or pseudo-science based on poor understanding of science and what is already known and tested by science. It does not specify how it can be falsified. It has no basis whatsoever in known science -- what repeatable experiment has ever shown that the human brain is so special that it can interact with matter or energy in ways different than all other matter in the universe, which interacts using the 4 fundamental forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetic, strong, weak)? Others have hypothesized that numinous experiences cause a person to feel that they have had an undeniable experience caused by something outside the human body, but that the mind is simply confusing inner and outer experience, and that the body has this capability intrinsically. This is a little better. It doesn't make the ignorant claim that all of physics is either wrong or all scientists for centuries totally missed such an important physical interaction. But I don't really see much of a prediction coming from this. Maybe this could be turned into a useful hypothesis by saying something like, during `numinous experiences' there is no information transfer occuring between the brain and the rest of the universe other than the usual methods of human observation and interaction with the universe (touch, sight, sound, smell, taste, speech). This makes a clear prediction and is falsifiable by observing and testing a new mode of information transfer with the brain. Since the claim has not been falsified, despite much effort by many people over the centuries, it is quite likely to be correct. At the moment, to decide between these two hypothesizes, one can use Occam's Razor: does an explanation that fits other already known understandings of the world do a better job or a worse job than an explanation that requires an additional, not yet known understanding of the world? Yes, that is another way of saying what I wrote above. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Erik Reuter wrote: A better study might look for predictions or observations by such patients that could not possibly have been known beforehand BY ANYONE (at least, anyone not divine or whatever). snippage Um, yes. However, they were not studying precognition but whether the human soul exists. Basically, they were looking for a non-corporeal entity that still retains the personality of the individual. So they went looking in the post-operative ward, talking to people who had flat-lined on the operating table, or something like that. I seem to recall something about objects being hidden around the operating room... Let me try and search out the url for the paper they published. It might take a while as the monsoons have rendered my net connection abysmal. The speeds these days are 2.4 kbps to 9.7 kbps. if the effect was real, it is likely someone WOULD HAVE done such a definitive experiment, since they would have been naturally led that way when their first tentative experiments were frequently successful. Last I heard, this was the point they were at. They were [cardiac?] surgeons who had conducted enough initial experiments to seriously wish to study this further. Btw, the method that you outlined, wasn't something similar undertaken to prove the veracity of the seers of Kell? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 09:31:35PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Um, yes. However, they were not studying precognition but whether the human soul exists. Irrelevant to my point. For a reliable experiment, the tests really need to be double-blind here. That means neither the people conducting the tests nor the people being tested no the answers. Otherwise there are just so many ways that people can fool themselves. Btw, the method that you outlined, wasn't something similar undertaken to prove the veracity of the seers of Kell? I have no idea what you are referring to. But if there were a repeatable experiment that verified that seers could predict the future, I am confident it would be famous quickly and I would know about it. So *I* predict that no one has proved that seers can predict the future. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Erik Reuter wrote: Irrelevant to my point. For a reliable experiment, the tests really need to be double-blind here. That means neither the people conducting the tests nor the people being tested no the answers. Otherwise there are just so many ways that people can fool themselves. Well, there are no 'answers' for the latter group to know - what they relate are conversations and observations. As for the former, I can't recall if they interviewed the patients before or after they talked to the OT staff. One of the troubling assumptions they made, and which I recall, is that they assumed that any memory of the time when one was flat-lining under anaesthesia means the presence of the soul. If they were basing that on anything other than the fact that most of the observations were from an aerial view, they failed to mention it. I need to find that link. Btw, the method that you outlined, wasn't something similar undertaken to prove the veracity of the seers of Kell? I have no idea what you are referring to. But if there were a repeatable experiment that verified that seers could predict the future, I am confident it would be famous quickly and I would know about it. So *I* predict that no one has proved that seers can predict the future. I was referring to the Mallorean series written by David Eddings. There is a community of seers in the mountain Kell and one branch is into prophecy. The Melcene bureaucracy sets up a department to record every single prediction and these are checked as the centuries go by. From what I recall, their record was perfect. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:02:19PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Well, there are no 'answers' for the latter group to know - what they relate are conversations and observations. As for the former, I can't Then what did you mean about hiding things around the room? I was referring to the Mallorean series written by David Eddings. There is a community of seers in the mountain Kell and one branch is into prophecy. The Melcene bureaucracy sets up a department to record every single prediction and these are checked as the centuries go by. From what I recall, their record was perfect. Oh, I haven't read Eddings so I didn't catch the reference. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Julia wrote: I believe that Dr. Seuss's _The Butter Battle Book_ does something similar, in that there is a war between those who hold their bread butter side up and those who hold their bread butter side down. Had quite an arms race going there in that book. On a related note... there's an email that's been floating around the internet for a few years that says since buttered bread always lands butter side down, and cats always land on their feet, all you need to do to make an antigravity device is strap some buttered bread butter side up onto the back of a cat and throw the buttered cat out the window... Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:47:02AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Mmm, yes, I can run a survey and show that, say, ~ 70% of Americans report having had at least one such experience; but there are listmembers who seem to think that anything that cannot be measured by instruments of some sort is either invalid or irrelevent. I am trying to see this from their POV. If you are talking about me, then you have misunderstood. Instruments have nothing to do with it. The power of science to filter out knowledge from fiction and anecdote is that the same conditions (or the same experiment) produces the same results, no matter when or who or where it happens. If you could tell me that, if I do this and this and go here or whatever, then I will experience this result, and it will also work the same for others, and we verify it, then that would be a good scientific test and it could validate that knowledge. Instruments are not the key here. The key is repeatability, and the ability to be verified or falsified by others, consistentently. grin Not what *I* mean, as I'd be calling myself 'delusional' in that case, but 'yes' in that persons who only believe what they can measure have said, 'Those people only wish to have such experiences, and so have made them up!' [I think most non-experiencers do not impute *malign* lying to 'believers,' but rather 'self-delusion' or 'foolishly willing suspension of disbelief.'] I don't think you have it quite right. I would not have used the phrase made them up. That sounds like lying, which I don't think is the case (well, for most people -- I'm sure there are a number of religious con-people out there). I certainly don't dispute that some people have these numinous experiences. What I dispute is that any type of knowledge about the universe can be obtained from these experiences, if they are not repeatable and able to be verified or falsified by others consistently (well, except for knowledge about how the brain can work in these people, but I think you know what I meant) Oh, *I* think it quite clear that those who do not allow the _possibility_ of numinous-experiencing capacity as a human attribute are either close-minded, or perhaps they simply do not have that ability themselves, like being red/green color-blind. (I've expanded I don't think anyone denies that some people perceive these things. What I haven't seen is any reasonable evidence that these experiences impart any real knowledge about the universe, with accuracy better than what could be deduced from what is already known and random guessing. grin Well, that *is* the $65,000 question, isn't it? Myself, I think it's the manifestation of another sense (call it sixth or seventh or spiritual if you like), which detects - albeit imperfectly - a level of reality that we cannot currently describe or measure, except in soft terms like metaphysical, higher plane, spiritual, etherial, etc. That's a pretty big leap from some very shaky evidence. How is it that science has totally and completely missed any detection of this? Some people have a desperate need to feel superior or elevated, and the only way they can think of to do so is to place others 'beneath' them on a scale. Sort of like how you keep saying that you have these special experiences and you think this gives you insight into the universe that others lack and other poor souls who don't have the genetics for this must be so jealous of you? I just don't see why someone would WANT to have such experiences, let alone why someone would consider such experiences reasonable evidence by itself to make conclusions about the universe in contradiction to all of science. big ol' grin Well, I've explained it all quite plainly above! But a more elegant phrase (IIRC) is that We see though a glass but darkly -- it takes real humility to accept imperfection and limitation in oneself. Which is an excellent reason for accepting science over numinous experiences. People can and do fool themselves. It is much harder to fool oneself when one performs a repeatable, falsifiable experiment to objectively test one's knowledge, and compares results with peers who perform the same experiment to determine if the results are exactly the same. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Mmm, yes, I can run a survey and show that, say, ~ 70% of Americans report having had at least one such experience; but there are listmembers who seem to think that anything that cannot be measured by instruments of some sort is either invalid or irrelevent. I am trying to see this from their POV. If you are talking about me, You are one, but certainly not the only. then you have misunderstood. Instruments have nothing to do with it. The power of science to filter out knowledge from fiction and anecdote is that the same conditions (or the same experiment) produces the same results, no matter when or who or where it happens. Would it help if I said that instruments in medicine also refer to scoring systems such as the Glasgow Coma Score, or the Mini-Mental Status Exam? Sorry - I don't always separate out professional definitions from general ones in my thinking; I will try to do better in the future. If you could tell me that, if I do this and this and go here or whatever, then I will experience this result, and it will also work the same for others, and we verify it, then that would be a good scientific test and it could validate that knowledge. Instruments are not the key here. The key is repeatability, and the ability to be verified or falsified by others, consistentently. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but since no-one can get inside another's mind, no-one can be sure they are experiencing the exact same numinous event. grin Not what *I* mean, as I'd be calling myself 'delusional' in that case, but 'yes' in that persons who only believe what they can measure have said, 'Those people only wish to have such experiences, and so have made them up!' [I think most non-experiencers do not impute *malign* lying to 'believers,' but rather 'self-delusion' or 'foolishly willing suspension of disbelief.'] I don't think you have it quite right. I would not have used the phrase made them up. That sounds like lying, which I don't think is the case (well, for most people -- I'm sure there are a number of religious con-people out there). I certainly don't dispute that some people have these numinous experiences. What I dispute is that any type of knowledge about the universe can be obtained from these experiences, if they are not repeatable and able to be verified or falsified by others consistently (well, except for knowledge about how the brain can work in these people, but I think you know what I meant) If you place 'verifiable/scientific' in front of knowledge about the universe I'd agree; but that such experiences are a human attribute (maybe some of the higher animals have similar ones, but we can't tell that) *is* a verifiable fact: X% of the general population claims to have felt the presence of a divine being at least once in their lives. Oh, *I* think it quite clear that those who do not allow the _possibility_ of numinous-experiencing capacity as a human attribute are either close-minded, or perhaps they simply do not have that ability themselves, like being red/green color-blind. (I've expanded I don't think anyone denies that some people perceive these things. What I haven't seen is any reasonable evidence that these experiences impart any real knowledge about the universe, with accuracy better than what could be deduced from what is already known and random guessing. But that hasn't been _my_ point at all; I have stated that it is important emotionally *to me* -- as have others, WRT themselves. Of course, there are folks who claim that they have special knowledge of the universe, but they truly can't prove it. grin Well, that *is* the $65,000 question, isn't it? Myself, I think it's the manifestation of another sense (call it sixth or seventh or spiritual if you like), which detects - albeit imperfectly - a level of reality that we cannot currently describe or measure, except in soft terms like metaphysical, higher plane, spiritual, etherial, etc. That's a pretty big leap from some very shaky evidence. How is it that science has totally and completely missed any detection of this? Until the microscope was invented, no-one had any proof that tiny creatures could live in a spoonful of pond water, although there _were_ stories about water sprites, and pixies, and boggles... which is why I wrote that we might someday be able to actually detect/investigate such ephemera-to-us-at-this-point. Some people have a desperate need to feel superior or elevated, and the only way they can think of to do so is to place others 'beneath' them on a scale. Sort of like how you keep saying that you have these special experiences and you think this gives you insight into the universe that others lack and other poor souls who don't have the genetics for this must be so jealous of you? rolls eyes and stomps feet
RE: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Deborah Harrell Or do you mean that the reports are truthful, in that they accurately record people's experiences? They accurately record what people *say* they have experienced - at this juncture, *proof* of the experience as something coming from an external source rather than a biochemical brain glitch is lacking. OTOH, such experiences are widespread in humanity, across time and cultures -- I do not think this is an accident, or mere wishful thinking on the part of people terrified of death. Some two years ago, a couple of scientists in UK were trying to get funding to carry on a research on the existence of the human soul. I am not sure what happened to them but the paper they published after the preliminary research did receive some publicity. Basically they interviewed post-operative patients and some 1/3 of the people reported OBE. They apparently located objects 'hidden' in the room during their surgery, recounted conversations in the room between various people, the tunnel of light was mentioned...stuff like that. Somewhat interesting. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 08:39:06PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Perhaps I wasn't clear, but since no-one can get inside another's mind, no-one can be sure they are experiencing the exact same numinous event. Yes, I know that. That is the problem and the point. Numinous experience is all in the mind of one person, and cannot be verified independently by others. Reliable knowledge, in contrast, can be verified or falsified by others in a repeatable experiment. If you place 'verifiable/scientific' in front of knowledge about the universe I'd agree; but that such experiences are a human attribute (maybe some of the higher animals have similar ones, but we can't tell that) *is* a verifiable fact: X% of the general population claims to have felt the presence of a divine being at least once in their lives. I don't dispute that. It would be silly to dispute that. I am not sure why you think people are disputing that. But that hasn't been _my_ point at all; I have stated that it is important emotionally *to me* -- as have others, WRT themselves. Of course, there are folks who claim that they have special knowledge of the universe, but they truly can't prove it. And _my_ point is that those people do NOT have any knowledge of the universe if it cannot be verified or falsified by others in a repeatable experiment. It is all in their mind without that -- it is not really knowledge, more of a delusion (if they believe it is real) or a fantasy (if they don't necessarily claim it is real), or a hypothesis (if they think it could be real and are working towards testing it by falsifiable experiment). Until the microscope was invented, no-one had any proof that tiny creatures could live in a spoonful of pond water, although there _were_ stories about water sprites, and pixies, and boggles... which is why I wrote that we might someday be able to actually detect/investigate such ephemera-to-us-at-this-point. Of course, almost anything has a non-zero probability. But it can be extremely small. Your comparison is not apt. In those times, science was a much smaller and rarer pursuit, and very little of the universe had been carefully studied. When you first move into a house, it is not surprising to find new things. But after you (and to stretch the example, tens of thousands of others ) have lived in the house for 30 years, remodeled it, torn out and replaced walls, gone through every nook and cranny, become familiar with all of its areas and sounds, discussed all the observations and checked them with others, then it is very unlikely you will find anything completely unexpected or completely new that hadn't been examined before. Science has been going strong now for a long time, and particularly in the past 100 years or so, hundreds of thousands of scientists have studied virtually everything that has ever occurred to anyone to study about the universe. And with all that time and effort by hundreds of thousands of people, no repeatable experiment has been found that suggests that there is any sort of psychic or whatever mental power that you talk about. That is strong evidence suggesting that these experiences are just in a person's head and have no real existence in the universe. rolls eyes and stomps feet exasperatedly bends over and points, kiss my *Honestly,* Erik, I happen to know that you *did* read Honestly? You mean you aren't lying? My, how useful to know. those posts, since you dismissed my conjecture of the biological/cultural utility of having both 'experiencers' and 'non-experiencers' as politically correct nonsense (IIRC the exact phrasing). Your knowledge may be wrong (your statement is somewhat ambiguous, did you mean I read all of it, or a specific portion?). I stopped reading at the point I wrote that comment, and there was several screenfuls below that. But NO WHERE did I call anybody a poor soul or express pity, and the analogy I used, red/green color blindness, was chosen *specifically* because NO ONE can claim *pride* in being able to distinguish colors. Whatever. You definitely made the point that other people may be jealous or feel bad not to have such experiences. Did I not make it clear that I JUST HAVE THEM, and have since childhood? I was attempting to answer, honestly, a question posed to the list. Whatever. You also made it clear that you thought others would be upset (or distressed, or some negative emotion) that they didn't have them. Once upon a time, science proved that Negroes were inferior, that women were a sub-species of human; I posted a study abstract to the list that proved that Baycol was as good as other statin drugs -- but later it was noted that a number of Baycol users were dying, compared to other statins. I don't think we have the same idea of science proving based on your first statement (inferior is not a precise scientific concept in this context, to point out only one problem with your statement). As far as the
Re: [L3] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 09:33:04AM +0530, Ritu wrote: Some two years ago, a couple of scientists in UK were trying to get funding to carry on a research on the existence of the human soul. I am not sure what happened to them but the paper they published after the preliminary research did receive some publicity. Basically they interviewed post-operative patients and some 1/3 of the people reported OBE. They apparently located objects 'hidden' in the room during their surgery, recounted conversations in the room between various people, the tunnel of light was mentioned...stuff like that. Somewhat interesting. This does not sound like very good science. Psychics can often convince the naive that they have some power, but on closer study it has always proven to be deductions based on knowledge of the person combined with generalities and some random guesses (people tend to remember the correct guesses and forget or discount the incorrect ones). People fool themselves. That is why science is needed to test our knowledge, to prevent us from fooling ourselves. A better study might look for predictions or observations by such patients that could not possibly have been known beforehand BY ANYONE (at least, anyone not divine or whatever). And the study must document ALL SUCH PREDICTIONS consistently -- otherwise it runs the risk of just documenting the ones that become well-known or remembered because they happened to come true by random chance. Once a comprehensive list is made (perhaps over several years?) of predictions and results, it can be looked at statistically and compared to what might have been predicted by random chance (or even better, a control group could be made of people who were asked to make such predictions while sitting in a room, who were told to just guess). It is not an easy experiment, but generally the way science works is that if there really is something there, people will get suggestive evidence on smaller scale experiments, and then become interested in pursuing it comprehensively. So the argument that no one has ever done such an experiment is really not convincing -- if the effect was real, it is likely someone WOULD HAVE done such a definitive experiment, since they would have been naturally led that way when their first tentative experiments were frequently successful. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Humor] Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Hey Erik - I've been consulting with an aquaintance's psychic, a wiccan friend, another aquaintance who's into Dianetics, and a fellow-worker who's a born-again pagan, about this communication problem we seem to have. According to the Tarot reading, we have unresolved issues from past lives, but she's pretty sure that a seance when the sun is in Aquarius would allow us to learn what happened from some as-yet unbodied ghosts who knew us then; alternatively, a spell of misunderstanding has been cast upon us, but apparently it was meant for other folks, and the counter-spell involves wading through swamp or bog, as well as some rare (translation: expensive) ingredients like powdered IPU horn; the Ron-o-matic meter indicates that we desperately need to have our thetans cleared, and you know how long and arduous a process *that* is; but for a small fee the neo-druid will whack us with willow-strips and provide an intoxicating mushroom potion... What do you think? ;) Go Ask Alice? Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Daniel Defoe satirized this kind of distinction ... Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] said I think you might mean Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels? Yes, you are right. My mistake. I don't know why I was thinking of Defoe. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On 9 Jul 2003, Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote I was trying to write from the 'neutral agnostic' position, while acknowledging that I in fact am a person who has had numinous experiences. But I cannot prove that scientifically to someone who has not experienced such a moment. You can tell people that you had the experience: that constitutes a report. That report, that gathering of information, can be as scientific as any other gathering of information. The *implications* of the experience are a different matter. Like atoms, the implications are invisible to the unaided eye and silent to the unaided ear. But just as people came to accept the existence of atoms by figuring out what their or other entities' existence implied, and then investigated as best they could, so the implications of numinous experiences can be figured out by studying reported occurrences, which are many. Numinous experiences do occur. I don't know anyone who denies that. It is the same with apparitions and stigmata. They occur, too. Yet some people will state that such experiences are delusional, or the products of a weak mind; ... Yes, of course. There is a question here: what do you mean by the word delusional? Do you mean that the reports of people having numinous experiences are false and that the people making those reports or repeating them, like me, are (perhaps inadvertently) lying? Or do you mean that the reports are truthful, in that they accurately record people's experiences? Is the question whether reports of numinous experiences are like reports of the voices heard by some schizophrenics: in our culture, almost everyone agrees that such the reports tell us a about the minds and bodies of the people who hear voices, but not too much about the subject matters about which the voices talk. The issue is not whether some people have such experiences, but how they are interpreted. Within a single culture, there is no question. Everyone interprets the experience the same. But people in different cultures interpret apparitions, stigmata, and numinous experiences differently. Yes; but some people do not (cannot?) have these experiences at all, so they think of others - or themselves - as 'delusional' or 'defective.' Well, there are people who say I could not have traveled once around the world, because the world is flat. If I had tried, I would have fallen off the edge. To them, my round the world trip must indicate I am 'delusional' or 'defective'. Pretty clearly, there is a question of your or my judgement here: do you judge such people as right or wrong? Who is 'delusional' or 'defective', those who say that your reports of your experience indicate you are 'delusional' or 'defective', or those who say that your reports indicate a widespread human capability? You could argue that that capability is as important as having a sufficiently efficient metabolism so as to survive on little food, which many say is why grandmothers were supported in paleolithic times, and thus were able to pass on cultural rather than genetic learning. It also goes without saying that numinous experiences can and do confirm statements of liturgy that are unfalsifiable in other ways. But for those who cannot believe in such experiences, there is no scientific proof to replace the faith of the believer/experiencer. I don't understand you. A numinous experience is undeniably convincing to the person who has the experience. But is it true that such experiences mean that Confucius was right? Do such experiences, by Hindus, tell us that the Hindu pantheon is a correct statement about the nature of the universe? Somehow, I doubt you are arguing that numinous experiences, however convincing they have been to Confucians or Hindus, prove that Christianity is wrong. But I doubt you are arguing that Christianity is wrong. Moreover, I suspect that you agree that Confucians and Hindus as well as Christians and others have had numinous experiences. Then the question becomes, what can we figure out from this experience that humans so frequently report? As the late anthropologist, Roy Rappaport, pointed out, numinous experiences transform the dubious, the arbitrary, and the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural. This is important because members of a paleolithic band must cooperate, which is to say, members must behave often enough in what everyone thinks of as a `correct, necessary, and natural' manner, else the band will die. Yes, spirituality must have been a 'centripetal' force in such bands, although in huge masses as we have grown into now, it has become a force that too often flings apart... Definitely true. As Alan Page Fiske, another anthropologist points out (in Structures of Social Life), in addition to three other ways of
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Some science fiction readers ask whether a sapient artificial intelligence, with the intelligence, the emotions, and the wisdom of a human, but not his looks, are out because they are not built in God's image, or whether they are in. (I once had a long discussion with an Iranian on just this question; when I returned to the US, I mentioned the discussion to a friend. He wondered whether among Christians such as himself any entity that did not appear overtly as God's image could be considered `in'.) Daniel Defoe satirized this kind of distinction making by describing a war between those who broke the pointed end of an egg and those broke the more gently rounded end. Everyone agrees that major decisions should not be based on the choice of which end of an egg to break. I believe that Dr. Seuss's _The Butter Battle Book_ does something similar, in that there is a war between those who hold their bread butter side up and those who hold their bread butter side down. Had quite an arms race going there in that book. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert J. Chassell wrote: Daniel Defoe satirized this kind of distinction making by describing a war between those who broke the pointed end of an egg and those broke the more gently rounded end. Everyone agrees that major decisions should not be based on the choice of which end of an egg to break. I think you might mean Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels? (Dafoe wrote Robinson Crusoe). In GT, the little endians broke the pointier side, and the big endians broke the more rounded side. As a bit of trivia, the computer world uses big-endian and little-endian to describe the bit/byte-ordering of computer words (of 2 or more bytes). Big Endian means the Most Significant Bit comes first, while Little Endian means the Least Significant Bit comes first. These terms were first applied to computers in this 1980 paper, On Holy Wars and A Plea For Peace: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/ien/ien137.txt In it, the author compared the MSB/LSB debate to the GT's endian war, and then argued for everyone standardizing on one or the other choice for the greater compatibility of all computers. Sadly, it is a failed cause. I believe that Dr. Seuss's _The Butter Battle Book_ does something similar, in that there is a war between those who hold their bread butter side up and those who hold their bread butter side down. Had quite an arms race going there in that book. Then there's his Star-Bellied Sneetches book, one of my favorites. (Probably second to The Lorax, my all-time favorite Seuss). _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Aliens? was Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:29:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does it change anyone's perspective recalling that as many people believe in aliens/intelligent life (or some such), as believe in religion? It doesn't change mine. I don't believe in intelligent life. I think there is a good chance that there has been, is, or will be other intelligent life in the universe other than us (if it can happen here and now, it could happen elsewhere and elsewhen). But that is just a guess. I don't claim intelligent extraterrestrial life actually exists, and if I were to live forever and search and search for millenia and I didn't find anything, I would change my assertion about there being a good chance. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Aliens? was Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:29:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does it change anyone's perspective recalling that as many people believe in aliens/intelligent life (or some such), as believe in religion? It doesn't change mine. I don't believe in intelligent life. [Slight connotation change by snipping there, but it was worth it.] We even have about 6 billion examples of intelligent biological life forms handy to bolster that claim. ;-) So we have pretty undeniable proof that the universe supports intelligent biological life; finding more examples is, as Erik says, just a matter of looking. There is no faith required. Either we'll find more examples or we won't, but it doesn't change the fact that some do, in fact, exist, right here on Earth. Compare/contrast with belief in supernatural beings, where we don't have any handy, uncontestable examples of any members of the entire class of such entities. Joshua _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
John D. Giorgis wrote: In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. So why bring up a topic such as religion when you have already concluded that there is nothing you could say and nothing they could say that would put both sides on the same page? I can only think that you would bring it up for some other reason than to discuss it rationally. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So why bring up a topic such as religion when you have already concluded that there is nothing you could say and nothing they could say that would put both sides on the same page? I have concluded no such thing. I can only think that you would bring it up for some other reason than to discuss it rationally. No, I posted an article from a famous rational and left-leaning thinker who was discussing the origins of religious belief. Personally, I think that if you can only think of negative motivations for my actions, then perhaps you should try expanding your horizons to include new possibilities. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be sensed, ... How can this be a presupposition? It as much truth of human nature as mothers loving their children, but being prepared, in the appropriate culture, to attempt infanticide under certain conditions, as was done with Moses. Numinous experiences do occur. I don't know anyone who denies that. It is the same with apparitions and stigmata. They occur, too. The issue is not whether whether some people have such experiences, but how they are interpreted. Within a single culture, there is no question. Everyone interprets the experience the same. But people in different cultures interpret apparitions, stigmata, and numinous experiences differently. Consider numinous experiences. Someone in a strongly Catholic culture most likely will interpret a spiritual experience as supporting Catholicism. Someone from a mixed pagan-Catholic culture, such as Joan D'Arc, interprets experiences to fit. Someone who is atheistic, such as certain old time Buddhists and Confucians, interpret a spiritual experience as confirming their beliefs. If your experience comes fundamentally from one culture, then it makes sense to you to figure that your experience confirms your early-learned beliefs. For you, that judgement is rational. On the other hand, if you have experience several cultures, and take the other cultures seriously (rather than as `foreign' or `crazy' or `misguided'), then your spiritual experience tells you that humans have a characteristic that enables them to come to embrace certain beliefs, but that the particular nature of the beliefs is culturally determined. Note that the beliefs of major religions such as Confucianism, Hinduism, or Christianity, include preferences for actions that are generally considered altruistic and actions that have good long term consequences in spite of creating short term difficulties. When you think in terms of nature rather than nurture, then you note that our paleolithic ancestors survived in bands. And the members of the bands had to cooperate, to help each other, and to act for long term as well as short term survival. Pretty obviously, such bands would survive better if they were made up of people some of whom would have numinous experiences that confirmed the local belief system (if the belief system was helpful). It also goes without saying that numinous experiences can and do confirm statements of liturgy that are unfalsifiable in other ways. As the late anthropologist, Roy Rappaport, pointed out, numinous experiences transform the dubious, the arbitrary, and the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural. This is important because members of a paleolithic band must cooperate, which is to say, members must behave often enough in what everyone thinks of as a `correct, necessary, and natural' manner, else the band will die. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: It is not a comfortable one: the tb's lose the specialness of being Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the aa's simply are unable to 'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to distinguish red from green. I don't find that uncomfortable at all. Actually, I find it quite satisfying. Spiritually unspiritual? :-) grin OK, 'uncomfortable' from the standpoint of those who want to be chosen or specially gifted. having sensed it myself -- this reminds me of the discussion about what a race of congenitally blind folk would think of the sanity (or lack thereof) of a person who claimed to be able to identify a far-away object - such as a soaring bird - without hearing, touching or smelling it.] This is silly. There would be many ways to verify what the person claimed other than seeing it. Science frequently (perhaps even usually) deals with things that can't be seen (but can be measured). No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. I really can't comment on the rest of your post, it sounds like typical politically correct nonsense. shakes head exasperatedly and pouts Erik, Erik, Erik -- you can do better than that! No sarcastic parroting of shamelessly etc., or some crack about being half-baked?! *Ree-ally,* I'm going to feel quite hurt that you don't even make the effort to be clever in your put-downs... ;} serious You see no value in dynamic tension, whether it be in society or a counterbalanced elevator? That's what I used yin-yang leavening etc. as shorthand for: forces that work on one level against each other, yet on another level are accomplishing 'work' in a synergistic way. The following is an example of the work that is being done on genetics and human personality traits; in this study, a particular allele that is associated with novelty-seeking and ADHD is found to have been selected _for_, with an age range from 300,000 years ago to a mere 30,000 years ago. In the full article (which is linked via the abstract), evolutionary game theory and even the possibility of an imported allele from Neanderthals is discussed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=1175dopt=Abstract Associations have been reported of the seven-repeat (7R) allele of the human dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene with both attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the personality trait of novelty seeking. This polymorphism occurs in a 48-bp tandem repeat in the coding region of DRD4, with the most common allele containing four repeats (4R) and rarer variants containing 2-11. Here we show by DNA resequencing/haplotyping of 600 DRD4 alleles, representing a worldwide population sample, that the origin of 2R-6R alleles can be explained by simple one-step recombination/mutation events. In contrast, the 7R allele is not simply related to the other common alleles, differing by greater than six recombinations/mutations. Strong linkage disequilibrium was found between the 7R allele and surrounding DRD4 polymorphisms, suggesting that this allele is at least 5-10-fold younger than the common 4R allele. Based on an observed bias toward nonsynonymous amino acid changes, the unusual DNA sequence organization, and the strong linkage disequilibrium surrounding the DRD4 7R allele, we propose that this allele originated as a rare mutational event that nevertheless increased to high frequency in human populations by positive selection. If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? Debbi who thinks that certain *other* exasperating personality traits are also probably genetically influenced... ;} __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
William T. Goodall wrote: Yes it has. Apparently you were not paying attention. I replied: Cite, please? William T.G. responded: So (a) you are implying I am a liar and (b) although *you* weren't paying attention you want *me* to look it up for you. I don't think so. No, I'm not implying that you are a liar. If that's how you took it, I'm sorry. I am suggesting that you are mistaken and I'm asking you to support your assertion. I'm not in the habit of doing research for others without being paid for it. It *is* possible that I missed the resolution of this issue, but I find it very unlikely especially since the question is still currently being debated onlist by Michael Harney, among others. Reggie Bautista _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. Yes there is. Those type of birds often call. Or if they have any type of bow and arrow or slingshots, he could shoot it down. And anyway, why not radar? Ultrasonic or RF sensing devices would be extremely valuable to them. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Matt Grimaldi wrote: John D. Giorgis wrote: In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. So why bring up a topic such as religion when you have already concluded that there is nothing you could say and nothing they could say that would put both sides on the same page? I can only think that you would bring it up for some other reason than to discuss it rationally. Because there are people other than agnostics and atheists here who might be interested in a discussion of a religious topic such as the one John posted that caught him some nasty flack from at least one areligious person? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be sensed, ... How can this be a presupposition? It as much truth of human nature as mothers loving their children, but being prepared, in the appropriate culture, to attempt infanticide under certain conditions, as was done with Moses. I was trying to write from the 'neutral agnostic' position, while acknowledging that I in fact am a person who has had numinous experiences. But I cannot prove that scientifically to someone who has not experienced such a moment. It is of course possible that our technology will someday advance to the point of being able to measure some of these 'events.' Numinous experiences do occur. I don't know anyone who denies that. It is the same with apparitions and stigmata. They occur, too. Yet some people will state that such experiences are delusional, or the products of a weak mind; I was trying to explain how it could be possible for both someone who has, and someone who has not, lived through such moments to be accurate in their interpretation of such events. The issue is not whether whether some people have such experiences, but how they are interpreted. Within a single culture, there is no question. Everyone interprets the experience the same. But people in different cultures interpret apparitions, stigmata, and numinous experiences differently. Yes; but some people do not (cannot?) have these experiences at all, so they think of others - or themselves - as 'delusional' or 'defective.' Consider numinous experiences. snip On the other hand, if you have experience several cultures, and take the other cultures seriously (rather than as `foreign' or `crazy' or `misguided'), then your spiritual experience tells you that humans have a characteristic that enables them to come to embrace certain beliefs, but that the particular nature of the beliefs is culturally determined. Note that the beliefs of major religions such as Confucianism, Hinduism, or Christianity, include preferences for actions that are generally considered altruistic and actions that have good long term consequences in spite of creating short term difficulties. When you think in terms of nature rather than nurture, then you note that our paleolithic ancestors survived in bands. And the members of the bands had to cooperate, to help each other, and to act for long term as well as short term survival. Pretty obviously, such bands would survive better if they were made up of people some of whom would have numinous experiences that confirmed the local belief system (if the belief system was helpful). Agreed. It also goes without saying that numinous experiences can and do confirm statements of liturgy that are unfalsifiable in other ways. But for those who cannot believe in such experiences, there is no scientific proof to replace the faith of the believer/experiencer. As the late anthropologist, Roy Rappaport, pointed out, numinous experiences transform the dubious, the arbitrary, and the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural. This is important because members of a paleolithic band must cooperate, which is to say, members must behave often enough in what everyone thinks of as a `correct, necessary, and natural' manner, else the band will die. Yes, spirituality must have been a 'centripetal' force in such bands, although in huge masses as we have grown into now, it has become a force that too often flings apart... Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It *is* possible that I missed the resolution of this issue, but I find it very unlikely especially since the question is still currently being debated onlist by Michael Harney, among others. No, no resolution, although it's been stated before that there was one. grin I declare that there is in fact an Invisible (but not pink) Unicorn Who Watches Over All, and I can prove it because I wrote a hymn for It! There! Issue resolved! She's Joking, Isn't She? Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. Yes there is. Those type of birds often call. No, they don't: http://www.hawk-conservancy.org/priors/george.shtml In common with all New World (American) vultures, the Andean Condor is, to all intents and purposes, silent. It does utter wheezes, suppressed coughs and grunts, but has no real voice. Technically, the syrinx, which is the organ which produces birds' voices, and equates to our larynx, is absent from all seven species of New World vultures. Or if they have any type of bow and arrow or slingshots, he could shoot it down. Um, how could a blind person shoot a silent moving target, especially so high up? And anyway, why not radar? Ultrasonic or RF sensing devices would be extremely valuable to them. Because dogonnit, it's my scenario, and if I specify primitive blind folks without advanced technology like radar, that's the scenario! :D (But I confess that I read a story long, long ago that had an adventurer stumbling across a valley of blind people with only simple technology; no recall of the author or title, but I do remember that they considered the sightless sockets to make pleasing depressions in the face, and offered to remove the adventurer's 'troubling deformities'...) But of course once (if) they develop such technology, they _would_ be able to verify that a huge creature soars hundreds of feet overhead and travels hundreds of miles without touching the ground...And isn't it quite likely that we will continue to discover new things that we had *no idea* existed before, as our technology advances? Consider dark matter and so-called dark energy -- these were concepts once un-thought of, then ridiculed, and now taken quite seriously, worthy of study. Hey, they track some condors utilizing satellites: http://www.clemetzoo.com/rttw/condor/migintro.htm Debbi Touch The Sky Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 07:00 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? So there might be a cure for it? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? So there might be a cure for it? snorts rolls eyes You managed to *completely* overlook my point - that novelty-seeking is in fact one of the traits that makes us so successful as a species, and is only a problem when taken to extemes...so too for spirituality. IMN-S-HO, naturally. ;) Although cockroaches are terribly successful from a biological standpoint, I don't think they are curious or spiritual...and think what would happen if they were! shudders as only one who has lived in the South (or the jungle/rainforest), with multiple types of pesticide-adapted cockroaches, can possibly understand Personally Not A Thrill-Seeker, Except For Riding Arabians* Maru *This would make Quarter Horse owners LOL, but is probably incomprehensible to almost everyone else. :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Um, how could a blind person shoot a silent moving target, especially so high up? Not the blind person, silly. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: No, they don't: http://www.hawk-conservancy.org/priors/george.shtml In common with all New World (American) vultures, the Andean Condor is, to all intents and purposes, silent. It does utter wheezes, suppressed coughs and grunts, but has no real voice. Are your villagers retarded too? Why not use a calling bird? Or better yet, why not have someone scrape something into a piece of wood and hold it up and let the person read it at a distance? Or about a million other ways? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Debbi wrote: If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? William T. Goodall replied: So there might be a cure for it? Only in the sense that there might be a cure for having blue eyes or only brown hair. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Aliens? was Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Debbi wrote- No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. The bird analogy is pretty close to a thought I had today. Does it change anyone's perspective recalling that as many people believe in aliens/intelligent life (or some such), as believe in religion? I forgot about that somewhat recent news blip for some reason. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:55:37 -0700 (PDT) --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Personally Not A Thrill-Seeker, Except For Riding Arabians* Maru *This would make Quarter Horse owners LOL, but is probably incomprehensible to almost everyone else. :) Arabians are harder to tame, no? Jon Rides English and Western and Read the Black Stallion Books as a Kid Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
JDG wrote: Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - William T. Goodall replied: No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. William, apparently *you* were not paying attention, or only saw what you wanted to see. The issue of whether true atheism would require faith has been discussed many times, but no consensus has been reached on the issue. One group says it does, one group says it doesn't, and neither group has given in to the arguments of the other. This has been gone over but has never reached a conclusion, as you imply it has. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Ronn! wrote: So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position, the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are irrational? Erik replied: That it a very different question, and not nearly as interesting. Yes, it is. :-) Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 08:24 pm, Reggie Bautista wrote: JDG wrote: Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - William T. Goodall replied: No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. William, apparently *you* were not paying attention, or only saw what you wanted to see. The issue of whether true atheism would require faith has been discussed many times, but no consensus has been reached on the issue. One group says it does, one group says it doesn't, and neither group has given in to the arguments of the other. This has been gone over but has never reached a conclusion, as you imply it has. Yes it has. Apparently you were not paying attention. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I speak better English than this villain Bush - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
William T. Goodall wrote: Yes it has. Apparently you were not paying attention. Cite, please? Reggie Bautista _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting question. And so *balanced* a presentation of the question! ;) So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position, the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are irrational? That it a very different question, and not nearly as interesting. None of the above positions address the possibility of a genetic basis for faith/spirituality. I find it curious that neither the 'true believer' camp nor the 'avowed agnostic' camp has addressed this idea(other than in a vague evolutionary advantage in the distant past tangential way), only an agnostic and a heretic (both self-proclaimed). It is not a comfortable one: the tb's lose the specialness of being Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the aa's simply are unable to 'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to distinguish red from green. [Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be sensed, because of my bias in having sensed it myself -- this reminds me of the discussion about what a race of congenitally blind folk would think of the sanity (or lack thereof) of a person who claimed to be able to identify a far-away object - such as a soaring bird - without hearing, touching or smelling it.] I'm going to tweak the idea of the spiritually blind as guardians of truth in religion, and suggest that they act more like leavening in bread, to keep the intellect from lying complacently flat, and making it rise higher than it could alone. Without leavening, the intellect is stodgy, lazy and prone to slothful arrogance; without dough, there is no structure, only evanescent bubbles and hot air. Both are necessary for a proper loaf of crusty bread...although this analogy might lead one to think of our culture as currently half-baked, at best. ;) Instead of using a yin-yang concept, I'm going to shamelessly seize on the notion of centripetal-centrifugal forces from the essay re-posted recently by Himself; at various times, religion and - for lack of a better term I'll use rationality, but others have already pointed out how much of our cognition is sub-conscious and not at all Reason-based - have been binding or scattering forces on society(ies). What advantage is there to looking at the question from this angle? The merits of both 'sides' are acknowledged. The failures of both 'sides' are noted. Both positions have a 'right' to exist without ridicule from the other. Without both there is no 'loaf of civilization,' because both are necessary to create that airy structure. Debbi Let's Get Cookin'! Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: It is not a comfortable one: the tb's lose the specialness of being Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the aa's simply are unable to 'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to distinguish red from green. I don't find that uncomfortable at all. Actually, I find it quite satisfying. Spiritually unspiritual? :-) having sensed it myself -- this reminds me of the discussion about what a race of congenitally blind folk would think of the sanity (or lack thereof) of a person who claimed to be able to identify a far-away object - such as a soaring bird - without hearing, touching or smelling it.] This is silly. There would be many ways to verify what the person claimed other than seeing it. Science frequently (perhaps even usually) deals with things that can't be seen (but can be measured). I really can't comment on the rest of your post, it sounds like typical politically correct nonsense. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote: But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? If you are not willing to change your assumptions based on data, then the discussion will be rather limited. Does that apply equally to atheists and agnostics as well as believers? If religion is measured on a linear scale with atheists on one end and zealots and literalists on the other end, then it seems that agnostics are the most neutral and willing to change assumptions, and therefore the best viewpoint for a productive discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted David's comment. So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous about that lifestyle as the most fundamentalist Christian is about his/her beliefs, and like those fundamentalist Christians, the zealous vegetarians say that anyone who does not believe and behave as they do is evil. Thus, as some here have pointed out that there are some Christians who display intolerance for others' beliefs and practices that as far as those list members are concerned all who label themselves Christian must accept the blame for that attitude and expect others to consider them guilty of that attitude, many who have had previous encounters with zealous vegetarians worry that all who identify themselves as vegetarians are similarly intolerant of anyone who is not a vegetarian. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:13:00AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer, even temporarily? In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting question. To me, it's possible for a rational, sane, intelligent, educated person to be a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist, just as, frex, it is possible for a rational, sane, intelligent, educated person to be a Republican, an independent, or a Democrat. Or, to put it another way, I think you could plot rationality and belief on two orthogonal axes, with some people ending up in each of the four quadrants (rational/believer, irrational/believer, rational/non-believer, irrational/non-believer). OTOH, it seems that some people believe that a person who believes in God by definition is irrational, just as some people seem to believe that a person who principally votes for one of the two major parties is either irrational or evil. So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position, the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are irrational? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:13:40AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting question. So I guess the question becomes Which is the more neutral position, the one that recognizes that belief and rationality are two different characteristics, or the one which says that all believers are irrational? That it a very different question, and not nearly as interesting. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. I agree. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous about that lifestyle as the most fundamentalist Christian is about his/her beliefs, and like those fundamentalist Christians, the zealous vegetarians say that anyone who does not believe and behave as they do is evil. Thus, as some here have pointed out that there are some Christians who display intolerance for others' beliefs and practices that as far as those list members are concerned all who label themselves Christian must accept the blame for that attitude and expect others to consider them guilty of that attitude, many who have had previous encounters with zealous vegetarians worry that all who identify themselves as vegetarians are similarly intolerant of anyone who is not a vegetarian. I am well aware of that fact, and it only solidifies the point of my original message. The fact that I am being projected and generalized on just parrallels JDG's situation that much more as he is deeling with the obvious projections and generalizations of The Fool and maybe some other list members (honestly I haven't been following the thread too closely). Read the whole of my post, it wasn't a complaint to the list, it was just used as an example to illustrate to JDG that other people deal with the same sort of bias and that there are other (and IMO better) ways of dealing with it than complaining to the list about it. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. So atheists are dishonest? Are you just being rude as usual or do you have any kind of a point at all? Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. That is very very rude. since a negative cannot be proved, Can you even read? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote: But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? If you are not willing to change your assumptions based on data, then the discussion will be rather limited. Does that apply equally to atheists and agnostics as well as believers? Yes If religion is measured on a linear scale with atheists on one end and zealots and literalists on the other end, then it seems that agnostics are the most neutral and willing to change assumptions, and therefore the best viewpoint for a productive discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted David's comment. So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? Yes = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. It would be the same as being agnostic about the space alien zipeldorbgh from the planet tripalawalazipdang. I can neither prove nor disprove zipeldobgh's existance. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. So atheists are dishonest? Are you just being rude as usual or do you have any kind of a point at all? Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. That is very very rude. since a negative cannot be proved, Can you even read? William, I am sorry, but it seems that you were vexed by the post you are responding to above. However, it seems that you are under some alternative interpritation. Your cry of rudeness seems unwarented. Perhaps you shoudl re-read and reconsider the intent, with the assumption that it is not meant to vex. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 05:29 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: William, I am sorry, but it seems that you were vexed by the post you are responding to above. However, it seems that you are under some alternative interpritation. Your cry of rudeness seems unwarented. Perhaps you shoudl re-read and reconsider the intent, with the assumption that it is not meant to vex. In general I agree with you that it is both polite and wise to attempt the most generous reading of the intent of a post. In this case however, and given the history of JDGs posting, I have difficulty finding an alternative interpretation to 'provocative rudeness' that is more favourable to him. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I speak better English than this villain Bush - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On agnosticism: I consider myself an agnostic. I don't see God as being a driving factor in my life in any way, but I am unwilling to discount His existence entirely. That seems to be the definition that works best for me at least. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 09:42 AM 7/7/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous about that lifestyle as the most fundamentalist Christian is about his/her beliefs, and like those fundamentalist Christians, the zealous vegetarians say that anyone who does not believe and behave as they do is evil. Thus, as some here have pointed out that there are some Christians who display intolerance for others' beliefs and practices that as far as those list members are concerned all who label themselves Christian must accept the blame for that attitude and expect others to consider them guilty of that attitude, many who have had previous encounters with zealous vegetarians worry that all who identify themselves as vegetarians are similarly intolerant of anyone who is not a vegetarian. I am well aware of that fact, and it only solidifies the point of my original message. The fact that I am being projected and generalized on just parrallels JDG's situation that much more as he is deeling with the obvious projections and generalizations of The Fool and maybe some other list members (honestly I haven't been following the thread too closely). Read the whole of my post, it wasn't a complaint to the list, it was just used as an example to illustrate to JDG that other people deal with the same sort of bias and that there are other (and IMO better) ways of dealing with it than complaining to the list about it. I meant it in much the same way, and I'm sorry if the way I said it made it seem critical of you. I probably should have worded it differently. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic level of *civility* from all List-Members. Who's deffinition of civility are we going to use? Your's? I know you would not want to use my deffinition becouse if you did you would be hard pressed to find someoen who wasn't. It seems to me that just by the fact that you are asking for civility shows that you haven't thought it through. Why not listen to what others MEAN and forget your silly notions of civility? Sure, I have been known to engage what has previously been described here as rough and tumble adult conversation, but when I apply zingers in my post, I at least accompany it with content. In my mind, the posting of mere insults, without any accompanying substantive content is inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it. I haven't seen anyone engaging in posting of mere insults. On another list where such a practice was commonplace I once posted the following. Hold up your hand, fingers extended, palm out. Now put your smallest finger down. Interpret the resulting formation as unary with your thumb in the first postion, now traslate to binary. Now that is a good example of posting mere insults (even if I do say so myself). Feel free to use this as a basis of comparison, In situations you need mear insults, or at geek/nurd dinner parties when you need a bit of rough and tumble humor, just as long as you never take or mean it personaly. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jan Coffey Sent: Friday, There was plenty to respond to, but I'll pick this one... the guy preaching to you on sunday has no right to tell you anything becouse you know he sins just as much as anybody. I think you've fallen into the traps of church is for good people and priests are special people. From my point of view, our pastors and priests have the right to instruct *because* they sin as much as anybody. The ones who pretend they don't -- and the people who expect them not to fail -- are setting themselves up for a fall. The Bible teaches that all of those who believe are members of the priesthood. ...must.. ...not... ...engagre... ...dark... ...humor... ...mode Then why have priests at all?or alter boys Uh? The vast majority ARE, that's the whole point. Shall I continue the list? Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of Christians are literalists? My experience is quite the opposite. literaly? The vast majority of the christians you have experienced do not take the bible literaly? Can you define that? Becouse with my definition they would beleive that Mary ~really~ did have some hanky panky? They would not beleive that anyone rose from the dead. THey wouuld have to beleive that the water was not turned into wine. They would have to beleive that Moses just went up there on that mountain and came up with the 10 comandments all on his own. Becouse that is literaly what the bible says, and if they are not taking it literaly then their beleifes must literaly differ. right? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic level of *civility* from all List-Members. Sure, I have been known to engage what has previously been described here as rough and tumble adult conversation, but when I apply zingers in my post, I at least accompany it with content. In my mind, the posting of mere insults, without any accompanying substantive content is inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it. John D. Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. Is this less than civil to you..? Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell propane and propane accessories. No, no, actualy I do agree with the post. I learned that I either have to accept that behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic. I don't whine and complain that the brin-l isn't my version of utopia where everything I say is accepted without any rude replies. I simply post a reply to rude replies saying that I will not discuss the topic with them if they are not willing to discuss it maturely and rationally. I see your current efforts only as an effort to get people moderated or kicked off the list. Something I will not support. Get over it. You should welcome such behavior from your opponents in a debate, no matter how rational the person arguing against you claims his/her viewpoint is, it just proves how irrational the person is. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Jan quoted: Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian guerrillas in _Delicatessen_. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan quoted: Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian guerrillas in _Delicatessen_. Eat me. ..sorry, I just had to say it, I just can't help myself. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
King of the Hill Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Jan Coffey wrote: Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell propane and propane accessories. :) OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM yesterday, and they were so tender they fell apart very nicely, and I ate a fair bit of turkey, a fair bit of cantelope and probably too many chocolate chip cookies and drank too much IBC Root Beer): What's your favorite King of the Hill episode? (I think mine is the one where Bobby feeds the raccoon that's been hanging around the garbage and Dale ends up eating something with hallucinogenic properties in the woods) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan quoted: Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. People are made of meat too. ObSF: the cannibals and vegetarian guerrillas in _Delicatessen_. Eat me. ..sorry, I just had to say it, I just can't help myself. _Stranger in a Strange Land_, anyone? :) Julia who would probably require salt, unless marinade were used for 2-4 days first ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: King of the Hill Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Well If god hadn't meant for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. It works better if you pretend like your name is hank and you sell propane and propane accessories. :) OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM yesterday, and they were so tender they fell apart very nicely, and I ate a fair bit of turkey, a fair bit of cantelope and probably too many chocolate chip cookies and drank too much IBC Root Beer): What's your favorite King of the Hill episode? (I think mine is the one where Bobby feeds the raccoon that's been hanging around the garbage and Dale ends up eating something with hallucinogenic properties in the woods) Well In light of the topic at hand I feel like answering the one where Hank mistakenly believes that his new Laotian neighbors use dog meat to make their delicious barbecued hamburgers. Or how about the one where Bobby suffers enormous guilt after he consumes all of the new reverend's lutefisk and inadvertently burns the church to the ground. Or what about There will be no enlightenment in this house!? But to be honest it is the one where Hank's Father takes over the military school Bobby has been sent to and tries unsucessfuly to break bobby. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: King of the Hill Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :) OK, just for that, Jan, I'm going to ask you the question under discussion at the barbecue I was at yesterday evening (where the big draw was the turkey breasts that the host had smoked from 8AM until 2PM yesterday, and they were so tender they fell apart very nicely, and I ate a fair bit of turkey, a fair bit of cantelope and probably too many chocolate chip cookies and drank too much IBC Root Beer): What's your favorite King of the Hill episode? (I think mine is the one where Bobby feeds the raccoon that's been hanging around the garbage and Dale ends up eating something with hallucinogenic properties in the woods) Well In light of the topic at hand I feel like answering the one where Hank mistakenly believes that his new Laotian neighbors use dog meat to make their delicious barbecued hamburgers. Or how about the one where Bobby suffers enormous guilt after he consumes all of the new reverend's lutefisk and inadvertently burns the church to the ground. Or what about There will be no enlightenment in this house!? But to be honest it is the one where Hank's Father takes over the military school Bobby has been sent to and tries unsucessfuly to break bobby. That was the favorite of someone else in the room during that discussion. I have to admit, I haven't seen that one yet. Now I'm looking forward to seeing it someday. :) The Lutefisk one was pretty good. Of course, unlike my husband, I've never been subjected to lutefisk. (He hated the stuff. That was the worst thing about big family gatherings at Christmas during his childhood) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
At 12:31 AM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer, even temporarily? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:13:00AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer, even temporarily? In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting question. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks there are a bunch of atheists here who are attacking him. Now he posts something that he knows you will react to. I guess he is hoping you will post something that he can complain to the listowners about and get you warned or banned. No? Really? JDG wouldn't do something like that would he? It sounds as if you are calling JDG a social manipulator. That would be quite an insult. Do you really think that he would provoke someone to the point that they over-reacted? And are you saying that the response being known by everyone to be predictable is therefore JDG's fault? That is quite an acusation. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool ... The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more consideration that than any of the of the other absurdities? People don't walk on water without really advanced technology. It's absurd. And it fits in with other absurdities, like giants and satyrs. I think that the idea of talking dolphins is quite absurd, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Brin's writings. Uplift may well be impossible, but that doesn't make the books worthless or dangerous, does it? Actualy it would IF persons in position of leadership were running around interpreting these stories as NON-FICTION and perscribing what was good and bad based on them. The fact that many of the morals tought in the book are obvious doesn't make all of the book sacred. I can just as easily interpret the bibile to say that if I am in a postion of leadership and my folowers stop folowing me, I should pick out the ones that are and drown the rest. Then I would be acting as God did, and his actions must be a very good example. right? No WRONG! I'm sorry but promising that you will never do it again just isn't good enough is it? I can see it now ...yes Mr. Hitler we understand you were the leader of a large portion of the world and we understand that the Jews were not following your idea of what was a good way to be, and since you have promised not to ever do it again, we will go on letting you . Frel That! No Way! I'm not going to beleive in any God I have to fear. Sorry. If he does exist and he is a good god then he will care more about the way I live my life than what I beleive in, and what leaders I follow. If he exists and he is the god written about in -that book-, then maybe I should fear him, but if I should fear him then that makes him my enemy and maybe the enemy of my enemy is my friend~No~ It's just as easy to believe that Jesus ment for us to get high and drunk in rememberence of him as it is to think that for some reason we are suposed to eat a tiny peice fo bread and sip a tiny amount of wine. We are talking about the same guy that turned Water into Wine. Come on, wouldn't ~purified watter~ have been more appropriate? Wouldn't that have been better? What about plane old grape juice or even orange juice, fig, comequat, whatever. What about if he had said take these vegitables and fruits and eat them in remeberance of me. This Carrot will help you see me better, these oranges will help you heal. Drink this milk it's good for your bones. Then we would be looking back on that and questioning how he could have known. With all the maraculous things god can do, if he want's us to believe in him, then why didn't he do something like arange a set of stars in the MW so that from our perspective they would look like a face? Then say, you travel to the next closest star which in an eye of the face and their is a new face in which the next to the next closest star is the eye and so on. But the way it is there is just this story about a man who supposedly did a bunch of very fantastic things for just a man, 2000 years ago, with no modern (or future) tech. There are a bunch of rather fantastic stories which tend to give a good leson when not taken to seriously, or picked apart. If you pick them apart to much you get the kind of rediculous moral as above, or a god that sais do what I say, not what I do, and that just doesn't work does it? So you have to look at those stories and say ok fiction, good idea behind it all. Good lesons, but fiction none the less. What does that mean? It means keep your money. the guy preaching to you on sunday has no right to tell you anything becouse you know he sins just as much as anybody. I'm talking about priests, preatures, and rabbeyes. What are they going to do with the money anyway? Build a new fellowship hall? For more converst. It means don't take the thing too seriously, sure it's a good book, and sure it means a bunch of good things, but it's just a book. It means don't follow a leader based on religion, they are no better at telling you what to do than you are telling them. You can bet that ~they~ HAVE seriously considered how fictional it all seems, so you never know what they are in it for. It means don't go around trying to spread some doctrin on othes, all your going to acomplish is some basterdised version of your religion taped onto the already existing religion, and more than not your going to get a bunch of them killed in the process, either through polotics or desiese. Can you imagine what kind of religion would be based on uplift war? Or better yet, The Practice Effect. Orthodox Practice Effecters: People who believe that if they use an item long enough for a particular perpouse, and they are pure of mind, and pure
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least we discuss religion here, which beats the heck out of communities that pretend it doesn't exist or those that can't touch on the subject without an immediate flame war. Wait, how is this different from Brin-L again? Is Brin-L different simply because I and the few other people of faith on this List simply choose not to respond to the myriad flames that great any mention of religion on this List? The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent discussion of religion is simply not occuring from many of our resident atheists. Rather every mention of religion has been greated by flames - flames which have not been accompanied by even a modicum of serious content. The way of my people is to acknoldege the futility of consideration for emotional wrapping, to adress the meaning, and not the feeling. Granted this is harder to do than to say to do, and only the truly wise are capable of it most of the time. Still I beleive it to be a state worth attempting to achieve. This does not mean to respond like a star trek vulcan devoid of emotion. It means instead that you should look for the content of the message. Say your hill-billy neigbor sees you on the street and sais that seein hows I been up all night anyway, I'm starten to get a hankerin for a good hunt. So I'm considerin to come over one night and lay your barky dog to rest. What do you hear? --I'm going to kill your dog-- --I ~want~ to kill your dog-- --I want your dog to stop barking all night-- --Could you please do something about your dog barking all night, it keeps me up and makes it hard to sleep, so much so in fact that I am quite angree about it-- Which one did he mean? Maybe you are not hearing the intelligent discussion becouse you prefer not to. It seems to me that their are plenty fo intelegant discussions but that they are never being adressed. Instead the method of the discussion is being adressed. You could get in an arguement with your hill-billy neigbor about his attitude or you could address his concern. You can acuse athiests for flaming and claim that they are not providing inteligent discussion, or you could address the points that they ~ARE~ makeing. Seems to me that it is in fact you who are not ingaging in intelegant discussion, and instead favoring a focus on emotional content. But hay, I did just sort of flame you a few posts ago, so what do I know. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: God, Religion, and Sports
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:31 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: God, Religion, and Sports iaamoac wrote: The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent discussion of religion is simply not occuring from many of our resident atheists. Rather every mention of religion has been greated by flames - flames which have not been accompanied by even a modicum of serious content. John-- Frankly, I do see many of your posts as trolling. If you want a serious discussion, you have to try to meet others halfway. As I see it, you take an extreme position at the start, and then complain when you provoke a response. Or, in my experience he simply ignores well-reasoned responses. I'd agree with your characterization. What's interesting is he complains about The Fool, who, imo, often does the same thing. If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. Emulate the agnostics? The atheists and agnostics on this list have repeatedly shown an astonishing lack of tolerance for other people's beliefs and faiths. Are you suggesting that those of us who believe in God therefore adopt an attitude similar to the atheists' position is dross because it isn't provable? Should we repeatedly insult and bait those on the list who voice a belief that God does not exist? CTHULHU IS LORD!!! (Now you say your god is best, and we have a flame war...) Personally, I don't care if you believe in Lord Voldemort. :) I think this is about respect and tolerance for other people's faiths and not about competition. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:41:05AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: No? Really? JDG wouldn't do something like that would he? What do you think? It sounds as if you are calling JDG a social manipulator. That would be quite an insult. Why? Do you really think that he would provoke someone to the point that they over-reacted? What do you think? And are you saying that the response being known by everyone to be predictable is therefore JDG's fault? No, I said nothing about faults. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic level of *civility* from all List-Members. Sure, I have been known to engage what has previously been described here as rough and tumble adult conversation, but when I apply zingers in my post, I at least accompany it with content. In my mind, the posting of mere insults, without any accompanying substantive content is inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it. John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jan Coffey Sent: Friday, There was plenty to respond to, but I'll pick this one... the guy preaching to you on sunday has no right to tell you anything becouse you know he sins just as much as anybody. I think you've fallen into the traps of church is for good people and priests are special people. From my point of view, our pastors and priests have the right to instruct *because* they sin as much as anybody. The ones who pretend they don't -- and the people who expect them not to fail -- are setting themselves up for a fall. The Bible teaches that all of those who believe are members of the priesthood. Uh? The vast majority ARE, that's the whole point. Shall I continue the list? Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of Christians are literalists? My experience is quite the opposite. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? More imporantly, why is it so radical to simply insist upon a basic level of *civility* from all List-Members. Sure, I have been known to engage what has previously been described here as rough and tumble adult conversation, but when I apply zingers in my post, I at least accompany it with content. In my mind, the posting of mere insults, without any accompanying substantive content is inappropriate - and hence I am objecting to it. John D. Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. I learned that I either have to accept that behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic. I don't whine and complain that the brin-l isn't my version of utopia where everything I say is accepted without any rude replies. I simply post a reply to rude replies saying that I will not discuss the topic with them if they are not willing to discuss it maturely and rationally. I see your current efforts only as an effort to get people moderated or kicked off the list. Something I will not support. Get over it. You should welcome such behavior from your opponents in a debate, no matter how rational the person arguing against you claims his/her viewpoint is, it just proves how irrational the person is. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. I learned that I either have to accept that behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic. I don't whine and complain that the brin-l isn't my version of utopia where everything I say is accepted without any rude replies. I simply post a reply to rude replies saying that I will not discuss the topic with them if they are not willing to discuss it maturely and rationally. Speaking of vegetarianism, I've been wondering for the past couple of weeks: How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian diet? How much of what would you have to eat? I have a couple of books on pregnancies with twins or higher-order multiples. The one that goes into the nutrition issues more thoroughly basically said that you'd need to start eating meat for the duration of the pregnancy to get enough protein. A review of that book on amazon.com took the author to task for this. So, I'm wondering, what would be a good vegetarian diet plan that included this quantity of protein? (As for the iron and the calcium, the two other most important things, at least according to the nurse I'm seeing weekly at the perinatal group, I'm taking an iron supplement now, and monitoring my calcium intake and making up what I need at the end of the day with calcium-fortified orange juice and/or a calcium supplement. The supplement is a little icky, so I try to get more calcium at lunch, in afternoon snacks, and at dinner, so I don't end up needing to drink a quart of juice or take 2 of the supplement things at the end of the day. I need 180% of the normal USRDA for calcium. And since calcium and iron each interfere with the absorbtion of the other, I do the big iron intake in the morning and the calcium later in the day.) And I'd appreciate it if people who aren't Michael didn't offer any criticism of me or him on this thread. Thanks. :) Polite unsolicited advice for me will be read and considered. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian diet? How much of what would you have to eat? Isn't it more complicated than that? I am under the impression that vegetarians have to keep track of specific varieties of proteins so that you get enough of all (20?) amino acids. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian diet? How much of what would you have to eat? Isn't it more complicated than that? I am under the impression that vegetarians have to keep track of specific varieties of proteins so that you get enough of all (20?) amino acids. Well, yes. Grains generally have one set, legumes another set, and the union of the two gives you all of the amino acids. (And I believe the intersection is non-empty, but I don't know just how large it is.) But if you've been an educated vegetarian for awhile, I bet that sort of combining can be done almost without thinking about it. It's very easy to get hold of a list of foods where something from column A and something from column B when eaten together will give you complete protein; in fact, one of the regular pregancy books I have, one with very little on issues specific to a pregnancy with more than one baby, has such a list to help out vegetarian moms-to-be. I'm just wondering how much you'd need to eat of what to get 100-120 grams of protein each day, and I think that Michael knows as much about this issue as anyone else here. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:31 AM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer, even temporarily? Got me, I have no problem being agnostic. I've had religious experiences. I'm certainly not going to forget them. On the other hand, I don't interpret them as giving more credence to any particular religion. I tend to prefer tolerant and non-dogmatic religions, but it's an emotional/aesthetic judgement. So parts of me do believe, but I'm not convinced. On the other hand, even those whose faith is strongest are purported to have doubts. When they do, they're agnostic, aren't they? Agnosticism is the middle ground, halfway between atheism and theism. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Harney wrote: Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by people acting less than civil. I learned that I either have to accept that behavior from others or simply not bring up the topic. I don't whine and complain that the brin-l isn't my version of utopia where everything I say is accepted without any rude replies. I simply post a reply to rude replies saying that I will not discuss the topic with them if they are not willing to discuss it maturely and rationally. Speaking of vegetarianism, I've been wondering for the past couple of weeks: How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian diet? How much of what would you have to eat? Wow, that's a lot of protien. To get that much, and get the full spectrum of protiens, the way to go would be soy. I'm not talking about tofu though. 12 ounces (about 360 g) of tofu (which is 4 servigs worth) has about 25g of protien. That is half of the daily supply needed for an adult, but only 1/4 of the 100g you ask about above (I don't know anyone who can eat 4 tofu bricks per day... even if the person were pregnant and ravenously hungry). Textured Soy Protien (AKA TSP or TVP - V standing for vegetable) is very concentrated and has about 56g of protien per serving (a serving is listed as 3.5 ounces or about 105g before re-hydration as TSP is usually bought dehydrated). It can be prepared a variety of ways for very different flavors, so there is no lacking on variety. Additionally, TSP varieties are available that have the sugars that some people find hard to digest removed. Another option for high protien sources is wheat gluten, which has 22 g per serving. It is harder to prepare than TSP, and I am not sure if Wheat gluten has the full spectrum of protiens that humans need. Additionally, if someone has an alergy to wheat, wheat gluten is *deffinately* a bad idea. Nutritional Yeast can also be added to foods as a suppliment. By weight, Nutritional Yeast is 50% protien, so 2g has 1g of protien (full spectrum), though I have heard it reccommended that a person limits their consumtion to about 20g per day, so that can only boost about 10g of protien. Soy milk can also be consumed for a little more protien. The brand I buy has 7g per 8 oz (240ml) serving. A variety of veggie burgers, veggie sandwich slices, and veggie dogs are on the market, and available in some well stocked supermarkets (not just specialty stores), and contain a good amount of protien per serving. I have a couple of books on pregnancies with twins or higher-order multiples. The one that goes into the nutrition issues more thoroughly basically said that you'd need to start eating meat for the duration of the pregnancy to get enough protein. A review of that book on amazon.com took the author to task for this. So, I'm wondering, what would be a good vegetarian diet plan that included this quantity of protein? I would say TSP would be the way to go. Maybe for more variety, a person can have one serving of TVP per day as part of one meal, then a couple servings of Soy Milk durring the day, and for the remainder a bowl of pinto beans and rice with some nutritional yeast sprinkled on it, a couple veggie burgers, a couple sandwiches with veggie slices, a couple veggie dogs, or some stirfried veggetables with tofu as another meal. I would recommend running the idea past an open-minded doctor first though. (As for the iron and the calcium, the two other most important things, at least according to the nurse I'm seeing weekly at the perinatal group, I'm taking an iron supplement now, and monitoring my calcium intake and making up what I need at the end of the day with calcium-fortified orange juice and/or a calcium supplement. The supplement is a little icky, so I try to get more calcium at lunch, in afternoon snacks, and at dinner, so I don't end up needing to drink a quart of juice or take 2 of the supplement things at the end of the day. I need 180% of the normal USRDA for calcium. And since calcium and iron each interfere with the absorbtion of the other, I do the big iron intake in the morning and the calcium later in the day.) Broccolli, Calliflour, and many other vegetables are high in calcium. Spinach and other green, leafy plants are particularly high in iron. Also, agar agar (yes, the same stuff that is used as a base for growth mediums for bacteria in petri dishes), which is derived from seaweed and can be used as a gelatin substitute, is exceptionally high in iron. Nothing vegetable is high in B-12 though, so I recommend a sub-lingual B-12 suppliment. Preferably one where the B-12 is in the form of cyanocobalamin, which is derived from microbial, not animal, sources. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:47:57PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: How would you get 100-120 grams of protein per day on a vegetarian diet? How much of what would you have to eat? Isn't it more complicated than that? I am under the impression that vegetarians have to keep track of specific varieties of proteins so that you get enough of all (20?) amino acids. If my understanding is correct, soy beans have all of the protiens the human body needs. Aside from soy beans, all one has to do is eat beans and rice to get the full spectrum of necessary protiens. Not too terribly complicated. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:17:45PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: If my understanding is correct, soy beans have all of the protiens the human body needs. Aside from soy beans, all one has to do is eat beans and rice to get the full spectrum of necessary protiens. Could you rephrase this? It doesn't make sense as written. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:17:45PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: If my understanding is correct, soy beans have all of the protiens the human body needs. Aside from soy beans, all one has to do is eat beans and rice to get the full spectrum of necessary protiens. Could you rephrase this? It doesn't make sense as written. IIRC, Soy Beans have all the protiens that the human body needs. Other Beans have most, but not all of the protiens the human body needs. Rice has the protiens which most beans lack. The phrase aside from was poorly chosen in that context I appologize. perhapse I should have said something to the effect of in the absense of soybeans. Does this clarify things for you? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of vegetarianism Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:46:56PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: The phrase aside from was poorly chosen in that context I appologize. perhapse I should have said something to the effect of in the absense of soybeans. Does this clarify things for you? Yes, thanks. I believe you are saying that you could get all needed amino acids from soybeans. Alternatively, you could get all needed amino acids from the combination of (not soy) beans and rice. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks there are a bunch of atheists here who are attacking him. Now he posts something that he knows you will react to. I guess he is hoping you will post something that he can complain to the listowners about and get you warned or banned. U No. On several counts. Dude, that's totally your M.O. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: Fuck me if I didn't mention the biggest so-called ressurection in the book of lies. If you're trying to persuade me to your point of view, you just blew it with the fuck me. If there are 2 or more points of view being debated, the first one to use profanity loses me. Just throwing that out, so that if you're trying to persuade me of something in the future, you know what's going to backfire as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 08:16 am, Matt Grimaldi wrote: iaamoac wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks there are a bunch of atheists here who are attacking him. Now he posts something that he knows you will react to. I guess he is hoping you will post something that he can complain to the listowners about and get you warned or banned. U No. On several counts. Dude, that's totally your M.O. Yes, blatant trolling. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool ... The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more consideration that than any of the of the other absurdities? People don't walk on water without really advanced technology. It's absurd. And it fits in with other absurdities, like giants and satyrs. I think that the idea of talking dolphins is quite absurd, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Brin's writings. Uplift may well be impossible, but that doesn't make the books worthless or dangerous, does it? Morality and ethics don't require literal truth to be communicated. Would it be irrational to choose to follow the ethics of environmentalism, privacy and freedom as expressed in Earth, because it is fiction? Is it irrational to appreciate 1984 and Animal Farm as cautionary tales, since they are fiction (and the latter has absurd talking animals, darn it!). I don't spend much more time worrying about whether or not, or how, Jesus walked on water than I spend worrying about whether or not, or how, uplift is possible. Spending a lot of time and energy arguing about the literal truth of the Bible makes about as much sense to me as learning Klingon. It might be entertaining, a distraction or an intellectual exercise, but I don't believe it has anything to do with morality, ethics and other metaphysics. So, I'd certainly appreciate it if you'd recognize the lack of logic in your dismissal of all religion based on literalism. It most definitely is a straw man. I believe that the vast majority of religious people would agree with me because they are not the literalists you portray. It seems quite ironic to find such attitudes in a science fiction community! But perhaps the phrase science fiction is inherently ironic in the way that religious truth is. Nick Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: God, Religion, and Sports
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of William T Goodall I guess he is hoping you will post something that he can complain to the listowners about and get you warned or banned. U No. On several counts. Dude, that's totally your M.O. Yes, blatant trolling. For what it's worth, speaking personally, not in any sort of list manager role, I disagree. Like all of us, JDG sometimes speaks with unneeded hyperbole, but I don't infer that he's taunting or baiting, at least not intentionally. As far as hyperbole, I do think that statements like, has made Brin-L into an environment that I would consider 'hostile' to a religious person, and indeed, it has made Brin-L into a community that I would feel uncomfortable inviting fellow people of faith to join border on it. But he offers this as his point of view, not fact. From my point of view, we have a few people who are clearly hostile to religion, but that doesn't make Brin-L anything more than a reflection of the mix of world attitudes. At least we discuss religion here, which beats the heck out of communities that pretend it doesn't exist or those that can't touch on the subject without an immediate flame war. I would hope that people of faith would show up in all communities. In those that ignore faith, they can offer an alternative. In those that argue about it, they can present another point of view. In those that reject it, well, perhaps there's no point if the community explicitly rejects it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool ... The Bible makes all kinds of verifiably false assertions. So why should any one particular absurdity that he is putting forth merit any more consideration that than any of the of the other absurdities? People don't walk on water without really advanced technology. It's absurd. And it fits in with other absurdities, like giants and satyrs. I think that the idea of talking dolphins is quite absurd, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Brin's writings. Uplift may well be impossible, but that doesn't make the books worthless or dangerous, does it? Dr Brins works don't promote hate, bigotry, genocide, and slavery. Morality and ethics don't require literal truth to be communicated. Would it be irrational to choose to follow the ethics of environmentalism, privacy and freedom as expressed in Earth, because it is fiction? Is it irrational to appreciate 1984 and Animal Farm as cautionary tales, since they are fiction (and the latter has absurd talking animals, darn it!). I don't spend much more time worrying about whether or not, or how, Jesus walked on water than I spend worrying about whether or not, or how, uplift is possible. Spending a lot of time and energy arguing about the literal truth of the Bible makes about as much sense to me as learning Klingon. It might be entertaining, a distraction or an intellectual exercise, but I don't believe it has anything to do with morality, ethics and other metaphysics. I don't think the bible has anything to do with morality. Religion coops the ethics and morality of the people already there, or it withers. Once upon a time it morally OK to sell your daughters into slavery. The bible even dictates how you were to sell your daughter into slavery. So why don't people sell their daughters into slavery in the 21st century? So, I'd certainly appreciate it if you'd recognize the lack of logic in your dismissal of all religion based on literalism. It most definitely is a straw man. I believe that the vast majority of religious people would agree with me because they are not the literalists you portray. But the article JDG posted didn't deal with non-literal stuff like 'morality'. It dealt only in the literalness of miracles. Apply your thinking here to JDG's article and I think you will find a perfect fit. It seems quite ironic to find such attitudes in a science fiction community! But perhaps the phrase science fiction is inherently ironic in the way that religious truth is. SP: trvth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool ... Dr Brins works don't promote hate, bigotry, genocide, and slavery. Just as with any other book that promotes a strong point of view, I'm quite sure that David's books could be twisted to do so. Do you really think that the fact that people twist religious writing to their own purposes is peculiar to religious writing? Look how Ashcroft twists the words of the Constitution to suit the administration's purposes. Does that indicate that the Constitution is evil? The U.S. Constitution was once even interpreted to permit slavery! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Erik Reuter wrote: I suspect JDG is taunting you, Fool. Remember, he liked to provoke Jeroen and then complain to the listowners when Jeroen reacted. Recently, JDG posted his silly whining about how he thinks there are a bunch of atheists here who are attacking him. Now he posts something that he knows you will react to. I guess he is hoping you will post something that he can complain to the listowners about and get you warned or banned. JDG responded: U No. On several counts. Matt Grimaldi replied: Dude, that's totally your M.O. William T. Goodall responded: Yes, blatant trolling. While I think that JDG has stepped across the line into trolling before, I don't think this most recent incident qualifies. John posted a link and quote from an article that directly related to a conversation that had been ongoing on this list for a couple of weeks, and The Fool posted a blatantly straw-man reply to it. I called him on that, and The Fool responded again, and then Erik accused JDG of trolling. So Erik, how do you define trolling? Reggie Bautista _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:22:19AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I think that the idea of talking dolphins is quite absurd, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Brin's writings. Uplift may well be impossible, but that doesn't make the books worthless or dangerous, does it? Apples and oranges. There is a reasonable scientific basis for uplift, based on genetic engineering. Yes, it is beyond our current technology, but it is easy to see how it might be done after our GE technology and understanding of the brain has improved. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, this is a phenomenon that is experimentally verifiable, in stark contrast to most religious ideas which are specifically designed to be unverifiable. I don't spend much more time worrying about whether or not, or how, Jesus walked on water than I spend worrying about whether or not, or how, uplift is possible. It would be much more productive thinking about the uplift, since it could be a hugely beneficial advance for humanity someday. Spending a lot of time and energy arguing about the literal truth of the Bible makes about as much sense to me as learning Klingon. It might be entertaining, a distraction or an intellectual exercise, but I don't believe it has anything to do with morality, ethics and other metaphysics. Unfortunately, many religious people do not agree with you. So, I'd certainly appreciate it if you'd recognize the lack of logic in your dismissal of all religion based on literalism. Well, I'd certainly appreciate it if you accept that by choosing to associate yourself with religion, you are also choosing to associate yourself with all the baggage that comes with religion. And the majority of it is bad. It seems quite ironic to find such attitudes in a science fiction community! But perhaps the phrase science fiction is inherently ironic in the way that religious truth is. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of science if you think that people who like to speculate on future science and technology should also think religion is worthwhile. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:18:15PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: So Erik, how do you define trolling? How about when someone who has vehemently criticized others' ideas frequently for years whines about people criticizing his own beliefs? Or maybe there is another word for that... -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
The Fool wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: Fuck me if I didn't mention the biggest so-called ressurection in the book of lies. If you're trying to persuade me to your point of view, you just blew it with the fuck me. If there are 2 or more points of view being debated, the first one to use profanity loses me. Just throwing that out, so that if you're trying to persuade me of something in the future, you know what's going to backfire as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry. Apology accepted. Thank you. And I hope to see more stuff from you that does a better job of trying to persuade me of the correctness of your position; even if I end up disagreeing with you, you've made me re-examine my position, which is good to do on a regular basis, IMO. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:18:15PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: So Erik, how do you define trolling? How about when someone who has vehemently criticized others' ideas frequently for years whines about people criticizing his own beliefs? Or maybe there is another word for that... Projection? Projection with whining? Whiny projection? Or am I totally out of the ballpark? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Literalism (was RE: God, Religion, and Sports)
In a message dated 7/3/2003 10:15:08 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Behalf Of The Fool ... Dr Brins works don't promote hate, bigotry, genocide, and slavery. I do find it interesting that at the end of Heaven's Reach, Dr. Brin was killing off more aliens than if there had been one hundred thousand Hitlers. ...and in the name of the Old Ones' 'religion'. It's all how you want to look at it that leads to apriori conclusions. William Taylor - Now I've got a strange religion, I shall worship Walter Pigeon. Is he sacred? Well---a smidgen And that's good enough for me. --William Taylor, supposidly registered author, 1977 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least we discuss religion here, which beats the heck out of communities that pretend it doesn't exist or those that can't touch on the subject without an immediate flame war. Wait, how is this different from Brin-L again? Is Brin-L different simply because I and the few other people of faith on this List simply choose not to respond to the myriad flames that great any mention of religion on this List? The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent discussion of religion is simply not occuring from many of our resident atheists. Rather every mention of religion has been greated by flames - flames which have not been accompanied by even a modicum of serious content. Now, I suppose that I could have responded to these flames with flames of my own, and then everyone would recognize that the List has a problem on its hands, but I don't think that would be appropriate of me. Nevertheless, I don't think that the restraint of a List- Member or group of List-Members should change the basic fact that the Problem exists, whether or not the flames produce an actual all-out flame-war. Maybe everyone else here disagrees, but I believe that substance-less flaming, even when there is no return fire, nevertheless presents a problem. Still, I can't say that Brin-L is any different from any of those other communites you cite, Nick, where any mention of religion produces a flame-war. That's precisley what I see us as having here, and that's why I'm concerned. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
iaamoac wrote: The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent discussion of religion is simply not occuring from many of our resident atheists. Rather every mention of religion has been greated by flames - flames which have not been accompanied by even a modicum of serious content. John-- Frankly, I do see many of your posts as trolling. If you want a serious discussion, you have to try to meet others halfway. As I see it, you take an extreme position at the start, and then complain when you provoke a response. If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration. ---David CTHULHU IS LORD!!! (Now you say your god is best, and we have a flame war...) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
