On Apr 19, 2005, at 12:03 AM, KZK wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
That's a good point. I'd ask you to think about something else,
though -- why do you consider yourself religious? I mean, if you
have some kind of faith, *why* do you have that faith?
Well, there's the question. A
Nick Arnett wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
That's a good point. I'd ask you to think about something else, though
-- why do you consider yourself religious? I mean, if you have some
kind of faith, *why* do you have that faith?
Well, there's the question. An honest answer has to include, "I don't
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:11:03 -0330, Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
> >To: Killer Bs Discussion
> >Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> >Date: T
Gary, et al,
Many Democrats also seem to be entering this theological debate -
after all it seems to be working for Republicans, just using as their
vision the more compassionate parts of the Bible and asking if their
opponents rhetoric matches their deeds.
It is true that desperate people who feel
I have heard very similar things said by Texas preachers here and it
is an easy mistake to make attributing it to James Watt. He had a
similar attitude toward the environment. Tracing back the original of
the remark attributed to Watt it has only been shown he did not make
that statement before C
maru wrote:
> "Since you must have known such a statement would not have
> been made and you refused or failed to do any primary research
> on this supposed quote, what was your motive in printing sSince
> you must have known such a statement would not have been made
> and you refused or failed to
r. And knowing the story
is false is a little heartening.
~Maru
Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5211218.html
Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN] | 30 Jan 2005
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the
d
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5211218.html
Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN] | 30 Jan 2005
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the
delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe,
to
sit in the seat of
> From: Deborah Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Did we conclusively establish that there are things
> > that are not provable,
> > Or did we prove that everything is ultimately
> > provable, if perhaps not quite yet?
>
> I think that everyone agreed that there are things we
> cannot pr
> Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Deborah Harrell
> > But, as others have said, there really
> is a
> > terror of the Unknown, and of uncertainty, that
> drives
> > the desperate need to proclaim that they have a
> handle
> > on the Absolute Truth. There was an interesting
>
On 8 Feb 2005, at 7:08 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Oddly I mostly find Erik's posts more comprehensible than yours.
Oddly I take that as a compliment. And if that's too subtle a
castigation for you to handle my sanctimonious friend, allow me a more
eye-catching debasement - kiss my ass.
See, you di
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:48:52 +
On 8 Feb 2005, at 6:25 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Thanks Bill, but I wasn't talking about reli
On 8 Feb 2005, at 6:25 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Thanks Bill, but I wasn't talking about religion per se. Consider my
previous comments a light form of derision regarding Erik's lack of
concision.
Oddly I mostly find Erik's posts more comprehensible than yours.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:12:12 +
On 8 Feb 2005, at 4:25 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I rather
On 8 Feb 2005, at 4:25 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I rather think that a society can get by without ANY ideologies.
Certainly England seems to be doing okay, and you Brits are much less
religious than Americans.
I haven't read this thread in its entirety yet (ju
From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:20:16 -0800
Kevin Street wrote:
I don't know. Somehow, I suspect human nature is basically the same today
as
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:09:51 -0700
On Feb 1, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
I think another fear involved is that of feeling
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:26:27 -0500
* William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In the case of the Soviet Union and the United States, fo
> From: Deborah Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > What so puzzles me about those who need/demand
> > > Absolute Certainty, is that my own faith - while
> > > it _can_ be comforting - constantly challenges my
> > > personal 'zone of comfort.'
> >
> > Interesting (I think) aside -- tho
At 07:51 PM 06/02/05 -0500, you wrote:
In a message dated 2/5/2005 12:50:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So, this tendency to hold onto "known truths" no matter how they are called
> into question by evidence is seen in many forms, not just religious or
> political. There
In a message dated 2/5/2005 12:50:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So, this tendency to hold onto "known truths" no matter how they are called
> into question by evidence is seen in many forms, not just religious or
> political. There are many times when the first criteri
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> On Feb 5, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > So, th
I always figured it was because of a 'race to the outside'- that is,
extremism wins more of your potential constituency than another guy's
more centrist approach. F'er example, a fellow like Bush will pick up
all the extremists and mid-right people in an election, but while the
centrist Republican
On Feb 5, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
So, this tendency to hold onto "known truths" no matter how they are
called
into question by evidence is seen in many forms, not just religious or
political. There are many times when the first criterion for accepting
evidence is whether or not it s
Hi Bob, Good to see you posting again. And thanks for stating some points
of mine better than I did. :-)
> But the difficulty is that the USSR made decisions on science based on
> poltiical beliefs. Genetics did not fit with the communist philosophy and
it was
> rejected.
I fully agree.
>The i
In a message dated 2/1/2005 2:25:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> We do have evidence of societies which were officially anti-religious.
> Marxist societies have tried to stamp out religion for years. We could
> contrast the attitude towards and the development of science
Kevin Street wrote:
In regard to the current American political situation with its split between
"red" and "blue" states, I agree with you. The division between teams of Us
and Them probably has more to do with basic human nature than the political
philosophies practiced by each party.
Consider th
They also have the best software.
~Open-source-using-commie Maru
Well, according to Bill Gates anyway
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:49:03 -0700, Kevin Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> All the cool people are commies now! You've got the carnivals and all the
> best music. *whine* Can I be a commun
>> Dan Minette wrote:
>>
>> In South America, membership in the Communist Party was a tacit
>> requirement for attendance at universities.
>
> Alberto Monteiro:
>
> In which Parallel Universe do you live? :-P
All the cool people are commies now! You've got the carnivals and all the
best music. *w
- Original Message -
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > In South America, memb
Dan Minette wrote:
>
> In South America, membership in the Communist Party was a tacit requirement
> for attendance at universities.
>
In which Parallel Universe do you live? :-P
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> -- is that human nature, which wants things to be polar and
> simple, is rebelling against all these fuzzy logics.
I was saying that that's how people are. But I think that's
cultural. ...
As far as I know, there are four different ways people decide one
thing is true, or good
On 3 Feb 2005, at 6:19 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
* William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
So what is non-religious?
As far as I can tell, there are three categories: Believers who are
confident enough to invest the time and money to practise it;
Believers who are not so sure, and who don't practise it (think 'agnostic');
People who don't believe, and so are atheists, even if they don't
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
>
&g
> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> > I think what Kevin was intimating -- and
> >definitely what I was thinking
> > -- is that human nature, which wants things to be
> >polar and simple, is
> > rebelling against all these fuzzy logics.
> I was saying that
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> Wow, a lot of words, without answering the question. I said
> "no
> Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >>> Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru ;-D
> >>
> >> No ... not that either.
> > Laddie, I am entitled to label my own brand of
> faith.
> > But I _am_ curious as to what you think it might
> be?
> I was thinking possibly s
Original Message -
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
>
>
> > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> &
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> I think what Kevin was intimating -- and definitely what I was
> thinking
> -- is that human nature, which wants things to be polar and simple, is
> rebelling against all these fuzzy logics.
Sort of, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that we want everything to
be p
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I didn't cherry-p
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I didn't cherry-pick some crazy group that happened to be atheistic. I
Prove it. What percentage of people who are non-religious are Marxist?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> * William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > In the case of
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I think what Kevin was intimating -- and definitely what I was thinking
-- is that human nature, which wants things to be polar and simple, is
rebelling against all these fuzzy logics.
I was saying that that's how people are. But I think that's cultural. People in other s
At 04:14 PM Wednesday 2/2/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
deliberately baiting me,* wrote:
> There isn't a why. Why is a tree? Why are horses?
> There isn't even a
> what -- what is the purpose of a horse?
Ah, that last question _has_ been answered!
"A horse is
On Feb 2, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru ;-D
No ... not that either.
Laddie, I am entitled to label my own brand of faith.
But I _am_ curious as to what you think it might be?
I was thinking possibly something pagan but not particularly
denominational, but
On Feb 2, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Kevin Street wrote:
I don't know. Somehow, I suspect human nature is basically the same
today as
it was ten thousand years ago, and it will remain that way for
thousands of
years to come if the species survives.
I was talking about human knowledge,
On Feb 1, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
A non-rational answer is, "It feels true."
Ah, but how much of that is it feeling true versus your sense of fair
play being appealed to? IOW how much of it is more "I *want* it to be
true" than "it feels true"?
There's part of me that doesn't want it
> We do have evidence of societies which were officially
> anti-religious. Marxist societies have tried to stamp out religion
> for years.
The Soviet Union was a country in which the state religion was
Marxism.
Marxism was not a very good religion and eventually it failed. It did
not last as lo
> Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
deliberately baiting me,* wrote:
> There isn't a why. Why is a tree? Why are horses?
> There isn't even a
> what -- what is the purpose of a horse?
Ah, that last question _has_ been answered!
http://www.geocities.com/WileyMike/2Windsong.html
Spirit
His
> Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> > What so puzzles me about those who need/demand
> > Absolute Certainty, is that my own faith - while
> > it _can_ be comforting - constantly challenges my
> > personal 'zone of comfort.'
>
> Interesting (I think) aside
Kevin Street wrote:
I don't know. Somehow, I suspect human nature is basically the same today as
it was ten thousand years ago, and it will remain that way for thousands of
years to come if the species survives.
I was talking about human knowledge, not human nature.
Specifically, with regard to th
Nick Arnett:
> I suspect that you're onto it, although I tend to believe there's a deeper
unpredictability present.
> For the last 10 years or so, I've grown increasingly convinced that we are
living in a time of
> astonishingly enormous transition. A simple version is that we are
learning to mo
At 08:04 PM Tuesday 2/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Dave Land wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:21 AM, kerri miller wrote:
Last time I was home in New England, a rather enlightened and liberal
place, free of most of the tr
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
A self-centered answer is, "I'm happier."
But are you really?
Oh, yes.
A non-rational answer is, "It feels true."
Ah, but how much of that is it feeling true versus your sense of fair
play being appealed to? IOW how much of it is more "I *want* it to be
true" than "it feel
On Feb 1, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
I think another fear involved is that of feeling/being
inferior. I have no studies to back this, but the
sample of extremist fundamentalists I personally know
*definitely* feel insecure about their own worth.
They're supposed to. They're supposed
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Dave Land wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:21 AM, kerri miller wrote:
Last time I was home in New England, a rather enlightened and liberal
place, free of most of the trappings of religiosity, I wandered past
a
couple deb
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
[nick]
Do you have an example of a religion-free culture to which we could
compare? Otherwise, it seems to me that there's little evidence to be
considered.
We do have evidence of societies which were officially anti-religious.
Marxist societies have
On Feb 1, 2005, at 11:43 AM, kerri miller wrote:
-kerri "the easter bunny dyed for your sins" miller-
Damn, woman, you nearly killed me there.
-- W (not duh-bya)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Feb 1, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
That's a good point. I'd ask you to think about something else,
though -- why do you consider yourself religious? I mean, if you have
some kind of faith, *why* do you have that faith?
Well, there's the question. An honest ans
I mean that it shuts down discussion, on whether evolution and your
conception of religion are opposed. It grates on me mentally like the
argument that God laid down the fossils. Maybe it's its effective
denial of Occam's razor- you: 'I don't think evolution and religion
conflict- after all, God c
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorr
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
>
> I rather think that a society can get by without ANY ideologies.
>
Maru Dubshinki wrote:
I think that's a bit disingenous- saying 'God created evolution' is on
par with 'God created 2+2' or 'God created the Law of the excluded
middle'. Evolution naturally falls out of things, like 1=1.
How can a statement of my belief ever be disingenuous? Doesn't that
adjectiv
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> Horn, John wrote:
>
> > This is one of the most terrifying things
> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [I think Nick wrote:]
> > I ask myself, what provokes widespread irrational
> > beliefs -- what are
> > these people reacting to? Some sort of vast sense
> > of helplessness?
> > Intuition tells me that fear underlies this, but
I'm
> > not at all s
I think that's a bit disingenous- saying 'God created evolution' is on
par with 'God created 2+2' or 'God created the Law of the excluded
middle'. Evolution naturally falls out of things, like 1=1.
~Maru
Microsoft delenda est.
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:08:13 -0800, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
* William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In the case of the Soviet Union and the United States, for example,
> there are several overwhelmingly more significant differences than the
> matter of religion to consider. So much so that I don't see how any
> conclusion at all could be reached a
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I see "religion v. evolution" as an irrational comparison. God created
> evolution, I believe, so it's not an either-or choice. Rejection of the
> reality of evolution, which is happening right now inside us, as our
> immune systems evolve defenses a
-
> Lots of us who believe that Jesus is alive (in a manner that I do not
> pretend to understand) are able to conceive of a Jesus who isn't Jor-El:
> He is not the disembodied head of Marlin Brando, hovering over us,
> looking disapprovingly at everything we do.
My new bumper sticker, thanks!
On 1 Feb 2005, at 7:25 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
We do have evidence of societies which were officially anti-religious.
Marxist societies have tried to stamp out religion for years. We could
contrast the attitude towards and the development of science in the
Soviet
Union and the United States for ex
> I ask myself, what provokes widespread irrational
> beliefs -- what are
> these people reacting to? Some sort of vast sense
> of helplessness?
> Intuition tells me that fear underlies this, but I'm
> not at all sure
> what fears are playing big roles today.
The first thought that comes to mi
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:21 AM, kerri miller wrote:
Last time I was home in New England, a rather enlightened and liberal
place, free of most of the trappings of religiosity, I wandered past a
couple debating whether Jesus would be upset with them fo
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> Erik Reuter wrote:
> > * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:21 AM, kerri miller wrote:
>
> > Last time I was home in New England, a rather enlightened and liberal
> > place, free of most of the trappings of religiosity, I wandered past a
> > couple debating whether Jesus would be upse
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
That's a good point. I'd ask you to think about something else, though
-- why do you consider yourself religious? I mean, if you have some kind
of faith, *why* do you have that faith?
Well, there's the question. An honest answer has to include, "I don't
know." I choose t
Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I don't think the answer can be "religion," as some would have it.
No doubt you have faith that religion isn't causing a lot of the
problems.
Of course, rational people would look at the evidence. William posted
some evidence just minute
On Feb 1, 2005, at 10:21 AM, kerri miller wrote:
Last time I was home in New England, a rather enlightened and liberal
place, free of most of the trappings of religiosity, I wandered past a
couple debating whether Jesus would be upset with them for buying
Easter
egg coloring kits.
Did you remind t
On Feb 1, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Horn, John wrote:
This is one of the most terrifying things I have read in a long,
long, LONG time.
Me too. Especially coming from Bill Moyers. The statistics really
stopped me.
Depressing, but not terrifying, I think. Just more evidence that
Ameri
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Horn, John wrote:
>
> > This is one of the most terrifying things I have read in a long,
> > long, LONG time.
>
> Me too. Especially coming from Bill Moyers. The statistics really
> stopped me.
>
> I'm religious, but I know the difference (I th
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't think the answer can be "religion," as some would have it.
No doubt you have faith that religion isn't causing a lot of the
problems.
Of course, rational people would look at the evidence. William posted
some evidence just minutes before your po
Horn, John wrote:
This is one of the most terrifying things I have read in a long,
long, LONG time.
Me too. Especially coming from Bill Moyers. The statistics really
stopped me.
I'm religious, but I know the difference (I think) between what is
irrational and what is non-rational. I'm deepl
> Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5211218.html
>
>
> One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the
> delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe,
to
> sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Fo
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5211218.html
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the
delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to
sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the
first time in our history, ideology and t
84 matches
Mail list logo
