"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:


Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

I do. They have the power to hold the attention of people for several hours
a day - not just on Sundays - they are a permanent topic of conversation and
newspaper and magazine articles, they influence people's thinking ... if you
don't have a TV you're regarded as someking of nutter

Deities don't have that power:-)

Mary

Ditto. If he is the big 'almighty' he wants to get his ass down here and start sorting out some of the things he's ****ed up on!

If he does exist (which I highly doubt) then he aint doing a very good job at all in my opinion! I mean what sort of tit lets an ungrateful lout win millions on the lottery whilst on the other hand allows a load of people to starve to death in Africa!!!

He's got alot to answer for!

In article ,
Guy King wrote:
The message om
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

Basicly it makes an association between three concepts: the concepts of
God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that
perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails
existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence.

Hang on a minute - the first stage of the argument, "perfection is part
of the concept of God" presupposes that there is a god. I deny such a
supposition.

Before you go *any* further could I please dish out a modicum of a warning.
When I first read Descartes it was obvious that he was wrong. Then I studied
some of his work at University (first year) and appreciated that I had been
naive. He was wrong - but for quite a different reason. In the second year I
realised that my conclusion in the first year was also naive but - looking at
his ideas in more depth - he was still wrong. My third year of study brought a
new analysis. There is far more to Descartes' arguments than I could ever have
appreciated before; he was (obviously) quite wrong in his arguments but, the
obvious reasons that had been clear to me previously were also quite obviously
missing the point entirely.
For the fourth (research) year I chose to study Wittgenstein - but Descartes
still made an appearance. There was still enough work to do on Descartes to
dismiss the conclusions of year 3 but was he wrong or right? That depended on
exactly how you presented his ideas and that required much more insight into
the assumptions that he really makes (rather than those you assume from your
quite different social and psychological circumstances).

I still think he was wrong - but that's just for me. What is clear is that all
the times I dismissed his ideas earlier it was me that was wrong.

Perhaps if I can find a fifth year course I'll really understand what he was
on about ... ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:22:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:


Take for instance the TV that you gave as an example previously.
You claim to be a card carrying physicist but if I asked you to
explain in scientific detail how a television worked, then you'd be
left in a difficult position.

I wouldn't. I can tell you in detail *how* every single part of it works
up to an including the quantum theory inherent in the semicobductors.

That's my point and also why I would remain unconvinced by your
explanation.

I can't of course tell you *why* it works..why the world happens to be
the way it happens to be, though.

Excuse me for not previously making it clear that I also meant *why*.


But 'why' is such a HUMAN word.

Yes, I'll go along with that.

It
already implies design, and purpose..the moment we ASK the question WHY
is the world the way it is, we already IMPLY the existence of a God like
being with Manlike purpose who made it that way...there is indeed the
trap of false logic that leads to God.

Asking why means that I believe in a false god. Nice one! :-)


The world is the way it is because it has to be some way or it wouldn't
be a world, and presumably its the way it is because if it wasn't, it
wouldn't be.

Verging on de Selby-esqe but OK.

If being dismissive and waving your scientist badge didn't work and
you had to come up with the goods you'd resort to quoting from
publications and documents that you don't fully understand.

I have made it a point to try and fully understand everything I have
ever come across that is relevant to what I need to do. Especially
religion and philosophy and science.

So have religious fanatics.


Nothing in science precludes the idea of *A* god, but an awful lot of it
definitely counter-indicates the existence of *THE CHRISTIAN GOD*.

Particularly the one that the literal Christians believe in, who made
the world 5000 years ago in 7 days.

So of all the gods that don't exist, that one doesn't exist most?

Documents
that will leave a lot of questions unanswered because human knowledge
doesn't extend far enough to fill in the blanks. You will accept the
validity of the contents of the documents as a matter of faith because
you are a scientist.

No, *I* won't. Fortuntately, unlike Religion of the Deocentric sort,
Science has a philosophy behind it which is actively pursued and
developed by people whose main purpose is to prevent science from
becoming an act of blind faith. Now faith in the existence of the world
as a valid concept is of course necessary for the pursuit of science,
and faith in the evidence of ones own experience also. In fact Science
is merely the logical examination of that experience insofar as it is
agreed upon by enough people to become reliable. That is all. Science
merely notes at the philosophical level that there is no *need* to
introduce an *anthropic* Power into the philosophical mix, in order to
explain our experience of the world.
And it does not rely on bad logic, or emotional arguments either.

My argument isn't against science, because I have neither the time
inclination or ability to develop, sustain and conclude such an
argument. My argument is against people who use science as a religion
to protect and advance their own interests.


How does that make you different from some
adherent to a faith based religion?

If it were true, it would not. However it is patently not true.

I hold that it's true, based on rational observation and you haven't
convinced me otherwise.

It is a complete mistake that nearly all Christians make, about science.

Lacking intellectual capacity, they find it inconceivable - literally -
that anyone can see the world through the cold and crystal clear eyes of
logic. They cannot accept that there is no Daddy, that nothing matters a
twopenny **** in any cosmological sense, and that whether they live or
die, sinner or saint, is of absolutely no concern to anyone who is not
directly or indirectly affected by their actions.

Its called emotional immaturity..

You're just a full of **** defective human being like the rest of us.
Come out from behind that badge.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that other people are just like you,
or even remotely like you. You have NO idea how far down other roads it
is possible for a man to go.

So you can make assumptive claims about what is and is not, based upon
your experience and interpretation of reality but caution me against
doing so myself. That makes scientists like yourself a special case,
which is the central problem that I was attempting to draw attention
to.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:35:20 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:


Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

I do. They have the power to hold the attention of people for several hours
a day - not just on Sundays - they are a permanent topic of conversation and
newspaper and magazine articles, they influence people's thinking ... if you
don't have a TV you're regarded as someking of nutter

Deities don't have that power:-)

Mary



--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes

raden wrote:
In message .com,
Tournifreak writes
There is no evidence. Only faith/superstition/whatever you were brought up
with.

That's quite a statement to make. Are you really saying that there is
"no evidence" for the truth of Christianity? (Or Islam/Judaism?) To say
you think the evidence is insufficent to convince you is one thing, but
to say there's no evidence at all is very brave.

I presume he means real, hard tangible evidence of a god, the sort of
thing which would stand up to scientific scrutiny

Well, that's not what he actually said, but you're probably right. I
await his answer.

Nothing which should be too difficult for an all powerful omnipresent
being to provide

What would you like God to do?

He could go on Parkinson,

He sent his son, David Icke, or was that on Wogan? LOL

MBQ

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:


Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

I do. They have the power to hold the attention of people for several hours
a day - not just on Sundays - they are a permanent topic of conversation and
newspaper and magazine articles, they influence people's thinking ... if you
don't have a TV you're regarded as someking of nutter

Deities don't have that power:-)


Well that makes them doubly useless then doesn't it?
No fun, and impotent with it.
:-)
Mary

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:27:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:

Let me try to make it easier for you by using terms you'll be familiar
with in your comfy realm.

Is it not possible that god is a scientist conducting an experiment in
which we are a part?

Yes, its also possible that he is a Nazi concentration camp guard
torturing inmates because he can, and has no feeling for them whatsoever.

Its also possible that we are the residue on the Petri dish of life, and
will be scrapped shortly.

Its also possible that the world was created in a nanosecond just one
second ago, and everything you think you know about it was put in your
head by a clever genius trickster, whose one idea is to make you dance
to his tune.

Its also possible that the world doesn't exist at all, just a big dream
of it and its all in your head, and I am a figment of your imagination.

If we are going to talk possibilities, why stop with one?

No, please, don't stop, do carry on!

I can't promise to take it all in but who'd want to spoil your fun?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

Mike Halmarack wrote:

I can't of course tell you *why* it works..why the world happens to be
the way it happens to be, though.

Excuse me for not previously making it clear that I also meant *why*.


But 'why' is such a HUMAN word.

Yes, I'll go along with that.

It
already implies design, and purpose..the moment we ASK the question WHY
is the world the way it is, we already IMPLY the existence of a God like
being with Manlike purpose who made it that way...there is indeed the
trap of false logic that leads to God.

Asking why means that I believe in a false god. Nice one! :-)

Yes. It does. Deal a pack of cards. They fall in a particular order. The
chances of them falling in that order are astronomically small. You maye
never ever deal the same hand again in a lifetime of card playing.

Why did they fall that way? Just the luck of the draw.

The had to fall SOME way though.



The world is the way it is because it has to be some way or it wouldn't
be a world, and presumably its the way it is because if it wasn't, it
wouldn't be.

Verging on de Selby-esqe but OK.

If being dismissive and waving your scientist badge didn't work and
you had to come up with the goods you'd resort to quoting from
publications and documents that you don't fully understand.
I have made it a point to try and fully understand everything I have
ever come across that is relevant to what I need to do. Especially
religion and philosophy and science.

So have religious fanatics.


No, they don;t understand in the same way. They start with a
presupposition which is is never questioned, and reduce everything to
that ..

Science, at its most basic level, accepts its presuppositions as ad hoc,
and temporary, and necessary for the purposes of doing science. In the
limit, it does not adduce to them the properties of absolute truth however.


Nothing in science precludes the idea of *A* god, but an awful lot of it
definitely counter-indicates the existence of *THE CHRISTIAN GOD*.

Particularly the one that the literal Christians believe in, who made
the world 5000 years ago in 7 days.

So of all the gods that don't exist, that one doesn't exist most?

Its not a question of whether God exists or not. That is ultimately
(unless you come up with a physically testable proposition as to what
you mean by God - a limited and very bounded definition - not almighty
etc) an undecidable proposition.

What is at issue if you want to appraich God froma scientific
perspective is

- is it a necessary entity to introduce (it isn't)
- does it lead to any better understanding of science, and new models
that can be tested for invalidity (it doesn't).

The fundamentalists god who did the creation bit and managed to stuff
the entire land born ecosystem onto a 300 foot long wooden ark, is
basically a proposition that is bounded enough to be completely refuted
by any science that *does not include the ability to create and change
the laws of nature as we know them to be these days, at some
indeterminate point in the past*.

At that pint you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. Either the
laws of nature can be broken at will and in totally random fashion by a
whimsical god, or they can't be. Scientists shrug and move on
quickly..there is very little point in doing science if a quick prayer
and a miracle invalidates it all. However when dealing with the world,
we have made better progress in many areas by ruthless application of
logic to the presumed immutable natural laws, than by prayer. I've
prayed many times that weeds would vanish from my garden, but somehow
its easier and more effective to pull them up.


Documents
that will leave a lot of questions unanswered because human knowledge
doesn't extend far enough to fill in the blanks. You will accept the
validity of the contents of the documents as a matter of faith because
you are a scientist.
No, *I* won't. Fortuntately, unlike Religion of the Deocentric sort,
Science has a philosophy behind it which is actively pursued and
developed by people whose main purpose is to prevent science from
becoming an act of blind faith. Now faith in the existence of the world
as a valid concept is of course necessary for the pursuit of science,
and faith in the evidence of ones own experience also. In fact Science
is merely the logical examination of that experience insofar as it is
agreed upon by enough people to become reliable. That is all. Science
merely notes at the philosophical level that there is no *need* to
introduce an *anthropic* Power into the philosophical mix, in order to
explain our experience of the world.
And it does not rely on bad logic, or emotional arguments either.

My argument isn't against science, because I have neither the time
inclination or ability to develop, sustain and conclude such an
argument. My argument is against people who use science as a religion
to protect and advance their own interests.

Fair enough. There are plenty of hucksters hiding behind science as
there are plenty hiding behind religion.

However that is not what cutting edge science, and particularly the
philosophy of science is all about.



How does that make you different from some
adherent to a faith based religion?
If it were true, it would not. However it is patently not true.

I hold that it's true, based on rational observation and you haven't
convinced me otherwise.


And I never will, since you have predicated your conclusions on an
assumption that you simply refuse to allow to be challenged.

It is a complete mistake that nearly all Christians make, about science.

Lacking intellectual capacity, they find it inconceivable - literally -
that anyone can see the world through the cold and crystal clear eyes of
logic. They cannot accept that there is no Daddy, that nothing matters a
twopenny **** in any cosmological sense, and that whether they live or
die, sinner or saint, is of absolutely no concern to anyone who is not
directly or indirectly affected by their actions.

Its called emotional immaturity..

You're just a full of **** defective human being like the rest of us.
Come out from behind that badge.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that other people are just like you,
or even remotely like you. You have NO idea how far down other roads it
is possible for a man to go.

So you can make assumptive claims about what is and is not, based upon
your experience and interpretation of reality but caution me against
doing so myself. That makes scientists like yourself a special case,
which is the central problem that I was attempting to draw attention
to.


I am merely saying that a ruthless intellectual honesty is the way
science at its core tries to behave. You have clearly stated that this
is not so, that it is a faith based religion like any other. I have
merely stated that for you to say that, implies to me a certain
intellectual and probably emotional immaturity.

In that it was something I myself, with a struggle, grew out of.

You can't explain sex to a 2 year old adequately..you can't explain
colour to a blind man...you can't explain ruthless intellectual honesty
and philosophy to a Believer.


Either you are after the truth, or you are after an all encompassing
explanation. If you set out to travel to Cork, its no use ME pointing
out the way to Dublin...and explaining why its a better place to go..

YOU are asking *why*..I say its a stupid childish question, and has no
actual meaning. If you make that question all important, you either end
up with a bull**** answer like 'God Wills it' , a silly answer like
'becuase' or with luck, a clip round the earhole from Life, and a
realization that the actual answer is in why on earth you wanted to ask
such a damn fol question in the first place.

YOU need a guru who will pester you with questions like 'what is the
sound of one hand clapping' until you punch him on the nose for giving
you the most important answer in life - that no one actually knows
anything for sure, and looking for absolute answers is a waste of your
time and his.

But you won't go seeking one...the one overriding impression I have had
from all deeply faithful people, is that they have relaxed, stopped
trying, and accepted an Answer to many questions that I still ask,
because the Answer is no answer at all at an intellectual level. Its
merely a way to stop them asking the questions and get on with dong
something more useful.

You have to get out beyond all this religious stuff.."when I became a
man, I put away childish things"..public consumption religion is dumbed
down ****e for intellectual dwarves. Grow up, and start getting to grips
with the REAL mysteries, not simply accept a fairy story and shuffle
through life hoping for something good to happen after death.

Better still study almost any OTHER religion that
Islam/Christianity..they are the dumbest of the lot. Judaism Lite, for
weenies and barbarians.. Even the mystical side of Judaism
(Torah/q'balah) is far more profitable.

But I'd rate Taoism and Buddhism as the most modern, frankly, in their
purest form. They at least take an experimental and sort of scientific
approach to spirituality..

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:52:02 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Perhaps if I can find a fifth year course I'll really understand what he was
on about ... ;-)

Didn't he wander the east as a pilgrim occasionally teaching
philosophy in payment for food?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:27:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher


If we are going to talk possibilities, why stop with one?

No, please, don't stop, do carry on!

I can't promise to take it all in but who'd want to spoil your fun?

:-)

"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:35:20 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:


Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

I do. They have the power to hold the attention of people for several
hours
a day - not just on Sundays

You've been exorcised of yours haven't you?

It was self exorcism, we had one for three years then realised we weren't
watching it. Just something else to gather dust. And pay for the privilege.

- they are a permanent topic of conversation and
newspaper and magazine articles, they influence people's thinking ...

Terrifyingly so.

if you
don't have a TV you're regarded as someking of nutter

Or more importantly a licence evader.

LOL Yes - but since we're not that's not important.

Deities don't have that power:-)

Deities are so... yesterday. They don't have quantum physically
developed semi conductors.

Oh.

Are those what you need to be up to date?

I bow to your greater knowledge :-)

In that case I'm so ... yesterday ... too. But that's self evident

Mary

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
The message om
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

Basicly it makes an association between three concepts: the concepts of
God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that
perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails
existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence.

Hang on a minute - the first stage of the argument, "perfection is part
of the concept of God" presupposes that there is a god. I deny such a
supposition.

Before you go *any* further could I please dish out a modicum of a warning.
When I first read Descartes it was obvious that he was wrong. Then I studied
some of his work at University (first year) and appreciated that I had been
naive. He was wrong - but for quite a different reason. In the second year I
realised that my conclusion in the first year was also naive but - looking at
his ideas in more depth - he was still wrong. My third year of study brought a
new analysis. There is far more to Descartes' arguments than I could ever have
appreciated before; he was (obviously) quite wrong in his arguments but, the
obvious reasons that had been clear to me previously were also quite obviously
missing the point entirely.
For the fourth (research) year I chose to study Wittgenstein - but Descartes
still made an appearance. There was still enough work to do on Descartes to
dismiss the conclusions of year 3 but was he wrong or right? That depended on
exactly how you presented his ideas and that required much more insight into
the assumptions that he really makes (rather than those you assume from your
quite different social and psychological circumstances).

I still think he was wrong - but that's just for me. What is clear is that all
the times I dismissed his ideas earlier it was me that was wrong.

Perhaps if I can find a fifth year course I'll really understand what he was
on about ... ;-)

My take on all these guys is that they go looking for a single valued
worldview, based on an assumption.

Each one makes a different assumption, and comes up with a different
worldview.

My way out of the mess was to come up with a theory that says that you
have to make *some* assumption to *have* a worldview. And you *have to
have* a worldview to operate as humans do. The assumption you make
determines how the world appears to you to be. However, you can never
ever be sure that the assumption was valid, and, indeed, for the purpose
of various different activities, you may modify the assumption and have
the world present itself to you in entirely different ways.

Believing in God is one of those assumptions. It changes the world from
an uncertain, dangerous place, with no discernible reason for its
existence, into one where beauty and harmony can be seen in every single
facet, where your life is reduced to a simple faith and a process of
tuning yourself up to meet your inevitable death, comforted by the
thought that someone is always watching over you, and always will be,
and will gather you back to suck on the Great Tit of Heaven once you
can't hack it anymore.

I just say that good as that is, it remains only one of many assumptions
it is possible to make, as a human being. Been there, done that, got the
T-shirt, now whats next?

;-)

Same with the philosophers. All rational discussion has to star with
agreed axioms. 'A priori' etc.

Only Kant really excited me as seeming to appreciate the problem and
tackle the nature of why we make a priori assumptions at all, and
categorise experience...

"Something is happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you. Mr
Jones" is about as far as I think its posible to go...;-)

Plus the cryptic comment from teh neo magical orders "reality is what
you think it is"

Mike Halmarack wrote:
Deities don't have that power:-)

Deities are so... yesterday. They don't have quantum physically
developed semi conductors.


Or do they?

If they did, they might be more relevant and interesting..

Statement from a top mathematician

"The world appears to be about 10 to the power 60 more complex than it
needs to be to support human life"

Umm. Perhaps what humans do and humans think is completely and utterly
irrelevant.

Try that for humility.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:57:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

YOU need a guru who will pester you with questions like 'what is the
sound of one hand clapping' until you punch him on the nose for giving
you the most important answer in life - that no one actually knows
anything for sure, and looking for absolute answers is a waste of your
time and his.

I do wish you'd 've explained this earlier. Apologies for troubling
you.

By the way, did I explain somewhere that I was a religious person who
believed in God, or did you just intuit it scientifically?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:05:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:35:20 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:27:12 GMT, raden wrote:


Do you assume that I think TV's are magic?

I do. They have the power to hold the attention of people for several
hours
a day - not just on Sundays

You've been exorcised of yours haven't you?

It was self exorcism, we had one for three years then realised we weren't
watching it. Just something else to gather dust. And pay for the privilege.

- they are a permanent topic of conversation and
newspaper and magazine articles, they influence people's thinking ...

Terrifyingly so.

if you
don't have a TV you're regarded as someking of nutter

Or more importantly a licence evader.

LOL Yes - but since we're not that's not important.

Oh, of course, because you don't have a telly you don't realise that
there's a hit squad heading through underground passages coming to
swing a battering ram at your front door. You're obviously losing out
on the educational value of TV. :-)

Deities don't have that power:-)

Deities are so... yesterday. They don't have quantum physically
developed semi conductors.

Oh.

Are those what you need to be up to date?

I bow to your greater knowledge :-)

I can't claim all the kudos for this. Someone clued me up recently.

In that case I'm so ... yesterday ... too. But that's self evident

Mary

Easy solution. Change your name to Kirsty.

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:14:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:
Deities don't have that power:-)

Deities are so... yesterday. They don't have quantum physically
developed semi conductors.


Or do they?

If they did, they might be more relevant and interesting..

Statement from a top mathematician

"The world appears to be about 10 to the power 60 more complex than it
needs to be to support human life"

Umm. Perhaps what humans do and humans think is completely and utterly
irrelevant.

Try that for humility.

You seem to have more than enough humility for both of us. :-)
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Occams razor is either something you accept, or you don't ;-)

I prefer to wield it like a 1950s Teddy Boy in Brighton on a Saturday night.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

You do not arrive at god by thinking,

No, but you can leave by thinking.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article , Mike Halmarack ...
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:52:02 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Perhaps if I can find a fifth year course I'll really understand what he
was on about ... ;-)

Didn't he wander the east as a pilgrim occasionally teaching philosophy in
payment for food?

Is that in the unpublished bit - or is it the film version?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

The message
from Cordless Crazy contains these
words:

Ditto. If he is the big 'almighty' he wants to get his ass down here
and start sorting out some of the things he's ****ed up on!

Like the design of the human body, for a start. It's a complete bodge,
as you'd expect from something made from the parts bin each bodge
tottering on top of the previous one. A tidal-flow respiratory system! I
ask you, what a dumb move. Properly designed humans would have a
through-flow system like fish. Gills below your ribs would mean you
could have lungs about a third of the size of existing systems, leaving
more room for a properly orgainised digestive system.

And don't get me started on the immune system. Barely scrapes by from
day to day and has a wobble when badly challeneged. And as for the
spine....

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
My way out of the mess was to come up with a theory that says that you
have to make *some* assumption to *have* a worldview. And you *have to
have* a worldview to operate as humans do. The assumption you make
determines how the world appears to you to be. However, you can never
ever be sure that the assumption was valid, and, indeed, for the purpose
of various different activities, you may modify the assumption and have
the world present itself to you in entirely different ways.

As usual Wittgestein got there first ...

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - proposition 6.54:
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me eventually recognises them as nonsensical, when he
has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak,
throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world
aright.


Of course teachers have always appreciated that you have to get kids to accept
something they cannot possibly understand to serve as that ladder for
everything else that they need to know.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Cordless Crazy" wrote in message
...

Guy King Wrote:
The message
from "Tournifreak" contains these words:

What would you like God to do?

Well, if he has to do anything, existing would be a good start.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Ditto. If he is the big 'almighty' he wants to get his ass down here
and start sorting out some of the things he's ****ed up on!

If he does exist (which I highly doubt) then he aint doing a very good
job at all in my opinion! I mean what sort of tit lets an ungrateful
lout win millions on the lottery whilst on the other hand allows a load
of people to starve to death in Africa!!!

He's got alot to answer for!

Hmm. So your god has a willy.

Hmmm ...



--
Cordless Crazy

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from Cordless Crazy contains these
words:

Ditto. If he is the big 'almighty' he wants to get his ass down here
and start sorting out some of the things he's ****ed up on!

Like the design of the human body, for a start. It's a complete bodge,
as you'd expect from something made from the parts bin each bodge
tottering on top of the previous one. A tidal-flow respiratory system! I
ask you, what a dumb move. Properly designed humans would have a
through-flow system like fish. Gills below your ribs would mean you
could have lungs about a third of the size of existing systems, leaving
more room for a properly orgainised digestive system.

And don't get me started on the immune system. Barely scrapes by from
day to day and has a wobble when badly challeneged. And as for the
spine....

Then there are (some) brains ...

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:05:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Oh, of course, because you don't have a telly you don't realise that
there's a hit squad heading through underground passages coming to
swing a battering ram at your front door.

No need for that, they just need to come through the gate and ring the bell
as the last chap did. But he didn't even want to come in the house, I
insisted. Said he could tell we were telly-less folk. It's his job, I
suppose he can recognise the signs.


You're obviously losing out
on the educational value of TV. :-)

So they say.

Trouble is, we've taken part in so many tv programmes that I know it's all a
sham.

Deities don't have that power:-)

Deities are so... yesterday. They don't have quantum physically
developed semi conductors.

Oh.

Are those what you need to be up to date?

I bow to your greater knowledge :-)

I can't claim all the kudos for this. Someone clued me up recently.

Oh - you're privileged in that case.

In that case I'm so ... yesterday ... too. But that's self evident

Mary

Easy solution. Change your name to Kirsty.

?

Oh! She's Sam's girl friend iinnit - ex Tom's? Not talking to Brenda ...No
thanks, not my type.

Or perhaps you meant another Kirsty. I admit to not understanding. It's all
that lead in organ pipes.

Mary

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:17:29 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Mike Halmarack ...
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:52:02 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Perhaps if I can find a fifth year course I'll really understand what he
was on about ... ;-)

Didn't he wander the east as a pilgrim occasionally teaching philosophy in
payment for food?

Is that in the unpublished bit - or is it the film version?

Something about "I think there for a yam"?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:44:52 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:05:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Oh, of course, because you don't have a telly you don't realise that
there's a hit squad heading through underground passages coming to
swing a battering ram at your front door.

No need for that, they just need to come through the gate and ring the bell
as the last chap did. But he didn't even want to come in the house, I
insisted. Said he could tell we were telly-less folk. It's his job, I
suppose he can recognise the signs.

Perhaps he times the visit to coincide with a famous signature tune.

You're obviously losing out
on the educational value of TV. :-)

So they say.

Trouble is, we've taken part in so many tv programmes that I know it's all a
sham.

So, do you keep video tapes for posterity?

Deities don't have that power:-)

Deities are so... yesterday. They don't have quantum physically
developed semi conductors.

Oh.

Are those what you need to be up to date?

I bow to your greater knowledge :-)

I can't claim all the kudos for this. Someone clued me up recently.

Oh - you're privileged in that case.

That's for sure! :-)


In that case I'm so ... yesterday ... too. But that's self evident

Mary

Easy solution. Change your name to Kirsty.

?

Oh! She's Sam's girl friend iinnit - ex Tom's? Not talking to Brenda ...No
thanks, not my type.

Or perhaps you meant another Kirsty. I admit to not understanding. It's all
that lead in organ pipes.

No, that's exactly the right Kirsty but I'd understand if you'd rather
suck on a lead pipe. :-)
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

In article , Mary Fisher
wrote:

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is :-)

Quite. It is the dolphins.


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:44:52 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:05:36 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Oh, of course, because you don't have a telly you don't realise that
there's a hit squad heading through underground passages coming to
swing a battering ram at your front door.

No need for that, they just need to come through the gate and ring the
bell
as the last chap did. But he didn't even want to come in the house, I
insisted. Said he could tell we were telly-less folk. It's his job, I
suppose he can recognise the signs.

Perhaps he times the visit to coincide with a famous signature tune.

It was a Sunday morning I think. Sunday anyway.

You're obviously losing out
on the educational value of TV. :-)

So they say.

Trouble is, we've taken part in so many tv programmes that I know it's all
a
sham.

So, do you keep video tapes for posterity?

We've been given a couple, the first from National Japanese TV (a friend
played it but couldn't understand the commentary!) I lent the second to
someone and don't think it came back. I've never asked for tapes.

shrug



In that case I'm so ... yesterday ... too. But that's self evident

Mary

Easy solution. Change your name to Kirsty.

?

Oh! She's Sam's girl friend iinnit - ex Tom's? Not talking to Brenda
...No
thanks, not my type.

Or perhaps you meant another Kirsty. I admit to not understanding. It's
all
that lead in organ pipes.

No, that's exactly the right Kirsty but I'd understand if you'd rather
suck on a lead pipe. :-)

er ...

Perhaps I should get a telly. As a neighbour said, "You HAVE to have one,
it's our culture." He's Italian.

Mary

The message
from "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" contains these words:

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is :-)

Quite. It is the dolphins.

And of course, the white mice.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article ,
Guy King wrote:
The message
from Cordless Crazy contains these
words:

Ditto. If he is the big 'almighty' he wants to get his ass down here
and start sorting out some of the things he's ****ed up on!

Like the design of the human body, for a start. It's a complete bodge,
as you'd expect from something made from the parts bin each bodge
tottering on top of the previous one. A tidal-flow respiratory system! I
ask you, what a dumb move. Properly designed humans would have a
through-flow system like fish. Gills below your ribs would mean you
could have lungs about a third of the size of existing systems, leaving
more room for a properly orgainised digestive system.

And don't get me started on the immune system. Barely scrapes by from
day to day and has a wobble when badly challeneged. And as for the
spine....

It's not bad for a non-designed system though! ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Guy King wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

You do not arrive at god by thinking,

No, but you can leave by thinking.

Truer than I suspect you know ;-)

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" contains these
words:

I just can't believe that humans are the most superior power there is
:-)

Quite. It is the dolphins.

And of course, the white mice.

Somebody had to say it. It's in the programming.

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

It's not bad for a non-designed system though! ;-)

It scrapes along, but in no sense of either word is it "good design".
It's what it is, a collection of historical accidents all piled on top
of each other, smoothed over by habitutation.

If we were souls[1] shopping around for a body, we'd fall flat on our
not-yet-extant arses laughing if the salesangel[2] tried to fob this one
off on us.

[1] For the sake of argument, not that such things exist.
[2] Likewise

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

It's not bad for a non-designed system though! ;-)

It scrapes along, but in no sense of either word is it "good design".
It's what it is, a collection of historical accidents all piled on top
of each other, smoothed over by habitutation.

habitutation?

Wossat?

If we were souls[1] shopping around for a body, we'd fall flat on our
not-yet-extant arses laughing if the salesangel[2] tried to fob this one
off on us.

What would you prefer?

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
There are no reasoned arguments about religion. Think about it for a
while.

Those who argue against religious beliefs are the ones who should do the
thinking. We've already done it.

Then you have no reason. How many religions are there in the world with
each and every one being the 'true' one? So all those believers have done
their 'reasoning' and think they're right?

What's your problem?

I don't have any need to try and enforce my views on others. If
'religions' did the same I'd have no problem.

--
*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
There are no reasoned arguments about religion. Think about it for a
while.

Those who argue against religious beliefs are the ones who should do the
thinking. We've already done it.

Then you have no reason. How many religions are there in the world with
each and every one being the 'true' one?

Are they?

So all those believers have done
their 'reasoning' and think they're right?

You don't understand. Every one is right for the individual.

What's your problem?

I don't have any need to try and enforce my views on others. If
'religions' did the same I'd have no problem.

Have I tried to enforce my views on you? I don't need to :-)

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...



I don't have any need to try and enforce my views on others. If
'religions' did the same I'd have no problem.

Have I tried to enforce my views on you? I don't need to :-)

.... But many round here seem to want to force their views on believers.

They should save their finger ends, it won't work!

Mary Fisher wrote:

..... But many round here seem to want to force their views on believers.

You appear to be suffering from some sort of visual deficiency. The
religious maniac was trying to force his beliefs upon the rational. Why
don't you try believing in something real? Like developing an abiding
and sincere faith in bed knobs for instance? At least that way you'd
have something to show for it.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:27:05 +0100, Guy King
wrote this (or the missive included this):

The message
from Cordless Crazy contains these
words:

Ditto. If he is the big 'almighty' he wants to get his ass down here
and start sorting out some of the things he's ****ed up on!

Like the design of the human body, for a start. It's a complete bodge,
as you'd expect from something made from the parts bin each bodge
tottering on top of the previous one. A tidal-flow respiratory system! I
ask you, what a dumb move. Properly designed humans would have a
through-flow system like fish. Gills below your ribs would mean you
could have lungs about a third of the size of existing systems, leaving
more room for a properly orgainised digestive system.

And don't get me started on the immune system. Barely scrapes by from
day to day and has a wobble when badly challeneged. And as for the
spine....

And as for combining excretory, procreational and recreational
functions in the same organ, sheesh!


--
®óñ© © ² * ¹°°³