Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Sam Harris lecture < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 756
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 05:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Found this via a web cartoon (Dresden Codak, a preposterously intriguing medium!).

I don't agree with everything he says, and the intro is more than a tad self important, but his basic tenet that religiousness, and even moderate religiousness, stands in the way of our development as humans of intellectual integrity, is one that resonates deeply indeed with me! :-)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8013281663903762676
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 1643
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 03:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I didn't have the patience to watch much but on the face of it I couldn't agree more. I am constantly baffled by intelligent seeming people believing religious writings/teachings etc.

Now I am pretty much as atheist as can be, but ironically, the big bang is probably the only thing that would make me think there is some kind of 'God'. But what I 'know' (in the same way that religious people know) is that every religion on this planet was created by man for man's own use and has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'God'. The fact that scientists will say that the writings in the bible are the word of God baffles me completely.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 758
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 04:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've been to a few weddings and funerals, and every time it's a sharp shock for me to see a seemingly adult person standing at the pulpit, preaching base superstition. It's like, most of the time, I can't really bring myself to think that some people actually, seriously, believe in this stuff, since it's something that I have no contact with in my daily life. Outta sight, outta mind. But on those few instances, it's thrown into sharp relief and I get kinda scared for our collective future.

I was recently at my grandmother's funeral, and I have to say that all the religious trappings got in the way of me getting to say a proper farewell to her. The pompous sermon, the silly hymns, the gaudy furnishings of the church... Why do matters of life and death have to be padded for us by religion? It cheapens the whole thing for me. Why pad it by saying "she's in a better place now", instead of celebrating the great cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth? It just angers me.

It was made all the worse by the fact that she wasn't even a religious person!!
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1238
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 08:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Steven Jay Gould used to point out that in the past, and we're talking up until only about 100 years ago, the average parent might bury 4 or 5 of his own children before they reached adulthood. A wave of flu or Yellow Fever might take 3 of your kids within a month or so, plus maybe your wife and a couple of siblings. Religion, with its rites and structure and sense of moral balance, helped people deal with it and not get paralyzed by fear or despair or rage.

I'm not trying to defend organized religion. One look at the religion-based strife in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, India, etc. and I'm ready to write off the lot. I'm just saying that it once had a very necessary role in holding people, as individuals and as societies, together.
"Yes, I am the slime from the video, oozin' along on the livin' room floor...."
 

Phil Lapp
Junior Member
Username: Phil_lapp

Post Number: 54
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 12:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think we can understand religion more when we look at the origins (time and place). The old testament, for example, seems reasonable when you think about nomads in the middle east looking for power over those that isolated them. Power came from force, not diplomacy. I sometimes look at it like astrology, when its really really dark out, all those stars do look like pictures in the sky. Maybe when it was really really dark back 4-5K years ago, bushes really did look like they were burning and speaking.

Frankly, I can't really see those pictures in the sky (and its pretty damn dark at my house) nor are my shrubs talking to me, lately. I suppose it all made sense for the time, but I don't find it particularly helpful in the current times.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 7241
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 01:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't want to totally dismiss the human need for spirituality, even if I sometimes have difficulty with the relevance of organized religion today.
 

Miker
Advanced Member
Username: Miker

Post Number: 659
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 02:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thought I posted this yesterday, but don't see it.

I was wondering what you meant exactly when you say, "rebirth" Joakim.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 762
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 07:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Miker, nothing metaphysical :-) Just the fact that old life goes away and new life steps up.

I too have no problems with any kind of personal spiritualism, but the large, organized religions with their dogma, their political ambitions, their certainty that they and nobody else is right, their willingness to cherrypick from their holy texts what coincides with their own morals/bigotry/agenda and conveniently forget the rest of it... Well, you get the picture.

Perhaps my biggest problem with it is that it so often is used as a pretext for people to act out their hate crimes. That is what really gets me, every time.

(Message edited by joques on June 12, 2007)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 1654
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 09:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well said
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 318
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 03:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah, I can see how folks these days would have a real issue with the morality around the 10 commandments and such.

Hell, I am really pissed about the one about "thou shall not kill".
This space open to interpretation
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 766
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 03:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron, thanks for making my point for me. Nowadays it seems that commandment reads: "Thou shalt not kill, except when it's really convenient to do so."

But then again, that's nothing new, the same doublespeak seems to have been the norm even in biblical times. If one is to take the Old Testament as a historic text, that is, which of course would be nonsense. The Old Testament isn't even remotely like an accurate description of the Middle East some 5000-2000 years ago.

If these moral rules were anything like absolutes, they might have a point. But they are only brought up when it's convenient to do so, and conveniently forgotten about the rest of the time. That is the hypocrisy of the organized religions that bugs me so.
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

THM
Junior Member
Username: Thm

Post Number: 51
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 04:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The great majority of religious folk tend to be good people that are quite capable of mindin' their own business and bein' kind. Many athiests are likewise good, kind people capable of mindin' their own business.

The problem lies with loudmouthed intolerant bigots. And they come in all flavors of "religion" includin' "athiest".

Joakim, how are yer loaded, anti-religious statements, not the intolerant flip-side of a preacherman spoutin' intolerance?
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 767
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 04:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

THM, you may have brought up a good point there! I'll have to sleep on that one and get back to you, off to the theater now :-)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 320
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 04:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"The Old Testament isn't even remotely like an accurate description of the Middle East some 5000-2000 years ago"

I wasn't alive then so I will hold of judging that comment.

"Joakim, how are yer loaded, anti-religious statements, not the intolerant flip-side of a preacherman spoutin' intolerance?"

Whoa, INCOMING!

Interesting how one side can claim the moral high ground while using the same exact tactics as the opposition they rail against.

Joakim, for reference - I believe in God but I do not believe in Church although I think the Church has brough many relevant morals to society as a whole. I also believe that their positive contributions greatly out weigh their negative contributions as well.
This space open to interpretation
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1241
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 08:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hell, I am really pissed about the one about "thou shall not kill".

Heh. Funny you should choose that one. Moses got some conflicting orders from God about that. Just to grab a chapter at random, try Numbers 25:

4 The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD's fierce anger may turn away from Israel."

5 So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor."

...

16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor."

That's just one chapter. It goes on and on like this. 1 Kings and 2 Kings are much, much worse. In some cases, God punished the kings of Israel because they DIDN'T kill everyone when they captured some town. God said "kill them all" and some hapless king took the women and children as slaves instead and God got pissed. It happened more than once. I can dig up the passages if you give me time.

Joakim didn't have it quite right. It isn't "Thou shalt not kill, except when it's really convenient to do so." It's "Thou shalt not kill, unless someone who claims to be a prophet tells you it is God's will}."
"Yes, I am the slime from the video, oozin' along on the livin' room floor...."
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 321
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

How about thou shall not steal? Just don't leave any brewing equipment around if I am there.

Anywhoos, it don't really matter.

Joakim, you were angry about religion being thrust upon you. Okay, so what? I get things thrust upon me everyday that I don't agree with; 99% of them I can do absolutely nothing about (legally that is).

I won't be here to respond until Monday as tomorrow is my 27th wedding anniversary and I will be busy doing things deemed appropriate by SHMBO.
This space open to interpretation
 

Marlon Lang
Member
Username: Marlon_lang

Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I listened to Mr. Harris.
It took three beers, but I listened to the whole thing.
There are a great many points with which I can agree.
There are those he cites in which God is vengeful and unmerciful, as Paul references. This certainly is in opposition to "God is love".
Perhaps man has always had a need to justify his existence in a manner that transends his fellow creatures. The "I think, therefore I am" syndrome. This feeling of superiority must result in some sort of afterlife concept. After all, how can a thinking being die? He must live on! Such expectations invariably lead to formalized religions. Lawrence Peter expounded on the mechanisms of hierarchal societies wherein the very existence of the group justifies the expansion and dominance of the dogma. In any religion, those who derive their livelihood from it must insure that it continues. So, it is in their best interest to suppress that which they deem hearsay even to the point of launching a holy war to eliminate the infidels. It dosen't matter who is "right", it only matters who wins.
Now, a question. I'm told that in one of the dead sea scrolls, there is an account of the Essenes in which, once a month, women were sent up to the top of the mountain to "ease their angst". The noun used in Aramaic for these women is the same noun that had been previously translated as "virgin".
Illegitimi non carborundum rectum
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 7267
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Amen, Brother (Father, whatever) Lang!
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 768
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 07:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

THM, I guess I can be a bit too acerbic sometimes when it comes to religion. It is not my intention to put down anybody's personal beliefs and if I came across as doing that, I do apologize.

Having said that, I guess the largest difference to an intolerant preacherman is that I do not threaten anybody with eternal suffering :-) I do not arbitrarily condemn other people's way of living their lives.

Now, the situation is probably very different in the US from Norway. Here, secularity is the norm (even if a large portion have not maybe put enough thought into it to go to the trouble of actually labeling themselves as atheists), and so those who are religious are maybe of a more extreme kind. Whereas it seems to me that in the US the norm is to be religious, so that the same sensible, middleground people who over here are secular, might in the US be religious. So we're viewing this from two opposite viewpoints. In my experience anybody who labels themselves as religious, is very likely to be a hard-core bigot. Whereas in the US that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

Now, one of the points where I disagree with Sam Harris is that religious people need to be called out and put on the spot at every opportunity. What I will do, however, is that any time a person uses their own, personal faith to label somebody else's life choices as immoral, I will step in and call them out on it. I might not let go in a hurry, either :-)

Ron, naturally I have no problems with thou shalt not steal. I basically have no problem with any of the commandments, except of course the one about not making an image of anything (thus making art illegal), which was conveniently edited out.

But do you really think that people need religion to figure out that those things are wrong?

Edit: Also, religion was never forced upon me, so I'm not angry about that. What angers me is when people use their own faith to condemn others' choices.

(Message edited by joques on June 15, 2007)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 769
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 07:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh, and amen Old Man Lang :-)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

dhacker
Advanced Member
Username: Dhacker

Post Number: 908
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 12:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Perhaps in the end it shouldn't be so much what WE want as individuals, but what the CREATOR wants that matters. Wouldn’t he want what’s best for us anyway? I suspect he has one set of standards that have never changed. Man on the other hand is always twisting and perverting what should be fairly straight forward principles to suit their self-serving needs.

I'm reminded of the Crosby, Stills, Nash song that says ". . . Too many people have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call . . ." That is a sad but true chronicle about religion in general. Frustration and apathy are the result. However, using the discerning powers we have been given, it becomes easy to identify which religions that claim to be acting in harmony with God's will, in fact are 180 degrees outta phase. I believe the scriptures in Matthew chapter 7 are pretty revealing.

“Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit."

I guess my point is that we shouldn’t ditch the idea of there being a real, true religion just because the vast majority are so insanely hypocritical. Anyone can claim to have gifted insight, we just have to put them to the test to see if they measure up!
 

Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett

Post Number: 1242
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 03:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Of all the *big* organized religions, Buddhism is my favorite. Part of the reason is that it is so avowedly pacifist (the anti-Tamil bigots in Sri Lanka are a very rare exception). But a bigger part is that the core teachings incorporate what dhacker says: Don't accept some self-proclaimed Teacher's dogma without question. Examine it, ponder it, and see if it rings true in your heart. Some sense of what dhacker calls the "real, true religion" will be in there and you will be able to see the false teachings from the true ones.

Of the *small* organized religions, "silent" Quakers are pretty much in the same camp. That's why you'll find me at the New Haven Friends' Meetinghouse most Sunday mornings.

Despite whatever impression my earlier posts may give you, spirituality is an important part of my life and I do appreciate the benefits of religious practice and community. I just can't accept the thought that the Creator has really ever said, "Kill them!! Kill them all!!" about anyone anywhere. And as refugee from a Roman Catholic upbringing, I have seen the damage from many Church-inspired actions short of that (cf, "The Magdelene Sisters"). The only religious teachings which ring true for me tend to fall into the "Love God. And love your neighbor as yourself." camp.
"Yes, I am the slime from the video, oozin' along on the livin' room floor...."
 

THM
Junior Member
Username: Thm

Post Number: 53
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 04:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In yer last message Joakim, you said "I do not arbitrarily condemn other people's way of living their lives." You do. You are intolerant of people with religious faith. You are so prejudiced of them as to post that are childish and a danger to us all. (I refer to yer second post in this thread.)

Joakim, when you wrote "you may have brought up a good point there! I'll have to sleep on that one and get back to you", my first thought was the difference is that you don't know, and are willin' to consider both sides. That is considerate, kind, and tolerant. Exactly what the world needs to get along.

Please extend that same tolerance to folks that believe things you don't, and hope for the same in return.

Religious folk have faith in somethin' they can't prove. Even non-religious believe things they can't prove.

Einstein layed down the truth, and intelligent, educated folk believed. Were they crazy to have faith in somethin' they couldn't prove? No. It was the best "picture" of reality at the time. Hawking has since layed Einstein low. It seems Hawking might have a better "picture" of reality. Are folk crazy to believe Hawking? Are the folk that still believe Einstein's "picture" crazy? No, and no.


I restate my orignal thesis: What people believe, or don't believe isn't the problem with mankind. Intolerant people are the problem.
 

THM
Junior Member
Username: Thm

Post Number: 54
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 04:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul, my hat is off to you sir.

Every time you open yer mouth my already high estimation of you goes up another notch.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 770
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 09:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

THM,

"You do."

I don't though. In the post you refer to, I am merely explaining my own, personal views on the matter, views which I am entitled to. I am not intolerant of people of faith, unless they try to force that faith on others. Which in my experience happens too often.

I'm sorry, but saying that my personal views are childish and a danger to us all, I am having trouble taking you seriously. Your analogy to Einstein is deeply flawed. If you really want to we can certainly get into why that is. But I don't want to turn this into a flame fest, so I'd really much rather take it to private email in that case.
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

THM
Junior Member
Username: Thm

Post Number: 55
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 01:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wow Joakim, I think you misinterpreted most everythin' I said.

I didn't say you were childish, or a danger, nor do I think any such thing.

I was pointin' out what you said about people of religious faith: "every time it's a sharp shock for me to see a seemingly adult person standing at the pulpit, preaching base superstition...I can't really bring myself to think that some people actually, seriously, believe in this stuff...I get kinda scared for our collective future." See? I was pointin' out that you called Christains children and dangerous, and I was suggestin' to you that it was an intolerant and prejudiced statement.

And, yes, I agree that you are allowed to think and feel whatever you want. And when you start publicly spoutin' prejudice I have every right to point it out. That's all.

I don't want a "flame fest" with you. I harbor no ill feelin's towards you either.

The only reason I brought up Einstein was to demonstrate that science, too, contains many beliefs that can't as yet be proved, yet intelligent, educated folk believe anyway. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's childish for christains to believe things they can't proove, then it's childish for scientists to believe things they can't proove.

If I have upset you I am truly sorry. That was not my intention. I should have known that no-one wants their intolerance pointed out, even when speakin' pubicly.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 771
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 02:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sorry about misinterpreting you. There is a word missing in that sentence that could make it swing either way :-)

Yeah, I guess I do find blind faith in unprovable laws a little childish (see below for scientific unprovables). And yes, I do believe that when blind, unwavering faith is as prevalent as it is, it may easily spell danger for our society as a whole.

So yes, I personally find religious people a little silly but harmless enough. That is my personal opinion. I reserve the right to state that opinion, but I do not berate religious people themselves just for the sake of it

The phenomenon of organized religion, on the other hand, is much more sinister. It goes where it has no business being. It infiltrates public schools, indoctrinating minors, shouldering aside science for religious dogma. That is dangerous. That is cause for alarm.

Now, when it comes to Einstein:

"The only reason I brought up Einstein was to demonstrate that science, too, contains many beliefs that can't as yet be proved, yet intelligent, educated folk believe anyway."

Relativity is maybe one of science's most well-proven theories!! :-)

Einstein became a heretic when he first came up with relativity. He never got the Nobel Prize for it. It took decades before his theories were acknowledged, and only after they had been subject to rigorous testing. You see, a good scientific theory is one that can be proven/disproven within a certain degree of certainty. Relativity has been proven as well as any scientific theory can ever be, to wit: It makes certain very specific predictions. Those predictions have been shown to be extremely accurate.

Just one tiny example. (I have this from a friend, who literally is a rocket scientist) GPS satellites move so fast that they are subject to relativistic effects. Not much, but enough that if allowances for time dilation weren't programmed into them, GPS wouldn't be nearly as accurate as it is.

Oh, and nuclear energy/weaponry? Founded in relativity.

You see, nobody takes Einstein on faith. If his theories weren't proven as thoroughly as they have been, they wouldn't still be in use.

As well as relativity explains some things, it doesn't explain everything. That's where Hawking comes in.

Now, there are plenty of scientific theories that haven't been subject to the same rigorous testing as relativity, which to a varying degree are taken on faith. Science is an ongoing work. I accept that.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree.


(Message edited by joques on June 16, 2007)
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan
 

marc pullum
Junior Member
Username: Brewinales

Post Number: 26
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 02:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I grok, you grok, we grok
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 7276
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 04:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was never a huge science fiction fan, but Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land is one of those works that transcends its genre. I reread it a few years back, and it holds up surprisingly well for something written almost 50 years ago. It has a lot of truth and thoughtfulness, although it's occasionally preachy and awkward.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 772
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 07:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Haven't read that one in a long time - great read! But I think I preferred Starship Troopers (veeery different from the movie!) for social commentary :-)

I like Heinlein, but he seems maybe a tad naïve sometimes...
For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to
excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice.
-Hobbes, Leviathan

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: