[urbanrealtor]

[quote=larrylujack][quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable?[/quote]
I don’t there needs to be (in fact, “explaining” the unknowable sounds like and exercise in irony (or a Gary Larson cartoon).I was suggesting that apprehending the unknowable (which to me is akin to building a conceptual interface to deal with it) is a way of describing the role of religion.
[quote=larrylujack] And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. [/quote]I think this is intuitive and obvious.
[quote=larrylujack] What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? [/quote] No. I was not asserting that. I don’t want this to turn into a lower-division philosophy/rhetoric class but that sounds like an “either/or” fallacy. My point was that the domain of one is squarely outside the domain of the other. Science cannot meaningfully answer questions of “why am I here” (I mean other than threadjacking and selling condos). Similarly, Religion is a crappy model for studying primitive achuelean tool industry (or neutrinos, or geophysical phenomena).
[quote=larrylujack]If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.
[/quote] Well if I were presenting it as a model to answer the unknowable, then you might have a point. Throwing in the towel only applies in a fight. I don’t see this as a fight.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=larrylujack][quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable?[/quote]
I don’t there needs to be (in fact, “explaining” the unknowable sounds like and exercise in irony (or a Gary Larson cartoon).I was suggesting that apprehending the unknowable (which to me is akin to building a conceptual interface to deal with it) is a way of describing the role of religion.
[quote=larrylujack] And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. [/quote]I think this is intuitive and obvious.
[quote=larrylujack] What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? [/quote] No. I was not asserting that. I don’t want this to turn into a lower-division philosophy/rhetoric class but that sounds like an “either/or” fallacy. My point was that the domain of one is squarely outside the domain of the other. Science cannot meaningfully answer questions of “why am I here” (I mean other than threadjacking and selling condos). Similarly, Religion is a crappy model for studying primitive achuelean tool industry (or neutrinos, or geophysical phenomena).
[quote=larrylujack]If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.
[/quote] Well if I were presenting it as a model to answer the unknowable, then you might have a point. Throwing in the towel only applies in a fight. I don’t see this as a fight.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=luchabee]Concering the asshole response above, either “Gandy” has very poor reading comprehension skills or was crying when he/she typed it out.[/quote]

Making a response that is equivalent to his and saying he is a crybaby does not do much to make your case stronger.

So here is a question for you:

Which of these conflicts you (or your book really) mention did NOT involve religious people as a major component?
I can’t see any of these as being an indictment of atheism or anything other than a political dispute.

And the assertion that political dispute leads to death is intuitive.

Its neither revolutionary nor insightful.

Communism is primarily political and economic. The
religious component was not generally enforced very effectively (eg: Cuba and China). There were authoritarian attempts to restrict religion but none were successful in achieving this.
This is why the Pope was elevated in Poland. It was known that having a dissident in a position of religious authority gave him some level of political immunity (though certainly not complete). The importance of the solidarity movement was a huge consideration to the Vatican in their choice.

There is one movement that is conspicuously absent from the stats and the book. That is national socialism. This is a right wing movement. To my knowledge this is the only political movement in the 20th century that had atheism as a successfully (defined as near universally) adopted component.

Here is a better list of the dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

My question is which of these major events had atheism as a major point of contention?
As far as I can tell, only WWII and that was with the atheist right wing.

The assertion that the left is somehow an atheistic death dealer does not appear a tenable one.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=luchabee]Concering the asshole response above, either “Gandy” has very poor reading comprehension skills or was crying when he/she typed it out.[/quote]

Making a response that is equivalent to his and saying he is a crybaby does not do much to make your case stronger.

So here is a question for you:

Which of these conflicts you (or your book really) mention did NOT involve religious people as a major component?
I can’t see any of these as being an indictment of atheism or anything other than a political dispute.

And the assertion that political dispute leads to death is intuitive.

Its neither revolutionary nor insightful.

Communism is primarily political and economic. The
religious component was not generally enforced very effectively (eg: Cuba and China). There were authoritarian attempts to restrict religion but none were successful in achieving this.
This is why the Pope was elevated in Poland. It was known that having a dissident in a position of religious authority gave him some level of political immunity (though certainly not complete). The importance of the solidarity movement was a huge consideration to the Vatican in their choice.

There is one movement that is conspicuously absent from the stats and the book. That is national socialism. This is a right wing movement. To my knowledge this is the only political movement in the 20th century that had atheism as a successfully (defined as near universally) adopted component.

Here is a better list of the dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

My question is which of these major events had atheism as a major point of contention?
As far as I can tell, only WWII and that was with the atheist right wing.

The assertion that the left is somehow an atheistic death dealer does not appear a tenable one.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=luchabee]Concering the asshole response above, either “Gandy” has very poor reading comprehension skills or was crying when he/she typed it out.[/quote]

Making a response that is equivalent to his and saying he is a crybaby does not do much to make your case stronger.

So here is a question for you:

Which of these conflicts you (or your book really) mention did NOT involve religious people as a major component?
I can’t see any of these as being an indictment of atheism or anything other than a political dispute.

And the assertion that political dispute leads to death is intuitive.

Its neither revolutionary nor insightful.

Communism is primarily political and economic. The
religious component was not generally enforced very effectively (eg: Cuba and China). There were authoritarian attempts to restrict religion but none were successful in achieving this.
This is why the Pope was elevated in Poland. It was known that having a dissident in a position of religious authority gave him some level of political immunity (though certainly not complete). The importance of the solidarity movement was a huge consideration to the Vatican in their choice.

There is one movement that is conspicuously absent from the stats and the book. That is national socialism. This is a right wing movement. To my knowledge this is the only political movement in the 20th century that had atheism as a successfully (defined as near universally) adopted component.

Here is a better list of the dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

My question is which of these major events had atheism as a major point of contention?
As far as I can tell, only WWII and that was with the atheist right wing.

The assertion that the left is somehow an atheistic death dealer does not appear a tenable one.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=luchabee]Concering the asshole response above, either “Gandy” has very poor reading comprehension skills or was crying when he/she typed it out.[/quote]

Making a response that is equivalent to his and saying he is a crybaby does not do much to make your case stronger.

So here is a question for you:

Which of these conflicts you (or your book really) mention did NOT involve religious people as a major component?
I can’t see any of these as being an indictment of atheism or anything other than a political dispute.

And the assertion that political dispute leads to death is intuitive.

Its neither revolutionary nor insightful.

Communism is primarily political and economic. The
religious component was not generally enforced very effectively (eg: Cuba and China). There were authoritarian attempts to restrict religion but none were successful in achieving this.
This is why the Pope was elevated in Poland. It was known that having a dissident in a position of religious authority gave him some level of political immunity (though certainly not complete). The importance of the solidarity movement was a huge consideration to the Vatican in their choice.

There is one movement that is conspicuously absent from the stats and the book. That is national socialism. This is a right wing movement. To my knowledge this is the only political movement in the 20th century that had atheism as a successfully (defined as near universally) adopted component.

Here is a better list of the dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

My question is which of these major events had atheism as a major point of contention?
As far as I can tell, only WWII and that was with the atheist right wing.

The assertion that the left is somehow an atheistic death dealer does not appear a tenable one.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=luchabee]Concering the asshole response above, either “Gandy” has very poor reading comprehension skills or was crying when he/she typed it out.[/quote]

Making a response that is equivalent to his and saying he is a crybaby does not do much to make your case stronger.

So here is a question for you:

Which of these conflicts you (or your book really) mention did NOT involve religious people as a major component?
I can’t see any of these as being an indictment of atheism or anything other than a political dispute.

And the assertion that political dispute leads to death is intuitive.

Its neither revolutionary nor insightful.

Communism is primarily political and economic. The
religious component was not generally enforced very effectively (eg: Cuba and China). There were authoritarian attempts to restrict religion but none were successful in achieving this.
This is why the Pope was elevated in Poland. It was known that having a dissident in a position of religious authority gave him some level of political immunity (though certainly not complete). The importance of the solidarity movement was a huge consideration to the Vatican in their choice.

There is one movement that is conspicuously absent from the stats and the book. That is national socialism. This is a right wing movement. To my knowledge this is the only political movement in the 20th century that had atheism as a successfully (defined as near universally) adopted component.

Here is a better list of the dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

My question is which of these major events had atheism as a major point of contention?
As far as I can tell, only WWII and that was with the atheist right wing.

The assertion that the left is somehow an atheistic death dealer does not appear a tenable one.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]… the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. …[/quote]

mmm… Sacralicious

(Homer Simpson)

As an agnostic liberal leftist, I really have to agree with Allan here.

It is true that science and religion came from the same place. They were both ways to address and explain the unknown. The point with Mendel the monk is well taken. It was not very long ago that religion and science were indistinguishable as disciplines.
However, these days, they really seek to deal with different tasks. Science quantifies the known and religion seeks to apprehend the unknowable. Faith in a model of the unknowable is, by definition, impossible to disprove.

The real dispute here appears to be the encroachment of one onto the territory of the other. Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.

Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]… the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. …[/quote]

mmm… Sacralicious

(Homer Simpson)

As an agnostic liberal leftist, I really have to agree with Allan here.

It is true that science and religion came from the same place. They were both ways to address and explain the unknown. The point with Mendel the monk is well taken. It was not very long ago that religion and science were indistinguishable as disciplines.
However, these days, they really seek to deal with different tasks. Science quantifies the known and religion seeks to apprehend the unknowable. Faith in a model of the unknowable is, by definition, impossible to disprove.

The real dispute here appears to be the encroachment of one onto the territory of the other. Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.

Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]… the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. …[/quote]

mmm… Sacralicious

(Homer Simpson)

As an agnostic liberal leftist, I really have to agree with Allan here.

It is true that science and religion came from the same place. They were both ways to address and explain the unknown. The point with Mendel the monk is well taken. It was not very long ago that religion and science were indistinguishable as disciplines.
However, these days, they really seek to deal with different tasks. Science quantifies the known and religion seeks to apprehend the unknowable. Faith in a model of the unknowable is, by definition, impossible to disprove.

The real dispute here appears to be the encroachment of one onto the territory of the other. Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.

Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]… the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. …[/quote]

mmm… Sacralicious

(Homer Simpson)

As an agnostic liberal leftist, I really have to agree with Allan here.

It is true that science and religion came from the same place. They were both ways to address and explain the unknown. The point with Mendel the monk is well taken. It was not very long ago that religion and science were indistinguishable as disciplines.
However, these days, they really seek to deal with different tasks. Science quantifies the known and religion seeks to apprehend the unknowable. Faith in a model of the unknowable is, by definition, impossible to disprove.

The real dispute here appears to be the encroachment of one onto the territory of the other. Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.

Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]… the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. …[/quote]

mmm… Sacralicious

(Homer Simpson)

As an agnostic liberal leftist, I really have to agree with Allan here.

It is true that science and religion came from the same place. They were both ways to address and explain the unknown. The point with Mendel the monk is well taken. It was not very long ago that religion and science were indistinguishable as disciplines.
However, these days, they really seek to deal with different tasks. Science quantifies the known and religion seeks to apprehend the unknowable. Faith in a model of the unknowable is, by definition, impossible to disprove.

The real dispute here appears to be the encroachment of one onto the territory of the other. Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.

Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this.

[urbanrealtor]

Yes those are the ones I was thinking of.

Seeing them together always makes me want to go to confession.

As a resident of North Park, I can see where you would say that.

Mission Hills has that old money element that I find so weirdly stimulating.

It is interesting to look at the large homes in MH and compare them to Hillcrest.

The HC houses are chopped up from the 30s to become boarding houses. The MH houses are still in one piece.

As a professional it is a kick to review.

[urbanrealtor]

Yes those are the ones I was thinking of.

Seeing them together always makes me want to go to confession.

As a resident of North Park, I can see where you would say that.

Mission Hills has that old money element that I find so weirdly stimulating.

It is interesting to look at the large homes in MH and compare them to Hillcrest.

The HC houses are chopped up from the 30s to become boarding houses. The MH houses are still in one piece.

As a professional it is a kick to review.

[urbanrealtor]

Yes those are the ones I was thinking of.

Seeing them together always makes me want to go to confession.

As a resident of North Park, I can see where you would say that.

Mission Hills has that old money element that I find so weirdly stimulating.

It is interesting to look at the large homes in MH and compare them to Hillcrest.

The HC houses are chopped up from the 30s to become boarding houses. The MH houses are still in one piece.

As a professional it is a kick to review.

[Author]

Posts