Letters to the Editor
-
What blinds you is your think you are always correct because you are (supposedly) educated Part One
But you’re mistaken on a few items there. You don’t understand Taliesan’s point. First, the issue of positive assertion – these are all that can be proven. One cannot prove a negative. I don’t think you realized how you contradict yourself here:
“Can something exist, but be unprovable to exist? Sure, science history is littered with things which seemed not to exist but which science has proven since that they DO exist.”
The answer you are looking for is that something can exist that has not yet been proven to exist, but also that anything that does exist can be proven to. One cannot, however, prove the negative: that something nonexistant does not exist.
Where do we disagree? You cannot prove something that does not exist, indeed does not exist. You also cannot prove that something that exists, does not exist just because you have not proven it to exist.
As for “lefties” not being able to believe someone being much smarter than them, I think that’s a mistaken impression as well. They (and I, though I’m a centrist) can’t believe that someone with any significant intelligence can believe in creationism, whatever dumb label gets pasted on it.
What's to believe? I was raised Catholic and I was raised leftist. I can believe all of it (Darwin, ID) or none of it or parts of all of it, to me there is no contradiction to any of it and I refuse to falsely pick a side because reality is nearly always stranger than one simple answer.
Why would you have to be stupid to believe we may live inside a Matrix life simulation? This makes no sense. Why argue against it? No need for a god or a belief in this case, just a so-far unproven theory.
And what would be your definition of a “godlike creature”?
Would it matter? We probably could not even comprehend it if it stood in front of us. The clue is in how deeply strange subatomic reality is, how utterly illogical it is. This is a clue that our brains developed inside a bubble of perception, that we do not perceive all of reality, the strangenes sand wonder of it, but a small chunk. Anything sufficiently more advanced than us would likely not be recognizable by us at all as anything we are capable of understanding. Why try to guess what it is?
I, and I suspect many others, don’t buy into this tripe for a variety of reasons – the majority of which have three major categories. The first of these would be the untrustworthy nature of the public figures in religion. The majority if not the entire constituency of public religious figures have at one time or another let the curtain slip and demonstrated their hypocritical and dishonest nature. So yes, that generates a prejudice against the concept. When all the messengers seem crooked, the message gets tainted. It’s not a few wingnuts, it’s a sizeable portion of the community.
1. They are closer to this spirit stuff everyday, so they might be more prone to subconsciously rebelling against it. This does not negate the reality they might cleave to.
2. There is no room in science for prejudice. You let YOUR slip show there.
3. Why call it tripe? Again, you hate this, so of course you will seek every reason to negate it. You call that science? You wingnuts are the ones with the PhDs, you would think someone of your stature could see your own colorations of reality. But you can't just punch your way out of that paper bag, can you...
4. You shoot a gun 100 times in 100 directions and never hit a barn. Does this mean no barns exist ANYWHERE? God you people are stupid. Thank god I gave up on you overschooled freaks a long time aago, seeing the massive blinding egos behind everything you misconceive.
The second is that the stories purveyed by various religionists are just demonstrably false. Noah’s ark held two of every species and all their food for forty days? False. World flood? False. Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel? False. Earth is flat and the heavens rotate around it? False. Earth is 6,xxx years old? False. It goes on and on.
So because these are fables meant to convey a concept in simple terms, does not mean there is no underlying reality or possibility of it. I am not saying it proves any of this stuff in the Bible actually happened. I was not there. They also left a lot of stuff outof the Bible too. Standards of journalism have evolved significantly in 2000 years. Heck, three see an accident today, the next day you hear three different stories of what actually happened. Can you imagine what crossing languages and eons of time does to a story?
-
Part Due
Third is exactly as Taliesan pointed out – if there is a god, and it is interested in being heard correctly and without taint to its message, then it can deliver that message itself. To everyone. Not just the precious few who live in Israel, or those who buy into Joseph Smith’s dippy gold plates, or those who happen to have had access to a copy of the New or Old Testament (in one of its many translations and transcriptions). Everyone.
Again, your arrogance fools you. Who are you to assume what a god must do or not do? Maybe the gods in question DID create the Earth, as a sort of betting parlor. They merely throw out contradictory fables so civilizations attack each other and the gods place bets on us all. Hence the secrecy and contradicting stories. Does this disprove or prove they did NOT create all you see? I wasn't there.
I think you’ll find that there isn’t any ego involved in that, it’s simple logic. The ego is in the arrogant presumption that we humans are important enough that this vast universe was created simply as a stage for some perverted morality play. The ego grows when it gets presumed that only those with the one, special book are the ones who get “blessed” with going to heaven.
You are dangerous if you are so blind to your massive ego and arrogance.
Seems to me that for someone as concerned about the interests of the country and the people of the USA, you’d be a little more critical of the stories you get sold. As to whether you don’t have any vested interest in creationism, I’m going to call it like I see it: you’re lying. That you refer to evolution as “Darwinism” and seem to consider “lefties” to be whacko, tells me loads right there. Sorry, kid, but you walk like a duck and talk like a duck – you’re a duck.
I never buy anything. I think most people are idiots and dupes. I only have a sci-fi-ish belief in this being a very very strange planet.
Lefties ARE whacko and dangerous. Righties ARE whacko and dangerous. What is untrue about any of this?
Vested interest in creationism? What, because I refuse to outright say it does not exist? Again, who the fuck am I to arrogate such a statement? Who is ANYONE to pull such a stunt?!?
Study up on evolution, “BrightStar”, you might learn a thing or two. Not the least item of which is that it is almost never an issue of “hook, line, and sinker” with science – and items within science that meet that definition get crushed in short order by scientists. Religion, on the other hand, encourages us all to believe in the funny story about the sky god who cares when you touch yourself, and who will reward you with your own personal habitrail when you die - and then demands that you not ask questions.
I know more about evolution, DNA, biology than you batclown. I am fascinated by it all and read as much as I can in my spare time on science in general.
As for religion, most of it is batty power games and assholes lying so they can control people. The Left is its own religion too.