"THIS is my Letter to the World!"

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.

Oh, and I ought to ask from whence does the phrase "religion is the
opiate of the masses" come from?


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:55:58PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.

I doubt I'm missing any important philosophical or ontological points.


Yes, I know. That's how I can tell you're missing them.

religious rant ripped

You seem to have fallen for the argument by arbitrary authority
fallacy. shrug NMF.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:58:16PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.


Oh, and I ought to ask from whence does the phrase "religion is the
opiate of the masses" come from?


Oh, you ought to, ought you? It came from someone who was a follower
of YOUR religion, of course.

I'm beginning to suspect that you might be trying to make fun of me
for some reason. Speculation on this point is futile, of course.

You SAY it came from someone of "[my] religion", but I don't think you
know what orthodox athiesm really means, and anyways my position
regarding the ontology is besides the point. I inquired as to its
origin and not on the belief system of its originator.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:54:33PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:58:16PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.


Oh, and I ought to ask from whence does the phrase "religion is the
opiate of the masses" come from?


Oh, you ought to, ought you? It came from someone who was a follower
of YOUR religion, of course.


I'm beginning to suspect that you might be trying to make fun of me
for some reason. Speculation on this point is futile, of course.


Oh, I'm making no more fun of you than seems merited.


You SAY it came from someone of "[my] religion", but I don't think you
know what orthodox athiesm really means, and anyways my position
regarding the ontology is besides the point. I inquired as to its
origin and not on the belief system of its originator.


Did you have a point in making the inquiry, or were you merely trying
to remedy yet another area of ignorance?

Knowing it's origin might help contextualize the nature of the remark,
and by extension the general bent of this thread. If you know who it
is but feel that it should remain classified in your brain, hey,
that's o.k. too. It's not like I tell you guys everything I know
either.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On 1/2/2012 8:52 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle wrote:
....

You seem to have fallen for the argument by arbitrary authority
fallacy.shrug NMF.


Nah. I'll leave that sort of thing to you religious fundamentalists
(of whatever stripe).


It says a lot about the universality of the religious impulse to talk to
strictly secular folks about e.g., biological systems. By doctrinal
reflex, many answer "that's evolution" to describe changes in biota that
have nothing what so ever to do with heritable changes.

Most people of either secular or conventionally religious inclination
don't understand the bases for their belief system very well and cling
to a simplified version that can be conveniently referred to without
much thought. Many religious folk do the same thing of course but
"science-ism" follows exactly the same pattern, rejecting challenges to
orthodoxy and holding autos de fe to identify and eject iconoclasts.

These don't of course represent the practice of real science but are
what people who "believe" in science do who have only a bystander's
appreciation for the core values of the scientific method and the
_reason_ why that method has so much power. In addition, like
traditional religious doctrine, "science-ism" asserts authority in areas
where science has nothing what so ever to say, for example about beauty,
justice or morals.

Paul

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:52:01PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:55:58PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.

I doubt I'm missing any important philosophical or ontological points.


Yes, I know. That's how I can tell you're missing them.

religious rant ripped

You seem to have fallen for the argument by arbitrary authority
fallacy. shrug NMF.


Nah. I'll leave that sort of thing to you religious fundamentalists
(of whatever stripe).

Is the best you can do to accuse me of religious fundamentalism?
While I think I understand the mindset, that's a far cry from actually
being one. Do you also accuse psychiatrists of being mentally ill
on the basis of their apprehension of their patient's ills?



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On 02/01/2012 22:41, Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 31 2011, 6:38 pm, wrote:
Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?


Science is based on fact.
Religion is based on faith.
That's why.

BB


That's not correct, and shows your lack of understanding
of religious philosophy, which is based on the subjective
observation of the sum total of the properties of the
universe. In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.

Have you even bothered to read how the Vatican defines God?
I bet you, like almost everyone responding to this thread, haven't
even spent ten minutes with it, yet somehow feel qualified
to judge.

It would be no different if I were to slam calculus as hooey
without having the foggiest idea what an integral is.

What I'm trying to say is that the two differ primarily
by the initial frame of reference. Science assumes upward
causation to allow objective precision. While religion
assumes downward causation and uses subjective
holism instead.

My hobby is math, not religion, and the latest non-linear
mathematics of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences use
a systems (holistic) frame of reference.

And as such Complexity Science logically is the combination
of classical reductionism and emergent holistic properties,
science and religion.


Jonathan











but religion still requires you to believe without proof. Which was
BB's point.

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 08:54:42PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:54:33PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:58:16PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.


Oh, and I ought to ask from whence does the phrase "religion is the
opiate of the masses" come from?


Oh, you ought to, ought you? It came from someone who was a follower
of YOUR religion, of course.


I'm beginning to suspect that you might be trying to make fun of me
for some reason. Speculation on this point is futile, of course.


Oh, I'm making no more fun of you than seems merited.


You SAY it came from someone of "[my] religion", but I don't think you
know what orthodox athiesm really means, and anyways my position
regarding the ontology is besides the point. I inquired as to its
origin and not on the belief system of its originator.


Did you have a point in making the inquiry, or were you merely trying
to remedy yet another area of ignorance?


Knowing it's origin might help contextualize the nature of the remark,
and by extension the general bent of this thread. If you know who it
is but feel that it should remain classified in your brain, hey,
that's o.k. too. It's not like I tell you guys everything I know
either.


Let me ask again. Did you have a point in making the inquiry, or were
you merely trying to remedy yet another area of ignorance?

Well, I'm always trying to reduce ignorance. That ought to go without
saying. If you don't want to reveal your sources that's fine. No
need to make a big deal out of it.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 08:57:37PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:52:01PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:55:58PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:45:22PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:


Complexity _theory_ is something else again. I'm sure there are
several ways of "reconciling" religion with science, but without
recognizing that magic is bull****, and that the mythology describes a
false ontology, you will be missing the point.


And by insisting that "magic is bull****" and "the mythology describes
a false ontology" in characterizing religion, you, too, are missing
the point.

I doubt I'm missing any important philosophical or ontological points.


Yes, I know. That's how I can tell you're missing them.

religious rant ripped

You seem to have fallen for the argument by arbitrary authority
fallacy. shrug NMF.


Nah. I'll leave that sort of thing to you religious fundamentalists
(of whatever stripe).


Is the best you can do to accuse me of religious fundamentalism?
While I think I understand the mindset, that's a far cry from actually
being one. Do you also accuse psychiatrists of being mentally ill
on the basis of their apprehension of their patient's ills?


I'm sorry the truth upsets you so, but it is what it is. Please
explain how YOUR view is different from that of any other religious
fundamentalist who denigrates those of different religious
persuasions.

I don't lean on belief or faith. I know things, give or take some
margin of uncertanty. The same cannot be said of religious types,
fundamentalist or otherwise.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years disposessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assasination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In article ,
says...

Why are science and religion still at odds?
When will we have a unified view?

This is off-topic for sci.space.policy, and likely the other groups as
well...

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker