T1B

poptart wrote:

KC Scott wrote:
THAT is what our church is focussed on. That, and little boys.

Money....? pffft......, except when I can take it away from fags.

FTFY, holy man.

Tom In VA wrote:

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Money....? pffft......

Pfffft? Been to the Vatican? Nice place.

The Vatican is HQ, it's like the Pentagon.

St. Patricks ain't exactly a poorhouse either.

Isn't the RCC the single largest landowner in the world?

No, dumbass, it isn't

Mister Bushice wrote:Isn't the RCC the single largest landowner in the world?

My bet's on the ACC and their superior jump shooters.

Voice of Reason wrote:Like I said yesterday...you clearly have no understanding of what makes up a sound, or cogent, logical argument.

Unsupported and ad hominem. Why not toss in a "neener, neener" while you're at it, Slick?

Again, your scientist in question is making a hypothesis BASED ON EVIDENCE. The evidence, in this case, is the observations of the life on this planet AND, the observations about the physical makeup of other planets

Fact: no planet has ever been found that matches our makeup geologically, chemically, or climatologically. To assume that life on any other planet -should it be found- would be just like ours is illogical.

AND the observations that there ARE other planets in other solar systems AND that they are numerous.

Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous" and do not remotely appear to fit the category of being like our planet (if that's your criteria for a planet that has extraterrestrial life).

Since my colleague made the positive existential statement that there must be life on other planets, all he has to do is give some scientific evidence - biochemical, mechanical, etc. Mathematical conjecture based on numbers he pulled out of his ass does not qualify. At all.

Your argument of project observed qualities of humanity is bullshit BEACUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING to project them on.

Sure I do. In fact, our culture, like most others, merely portrays their deities as being some ultra-manifestation of themselves - hence the popular debate about whether God created us in His image or did we create God (gods?) in ours? Anger, benevolence, jealousy, willingness to forgive, desire to make deals, other personality traits...all properties that we have projected onto our deities, including the Judeo-Christian YHVH. Didn't you ever study Greek or Roman myths? Where do you think the qualities of the gods came from, if not from extrapolations of humanity?

Your statement that I "DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING to project them on" shows an amazing level of ignorance.

Can you really be this dense?

Kind of an ironic question, coming from someone whose own cranial density increasingly appears close to that of iridium.

BTW, since you seem so enamoured of my colleagues mathematical arguments, how 'bout this?: divide the finite number of beings on this planet by the infinite size of the universe and, by the mathematical calculation, we get a result of no beings in the universe (anything divided by infinity is so close to zero as pretty much to BE zero...). Douglas Adams rocks.

rozy wrote:CHA-CHING!!!

You're getting your ass kicked all over the place and this is what you offer? This all started because you disputed something KCScott posted about your religion. You disputed his post without offering a counter-argument and instead diverted the conversation to make it appear like you're leading him around like a little puppy. With every post you make, you look more and more like a fucking idiot.

Go back to the post that started this all and produce your counter argument you fucking pussy.

I suspect that you don't have one, or the conversation never would have went this direction.

Since my colleague made the positive existential statement that there must be life on other planets, all he has to do is give some scientific evidence - biochemical, mechanical, etc. Mathematical conjecture based on numbers he pulled out of his ass does not qualify. At all.

My only problem with your colleague would be his use of the word "must."

It's possible. It might even be likely.

And "faith" has nothing to do with it.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Douglas Adams rocks.

10 pages of this shit before I found something I could agree with. :D


"People tend to disagree a lot when it comes to the topic of religion."

M.A.


Carry on....

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Fact: no planet has ever been found that matches our makeup geologically, chemically, or climatologically. To assume that life on any other planet -should it be found- would be just like ours is illogical.

Who said the life has to be just like ours?

Lizard King wrote:

rozy wrote:CHA-CHING!!!

You're getting your ass kicked all over the place and this is what you offer? This all started because you disputed something KCScott posted about your religion. You disputed his post without offering a counter-argument and instead diverted the conversation to make it appear like you're leading him around like a little puppy. With every post you make, you look more and more like a fucking idiot.

Go back to the post that started this all and produce your counter argument you fucking pussy.

I suspect that you don't have one, or the conversation never would have went this direction.

To the original point, solely for your sake, I will address it simply as Poptart has.

KC Scott wrote:
As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

You see no problem with the bolded parts?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous"...

At least 120 planets have been discovered in 2004 outside of our own solar system, probably even more by now. Given the limited technology we have, the number easily qualifies as "numerous."

When your local RC parish takes up a collection for sick and elderly priests.. ask the pastor to define sick before you fork over your cash.

60-70% of the collection baskets from these special collections go towards the privately run treatment facilities run by certain diocese (usually rich ones) where they hide all of the pervert priests.

You can also find them on indian reservations.

Uncle Fester wrote:My only problem with your colleague would be his use of the word "must."

It's possible. It might even be likely.

I agree. The only reason I insisted on picking on him was that he made the point of attacking MY faith while not realizing that his own insistence on there HAVING to be life on other planets jumped from scientific possibility or conjecture to a statement of faith.

Hell, I'm a pretty big Star Trek geek (no conventions or costumes though...) and I'd LOVE for there to be all kinds of freaky aliens. But I'm never going to use my scientific & teaching cred to tell kids that there MUST be life out there without having any proof to back it up...

Lizard King wrote:Who said the life has to be just like ours?

Certainly not me. But even if it doesn't have to be like ours, that's still no basis for my colleague's claim that there MUST be life on other planets. Unless he wants to get silly and claim that rocks are just a form of life we don't recognize...

RadioFan wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous"...

At least 120 planets have been discovered in 2004 outside of our own solar system, probably even more by now. Given the limited technology we have, the number easily qualifies as "numerous."

120/infinite space = not even close to numerous.

Keep hunting the web for help. Maybe you'll find a clue.

RadioFan wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous"...

At least 120 planets have been discovered in 2004 outside of our own solar system, probably even more by now. Given the limited technology we have, the number easily qualifies as "numerous."

Add to that the fact that some scientists theorize that most or all stars could have planets. We're talking quadrillions of planets here. Hell, more than that, but I don't know what comes after quadrillion. Sextillion? Anyway, the odds against life are so infinitely small that it's practically impossible.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous"...

At least 120 planets have been discovered in 2004 outside of our own solar system, probably even more by now. Given the limited technology we have, the number easily qualifies as "numerous."

120/infinite space = not even close to numerous.

Keep hunting the web for help. Maybe you'll find a clue.

Ummm...that's all we can see with our current technology, genius. Within 10 years it's be in the thousands. Within 100 years it'll be hundreds of thousands, etc.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous"...

At least 120 planets have been discovered in 2004 outside of our own solar system, probably even more by now. Given the limited technology we have, the number easily qualifies as "numerous."

120/infinite space = not even close to numerous.

Keep hunting the web for help. Maybe you'll find a clue.

Actually, it's closer to 143, and that's based on the best telescopes we have. And I'm not comparing the number to "infinite space." You must have missed the part of my post where I said Given the limited technology we have.

rozy wrote:

Lizard King wrote:

rozy wrote:CHA-CHING!!!

You're getting your ass kicked all over the place and this is what you offer? This all started because you disputed something KCScott posted about your religion. You disputed his post without offering a counter-argument and instead diverted the conversation to make it appear like you're leading him around like a little puppy. With every post you make, you look more and more like a fucking idiot.

Go back to the post that started this all and produce your counter argument you fucking pussy.

I suspect that you don't have one, or the conversation never would have went this direction.

To the original point, solely for your sake, I will address it simply as Poptart has.

KC Scott wrote:
As mentioned in another thread, the 3 basic tenents of All religions:

* Ours is the one true God
* If you don't believe in our God, you will fry when you die
* God said to give us your money

You see no problem with the bolded parts?

Not really, no.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:Like I said yesterday...you clearly have no understanding of what makes up a sound, or cogent, logical argument.

Unsupported and ad hominem. Why not toss in a "neener, neener" while you're at it, Slick?

That is not an ad hominem argument. It is a valid, deductive argument based on the premises of you stating that the scientific argument for life on other planets is akin to proving that god exists by projecting human qualities on it.

Premise: Lab Rat Mike believes the argument for life on other planets is the same as the proving god exists by projecting human qualities on it.

Premise: The Argument for life of other planets is a cogent inductive argument.

Premise: The Argument that god exists by projecting human qualities is made up of logical fallacies.

Conclusion: Lab Rat Mike has no understanding of logical arguments.


Nope..no ad hominem there.

Fact: no planet has ever been found that matches our makeup geologically, chemically, or climatologically. To assume that life on any other planet -should it be found- would be just like ours is illogical.

Life would be just like ours? Who ever said that? Again, we have your use of fallacy to get your point across. This time, the good ol' Straw Man. When you can't tear down the actual argument, change the argument to one that is more easily refuted.

Yes, it is quite clear that life found elsewhere in the universe would not be identical to ours.

Fact: some planets have been found, but they are hardly "numerous" and do not remotely appear to fit the category of being like our planet (if that's your criteria for a planet that has extraterrestrial life).

Planets are numerous. With past technology, there was not a way to see planets that are that far away. With the increasing knowledge on how to find planets, astronomers are finding them rapidly and, often times, just where they always expected they would be.

Your argument of project observed qualities of humanity is bullshit BEACUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING to project them on.

Sure I do. In fact, our culture, like most others, merely portrays their deities as being some ultra-manifestation of themselves - hence the popular debate about whether God created us in His image or did we create God (gods?) in ours? Anger, benevolence, jealousy, willingness to forgive, desire to make deals, other personality traits...all properties that we have projected onto our deities, including the Judeo-Christian YHVH. Didn't you ever study Greek or Roman myths? Where do you think the qualities of the gods came from, if not from extrapolations of humanity?

Your statement that I "DON'T HAVE A FUCKING THING to project them on" shows an amazing level of ignorance.

Again, you have NOTHING TO PROJECT these on. You just fucking described the same attributes that you are projecting. Yes, that's great that our dieties are portrayed as manifestations of our human emotions and personality traits.

Again, you are saying that that you would prove the existance of god by projecting those traits......Again, you can't project the traits onto themselves, you would have to have something to project them on (if you want the argument to be remotely the same as the one you are trying (and failing) to argue against).

BTW, since you seem so enamoured of my colleagues mathematical arguments, how 'bout this?: divide the finite number of beings on this planet by the infinite size of the universe and, by the mathematical calculation, we get a result of no beings in the universe (anything divided by infinity is so close to zero as pretty much to BE zero...). Douglas Adams rocks.

D.N.A. is nails.

That being said....the universe is not neccessarily infinite.

In all my years of going to church (and I've attended services in several denominations in several different countries) I've never heard anyone proclaim that God said to give them money.

I've heard some use strong arm and guilt tactics. Some I would consider shady. Some religions ask for percentages of income. But I've never heard them proclaim that God said to give them money.

They proclaim to be doing God's will with the money. To using the money to spread his word, and provide for the less fortunate, but they didn't say he told them to collect it!

Would I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on the collection of money by too many supposed great men of God?

Yes (and you knew I would)

But to say that it is a basic tenet is laughable at best.

rozy wrote:Would I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on the collection of money by too many supposed great men of God?

Yes (and you knew I would)

But to say that it is a basic tenet is laughable at best.

He's probably thinking of $cientology

Headhunter wrote:and provide for the less fortunate

Best verse of the Bible - Matthew 25:40.

Lizard King wrote:Ummm...that's all we can see with our current technology, genius. Within 10 years it's be in the thousands. Within 100 years it'll be hundreds of thousands, etc.

Strong possibility of it. Still doesn't prove my colleague's point. No amount of made up "odds" is evidence of life on other planets.

It's OK to hypothesize that there probably is. But to posit it as irrefutable scientific certainty is not science. It is science fiction-fueld hopefulness masquerading as "fact."

It's simple. All he or any other "there MUST be life on other planets" geeks have to do is show it to the rest of us. Ta-daa! Argument done. Until such time, it's just conjecture, hypothesis, hope....

I can't see why these churches would need to ask for money. The mortgage companies and local property tax people should DONATE the whole dealio to them, same goes for all the utilities. Anything used in upkeep and mantainance should be free. How dare them darned pastors and church staff ask for any money, workin 7 days a week and watching your family starve like Terry Shaivo should be a requirement. Cars?
HELL NO! I say let them preachers ride bikes to do them funerals and stuff like them Morman Boys do. What the hell is this raising money for them less fortunate people round the world, let em get their own food, water, medicines, this good citizen crap's gotta stop cause this evil God guy and that Hippie Son of his they believe in is all a buncha lies, ya see these guys that spend a lot of their time on a messageboard on that Internet thingy said so and that's all ya need to know right there.
Bode Messageboard Genius.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Lizard King wrote:Ummm...that's all we can see with our current technology, genius. Within 10 years it's be in the thousands. Within 100 years it'll be hundreds of thousands, etc.

Strong possibility of it. Still doesn't prove my colleague's point. No amount of made up "odds" is evidence of life on other planets.

It's OK to hypothesize that there probably is. But to posit it as irrefutable scientific certainty is not science. It is science fiction-fueld hopefulness masquerading as "fact."

It's simple. All he or any other "there MUST be life on other planets" geeks have to do is show it to the rest of us. Ta-daa! Argument done. Until such time, it's just conjecture, hypothesis, hope....

Keep in mind that "life" includes bacteria in this argument. Given the hostile environments that bacteria thrives in on this planet it's just plain goofy to believe that can't thrive on other planets. Your argument is foolish and naive.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Lizard King wrote:Who said the life has to be just like ours?

Certainly not me. But even if it doesn't have to be like ours, that's still no basis for my colleague's claim that there MUST be life on other planets. Unless he wants to get silly and claim that rocks are just a form of life we don't recognize...

NO KILL I



:)

Voice of Reason wrote:That is not an ad hominem argument. It is a valid, deductive argument based on the premises of you stating that the scientific argument for life on other planets is akin to proving that god exists by projecting human qualities on it.

Unproven and untrue. Read my original statements again. I stated that his positing extraterrestrial life as a FACT is no different than my "irrational" belief in God and divinity of Christ. Don't twist my words.

Premise: Lab Rat Mike believes the argument for life on other planets is the same as the proving god exists by projecting human qualities on it.

That is not what I said, so don't present it that way. I stated that they both share weakness in their irrationality. I specifically stated that the "projection" argument to prove God's existence was bullshit and was destroyed 200 years ago.

Premise: The Argument for life of other planets is a cogent inductive argument.

Your premise is completely unproven. Merely positing it as fact does not prove it.

Premise: The Argument that god exists by projecting human qualities is made up of logical fallacies.

Agreed, as I stated earlier, that line of reasoning was blown apart centuries agao, and I at no point supported it.

Conclusion: Lab Rat Mike has no understanding of logical arguments.

Non sequitor. You misquote and/or misrepresent the points of my argument, which I attribute to your not paying attention.

Yes, it is quite clear that life found elsewhere in the universe would not be identical to ours.

You have once again, like my colleague gone and stated a statistical possibility as fact. Sloppy reasoning.

Besides, I believe that earlier you argued that my colleague's "evidence" consisted of observations made from this planet. If that is the case, it makes no sense for you to then ignore that line of reasoning now, other than sheer convenience on your part.

You can't have it both ways.

Besides, I think you may have overlooked a point made by Fester. My colleague isn't saying that there's a logical possibility or strong probability of extraterrestrial life. He's saying that it MUST exist. THAT is where, I believe he is straying into the irrational, illogical area of "faith."

Hell, even I believe that life is probably out there...I just am well-versed enough(or careful enough) in scientific phrasing to not describe my belief as certainty. I am furthermore concerned that he might be presenting his belief as scientific fact in classes, which is a bad iscience and bad pedagogy.

Planets are numerous. With past technology, there was not a way to see planets that are that far away. With the increasing knowledge on how to find planets, astronomers are finding them rapidly and, often times, just where they always expected they would be.

This doesn't change anything. Until life is found on those planets, my colleague's assertion that life MUST be out there remains sheer speculation.

Again, you have NOTHING TO PROJECT these on. You just fucking described the same attributes that you are projecting. Yes, that's great that our dieties are portrayed as manifestations of our human emotions and personality traits.

Again, you are saying that that you would prove the existance of god by projecting those traits......Again, you can't project the traits onto themselves, you would have to have something to project them on (if you want the argument to be remotely the same as the one you are trying (and failing) to argue against).

Some 18th century philosophers did, in fact try to prove the existence of God this way and were logically dismantled for it. I never at any time that I would prove the existence of God that way, and in fact, if you actually paid attention, you would have read where I stated that, IMNSHO, one of the points of faith is NOT having to prove it. In fact, I think it's pretty insame when people honestly TRY to use logic and science to prove the existence of souls, God, the Resurrection, etc.

Mister Bushice wrote:
NO KILL I



:)

Hortas Rock
Rack the Star Trek reset

Lizard King wrote:Keep in mind that "life" includes bacteria in this argument. Given the hostile environments that bacteria thrives in on this planet it's just plain goofy to believe that can't thrive on other planets. Your argument is foolish and naive.

"Foolish and naive?" My, aren't we in a haughty mood for someone tossing "just plain goofy" around in an argument?

As "hostile" as certain places are on this planet, what's out there is even more so.

No yet found life in molten rock or a vacuum. Or in frozen ammonia.

They why believe it?

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:In fact, I think it's pretty insame when people honestly TRY to use logic and science to prove the existence of souls, God, the Resurrection, etc.

And yet you don't think its insane to believe in God, the Resurrection, etc.

mvscal wrote:You are quite simply wrong. It is quite a bit different. Yes, both beliefs are articles of faith, but your faith is based on nothing but hallucinatory fairy tales.

That is your opinion, with which I strongly disagree, but to which you are most certainly entitled.

And you know you're just pissin' Jesus off, right?

That's OK, he'll forgive you. That's his bag. :D

Voice of Reason wrote:And yet you don't think its insane to believe in God, the Resurrection, etc.

Nope.

It's that whole "faith" thing.

Call me crazy. Others have (granted, for completely different reasons...)

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Lizard King wrote:Keep in mind that "life" includes bacteria in this argument. Given the hostile environments that bacteria thrives in on this planet it's just plain goofy to believe that can't thrive on other planets. Your argument is foolish and naive.

"Foolish and naive?" My, aren't we in a haughty mood for someone tossing "just plain goofy" around in an argument?

As "hostile" as certain places are on this planet, what's out there is even more so.

No yet found life in molten rock or a vacuum. Or in frozen ammonia.

another epcot trek reset

Before I forget - BUSHICE THE HORTA RESET WAS NAILS!!

Sorry. A vulcan would not cry out so.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:And yet you don't think its insane to believe in God, the Resurrection, etc.

Nope.

It's that whole "faith" thing.

And there is no question in your mind, despite information (not science) that perhaps the whole jesus story may not be quite true?

Headhunter wrote:and provide for the less fortunate

So, Bill Gates owes me some friggin' money!

Niiiiiiiiiice.......

Mister Bushice wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:And yet you don't think its insane to believe in God, the Resurrection, etc.

Nope.

It's that whole "faith" thing.

And there is no question in your mind, despite information (not science) that perhaps the whole jesus story may not be quite true?

it's true

Believe it brothah.

HALLLLLLLLLLLLELUUUUUUUUUUUUUUIA!
PRAISE THE LORD!
AMEN!

:P