18 Mar 09
Originally posted by black beetle"Hard to live"? I think you've mistaken my sarcasm of leggo brick logic and disrespect of peoples beliefs as fear, my creepy crawley friend.
Poor divegester:'(
How hard to live keeping in mind that the lurking extremist fundamentalist atheists are ready to strap a bomb to your sleeve taking your heart with it:'(:'
Do you see around atheists trying to establish the Word of the Antichrist too?
😵
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat is so special about Bach, Galilei and Bacon? Were pyramid builders really that great? I notice you left out Einstein, Newton, Darwin and many other prominent more modern scientists, do you not recognize their genius? I don't see why we should rate Galilei and Bacon as any higher.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Where are today's Bach's, Galilei's, Bacon's or etc.? Where are today's pyramid builders? They are nowhere to be found, replaced instead with such goose-steppers as Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins and much pedantic thinking.
Is it possible that it is a case of there being so many brilliant minds today that they tend to get lost in the crowd, and in the past they stood out more due to their rarity?
And who is to say whether or not Richard Dawkins will be remembered 200 years from now as one of the greatest scientists or atheists of the 21st century?
And besides, in the post you were replying to I suspect that Bach, Galilei and Bacon would all fall into the category of "modern man" and not the "primitive man" that you wish to disprove.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is so special about Bach, Galilei and Bacon?
What is so special about Bach, Galilei and Bacon? Were pyramid builders really that great? I notice you left out Einstein, Newton, Darwin and many other prominent more modern scientists, do you not recognize their genius? I don't see why we should rate Galilei and Bacon as any higher.
Is it possible that it is a case of there being so many brilliant mind ...[text shortened]... ll into the category of "modern man" and not the "primitive man" that you wish to disprove.
Seriously? Although my list of great minds from the renewal forward was by no means intended to be exhaustive, on the list of all-time geniuses these three would certainly make the grade.
Were pyramid builders really that great?
Mathematically, yes, and then some. Anyone these days able to duplicate their feat? No one yet.
I notice you left out Einstein, Newton, Darwin and many other prominent more modern scientists, do you not recognize their genius?
I would concede Newton, but neither Einstein nor Darwin in the list of those causing the most lasting impact. Darwin is unraveling with every passing day. A devolution, one might say. Einstein was a one-hit wonder. Hardly a paragon of genius.
Is it possible that it is a case of there being so many brilliant minds today that they tend to get lost in the crowd, and in the past they stood out more due to their rarity?
The also-rans of yester-year would today be towering giants, their discipline and clarity of thought was so far in advance of today's sloppiness.
And who is to say whether or not Richard Dawkins will be remembered 200 years from now as one of the greatest scientists or atheists of the 21st century?
History has never been all too kind toward those with axes to grind. Dawkins is so totally blinded by his hatred of God, he has become somewhat bipolar in his thinking.
And besides, in the post you were replying to I suspect that Bach, Galilei and Bacon would all fall into the category of "modern man" and not the "primitive man" that you wish to disprove.
I would put those who lived during the immediate period before and during the renewal as pre-modern, with modern man himself beginning closer to the 20th century. Certainly, the pyramid builders of ancient history would qualify as having lived in the time of (so-called) primitive man.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut your selection is biased, you carefully chose people who lived in a particular period.
Seriously? Although my list of great minds from the renewal forward was by no means intended to be exhaustive, on the list of all-time geniuses these three would certainly make the grade.
Mathematically, yes, and then some. Anyone these days able to duplicate their feat? No one yet.
I disagree. Many modern achievements far surpass the pyramids by any measure.
I would concede Newton, but neither Einstein nor Darwin in the list of those causing the most lasting impact. Darwin is unraveling with every passing day.
So you might say, but the scientific community disagrees with you. I have heard more about Darwin in the last year than any other scientist. I know far more about his achievements than I do about Galilei. In fact I can't remember what Galilei is famous for.
Einstein was a one-hit wonder. Hardly a paragon of genius.
Whether or not his genius was notable, his theory is one of the most important in the world today.
The also-rans of yester-year would today be towering giants, their discipline and clarity of thought was so far in advance of today's sloppiness.
So you say, but you have provided no evidence.
History has never been all too kind toward those with axes to grind.
Ha ha ha. Almost every famous person in history had an axe to grind. Jesus certainly did.
Dawkins is so totally blinded by his hatred of God, he has become somewhat bipolar in his thinking.
Have you even read one of his books? I suspect it is you with the hatred.
18 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH….Darwin is unravelling with every passing day
[b]What is so special about Bach, Galilei and Bacon?
Seriously? Although my list of great minds from the renewal forward was by no means intended to be exhaustive, on the list of all-time geniuses these three would certainly make the grade.
Were pyramid builders really that great?
Mathematically, yes, and then some. Anyone these days able of ancient history would qualify as having lived in the time of (so-called) primitive man.[/b]
..…
In what way?
….Einstein was a one-hit wonder. Hardly a paragon of genius.
..…
What!!! Well, if he was no genius, then the fact that you surely don’t understand relativity must make you pretty stupid! 😛
Would you claim to be able to deduce relativity yourself without his help? If not, then if he was no genius then what does that make you?
Given the fact that he deduced things that the vast majority of people wouldn’t have the intellectual capacity to deduce, in what way was he not a genius?
What are your great works in science?
19 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat do you mean by 'lasting impact'?
I would concede Newton, but neither Einstein nor Darwin in the list of those causing the most lasting impact. Darwin is unraveling with every passing day. A devolution, one might say. Einstein was a one-hit wonder. Hardly a paragon of genius.
From the January Scientific American: [The Origin of Species is] "now generally recognized as one of the most important scientific books ever written."
Einsteins relativity still has more impact on physics than any other and Darwins theories still have more impact on biology than any other.
19 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut your selection is biased, you carefully chose people who lived in a particular period.
But your selection is biased, you carefully chose people who lived in a particular period.
[b]Mathematically, yes, and then some. Anyone these days able to duplicate their feat? No one yet.
I disagree. Many modern achievements far surpass the pyramids by any measure.
I would concede Newton, but neither Einstein nor Darwin in the list of th ...[text shortened]... n his thinking.
Have you even read one of his books? I suspect it is you with the hatred.[/b]
Actually, the list was random. However, they do serve as an example of the magnitude of genius from a time prior to a loss of standards and values.
I disagree. Many modern achievements far surpass the pyramids by any measure.
The precision with which those buildings were constructed to this day still confounds engineers of all stripes. Only you are unimpressed.
So you might say, but the scientific community disagrees with you. I have heard more about Darwin in the last year than any other scientist.
Poor Chuck has haplessly become the touchstone of great controversy. Does that make him a notable scientist? In your book, apparently notoriety and accomplishment are one in the same.
I know far more about his achievements than I do about Galilei. In fact I can't remember what Galilei is famous for.
Well, that says an awful lot about your studies, I suppose. That's also why God invented Google. Try it this one time.
Ha ha ha. Almost every famous person in history had an axe to grind. Jesus certainly did.
Really? Against whom was He set?
Have you even read one of his books? I suspect it is you with the hatred.
Sure: that makes sense. I'm a Dawkins-hater. Although the man is able to make a few valid points, they are a precious few and they are wholly washed out by the spew of hatred and invective apparent in nearly every sentence. The man is an open sewer.
19 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have not demonstrated any such 'loss of standards and values'.
Actually, the list was random. However, they do serve as an example of the magnitude of genius from a time prior to a loss of standards and values.
The precision with which those buildings were constructed to this day still confounds engineers of all stripes. Only you are unimpressed.
References to those confounded engineers please, and references to the actual precision. I am willing to bet that the precision does not as you claim exceed all modern day structures.
Well, that says an awful lot about your studies, I suppose. That's also why God invented Google. Try it this one time.
Well it seems that he two is most notable for his notoriety.
Sure: that makes sense. I'm a Dawkins-hater. Although the man is able to make a few valid points, they are a precious few and they are wholly washed out by the spew of hatred and invective apparent in nearly every sentence. The man is an open sewer.
You clearly have not read one of his books.
19 Mar 09
Originally posted by znshoA probabilistic view of beliefs. You don't have to assign a probabilistic measure of belief of 1 to your belief.
What possibilitybis that then?
If you have beliefs that your religion is simply the most likely and not the only one possible, then you don't need to reject other gods based on a strong version of denying their existence but on the relative likelihood of being true. Since most religions are mutually exclusive, this would hold true.