Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2119004 > unrolled thread

definition of sentience

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  definition of sentience Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-03 17:49 -0400
    Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:56 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:45 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:47 -0700
        Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 07:27 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:52 -0700
            Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:55 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:22 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience mur@. - 2016-06-03 22:29 -0400
      Re: definition of sentience Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-03 22:45 -0400
        Re: definition of sentience mur@. - 2016-06-06 21:56 -0400
      Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 07:43 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:49 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-04 05:24 -0700
        Re: definition of sentience Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-04 12:58 -0400
        Re: definition of sentience Prince Michael <t2judgment@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 10:18 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience Prince Michael <quarke.e2@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:58 -0700
            Re: definition of sentience hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-05 17:05 -0700
              Re: definition of sentience Prince Michael <t2judgment@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:43 -0700
              Re: definition of sentience Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-06-06 17:38 -0400
        Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 21:56 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-05 18:44 +1000
            Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 04:34 -0700
              Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:12 -0700
                Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:36 -0700
                  Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 11:08 -0700
                    Re: definition of sentience Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-06-05 16:50 -0400
                    Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:35 -0700
                    Re: definition of sentience hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-05 17:40 -0700
                      Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 00:40 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 04:32 -0700
            Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:14 -0700
              Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:39 -0700
                Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 11:19 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-05 04:36 -0700
            Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:15 -0700
              Re: definition of sentience Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:20 -0700
                Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:38 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-06-04 12:57 -0400
        Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 21:57 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience mur@. - 2016-06-06 21:57 -0400
            Re: definition of sentience Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:58 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 10:09 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 07:54 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 10:32 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:02 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 10:34 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:06 -0700
        Re: definition of sentience Kurt Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:34 -0700
          Re: definition of sentience Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:54 -0700
    Re: definition of sentience Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:51 -0700
      Re: definition of sentience Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 09:37 -0700
        Re: definition of sentience hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-05 18:15 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#2119928

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
>> 
>> > falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
>> > able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
>> > and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
>> > sentience
>> 
>> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
>> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
>> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much
>> reason to take it seriously.
>> 
>> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
> 
> 
> They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works and
> how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when we
> advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D. levels?
> 
> Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
> and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.

If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out of 
stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2119992

On 05/06/2016 14:56, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>> In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>>  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
>>>> able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
>>>> and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
>>>> sentience
>>>
>>> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
>>> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
>>> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much
>>> reason to take it seriously.
>>>
>>> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
>>
>>
>> They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works and
>> how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when we
>> advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D. levels?
>>
>> Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
>> and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.
>
> If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out of
> stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.
>

An optimistic assessment of human nature, if I may say so.

We do have a very long track record of clinging to our beliefs in the 
face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Close two gaps, and they 
will find two more.  Close all the gaps, and they will resort to 
straight denial or the re-imagining of their deity to create new gaps. 
All it takes is one little scientific "we don't know yet" or "yes, 
theoretically it is possible".  God the creator of the universe becomes 
an impossibility?  Just recast him as a spacefaring alien seeding life 
on Earth.

Most believers are like celebrity stalkers.  They will persist in their 
fantasy come what may.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120093

Comical, the forum atheists worship their pagan science religion, totally incapable of elementary algebra.

The Gaps are permanent, your High Holy Pagan science god is blind ignorant religious faith.

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 4:44:28 AM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 14:56, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >
> >> In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
> >>  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
> >>>> able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
> >>>> and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
> >>>> sentience
> >>>
> >>> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
> >>> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
> >>> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much
> >>> reason to take it seriously.
> >>>
> >>> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
> >>
> >>
> >> They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works and
> >> how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when we
> >> advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D. levels?
> >>
> >> Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
> >> and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.
> >
> > If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out of
> > stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.
> >
> 
> An optimistic assessment of human nature, if I may say so.
> 
> We do have a very long track record of clinging to our beliefs in the 
> face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Close two gaps, and they 
> will find two more.  Close all the gaps, and they will resort to 
> straight denial or the re-imagining of their deity to create new gaps. 
> All it takes is one little scientific "we don't know yet" or "yes, 
> theoretically it is possible".  God the creator of the universe becomes 
> an impossibility?  Just recast him as a spacefaring alien seeding life 
> on Earth.
> 
> Most believers are like celebrity stalkers.  They will persist in their 
> fantasy come what may.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120229

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:34:08 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:

> Comical, the forum atheists worship their pagan science religion,
> totally incapable of elementary algebra.

Umm... you know full well science is not a religion, so why would you say 
something so ridiculous?  Do you enjoy being thought of as "challenged"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120265

It's a religion to you. Pure religious faith. Comforting religious faith. 

All it does is predict experiments part of the time, nothing else. No truth, no knowledge, no proof, that's all blind religious faith.

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 12:15:05 PM UTC-4, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:34:08 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> 
> > Comical, the forum atheists worship their pagan science religion,
> > totally incapable of elementary algebra.
> 
> Umm... you know full well science is not a religion, so why would you say 
> something so ridiculous?  Do you enjoy being thought of as "challenged"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120281

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:36:39 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:

Comment being responded to: "you know full well science is not a religion"



> It's a religion to you. Pure religious faith. Comforting religious
> faith.

Except it isn't, and you know this, so why keep saying it?



> All it does is predict experiments part of the time, nothing else.

Which is its job.  So your complaint is something that does its job is 
bad?  You must have an interesting employment history.

> No
> truth, no knowledge, no proof, that's all blind religious faith.

You have that backwards.  Claiming to have "Truth(tm)!" when unable to 
demonstrate that it is, in fact, true is the hallmark of religion.  
Science is very clear that its theories are provisional, always, never to 
be confused with "Truth(tm)".

Since you obviously don't understand even the tiniest aspect of what 
science is, your opinions on it are about as valid as my  four-year-old's 
opinions on geopolitik, and for the same reason.

If you have an actual argument, make it.  If all you have is empty crap 
like what you offered above, grow up, get an education, and shut the fuck 
up until then.

HTH.  HAND.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120361

On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 11:08:21 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:36:39 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:
>
>Comment being responded to: "you know full well science is not a religion"
>
>
>
>> It's a religion to you. Pure religious faith. Comforting religious
>> faith.
>
>Except it isn't, and you know this, so why keep saying it?
>
Dunning-Kruger is its own reward.
>
>> All it does is predict experiments part of the time, nothing else.
>
>Which is its job.  So your complaint is something that does its job is 
>bad?  You must have an interesting employment history.
>
>> No
>> truth, no knowledge, no proof, that's all blind religious faith.
>
>You have that backwards.  Claiming to have "Truth(tm)!" when unable to 
>demonstrate that it is, in fact, true is the hallmark of religion.  
>Science is very clear that its theories are provisional, always, never to 
>be confused with "Truth(tm)".
>
>Since you obviously don't understand even the tiniest aspect of what 
>science is, your opinions on it are about as valid as my  four-year-old's 
>opinions on geopolitik, and for the same reason.
>
>If you have an actual argument, make it.  If all you have is empty crap 
>like what you offered above, grow up, get an education, and shut the fuck 
>up until then.

I would not hold my breath for such a miracle.

-- 
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
         Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean) 
          Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120397

And the downbreed slithers behind the segmented post.

No loss, moron.

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:15:06 PM UTC-4, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:36:39 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> 
> Comment being responded to: "you know full well science is not a religion"
> 
> 
> 
> > It's a religion to you. Pure religious faith. Comforting religious
> > faith.
> 
> Except it isn't, and you know this, so why keep saying it?
> 
> 
> 
> > All it does is predict experiments part of the time, nothing else.
> 
> Which is its job.  So your complaint is something that does its job is 
> bad?  You must have an interesting employment history.
> 
> > No
> > truth, no knowledge, no proof, that's all blind religious faith.
> 
> You have that backwards.  Claiming to have "Truth(tm)!" when unable to 
> demonstrate that it is, in fact, true is the hallmark of religion.  
> Science is very clear that its theories are provisional, always, never to 
> be confused with "Truth(tm)".
> 
> Since you obviously don't understand even the tiniest aspect of what 
> science is, your opinions on it are about as valid as my  four-year-old's 
> opinions on geopolitik, and for the same reason.
> 
> If you have an actual argument, make it.  If all you have is empty crap 
> like what you offered above, grow up, get an education, and shut the fuck 
> up until then.
> 
> HTH.  HAND.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120554

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:15:06 PM UTC-4, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:36:39 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> 
> Comment being responded to: "you know full well science is not a religion"
> 
> 
> 
> > It's a religion to you. Pure religious faith. Comforting religious
> > faith.
> 
> Except it isn't, and you know this, so why keep saying it?
> 
> 
> 
> > All it does is predict experiments part of the time, nothing else.
> 
> Which is its job.  So your complaint is something that does its job is 
> bad?  You must have an interesting employment history.
> 
> > No
> > truth, no knowledge, no proof, that's all blind religious faith.
> 
> You have that backwards.  Claiming to have "Truth(tm)!" when unable to 
> demonstrate that it is, in fact, true is the hallmark of religion.  
> Science is very clear that its theories are provisional, always, never to 
> be confused with "Truth(tm)".
> 
> Since you obviously don't understand even the tiniest aspect of what 
> science is, your opinions on it are about as valid as my  four-year-old's 
> opinions on geopolitik, and for the same reason.
> 
> If you have an actual argument, make it.  If all you have is empty crap 
> like what you offered above, grow up, get an education, and shut the fuck 
> up until then.
> 
> HTH.  HAND.

Kurtles knows what science is. He is another narcissist trying to 
prove that he can trick people into believing what he says he 
believes. He hates atheists because we don't fall for his bill of 
goods. He is a deliberate religious troll who has trapped himself 
in alt.atheism because we've punctured his ego. He can't leave
because he can't win. He's just another ArtieJoe, Duke,Astroboy, 
Robert Duncan and Cody. Yet another pity troll. The longer they're 
here as total failures, the more trapped they are.



 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120719

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:40:06 -0700, hypatiab7 wrote:

> On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:15:06 PM UTC-4, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:36:39 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:
>> 
>> Comment being responded to: "you know full well science is not a
>> religion"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > It's a religion to you. Pure religious faith. Comforting religious
>> > faith.
>> 
>> Except it isn't, and you know this, so why keep saying it?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > All it does is predict experiments part of the time, nothing else.
>> 
>> Which is its job.  So your complaint is something that does its job is
>> bad?  You must have an interesting employment history.
>> 
>> > No truth, no knowledge, no proof, that's all blind religious faith.
>> 
>> You have that backwards.  Claiming to have "Truth(tm)!" when unable to
>> demonstrate that it is, in fact, true is the hallmark of religion.
>> Science is very clear that its theories are provisional, always, never
>> to be confused with "Truth(tm)".
>> 
>> Since you obviously don't understand even the tiniest aspect of what
>> science is, your opinions on it are about as valid as my 
>> four-year-old's opinions on geopolitik, and for the same reason.
>> 
>> If you have an actual argument, make it.  If all you have is empty crap
>> like what you offered above, grow up, get an education, and shut the
>> fuck up until then.
>> 
>> HTH.  HAND.
> 
> Kurtles knows what science is. He is another narcissist trying to prove
> that he can trick people into believing what he says he believes. He
> hates atheists because we don't fall for his bill of goods. He is a
> deliberate religious troll who has trapped himself in alt.atheism
> because we've punctured his ego. He can't leave because he can't win.
> He's just another ArtieJoe, Duke,Astroboy, Robert Duncan and Cody. Yet
> another pity troll. The longer they're here as total failures, the more
> trapped they are.

Don't recognize a couple of those names, but being listed in with Duke is 
a Bad Thing(tm),,, and Robert the Duncan is quickly working himself into 
my "more amusing than dangerous" list.

You'd think between them they could collectively muster a *single* 
worthwhile argument for whatever it is they supposedly believe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120091

The gaps are eternal. Incompleteness Theorem. Get a clue. Science can never describe the Universe, it's a math proof.

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 1:00:06 AM UTC-4, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> 
> > In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
> >> 
> >> > falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
> >> > able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
> >> > and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
> >> > sentience
> >> 
> >> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
> >> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
> >> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much
> >> reason to take it seriously.
> >> 
> >> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
> > 
> > 
> > They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works and
> > how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when we
> > advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D. levels?
> > 
> > Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
> > and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.
> 
> If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out of 
> stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120230

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:32:12 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:

> The gaps are eternal. Incompleteness Theorem. Get a clue. Science can
> never describe the Universe, it's a math proof.

Science's only job is describing the universe, and it does that job 
amazingly effectively.  If it didn't, you wouldn't be posting here, as 
everything from the copper wiring carrying power to the silicon chips in 
your computing devices are science-derived.  If science didn't work, you 
would not be able to post your drivel.

So why would you post such obviously wrong twaddle?  Do you enjoy being 
thought of as "challenged"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120267

A waste of time, since you can't do elementary arithmetic, but the Incompleteness Theorem applies to the math of the Quantum Theory and it PROVES the QT will never be able to describe the Universe. Math, unlike science, can prove things.

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 12:15:06 PM UTC-4, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:32:12 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:
> 
> > The gaps are eternal. Incompleteness Theorem. Get a clue. Science can
> > never describe the Universe, it's a math proof.
> 
> Science's only job is describing the universe, and it does that job 
> amazingly effectively.  If it didn't, you wouldn't be posting here, as 
> everything from the copper wiring carrying power to the silicon chips in 
> your computing devices are science-derived.  If science didn't work, you 
> would not be able to post your drivel.
> 
> So why would you post such obviously wrong twaddle?  Do you enjoy being 
> thought of as "challenged"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120293

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 10:39:03 -0700, Kurt Kurt wrote:

> A waste of time, since you can't do elementary arithmetic,

Unsupported assertion.  Good job, already into full fallacy mode.

> but the
> Incompleteness Theorem applies to the math of the Quantum Theory and it
> PROVES the QT will never be able to describe the Universe. Math, unlike
> science, can prove things.

So, your argument is that because formal axiomatic systems cannot be both 
complete and consistent, therefore non-formal, non-axiomatic systems 
which don't even try to be complete and have, built in, means and methods 
for self-correction, must therefore be fundamentally wrong.

And you say this while using the products of just such as system.

Good grief, you are astoundingly dense.

Sorry, but anyone who so cheerfully supports ignorance as you is not 
someone with whom I am overly interested in conversing.

FOAD.  HAND.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120096

In article <71oc2d-cbb.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
 Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> 
> > In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
> >> 
> >> > falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
> >> > able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
> >> > and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
> >> > sentience
> >> 
> >> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
> >> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
> >> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much
> >> reason to take it seriously.
> >> 
> >> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
> > 
> > 
> > They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works and
> > how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when we
> > advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D. levels?
> > 
> > Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
> > and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.
> 
> If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out of 
> stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.

Good to see you, Kelsey.

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120251

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:36:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> In article <71oc2d-cbb.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not
>> >> > be able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of
>> >> > anything"
>> >> > and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience
>> >> > of sentience
>> >> 
>> >> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
>> >> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
>> >> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as
>> >> much reason to take it seriously.
>> >> 
>> >> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
>> > 
>> > 
>> > They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works
>> > and how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when
>> > we advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D.
>> > levels?
>> > 
>> > Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
>> > and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.
>> 
>> If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out
>> of stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.
> 
> Good to see you, Kelsey.

Thanks.  Whatever syndrome I've developed has some nasty side effects, 
one of which is "fuck the universe, leave me alone".  :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120441

In article <5qvd2d-kpl.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
 Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:36:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> 
> > In article <71oc2d-cbb.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
> >> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not
> >> >> > be able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of
> >> >> > anything"
> >> >> > and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience
> >> >> > of sentience
> >> >> 
> >> >> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
> >> >> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
> >> >> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as
> >> >> much reason to take it seriously.
> >> >> 
> >> >> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works
> >> > and how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do when
> >> > we advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to Ph.D.
> >> > levels?
> >> > 
> >> > Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they rail
> >> > and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from happening.
> >> 
> >> If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run out
> >> of stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually exist.
> > 
> > Good to see you, Kelsey.
> 
> Thanks.  Whatever syndrome I've developed has some nasty side effects, 
> one of which is "fuck the universe, leave me alone".  :)

I can understand that.

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2120474

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 15:20:57 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> In article <5qvd2d-kpl.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 04:36:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <71oc2d-cbb.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:24:37 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <ilh92d-h5b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>,
>> >> >  Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might
>> >> >> > not be able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory
>> >> >> > of anything"
>> >> >> > and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the
>> >> >> > experience of sentience
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
>> >> >> everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random
>> >> >> nonsense, everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as
>> >> >> much reason to take it seriously.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> "Spiritual essence".  Right...
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > They're at the very beginning of understanding how the brain works
>> >> > and how the mind emerges from it. What will the silly fundies do
>> >> > when we advanced our knowledge from say, pre-school levels to
>> >> > Ph.D. levels?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Their gaps just keep getting smaller and no matter how hard they
>> >> > rail and fight against it, they just cannot stop progress from
>> >> > happening.
>> >> 
>> >> If it weren't for the God of the Gaps, they'd have long since run
>> >> out of stupid ways to pretend their imaginary friends actually
>> >> exist.
>> > 
>> > Good to see you, Kelsey.
>> 
>> Thanks.  Whatever syndrome I've developed has some nasty side effects,
>> one of which is "fuck the universe, leave me alone".  :)
> 
> I can understand that.

My wife's an introvert, so it's *very* rare for us to deal with groups of 
people.  Despite this, we went to a party a while back, where issues like 
this came up for discussion.

I told them she was an introvert, I was an anti-social extrovert.  They 
couldn't wrap their heads around that until I explained that I liked 
being around sensible people, but also liked to (metaphorically) tear a 
new one into the dipshits who don't measure up, on the theory they will 
never again attempt to engage me in discussion.

Much tentative chuckling, with brief moments of curious introspection, 
ensued.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2119464

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
>
>> falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
>> able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
>> and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
>> sentience
>
>Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause everything 
>else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random nonsense, everyone 
>else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to take it 
>seriously.
>
>"Spiritual essence".  Right...
>

I said "might" ...
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2119927

On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 12:57:04 -0400, Dale wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:38 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:49:34 -0400, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> falls under the category that materialism and empiricism might not be
>>> able to have a "theory of everything" and that a "theory of anything"
>>> and spiritual essence might be necessary to explain the experience of
>>> sentience
>>
>>Or, we might require a theory explaining why jelly beans cause
>>everything else to exist.  If you're going to throw out random nonsense,
>>everyone else is allowed to as well... and with just as much reason to
>>take it seriously.
>>
>>"Spiritual essence".  Right...
>>
>>
> I said "might" ...

So did I.  I just did it in a vastly more meaningful fashion than you did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web