Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Short Stories available for anyone to read
Forum rules
These posts are public, and will be searched by Google. If you want to maintain "First Worldwide Rights" on your story, post in the Short Stories (Member Only) forum. Story authors still retain ownership and copyright, either way.
User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Authorized the Evil Sexual Parts to acutely depart

Post by secretnude » Fri May 23, 2014 5:05 am

The TheoCat
was desperate
at any rate
given the rate
that
the Incurable Disease
spread with ease.

TheoCat
didn't ease
his persecution
of the 'Uncute'
Homosexuals
with actual
hostile force
that did enforce
roundups and isolation
in his Medieval Dungeon.

The TheoCat
decreed that
it is better to lose a body part
that causes Sin
than to depart
from this World as a Sinner.

The TheoCat
had
sadly
authorized
the Evil Sexual Parts
to acutely
depart
from the 'Uncute'
Bodies and have the wounds Cauterized.

Several screams
woke me up as I dreamed
of a better World
as Horror unfurled.

### Links ###
Previous viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=48909#p48909

TheoCat viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&start=1520#p48888
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Your Punishment Must Be More Severe

Post by secretnude » Fri May 23, 2014 8:49 am

The definition of 'Uncute'
was expanded by that
Cute
TheoCat
to all that
oppose his 'Iron Will'
that's still
considered the will
of the Almighty Cosmic Cat.

The Free Thinkers
and Spiritual and Secular Leaders
that
thought the TheoCat's
actions violently
violated
the 'Teachings
and Preachings
of that
Almighty Cosmic Cat'
had that
which spoke
or wrote be broke
by a Hot Iron Poke.

The Military Leaders that
opposed the TheoCat
had their backs broke
by a stroke
of an Iron Rod
and the TheoCat
did trod
on anyone that
was on his 'Uncute
List' with punishments that are acute.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

The Oppressed Peasants Rises

Post by secretnude » Fri May 23, 2014 9:09 am

The Peasants had enough
of the rough
and tough
treatment of that Cute TheoCat
such that
they rose
and revolted
but it arose
that the initial revolt
was crushed
but the cries and hopes for 'Freedom'
wasn't crushed.

Many sympathetic
to the cause of 'Freedom'
from this Cute
Kingdom
were acutely
aware
that if they dare
to speak, write
or actually fight
things will not go right
but they were still willing to fight
against the might
of an Army of Cute
Loyal Knights
that can acutely
injure
anyone who is surely
on just on foot
but change is afoot.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Turning 'plowshares' into 'swords'

Post by secretnude » Fri May 23, 2014 10:02 am

The Oppressed Peasants
that
had an extremely unpleasant
time
under the Cute TheoCat
now did bide their time
in making improvised weaponry
that
can hold against the TheoCat's
Cute Cavalry.

After several weeks
the Peasant Army
was no longer weak
since this Peasant Army
did seek
defectors
from various disaffected sectors
in this Cute Kingdom of that
is under the thumbs of the TheoCat.

A massive Peasant Army marched
in formation
in the Ides of March
as the Cute Cavalry
Formation
made a dash
for what the TheoCat's Cute Cavalry
assumed was a quick clash
against puny untrained Peasant Infantry.
A war scythe is a kind of improvised pole weapon, similar to a fauchard, usually created from standard scythes.[citation needed] The blade of the scythe is transformed[citation needed] so as to extend upright from the pole, thus forming an infantry weapon practical both in offensive actions against infantry and as a defensive measure against enemy cavalry.
...
The scythe, a farming tool, could be easily transformed into an effective infantry weapon.[citation needed] The process usually involved reforging the blade of a scythe at a 90 degree angle, strengthening the joint between the blade and the shaft with an additional metal pipe or bolts and reinforcing the shaft to better protect it against cuts from enemy blades.[citation needed] At times instead of scythe blade, a blade from hand-operated chaff cutter was used.

War scythes were a popular weapon of choice and opportunity of many peasant uprisings throughout history. To name just a few examples, ancient Greek historian, Xenophon, describes in his work (Anabasis) the chariots of Artaxerxes II, which had projecting scythes fitted. Polish peasants used war scythes during the 17th-century Swedish invasion (The Deluge). In the 1685 battle of Sedgemoor, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, fielded a 5000 strong peasant unit armed with war scythes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Only A Sith Lord Deals In Absolutes

Post by secretnude » Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm

strawman wrote:They are people. People are very often wrong. Therefore Christians are often wrong. On the other hand "fundamentalist Christians" is a perjorative dog-whistle phrase used by "fundamentalist skeptics", who are also people, and people being often wrong, they are just as often wrong, but seldom admit it.
Science
is a framework for correcting errors
and yes the Scientists
are Human and often err
but we err
on the side of reproducibility
that gives us the ability
to trust our Experimental Data
or Scientific Theories.

Scientific Theories
must be strictly falsifiable
to be able
to qualify as a Scientific Theory.

Scientific Theories
can get overturned in Scientific Revolutions
which are good Revolutions.

Scientific Facts
and Truths
and are thus provisional
which is conditional
on being able to reproduce data.

Science
isn't based on Absolutes
and if a statistically significant proof of the Divine
appears, Science
will be fine.
The essential premise of falsifiability in science probably makes religion and science incompatible. For example, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest, discovered the Theory of the Big Bang (origin of the universe, not the oft-mentioned TV show around here), calling it “the hypothesis of the primeval atom.” He never mentioned that a supernatural being was involved, because he knew it could possibly be falsified, and if he went down the path of a religious basis for the Big Bang, then his god could be falsified.

The crucial definition of pseudoscience is the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true. Pseudoscientists cannot properly describe their methodology as scientific, because they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. Just name your pseudoscience, and you’ll observe this unscientific method. Vaccine deniers believe that vaccines are neither safe or effective. That is their conclusion. And no matter what the evidence, and they try to construct impossible experiments to get evidence, they will not change their mind. Real science, on the other hand, is always trying to test it’s conclusions. Billions of dollars were spent trying to show a link between vaccines and autism, and unsurprisingly, all failed. There is no link.

Creationists, properly they are evolution deniers, do the same thing. They claim that their beliefs are scientific, yet, typical of all pseudoscience, they have a conclusion, that a god created the universe, and all evidence either supports their belief, or they ignore the evidence. Or both.

It’s important to understand that science is not pragmatic or dogmatic, no matter how it is depicted by those with an anti science agenda. And when science isn’t being dogmatic, the pseudoscience pushers leap on the idea that science is “unsure.” Well, science isn’t a conscience being–it is a method of understanding nature. That’s all.

So, Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionary biologist, correctly described his beliefs or lack of beliefs in a supernatural being using common scientific verbiage. He’s probably 99.9% sure that there are no gods. He’s probably 99.9% sure that there is a lack of evidence in a god. So why is it that some people insist on rounding 99.9% down to a 0.00% probability that gods don’t exist? I guess for the same reason that pseudoscientists round up 0.0001% to 100% that the evidence supports their junk science.

Science is all about the evidence. That’s all. Evidence is gathered that either supports or nullifies the principles, hypotheses and theories of the natural universe. Occasionally, it’s hard to tell if it reinforces or refutes an idea, so you keep repeating. But a real scientist keeps gathering evidence, because they’re never 100% sure, like Dawkins and his lack of acceptance of a creator. We leave the 100%’s to the pseudoscientists.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptica ... ns-proves/
Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from divine commands. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote, "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." (p. 12) Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

If it doesn't fit you must acquit

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 12:08 pm

Religion
like clothing will either fit you
or you
do alterations
that in generations
did give rise to so many Religions
like in a Shopping Region.

I once proudly wore my Religion
like so many in my Catholic Region.

I used to go regularly to Catholic Mass
and you didn't have to drag my ass.

I outgrew my Catholic Religion
as I embraced the Principles of Reason.

There is only one Scientific Method
and one Unified Body of Scientific
Knowledge
unlike the conflicting
and Archaic Methods
and Knowledge
that one could acknowledge
as leading
to 'Salvation'
in various conflicting
Religions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_science

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Protestantism
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

A Lazy Cosmic Lawyer

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 12:44 pm

The Cosmic Cat
had that
document that
was delivered on a Mountain Top
that
can make your head spin like a top.

The 'Ten Commandments'
was it a Legal Document
or a Religious Document?

If it's a Legal Document
it was made evidently
by a Lawyer that confidently
ignored exceptions
so it will be easy in its reception.

Some said it should apply
even to those that deny
the existence of the Cosmic Cat
that's
so lazy that
this Cat
was said not to make
his presence felt unless you take
'His Word' into your heart
before you do depart.

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandm ... isions.htm
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sat May 24, 2014 1:09 pm

Your definition of science as purely rational is an ideal which, because people are people, is not realized in practice. If the same logic is applied to Christianity, since the standard is Christ, any action which Christ would not do is not done by Christians.

Scientists do things "in the name of science" which are unscientific, because they, likewise, are human. Comparing one ideal to another's practice is a logical fallacy. That would be unscientific, wouldn't it?
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Good Night Good Knights

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 3:36 pm

The Cute Knights
of that
Cute TheoCat
soon met that
long sharp stick
that made them quickly
bid goodnight.

The good Knights
had a fight
that
just might
make them to the afterlife
after a life
of loyal service to that
Cute TheoCat.

The Cute TheoCat
said that
his Cute Knights
had the right
to fight
and kill
but will
still
go to the 'Heavenly Place'
despite going against the face
of the Commandment of that
Almighty Cosmic Cat
that
said 'Thou shall not kill'
since the Iron Will
of the TheoCat
is the Will
of that
Almighty Cosmic Cat.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

On bended knees the TheoCat prayed to that Holy Cat

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 3:37 pm

The Cute TheoCat
was shocked
that
his Elite
Cute Shock
Troops suffered an acute defeat
in the hands
of lowly Peasants that
I understand
had not even a Horse
and the Cute TheoCat's
voice grew acutely hoarse
while his language became coarse.

The TheoCat
now looked at that
defeat
as a sign that
he must eat
his pride
as his surviving Cute Knights
ride
to hide
inside
the Cute Castle Walls
that might soon fall
due to organic fertilizer bombs
that exploded with aplomb.

The Castle Walls
did fall
and as I recall
on his knees, the TheoCat did fall.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

No More CatLick Masses said the Masses

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 3:40 pm

The Cute TheoCat
got a sharp poke
as one of his Generals spoke
that
they are changing sides
while inside
the Castle Walls
that did fall
at strategic spots
and Loyal Subjects are now hard
to spot.

The TheoCat
took that
betrayal hard
as he surrendered to the Masses
that
said no more CatLick Masses.

CatLick Priests now threw
their vestments
in which they
made a lifetime investment
since they knew
that the 'Angry Mob'
might rob
them of their life.

The Priests started to doubt the afterlife
due to the hypocrisy
of this Theocracy
led by a crazy
TheoCat.
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

"Off with his head!", the Angry Masses said...

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 3:43 pm

The Loyal
Knights of the TheoCat
weren't that
loyal
at all
to the deposed Royal.

The Knights now
supported the Masses
that said no
more CatLick Masses.

The Masses
did demand
the TheoCat's
Head
that
I understand
did fall off
like many of
the Loyal
Royalist
as this CatLick Kingdom turned Atheist.

Loyal Royalist
did move to neighboring countries
that had still Absolute Royal Rule
as a rule
by a Deputy
of the TheoCat
that's
now dead.

Many Deputies
of the TheoCat
faced the reality
of the TheoCat's
defeat
that
they did eat
their pride
and went off to hide.

### Links ###
Next viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&p=49046#p49046
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

A System that corrects itself in the end will end correct

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 3:53 pm

strawman wrote:Your definition of science as purely rational is an ideal which, because people are people, is not realized in practice. If the same logic is applied to Christianity, since the standard is Christ, any action which Christ would not do is not done by Christians.

Scientists do things "in the name of science" which are unscientific, because they, likewise, are human. Comparing one ideal to another's practice is a logical fallacy. That would be unscientific, wourldn't it?
Peer Review
in my view
does correct
whatever defects
that we gullible Humans have
since we do have
a system
that self corrects.

You're correct
that we are comparing
two different systems
but the system
that corrects
itself in the end
will end
more correct
since defects
exist in all
Human Projects.

Your constant appeal
to the Divine
is fine
but that doesn't appeal
to all
since the Ideals
that you feel
maybe 'Universal'
may not be 'Universal'.

Christ is indeed an ideal
but some people do feel
that turning cheek
and being meek
may turn you into someone weak.
A bonus gift comes if I take advantage of a special offer right now. This special gift is Dr. John MacArthur’s new book, “Slave.” The caption next to the book says, “Best-selling author and pastor Dr. John MacArthur reveals one crucial word that revolutionizes what it means to follow Jesus.” On the back of this advertisement it says, “What does it mean to be a Christian the way Jesus defined it? MacArthur says it all boils down to one word: Slave.”
http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-m ... ology.html
By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2% ... e_morality
The two primary types of morality are master morality and slave morality; in higher civilizations and in people, they are mixed.

Master morality is a "yea-saying" attitude where "good" and "bad" are equivalent to "noble" and "despicable" respectively. The master creates value.

Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil.

The history of morals is the conflict of these two moral outlooks. The higher type creates his own values out of strength; the meek and powerless begin with resentment. Coexistence is impossible because the herd seeks to impose its values universally.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/not ... che.html#3.
The Numbers at Nature

Nature didn't establish its peer-review process until 1953, but has applied the process rigorously ever since. As a result, the quality of its content is thought to be unparalleled among all scientific journals. And getting work published in Nature can be quite difficult:

Nature receives about 10,000 papers every year.
Editors reject 60 percent of them in the first round of the review process.
The rest are sent to handpicked referees.

Ultimately, Nature publishes about 7 percent of its submissions.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... eview2.htm
Peer review, in one form or another, will remain a cornerstone of the scientific process -- not because it's the best system, but because it's the best system we have.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... eview5.htm
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Religion and Science are both Human Endeavors

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 4:08 pm

You do acknowledge
that you have the knowledge
that the Church is run by Humans
and is hence a Human Project
with Human Defects
and we have another Human Project
with Human Defects
which is Science
in effect.

As a Human Project
both Science
and Religion could be both subject
to Human Inquiry
since Humans do inquire
and aspire
to understand
where we currently stand
in matters
that matters

Faith and Science both matter
and can be both raw materials
for raw debates
that promote hate
but I don't personally hate
those with Faith.

I prefer to go without Faith.
Science is grounded in the concept that we, as humans, can examine and understand the world around us. This is practically one of the roots of humanism as a philosophy. We don’t need supernatural causes to explain our surroundings. As Douglas Adams said, or perhaps wrote, “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
http://teachingsapiens.wordpress.com/20 ... -endeavor/
RS 111 Introduction to Religious Studies (3)
A critical examination of religion as a human endeavor through examinations of different religious perspectives from historical, anthropological and/or sociological standpoints. Through the academic study of religion, students will become conversant with major themes, issues, figures and phenomena. CORE-II.
https://www.avila.edu/rs-pl/rs_courses.asp
It may seem awfully unfair to compare scientific and religious progress over the last 50 years. I suspect we all had an inkling of which methodology would have yielded the most progress and the most good for society.


Indeed when plotted side by side the comparison is pretty stark.

However, most of today’s established religions were, I imagine, fairly progressive at their outset. They emerged in more brutal times and mandated moral and liberal attitudes that represented great progress from the status quo of the time. However by attributing those laudable human ideals to an infallible divine origin, the limits of those ideologies were capped.

We thankfully live in a time when generic humanitarian values have, in most societies, overtaken those once progressive religious ideologies. As a result the progress achieved by religion in recent times looks rather pitiful when compared to the recent progress achieved by a methodology that actively embraces new ideas and contains a mechanism for evaluation, unbiased review and self-correction.

As a direct result of the inbuilt progress limitations inherent in religion, what religious progress we have seen over the last 50 years broadly falls into 2 camps.

Firstly there is the recognition that mainstream religion needs to catch up with modern views on items such as the equality of women and homosexuals. Despite lagging behind the rest of society, many progressive people within mainstream religious organisations recognise the need for equality beyond that originally foreseen by their religions’ founders and the need to upgrade their religion accordingly.

Alas, the second type of religious progress highlighted by the diagram above shows an ugly form of religious progress that is becoming more and more familiar. When modern society is seen at odds with religious teachings many look to progress their faith towards a more literal interpretation of their scripture. Many faiths have regrettably progressed over recent years by branching out at the fringes to a more fundamentalist stance. Hence the chart below is littered with progress in the form of new creation museums, opposition to life saving medical procedures and numerous landmark cases of bigotry and discrimination. Not the sort of progress to be proud of.
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/ ... gress.html
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Atheism = Null Hypothesis

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 5:18 pm

Science by default
defaults
to the default
position
or the Null Hypothesis
which is my position
in the Hypothesis
that God Exist.

Your position isn't the default position
in Science but I respect your Religion
so respect by position.

If a statistically significant proof of the Divine
can be obtained
my position
will not be retained
and all will be fine
as I accept the Divine.

The Divine
isn't that fine
if you consider
that there are many other
belief systems that conflict
that causes 'Global Conflict'.

I do ask, why at any rate
elevate
your Religion
over other Religions?
Atheism: The Null Hypothesis
I have heard it claimed recently by some theists that “Atheism is not the default position” and it puzzles me somewhat. When atheists talk about the default position what we are referring to is the scientific concept of the null hypothesis. A claim is made—in this case that a god exists— and the null hypothesis is to say that the claim is false. From Wikipedia: “The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect.” The null hypothesis is a negative statement, not a positive claim.

I have also seen many atheists try to ‘prove’ that god(s) do not exist. You cannot prove a null hypothesis. From Wikipedia: “It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it.” The issue is widely misunderstood on both sides of the debate though, so it isn’t only atheists who are pushing the envelope too far. It has been claimed by theists that to be an atheist means you have to know everything. Again, this is false as atheism is the null hypothesis, and as atheists our position can merely be the data we have so far is not enough to reject the null hypothesis. Much to my dismay, one of favourite scientists Carl Sagan also seemed to misunderstand this. He once said: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

So let it be known, atheism is not a claim to omniscience, nor can it ever be proved. Atheism is rejecting the existence of gods, not a claim to knowledge of their non-existence. People on all sides of this debate would do well to learn this, as it would make the debate much more enjoyable.
Posted by KJ at 10:41 AM
http://undeniably-atheist.blogspot.com/ ... hesis.html
Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology, while science has sat on the sidelines. Despite the fact that science has revolutionized every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality. This physicist and author contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. Treating the traditional God concept, as conventionally presented in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, like any other scientific hypothesis, Stenger examines all of the claims made for God's existence. He considers the latest Intelligent Design arguments as evidence of God's influence in biology. He looks at human behavior for evidence of immaterial souls and the possible effects of prayer. He discusses the findings of physics and astronomy in weighing the suggestions that the universe is the work of a creator and that humans are God's special creation. After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. This paperback edition of the New York Times bestselling hardcover edition contains a new foreword by Christopher Hitchens and a postscript by the author in which he responds to reviewers' criticisms of the original edition.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypoth ... 1591026520

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Seeking the truth, I found many truths:

When I was 20, I read "Siddhartha" by Herman Hesse and I realized that Christianity did not have the corner on truth. So I set out to discover truth and found instead many truths.

One of the first things I discovered was that Christians not only didn?t have all the answers, they weren?t even asking the right questions. In fact, many weren?t asking any questions and were actively discouraging others from asking any questions. "Just believe" was the mantra.

Another discovery I made is that humans have inquiring minds and inquiring minds want to know. To deny the inquisitive, questioning side of our nature is to be half human. It keeps us from reaching our full potential. If you are one who believes that God created us, than why on earth would he have given us such a magnificent complex brain, and the freedom to use it, if he didn?t want us to use it?

I also discovered that The Bible is a great book, but it is not the only great book. It is full of great wisdom for those that are willing to thoughtfully plumb its depths. However, it is not the only book full of great wisdom. It is not the inerrant word of God. It has far too many errors and contradictions for that. It is the words of mortal men claiming divine inspiration.

I also discovered a common misperception among Christians: that without belief in God, the Atheist -- or anyone who doesn?t believe exactly what they believe -- has nothing. They have no hope, no purpose, no ethics, no morality. That perception couldn?t be further from the truth. Knowledge about our selves and our world frees us from the fear and "hate" of the other that ignorance can spawn. All the worlds religions -- or no religion -- can help you become a better person or a worse one. When you understand science and evolution you understand that our purpose is to become the best possible person that we can be and that we are connected in multiple ways to every other living thing on this planet. That understanding leads to an ethic and moral position where all humans and living things are respected and admired for their individuality/uniqueness.

My wanderings led me to the writings of al (or as many as I could get a hold of) the worlds great religions and some minor ones. I read books on philosophy and mythology. I loved Joseph Campbell's books. I pursued New Age mysticism, and read about Kaballah (Jewish mysticism). I read "Black Elk Speaks" and books about the Medicine Wheel and Earth Medicine. I read books by some of our greatest contemporary writers, "The Old Man and The Sea," "Walden," "True Believers" by Eric Hoffer, "The Ring Trilogy," and even those delightful Harry Potter books. I studied science and history, religion and psychology. They all have something to teach us about life and the human condition. They are all, in my opinion, Sacred Texts.

The more I read, the more I began to see a common thread that ran through most, if not all of these books -- a common thread that ties the Worlds Great Religions (and all humanity) together. I realized that if there is a God, then this common thread must be the real word of God, the one thing that we can count on. This is because all of these people from these diverse walks of life (religious and non-religious), and in different times, came up with the same idea. Then I read Karen Armstrong?s book a year ago, "The Great Transformation, The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions." I realized that at least one other person had reached the same conclusion that I had reached -- she through her scholarly pursuits and me through reading and thinking in my less than scholarly way.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humphreys02.htm
Which, then, is the true religion?

Because religions are so different, only one could be the "true religion." Perhaps none are. Within the "true religion" there may be more than one faith group that are sufficiently accurate in their beliefs and practices that all could qualify as "true." The problem is how to find out which religion and which faith groups have this status.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

We are probably (99%) incompatible in this debate

Post by secretnude » Sat May 24, 2014 5:57 pm

I prefer the Null Hypothesis
and you prefer as a Theist
a God that will not be the subject
or object
of any Scientific Study due to your beliefs.

I guess it will be to your relief
I respect
your beliefs.
and I expect
the same
as we play this nice game.

I do love this dialog
and it's a nice dialog
of contrasting viewpoints
that I might point
maybe impossible to reconcile.

If I lived in a Theocracy
I would have to be exiled
for my views
that you might view
as 'Unorthodox'
versus the majority
'ruling' Christian Orthodoxy.
Christianity actually held back the progress of science for one thousand years. It is significant, he notes, that the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century occurred only after the revolts against established ecclesiastic authorities in the Renaissance and Reformation opened up new avenues of thought.

The author goes on to detail how religion and science are fundamentally incompatible in several areas: the origin of the universe and its physical parameters, the origin of complexity, holism versus reductionism, the nature of mind and consciousness, and the source of morality. In the end, Stenger is most troubled by the negative influence that organized religion often exerts on politics and society. He points out antiscientific attitudes embedded in popular religion that are being used to suppress scientific results on issues of global importance, such as overpopulation and environmental degradation. When religion fosters disrespect for science, it threatens the generations of humanity that will follow ours.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Folly-Faith-I ... y_b_text_y
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sat May 24, 2014 8:44 pm

Christian monks in the 4th century preserved what knowledge remained after the collapse of the Roman empire. Christians founded the universities that led to the Enlightenment.
Propaganda seldom is scientific.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Aristotle himself would have agreed with Galileo

Post by secretnude » Sun May 25, 2014 12:42 am

strawman wrote:Christian monks in the 4th century preserved what knowledge remained after the collapse of the Roman empire. Christians founded the universities that led to the Enlightenment.
Propaganda seldom is scientific.
The Church picked
the Aristotelian
Framework without picking up
Aristotle's
inquisitive spirit.

In the spirit
of fairness, I acknowledge the facts
you stated
but the Dark Ages is also a fact
and the fact
that Galileo was hated
by the Christians
that had
sadly
Unchristian
behavior
but Christian
behavior
up to (some extent)
today
is to relay
the old Sacred Texts as Truth
and prevent
us from discovering Truths
as an Independent
Seeker of Truth.

The Truth
maybe somewhere in between
but I have seen
enough unbiased sources
that the Church did (to some extent)
oppress
and suppress
the Truth.
In his book The Assayer, written in 1623, Galileo said, "Philosophy is written in this grand book of the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders in a dark labyrinth."

(By 'philosophy' Galileo means both what we would call philosophy and also natural sciences, which were in his time studied as part of philosophy. For more on the great astronomer, physicist, and mathematician Galileo, see the excellent web site of Prof. Fowler at the University of Virginia.)

What Galileo is saying is that the workings of the universe are understandable, and that we need mathematics in order to understand them. This may seem to many people today to be a very obvious point: of course we need to learn mathematics in order to understand things; so many fields rely on measurements, statistics, "facts and figures." But it was not so obvious in Galileo's time, and he was tried and imprisoned for his theories that were based on this idea.

Why would anyone want to punish Galileo for this?

Galileo was punished by certain important members of the Catholic Church. Remember that in Europe in Galileo's time, there was no separation of church and state; the religious authorities ran the universities and could censor publications, and worked hand-in-hand with the governments of the various countries. Galileo lived in Italy, which was Catholic, and got into trouble with some people close to the Pope.

The basic problem that these religious authorities found was that some of Galileo's scientific discoveries appeared to contradict the official Catholic interpretation of Christian scripture, or to contradict the official Catholic interpretation of Aristotle. (Why the Catholic Church accepted the works of Aristotle is a long story; here I will say only that the 17th-century Church interpretation of Aristotle's scientific work is not necessarily what Aristotle intended.) For example, Galileo discovered more stars in the sky than are mentioned in the Bible or Aristotle, because he had a telescope and Aristotle and the ancient Hebrews did not. Galileo discovered that a heavier object falls no faster than a lighter one (the Church interpreted Aristotle as saying that heavy objects fall faster than light ones; a close examination of Aristotle's texts suggests that this is a misunderstanding or a mistranslation of Aristotle's words). Therefore the Church authorities claimed that Galileo had contradicted sacred truths. They believed that if human observation and reasoning seemed to say something different from holy scripture (or from their interpretation of holy scripture), then the human observation and reasoning must be wrong. (2)

Galileo pointed out that he was not denying God's perfection or role as a creator; that the Bible did not specify exactly how many stars there were; that some statements in the Bible are not understood literally (for example, even the Church agreed that the sun does not literally "rise").

But Galileo was unable to convince the Church authorities of this, even though Aristotle himself would have agreed with Galileo about the need for independent investigation, reasoning, and proof. What was really at stake here was what counts as knowledge, and why; who can get new knowledge, and how. The Church held that knowledge was revealed in Scripture that a person with a religious calling and lots of training in accepted interpretations could learn. Other people should be content to hear these trained religious people explain things. The Church was more interested in the ultimate nature of things (as revealed by God) and in how to achieve salvation than in the everyday workings of things, so a lot of areas were just not covered by Church teachings. Galileo and the Scientific Revolution argued that perhaps religious revelation was needed in order to learn the ultimate meaning of things and the way to salvation, but that observation and reasoning would tell us about how things work on an everyday basis; and that any human could learn these things if he or she worked hard enough.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcherubi/srfr.htm
"Dark Ages" originally was intended to denote the entire period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; the term "Middle Ages" has a similar motivation, implying an intermediate period between Classical Antiquity and the Modern era. In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay.[6] Now the term is not used by scholars to refer to the entire medieval period;[10] when used, it is generally restricted to the Early Middle Ages.[1]

The rise of archaeology and other specialties in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments.[13] Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages, and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term "Dark Ages" was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. On the rare occasions when the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" because of the scarcity of artistic and cultural output,[14] including historical records, when compared with both earlier and later times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_ ... ography%29
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
secretnude
Member
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:33 pm
Location: Tau Ceti

Conservatives and Preservatives

Post by secretnude » Sun May 25, 2014 1:36 am

The Church is great at preserving
and conserving
'Texts'
but relying on Ancient Texts
might be hexed
if you are after 'Observable Truth'
that only a 'Experiment can refute.

Refuting
Galileo
was fixed by Later Popes
but it took the Popes
centuries
to Rehabilitate
Galileo
at any rate.

Such is the rate
of 'progress'
in the Church
and it isn't restricted
strictly
to the Catholic Church.

Christian Fundamentalists
do exist
and it's a fact
that
they still act
as if all 'Truth'
is contained
in a Book that
they are quite certain
is right
that they always keep in sight.
no one was more instrumental than Dominican
Fr. Enrico di Rovasenda in the Vatican's decision to reevaluate the case
of Galileo Galilei, which over the centuries had become the leading symbol
of a supposed clash between religion and science, between rigid dogmatism
and the free spirit of scientific inquiry.

Still going strong, di Rovasenda celebrated his 100th birthday in Genoa
on June 17. Cardinals Tarcisio Bertone of Genoa, the next Secretary of
State, and George Cottier, the Dominican who served John Paul II as
theologian of the papal household, were present for the festivities.

In summary form, in 1616 the Vatican's Congregation of the Index
declared the Copernican theory of heliocentrism to be "false and
altogether contrary to Scripture." In 1633, Galileo was found guilty by a
Roman tribunal of failing to observe the 1616 decree, and was forced to
publicly abjure his position. (Legend has it that afterwards he muttered
eppur si mouve, "and yet it moves.")

When the Vatican acknowledged in 1992 that many in the church had been
"incapable of disassociating the faith from an age-old cosmology," it was
greeted as a revolution in Catholicism's attitude towards science.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-c ... ed-galileo
This sets the stage for Rene Descartes (1596-1650; French).

Descartes set himself a dual task: (1) Show that Galileo was right about how to seek knowledge; and (2) Avoid getting imprisoned or executed for this.

This meant that Descartes had to show (1') that true things can be discovered by means of observation and reasoning; and (2') that this independent inquiry does not violate any religious or moral rules.

Descartes was uniquely equipped for this project in that he was a mathematical genius (he invented analytic geometry, or what became analytic geometry; the Cartesian coordinate system is named after him), a scientist (he did work in optics and physics), and a philosopher. He was educated in Catholic schools and knew their teachings well.

Descartes argued that the very essence of being human was the ability to think or reason (see for example Discourse Part Four; Meditation Two). The Catholic Church could not deny that this ability had been given to us by God, since only by means of this ability can we have an idea of God, understand scripture, worship, etc. Descartes continued by saying that "we should never allow ourselves to be persuaded except by the evidence of our reason"(3) (22). The senses and imagination, Descartes felt, could be important sources of raw information, but they might give us erroneous information, so we must be careful always to examine our sensory impressions and ideas by using reason. Some of our ideas may turn out not to be true, Descartes says, but "all our ideas or notions ought to have some foundation of truth, for it would not be possible that God, who is all-perfect and all-truthful, would have put them in us without that."(4) Note that Descartes does not claim that all of our ideas are true, but rather that even the false ones have some basis in truth. Our false ideas come from our reactions to real things or to our impressions of real things, and our reactions and impressions may be confused, or we may have insufficient information to make a true judgment, etc. Through reason, he says, we can find out the truth.

How are we to find out the truth? Descartes provides a method of reasoning that is very much like today's mathematical and scientific methods (see Discourse Part Two).

What truths will we find out? Descartes says in Part Five of the Discourse that he has "showed what the laws of nature were": There are, he says, "certain laws that God has so established in nature and of which he has impressed in our souls such notions, that, after having reflected sufficiently on these matters, we cannot deny that they are strictly adhered to in everything that exists or occurs in the world."5 God has made the universe work according to laws, Descartes holds; and God has given us impressions of these laws. By reflection and reasoning, we can gain clear knowledge of these laws. The laws Descartes is talking about are such things as the laws of physics, the principles of respiration and circulation, and so on.

Descartes was very careful in his publishing, and got into only minimal trouble with religious authorities. Times were beginning to change politically. But Descartes had to stay out of certain countries for his own safety. He found safe havens in places with more tolerant regimes, and even served as a sort of professor to the Queen of Sweden, who was a very able philosopher and scientist in her own right. Descartes also sent his work informally to philosophers and scientists who he thought would be sympathetic to his projects, and this got the word out. In addition, he did something new and clever: he put his work out in French as well as in Latin. Latin was the language of the Catholic Church and the universities, so it was important for Descartes to use it. But many people in Europe knew only minimal Latin, and some of these people were able to be very helpful. The people who knew Latin well were Catholic (and some Protestant) clergy, and those who could study at universities. But most of the people at universities were nobility, and all were men. There was a growing number of noblewomen, and members of the merchant and artisan classes of both sexes, who had the resources and the interest to study philosophy and science. They had not had much of a chance so far. French was a language that many people knew; it was used often outside of France. So these people read Descartes with great interest, and provided him with scholarly discussion as well as in some cases political and financial support.

But what does that have to do with political revolutions?

One immediate connection can be seen in the fact that Descartes was arguing that reasoning was an ability all people have, and that this ability we all have is exactly what we need in order to learn about the world. We don't need a special upbringing or education or religion (Descartes reached out to people of all religions that he knew). And Descartes made sure that every human who could read French would have a chance to try. In this way, he was very egalitarian. This was very much different from the way most institutions worked in his time, where only a small number of people had any political power or religious authority, and others did not have a chance to try for it.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcherubi/srfr.htm
"Be Authentically Weird and be Weird
enough to be in a Category of One."

"It's time to shake up staid traditions
in favor of strange experimentation."

User avatar
strawman
Member
Posts: 5966
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: South Georgia

Re: Secretnude's Drabble Poetry Corner

Post by strawman » Sun May 25, 2014 2:43 am

It is apparently not uncommon for some fundamentalists to speak on behalf of Christianity, and for some scientific fundamentalists to speak on behalf of science. It isn't difficult usually to sense the prejudice and sniff them both out as neither Christian nor scientist.

I agree with Descartes. It contradicts the fundamental concept that God is Love for faith to contradict reason. Still I think an individual's responsibility is search for truth free from personal prejudices.
Never judge anyone until you have biopsied their brain.

"Be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Known Some Call Is Air Am
Spoiler:
Non sum qualis eram = "I am not who I will be"

Post Reply