Forums | MacLife

Sassy wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

http://media5.big-boys.com/content/tradingspouses.wmv

This is what I picture when I think of YECs... hilarious.

I don't know where this clip came from, but it isn't funny. It's dreadful. It is a graphic show of fear at its worse.

This poor woman is in terror! She's in a hysterical fit with terror! That's what comes with being so terrified of the 'wrath' of god that she's willing to do anything to save herself and her family. This is religion at its awesome, fanatic realization.

It must be akin to what the terrorist feels when pulling the trigger that releases the explosives embracing his/her body. It's insane!http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/flamewar.gifhttp://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/endnigh2.gif

It's from a TV show that aired Wed (on Fox, I think) called "Trading Spouses". The concept of the show is that two mothers switch families for 2 weeks. They try and get mothers from different types of families (like city/rural moms, or working/stay home moms, etc) for the show. This one had a mother from a family that believe in astrology (they were otherwise normal though, if they didn't tell you they believed in astrology, I wouldn't have guessed), and a religious family (who were also fairly normal, except for the insane mother).

Metacell wrote:

Incidentally, you can pickup the cosmic background radiation of the big bang on your TV set.  It's the snow!  (I know its hard these days with cable.)  If you stare at it long enough, you will get a special message from God.

Sassy wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

It's from a TV show that aired Wed (on Fox, I think) called "Trading Spouses". The concept of the show is that two mothers switch families for 2 weeks. They try and get mothers from different types of families (like city/rural moms, or working/stay home moms, etc) for the show. This one had a mother from a family that believe in astrology (they were otherwise normal though, if they didn't tell you they believed in astrology, I wouldn't have guessed), and a religious family (who were also fairly normal, except for the insane mother).

To put a 'positive spin' on it, I suppose one is enlightened when exposed to how 'extreme' people can be when it comes to defending one's 'belief.'

I've seen this before -- in person. People are so superstitious they claim 'healing' when none exists, they claim 'riches' not earned, they claim 'power' they can't prove or achieve. It's like going to a magic show. People know it's a trick, but they want so much to 'believe' that they dismiss their own common sense. Beyond entertainment, it has no value whatsoever other than to confuse and frighten children. It's the boogieman wrapped in religion.

When the woman was ranting about being a "GOD WARRIOR" her husband whispered under his breath (on TV) "this is bullsmurf". It was pretty entertaining, I think...

uh oh... Little Ricky goes flippity flop!

Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom

BEAVER FALLS - U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom.

Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."

But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."

I wonder if this means the ID debate will be short-lived?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Just thought this might be of interest: World-famous religious leader embraces science and religion

Carry on.

Considering that Buddhism has neither a defined god or a creation myth, it really has no grounds for contentiousness with science.  Nevertheless, some of the scientists at that convention seemed concerned about the Dalai Lama's qualification to address the scientific community.

How design supporters insult God's intelligence

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/how- … lick=true#

Very concise argument, from a theologian.  Good to read, if you're interested.

Speaking of aquinas, some may find this article to be amusing.

P. D. Ouspensky explains it quite clearly all in his books Tertium Organum and The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution.

http://www.gurdjieff.org/ouspensky3.htm

KHannon wrote:

My contribution to this thread.  Apologies if this has already been posted:

The Truth Behind Evolution

DUM DUM DUUUUM.

Yes, I know its WMV.  Bite me

The funny thing about that video is that it's obsolete. The Catholic church has accepted evolution, and Catholic schools, once regarded as substituting catechism for a decent education, are now (supposedly) regarded as being half decent. Perhaps Kansan Catholic shools will be far superior to the public alternative.

Metacell wrote:

P. D. Ouspensky explains it quite clearly all in his books Tertium Organum and The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution.

http://www.gurdjieff.org/ouspensky3.htm

A Brief Overview of Certain Aspects of the Thought of Petyr Demianovich Ouspensky

I have not read these books, but think the gist of what Ouspensky thought is found in the link above. My own observation concerning his ideas is as follows:

We are the captives of our time. We know only that we have come to know. We accept the condition as it comes to us with the hope that we will build on and thus contribute more to that body of knowledge with new ideas and new facts.

That there is more to know is acknowledged. It must exist for us to discover. The fact that we can only, at this point in time, view objects in 3 dimensions does not, of itself, mean we cannot  seek understanding of other dimensions as we do with time -- as a dimension abstraction that functions to help explain the other 3 as they function in physics as we describe reality.

Time may seem artificial because it is an abstraction, but it becomes a fact in the way it is used. This may be the way another dimension, perhaps an abstraction, may exist and be useful to gain knowledge.

Ouspensky attempts to describe another dimension in terms of the dimensions we know. The flaw here is that time is, in point of fact, already a dimension, a necessary dimension for the accumulation of knowledge. One can not 'erase' it to describe another. What he is trying to do is make a place for 'god'  the creator, that god exists in a dimension that has no beginning or end.

If other dimensions DO exist, they are with us now. We just don't 'see' them as such, and thus, how they 'may' interact with the dimensions we DO know. Just as Newton gave gravity an identity and showed how it controls the universe, science has not yet 'identified' an unrecognized dimension and its effect(s) on the universe and, by inclusion, on the earth as we know it. The 'string theory' is a peep hole to new knowledge. If we can 'observe' it, as it is expected according to the math, we will have gone where no one has gone before. And, we will understand it because it has always been there waiting to be discovered.

Sassy wrote:

Metacell wrote:

P. D. Ouspensky explains it quite clearly all in his books Tertium Organum and The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution.

http://www.gurdjieff.org/ouspensky3.htm

A Brief Overview of Certain Aspects of the Thought of Petyr Demianovich Ouspensky

I have not read these books, but think the gist of what Ouspensky thought is found in the link above. My own observation concerning his ideas is as follows:

Unfortunately, it's hard to "get the gist" of Ouspensky, and not just because of the difficult terminology and translation from Russian.  A mathematician, his books tend to build on each previous chapter like a math textbook.

Time may seem artificial because it is an abstraction, but it becomes a fact in the way it is used. This may be the way another dimension, perhaps an abstraction, may exist and be useful to gain knowledge.

Ouspensky attempts to describe another dimension in terms of the dimensions we know. The flaw here is that time is, in point of fact, already a dimension, a necessary dimension for the accumulation of knowledge. One can not 'erase' it to describe another. What he is trying to do is make a place for 'god'  the creator, that god exists in a dimension that has no beginning or end.

My take on it was that all dimensions higher than what a being concieved its existence would be experienced as linear time, though any number of dimensions might actually be being moved through. This is painstakingly detailed in a chapter showing how a being with a one or two-dimensional psychology (Ouspensky uses animals to illustrate these) would experience our 3rd dimension as time, and no matter the actual path taken through pandimensional existence, the perception is always of linear forward movement. Ouspensky tries to describe god as a psychology that can see across all dimensions.

If other dimensions DO exist, they are with us now. We just don't 'see' them as such, and thus, how they 'may' interact with the dimensions we DO know. Just as Newton gave gravity an identity and showed how it controls the universe, science has not yet 'identified' an unrecognized dimension and its effect(s) on the universe and, by inclusion, on the earth as we know it. The 'string theory' is a peep hole to new knowledge. If we can 'observe' it, as it is expected according to the math, we will have gone where no one has gone before. And, we will understand it because it has always been there waiting to be discovered.

Though I can't admit to understanding string theory beyond the Discovery Channel Reader's Digest version, I do understand that currently it is only an intriguing mathematical construct with no actual physical evidence supporting it. But I certainly look forward to further discoveries in this field.

Ouspensky's one time partner in bringing the Philosophies of Asia to the western world, G.I.Gurdjief, had some pretty outrageous mathematical theories too, but he was in many ways Ouspensky's opposite. He seemed to despise rationality, challenging us to "unlearn" in a Yoda-esque fashion by presenting a Universe that defied all conventional wisdom. The goal (I think) was to awaken us from the sleep of constant assumption and look at all things with a fresh consciousness.

"I can't believe I have to argue evolution!!!!
FOSSILS, FOSSILS, FOSSILS!!!!!!!!!!!
I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!"
~ Lewis Black