Study: D1bs and Cap'n Cats Most Knowledgeable About Religion

[kalm]

Lighten up you humorless nerd, I have not read Hawking's book but now you've got me interested. What do you think of the ramifications of Hawking's beliefs on the criminal justice system?

In a nutshell, we'd have to re-think the justifications for penal sentencing if, as Hawking claims, we lack any free will and all our actions are based on determinism, i.e., unavoidable and caused by the laws of physics in a specific context.

Currently, the justifications for penal sentencing are understood to be: (i) specific deterrence (i.e., deterring the offender from future illegal conduct); (ii) rehabilitation and reform; (iii) general deterrence (deterring others from engaging int he same conduct); and sometimes (iv) retribution.

All assume some level of free will on the part of the individual. If free will is but an illusion, as Hawking argues, then we'd have to question the effectiveness of the current purposes of criminal sentencing. Perhaps, if Hawking is correct, we are left only with the assumption that incarceration of a criminal offender prevents an individual who is predisposed, because of the laws of physics, to engage in certain bad conduct under specific conditions, from finding himself in similar circumstances in the future and which may cause him to act in the same bad way.

It seems to me, if that is the case, we are essentially justifying incarceration and penalty based on utilitarian principles -- removing the offender from society creates the most benefit for the whole. I'd question, if this were our sentencing model, how we determine the length of sentences for various crimes.

Fortunately, Hawking is encountering stiff resistance from others in the intellectual community on his advocacy of determinism by reference to the laws of physics.

What if our actions are based on cooperation/democracy? What's good and bad for the herd based on thousands of years experience passed down from generation to generation.

How does a parent determine the appropriate punishment for a child?

[89Hen]

no one respects you here.

Broken record. This coming from you is

[andy7171]

Shit! They got red ones!??!!!??

[D1B]

no one respects you here.

Broken record. This coming from you is

It's true. Joe lost it all trying to defend absurdity with lies, distraction, evasion, personal attacks and other grade school moves.

[D1B]

Shit! They got red ones!??!!!??

Arent you embarassed Andy? I realize you've latched onto the shoe thing to avoid confronting the issues here, but why the church? Why put your kids through it? Why waste your money and time on nonsense, like the pope's shoes or that staff he's using? I wonder how much that cost and what exactly it has to do with jesus?

You do realize that some of the money you've given the church was used to defend pedophiles and cover up one of the greatest criminal enterprises in world history? Andy, this is a fact.

Man, just leave the catholic church - it's what jesus would do.

[JoltinJoe]

In a nutshell, we'd have to re-think the justifications for penal sentencing if, as Hawking claims, we lack any free will and all our actions are based on determinism, i.e., unavoidable and caused by the laws of physics in a specific context.

Currently, the justifications for penal sentencing are understood to be: (i) specific deterrence (i.e., deterring the offender from future illegal conduct); (ii) rehabilitation and reform; (iii) general deterrence (deterring others from engaging int he same conduct); and sometimes (iv) retribution.

All assume some level of free will on the part of the individual. If free will is but an illusion, as Hawking argues, then we'd have to question the effectiveness of the current purposes of criminal sentencing. Perhaps, if Hawking is correct, we are left only with the assumption that incarceration of a criminal offender prevents an individual who is predisposed, because of the laws of physics, to engage in certain bad conduct under specific conditions, from finding himself in similar circumstances in the future and which may cause him to act in the same bad way.

It seems to me, if that is the case, we are essentially justifying incarceration and penalty based on utilitarian principles -- removing the offender from society creates the most benefit for the whole. I'd question, if this were our sentencing model, how we determine the length of sentences for various crimes.

Fortunately, Hawking is encountering stiff resistance from others in the intellectual community on his advocacy of determinism by reference to the laws of physics.

What if our actions are based on cooperation/democracy? What's good and bad for the herd based on thousands of years experience passed down from generation to generation.

How does a parent determine the appropriate punishment for a child?

Perhaps.

I'm just throwing this out there for discussion sake. I believe we possess free will and, while we may have predispositions to act a certain way, the decision to take a substantive moral action is a product of the exercise of our free will. I think it is silly to say, as Hawking does, that there are laws of physics which determine, and mathematical equations which predict, why Mother Teresa spent all her years caring for the poor, incurably ill of Calcutta or why Bernard Madoff ran an enormous Ponzi scheme, when you cannot even begin articulate the how of why of this determinism. At least his co-author, Leonard Mlodinow, has acknowledged that he is aware of no law of physics which can explain the human consciousness.

[JoltinJoe]

Broken record. This coming from you is

It's true. Joe lost it all trying to defend absurdity with lies, distraction, evasion, personal attacks and other grade school moves.

Hen's right. You are just a broken record. There is no one here who repeats falsehoods more than you. Worse, you continue to repeat the falsehood even after it is proven that it is a lie.

So let's start with this. You continually state that Hitler was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church, right? You say that it because it is frequently repeated on the Catholic hate sites which are your primary educators.

Let's see you admit that Hitler was excommunicated by a declaration of the German Catholic Bishops in February 1931, a declaration which excommunicated all leaders of the Nazi party -- which obviously included Hitler. Here is the historical document for your consideration:


http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Bavarian_ ... eb1931.pdf

[kalm]

What if our actions are based on cooperation/democracy? What's good and bad for the herd based on thousands of years experience passed down from generation to generation.

How does a parent determine the appropriate punishment for a child?

Perhaps.

I'm just throwing this out there for discussion sake. I believe we possess free will and, while we may have predispositions to act a certain way, the decision to take a substantive moral action is a product of the exercise of our free will. I think it is silly to say, as Hawking does, that there are laws of physics which determine, and mathematical equations which predict, why Mother Teresa spent all her years caring for the poor, incurably ill of Calcutta or why Bernard Madoff ran an enormous Ponzi scheme, when you cannot even begin articulate the how of why of this determinism. At least his co-author, Leonard Mlodinow, has acknowledged that he is aware of no law of physics which can explain the human consciousness.

If that's Hawking's position, then I agree with you.

As for good and evil, I would contend that God is love and wonderment, the good in most of us is God, and true evil/sociopathic behavior is the very, very, rare exception. Certainly there are degrees, thus, (and for example) placing Mother Theresa closer to God.

[JoltinJoe]

Perhaps.

I'm just throwing this out there for discussion sake. I believe we possess free will and, while we may have predispositions to act a certain way, the decision to take a substantive moral action is a product of the exercise of our free will. I think it is silly to say, as Hawking does, that there are laws of physics which determine, and mathematical equations which predict, why Mother Teresa spent all her years caring for the poor, incurably ill of Calcutta or why Bernard Madoff ran an enormous Ponzi scheme, when you cannot even begin articulate the how of why of this determinism. At least his co-author, Leonard Mlodinow, has acknowledged that he is aware of no law of physics which can explain the human consciousness.

If that's Hawking's position, then I agree with you.

As for good and evil, I would contend that God is love and wonderment, the good in most of us is God, and true evil/sociopathic behavior is the very, very, rare exception. Certainly there are degrees, thus, (and for example) placing Mother Theresa closer to God.

Chapter 2 of the book, The Grand Design, explicitly makes this claim.

Hawking claims that although there are predictive mathematical equations which, based on the laws of physics, will determine all human activity. However, he says, that the number of variables which must be identified number in the millions, and thus it is beyond human ability to make the calculation, because determining even a single action would require calculations which would take hundreds of thousands of years to perform. BUT the equations do exist ...

This reeks of a sleight of hand trick in order to deny the theologian's claim that the human will is free. It seems like an ambitious and flawed reach in order to assert, as he has said, that "theology is not necessary because the scientific account is complete."

I think it is far more rational to believe in God than in the existence of predictive mathematical equations that seem so counter-intuitive to our own experience that our consciousness is free.

[D1B]

If that's Hawking's position, then I agree with you.

As for good and evil, I would contend that God is love and wonderment, the good in most of us is God, and true evil/sociopathic behavior is the very, very, rare exception. Certainly there are degrees, thus, (and for example) placing Mother Theresa closer to God.

Chapter 4 of the book, The Grand Design, explicitly makes this claim.

Hawking claims that although there are predictive mathematical equations which, based on the laws of physics, will determine all human activity. However, he says, that the number of variables which must be identified number in the millions, and thus it is beyond human ability to make the calculation, because determining even a single action would require calculations which would take hundreds of thousands of years to perform. BUT the equations do exist ...

This reeks of a sleight of hand trick in order to deny the theologian's claim that the human will is free. It seems like an ambitious and flawed reach in order to assert, as he has said, that "theology is not necessary because the scientific account is complete."

I think it is far more rational to believe in God than in the existence of predictive mathematical equations that seem so counter-intuitive to our own experience that our consciousness is free.

Great, then why YOUR god. Joe, have you ever read the bible? Your god is a total asshole.

[D1B]

It's true. Joe lost it all trying to defend absurdity with lies, distraction, evasion, personal attacks and other grade school moves.

Hen's right. You are just a broken record. There is no one here who repeats falsehoods more than you. Worse, you continue to repeat the falsehood even after it is proven that it is a lie.

So let's start with this. You continually state that Hitler was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church, right? You say that it because it is frequently repeated on the Catholic hate sites which are your primary educators.

Let's see you admit that Hitler was excommunicated by a declaration of the German Catholic Bishops in February 1931, a declaration which excommunicated all leaders of the Nazi party -- which obviously included Hitler. Here is the historical document for your consideration:


http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Bavarian_ ... eb1931.pdf

Joe, please provide a translation of this document.

Moving on, actions speak louder that words Joe. Your church has a habit of saying one thing (children are precious) and doing another (setting up a pedophile factory for 2000 years). The partnership with the Nazi's is a perfect example.

So you allegedly excommunicate the Nazi party, not Hitler by name, but the Nazi party as a group, but then you sign the Reichconcordat a couple years later.

Your church signed this, with Hitler 2 years later:

The main points of the concordat are[5][6]

The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)

The state concordats with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) remain valid. (Article 2)

Unhindered correspondence between the Holy See and German Catholics. (Article 4)

The right of the church to collect church taxes. (Article 13)

The oath of allegiance of the bishops: "Ich schwöre und verspreche, die verfassungsmässig gebildete Regierung zu achten und von meinem Klerus achten zu lassen" (English: I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it; Article 16)

State services to the church can be abolished only in mutual agreement. (Article 18)

Catholic religion is taught in school (article 21) and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop (article 22).

Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)

Clerics may not be members of or be active for political parties. (Article 32)

A secret annex relieved clerics from military duty in the case that mandatory military service should be reinstated. (Germany was not allowed to have mandatory military service by the Treaty of Versailles).

The catholic church, 1 billon strong, just covering its ass...

Next......

[JoltinJoe]

Chapter 4 of the book, The Grand Design, explicitly makes this claim.

Hawking claims that although there are predictive mathematical equations which, based on the laws of physics, will determine all human activity. However, he says, that the number of variables which must be identified number in the millions, and thus it is beyond human ability to make the calculation, because determining even a single action would require calculations which would take hundreds of thousands of years to perform. BUT the equations do exist ...

This reeks of a sleight of hand trick in order to deny the theologian's claim that the human will is free. It seems like an ambitious and flawed reach in order to assert, as he has said, that "theology is not necessary because the scientific account is complete."

I think it is far more rational to believe in God than in the existence of predictive mathematical equations that seem so counter-intuitive to our own experience that our consciousness is free.

Great, then why YOUR god. Joe, have you ever read the bible? Your god is a total *******.

Why the Catholic Church?

If there is a God, you have to determine whether he is a personal God or an impersonal God. I have come to understand, through philosophical study, that he is a personal God because God, if he exists, is the perfect embodiment of what we should strive to be. We are personal beings who, for some reason, feel the need to live in communities and, at our best, care for one another.

Since we are social beings, I believe that our personal God desires us to worship as a social community with the joint, social objective of helping each of us, through this society of faith, become the best person we can be. I believe God thus manifests himself through a major world religion. I believe in the only major world religion which was brutally and actively persecuted by the civil authorities of the time of its establishment and which, despite this brutal oppression and threats of death, grew, thrived, and ultimately triumphed over that authority. It is one of God's great ironies that the Vatican, perceived to be the world-wide center of Christianity, sits on the land once known as 'Nero's Circus" where the first Christians of Rome were crucified or otherwise put to death for sport.

I believe this personal God personally reveals himself to us through a process of revelation and discernment. I believe ultimately a personal God would become a God Incarnate to personally reveal his Word.

I believe in the Church founded by the God Incarnate. I believe in his Word that the Church belongs to him, even with all the faults and failings of the men who might lead it. I believe no man can destroy, derail, improve, or appropriate for his own cause that which God Incarnate has founded. I believe in the Church which is truly catholic as intended by its founder -- the only Christian Church which has a truly world-wide presence (so as to fulfill the founder's prediction that his Church would spread world-wide so as to find believers in all the nations).

None of this is of any import to our discussion, though. Even if you were to establish that all religious traditions are unreasonable, that does not negate the existence of God. This is the big trick used by modern atheists, and why they do not find themselves assigned in current college curriculum.

When debating the existence of God, you guys identify the religious faith of your opponent, ridicule that faith, and claim you've won.

When in fact you've done nothing to address the fundamental question of whether there is a God.

[Cap'n Cat]

No proof? No "God".

No religion, no problems.

That's MY broken record and it's all that needs to be said. The rest is just delusional rationalization, Joe. You're in a cult and you need an intervention.

[D1B]

Great, then why YOUR god. Joe, have you ever read the bible? Your god is a total *******.

Why the Catholic Church?

If there is a God, you have to determine whether he is a personal God or an impersonal God. I have come to understand, through philosophical study, that he is a personal God because God, if he exists, is the perfect embodiment of what we should strive to be. We are personal beings who, for some reason, feel the need to live in communities and, at our best, care for one another.

Since we are social beings, I believe that our personal God desires us to worship as a social community with the joint, social objective of helping each of us, through this society of faith, become the best person we can be. I believe God thus manifests himself through a major world religion. I believe in the only major world religion which was brutally and actively persecuted by the civil authorities of the time of its establishment and which, despite this brutal oppression and threats of death, grew, thrived, and ultimately triumphed over that authority. It is one of God's great ironies that the Vatican, perceived to be the world-wide center of Christianity, sits on the land once known as 'Nero's Circus" where the first Christians of Rome were crucified or otherwise put to death for sport.

I believe this personal God personally reveals himself to us through a process of revelation and discernment. I believe ultimately a personal God would become a God Incarnate to personally reveal his Word.

I believe in the Church founded by the God Incarnate. I believe in his Word that the Church belongs to him, even with all the faults and failings of the men who might lead it. I believe no man can destroy, derail, improve, or appropriate for his own cause that which God Incarnate has founded. I believe in the Church which is truly catholic as intended by its founder -- the only Christian Church which has a truly world-wide presence (so as to fulfill the founder's prediction that his Church would spread world-wide so as to find believers in all the nations).

Great, you believe, but still you believe primarily because you were brought up in a catholic home. Again, "nobelize" it all you want, but if you were born in Malaysia to headhunters, you'd be a headhunter. Religion is an accident of birth and you were brainwashed by your parents. You are a victim, we all were.

How do you know so much about a god Joe? That he's
1. male
2. vain
3. interested in world wide domination of his church
4. obsessed with humans
5. dumb in that he appears tens of thousands of years after the dawn of man and only to a backward tribe of camel jockeys in a shithole part of the world. And still countless other, some major, religions existed before and after he showed up.

Anyway, nice that you at least used the term "believe" and "if he existed". Joe for all your world renowned study with greatest philosophers and theologians ever, you still have nothing but belief. Lurkers 8 year old daughter knows more about god than you do.

*Oh, nice fairy tale Joe, but your church survived solely because Constantine accepted it. Subsequent governments/catholic church have been using christianity as a tool to repress and controll people for 1700 years since. Get your facts straight Joe, because I will.

[JoltinJoe]

No proof? No "God".

No religion, no problems.

That's MY broken record and it's all that needs to be said. The rest is just delusional rationalization, Joe. You're in a cult and you need an intervention.

It's ridiculous to call a world-wide religious community of a billion people a cult. Take note, though, that the word "cult" is no longer used by scholars to refer to any religious groups because the pejorative use of the word has become synonymous with overt bigotry.

[Cap'n Cat]

No proof? No "God".

No religion, no problems.

That's MY broken record and it's all that needs to be said. The rest is just delusional rationalization, Joe. You're in a cult and you need an intervention.

It's ridiculous to call a world-wide religious community of a billion people a cult. Take note, though, that the word "cult" is no longer used by scholars to refer to any religious groups because the pejorative use of the word has become synonymous with overt bigotry.

One billion and falling like a rock!

Cult defintion from essortment.com, just a random site offering a defintion......:

To avoid careless labeling which could be harmful to a group and its adherents, it is important to know just exactly what a cult is, and how it is defined. A cult, by modern standards, is any group that incorporates mind control to deceive, influence and govern its followers. (You, Joe, until you come to the bright side) Although most people think of cults as being religious, they can also be found in political, athletic, philosophical, racial or psychotherapeutic arenas.

The mind control, or brainwashing, exerted by cults often take the form of at least several of the following elements:

A totalitarian control over the lifestyle and time of its members - Many cults tend to dictate exactly what its followers should read, eat, how and with whom they should spend their time, and even what they should do in off hours. ("Condemned" movies, no meat on Fridays, hatred of atheists, as displayed by you, Joe; avoid Jews, no birth control, frankincense, myrrh, wine, Jesus' "body" in the form of a bread wafer, Immacualte Deception, etc, etc....)This totalitarian control is necessary for the leaders to indoctrinate the followers in everything they do, and is also an attempt to separate them from anything not associated with the cult. This is why cults often live together in groups.


A charismatic, self-appointed leader with complete authority - Cult members are taught not to question the teachings, practices, or ideas of the leader. Many cult leaders truly are charismatic people, and are able to influence people to believe them. It is common that a cult member is not told everything up front when joining the group, but that they are taught increasingly controlling ideas and teachings as they go. In the case of some of the more well-publicized cults that have come and gone, it is also common that the leader's ideas and demands evolve over time, becoming increasingly controlling and restrictive. One very clear identifying element dealing with the leader of a cult is that the leader will always focus the attention and veneration of the members upon himself or herself. At the heart of a cult usually lies a very self-centered and self-seeking person.

(Jesus and "God" and priests and Cardinals)


A focus on withholding truth from non-members - Many cults teach their followers to be completely open and truthful within the group, while at the same time they are encouraged to be secretive and evasive when questioned by people outside of the group. This is another form of mind control-instilling guilt in the members if they hold anything back within the group. The members are taught that outsiders wouldn't understand or that they would only make fun of the ideas and practices and requirements for living within the group. Only specially-commissioned members are appointed to recruit members from outside. New members are usually encouraged to keep silent or even lie, especially to their families and close friends.

The three elements listed above are very successful ways to create a group mentality, an us-against-them way of looking at things. This is essential for any cult that wants to keep its members. The more afraid of the outside world the members become, the more strongly and faithfully they will keep within the safe fold of the cult (Keep that collection plate full!).


Man, Joe, I'm reading a lot of Roman Catholic Church in there, hombre'!

[andy7171]

These threads are broken records.

[Cap'n Cat]

These threads are broken records.

I'm in it just for the fun. Seeing Joe get worked up is comedy beyond compare.

[Wedgebuster]

These threads are broken records.

[89Hen]

Great, you believe, but still you believe primarily because you were brought up in a catholic home. Again, "nobelize" it all you want, but if you were born in Malaysia to headhunters, you'd be a headhunter. Religion is an accident of birth and you were brainwashed by your parents. You are a victim, we all were.

So basically you'd have to believe that anyone born in this country who believes in democracy and democratic republics only do so because they were born here and Socialists born in this country are actually the only ones who are correct.

[JoltinJoe]

These threads are broken records.

I'm in it just for the fun. Seeing Joe get worked up is comedy beyond compare.

It's fun watching you spend about an hour typing a response to my two sentence post.

At least your brother saves time by cutting and pasting from his favorite hate sites.

[Cap'n Cat]

Great, you believe, but still you believe primarily because you were brought up in a catholic home. Again, "nobelize" it all you want, but if you were born in Malaysia to headhunters, you'd be a headhunter. Religion is an accident of birth and you were brainwashed by your parents. You are a victim, we all were.

So basically you'd have to believe that anyone born in this country who believes in democracy and democratic republics only do so because they were born here and Socialists born in this country are actually the only ones who are correct.

Um, dork, one is not baptized into democracy, one is not threatened in the pews and classrooms by democracy, one does not perform "confessions" to elders in the political body at large, and etc. Democracy creates an environment in which one can have those silly beliefs such as religion and still live in society without being killed.

Blow me, Monsignor.

[89Hen]

Um, dork, one is not baptized into democracy, one is not threatened in the pews and classrooms by democracy, one does not perform "cenfessions" to elders in the political body at large, and etc. Democracy creates an environment in which one can have thsoe silly beliefs such as religion and still live in society without being killed.

You're not that stoopid.

[Cap'n Cat]

I'm in it just for the fun. Seeing Joe get worked up is comedy beyond compare.

It's fun watching you spend about an hour typing a response to my two sentence post.

At least your brother saves time by cutting and pasting from his favorite hate sites.

Making assumptions, Joe. I just copied that for your favor, much as you do that shit coming out of Rome. Funny, you chose not to respond to my paralleling the RCC with cults. Musta hit home, eh?

[Cap'n Cat]

Um, dork, one is not baptized into democracy, one is not threatened in the pews and classrooms by democracy, one does not perform "cenfessions" to elders in the political body at large, and etc. Democracy creates an environment in which one can have thsoe silly beliefs such as religion and still live in society without being killed.

You're not that stoopid.

One stoopid ass come back, Hen.