Jump to content

Baptisms at the Athletics Complex


RunInRed

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Because there's no reason not to? Because not harming your environment for any reason other than self-preservation and propagation of the species is actually more natural than the alternative? 

 

Harming the environment is unnatural to humans?

Looking at the world today, it appears the natural desire to protect the environment (including our fellow man) is not particularly strong.

Not talking about animals who were created with instinct as their primary compass.  Talking about humans who are blessed with the ability to reason.

Just look at children... Destroy toys, their room, playground equipment, grocery aisles, each other, you name it.  They are taught respect and responsible behavior (and for many, they learn).  ....alas, as you can see in the news, many don't.

With that said, I don't stand for The Lord, backed up by scientific evidence as many in this thread are battling it out.  I'm not educated enough for that.  I have my own personal demons and wonderful Salvation as the only "proof" I need.  There are many, many things that have happened in my life that followed my prayers and battles of faith (a few curses as well).

I am a TERRIBLE Christian.  I think and do things that I should be smacked for daily.  I deserve Hell.   But Jesus is there for me and I KNOW it in my heart....even when I struggle.  Faith is like that.  Scientific or not.

God bless you my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 820
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, AUsince72 said:

Harming the environment is unnatural to humans?

Looking at the world today, it appears the natural desire to protect the environment (including our fellow man) is not particularly strong.

Not talking about animals who were created with instinct as their primary compass.  Talking about humans who are blessed with the ability to reason.

Just look at children... Destroy toys, their room, playground equipment, grocery aisles, each other, you name it.  They are taught respect and responsible behavior (and for many, they learn).  ....alas, as you can see in the news, many don't.

With that said, I don't stand for The Lord, backed up by scientific evidence as many in this thread are battling it out.  I'm not educated enough for that.  I have my own personal demons and wonderful Salvation as the only "proof" I need.  There are many, many things that have happened in my life that followed my prayers and battles of faith (a few curses as well).

I am a TERRIBLE Christian.  I think and do things that I should be smacked for daily.  I deserve Hell.   But Jesus is there for me and I KNOW it in my heart....even when I struggle.  Faith is like that.  Scientific or not.

God bless you my friend.

I don't begrudge anyone their faith, and I sometimes envy it. Just doesn't work for me. I'm happy for you that you have it. You know I have tremendous respect for you.

As for the environment, your question was essentially why practice morality unless you're accountable to something other than yourself, right? And my response, perhaps phrased poorly before, is why would you need that extra accountability? It's not some moral code that will prevent me from randomly punching another person (part of my environment) in the face. It's nature. There's no reason for me to. 

You can look at other things. Adultery is a big one. I will admit that that is an example of a sense of external accountability trumping nature, because we are not by nature monogamous creatures. I am monogamous myself, despite a whole lot of biochemistry trying to make me otherwise. But I chalk that up to societal evolution, and my accountability is to my wife first, our daughter second and our family, friends and other acquaintances on down the line. It's not so much a moral code as me holding myself accountable to the agreement that I've entered into with my wife, which was made possible by at least a couple thousand years now of my ancestry generally agreeing to a one woman-one man life. And, of course, everything is contingent upon her holding up her end of the bargain. 

And plenty of other animals besides humans have the ability to reason. Other animals figure things out and have complex emotions. My dog regularly has dreams. Fish have the same basic physical structure that we do- 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, a spine and 4 limbs. Primates have thumbs and bonobos have sex for pleasure.We're all coming from the same place. We are simply the most evolved (in some ways...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I don't begrudge anyone their faith, and I sometimes envy it. Just doesn't work for me. I'm happy for you that you have it. You know I have tremendous respect for you.

As for the environment, your question was essentially why practice morality unless you're accountable to something other than yourself, right? And my response, perhaps phrased poorly before, is why would you need that extra accountability? It's not some moral code that will prevent me from randomly punching another person (part of my environment) in the face. It's nature. There's no reason for me to. 

You can look at other things. Adultery is a big one. I will admit that that is an example of a sense of external accountability trumping nature, because we are not by nature monogamous creatures. I am monogamous myself, despite a whole lot of biochemistry trying to make me otherwise. But I chalk that up to societal evolution, and my accountability is to my wife first, our daughter second and our family, friends and other acquaintances on down the line. It's not so much a moral code as me holding myself accountable to the agreement that I've entered into with my wife, which was made possible by at least a couple thousand years now of my ancestry generally agreeing to a one woman-one man life. And, of course, everything is contingent upon her holding up her end of the bargain. 

And plenty of other animals besides humans have the ability to reason. Other animals figure things out and have complex emotions. My dog regularly has dreams. Fish have the same basic physical structure that we do- 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, a spine and 4 limbs. Primates have thumbs and bonobos have sex for pleasure.We're all coming from the same place. We are simply the most evolved (in some ways...).

Number 1.  Thank you.  I appreciate your respect and I think you know that I have tremendous respect for you as well.  We seem to be cut from the same cloth in many ways.

Number 2.  I understand where you're coming from.  I actually understand the struggles of most of those (beyond this board) who question Jesus Christ or any devine being, deity, whatever....  It is human nature to question.  I have plenty....trust me.  I wasn't always a believer and I used many of the same arguments some on the board are using.  Believe it or not most, if not all, Christians suffer questions of faith too.... We see so many bad things and have so many bad things happen to us, that we question.  It is "natural".  As a matter of fact, we call it "sin nature".  We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to the choice Adam & Eve made.  Whether one takes the Bible literally or as parables, bottom line is humans went from God's perfect creations to being tainted by Satan.  Thus cursed forever with "sin nature" that we have to be taught (as I have been discussing) respect of morality and law instead of just naturally being born that way.

Number 3.  You say we don't need/have an external accountability to steer out behavior (violence, adultery, etc) but rather it's just naturally innate in us.  Well, again, see number 2 above.  Here's where we just disagree a bit.  You believe morality (for lack of a better term) is random nature created by biological particles, and..... again, I'm not smart enough for science talk...coupled with societal evolution.  Here's the shocker.  I don't necessarily disagree with you there.  I just feel that nature and societal evolution are not accidents cause by cosmic dust.  Consciousness and thought, feelings, opinions.... to ME, cannot be just accidental.  Those alone are proof enough to me that there is a devine being (in a general sense).  I, for one, believe that God & science actually coexist just fine.  Not sure why so many feel they're exclusive of each other.  To me, it's simple.  Again, God created consciousness and intelligence...thus, God created science.  Keep in mind, to a Christian, we also believe in Satan.  Satan does create.  It's his goal to cause confusion and doubt (just look at this thread).  He doesn't always do it through hate, etc.  He also t.does it through seduction.  A lot of people are fooled by being led down a path that makes them feel smart, good, sexy, whatever......   Satan's greatest weapon is his ability to convince one that he doesn't exist.

Number 4.  Animals that reason.  That's cool.  It was just a very general statement regarding the nature of preserving our environment.  I get it.  There are plenty of exceptions to most every rule.  I, for one, believe dogs DO go to Heaven!!! ..if for no other reason than God made them awesome!  We could actually learn a lot from dogs about unconditional love, loyalty & respect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

Number 1.  Thank you.  I appreciate your respect and I think you know that I have tremendous respect for you as well.  We seem to be cut from the same cloth in many ways.

Number 2.  I understand where you're coming from.  I actually understand the struggles of most of those (beyond this board) who question Jesus Christ or any devine being, deity, whatever....  It is human nature to question.  I have plenty....trust me.  I wasn't always a believer and I used many of the same arguments some on the board are using.  Believe it or not most, if not all, Christians suffer questions of faith too.... We see so many bad things and have so many bad things happen to us, that we question.  It is "natural".  As a matter of fact, we call it "sin nature".  We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to the choice Adam & Eve made.  Whether one takes the Bible literally or as parables, bottom line is humans went from God's perfect creations to being tainted by Satan.  Thus cursed forever with "sin nature" that we have to be taught (as I have been discussing) respect of morality and law instead of just naturally being born that way.

Number 3.  You say we don't need/have an external accountability to steer out behavior (violence, adultery, etc) but rather it's just naturally innate in us.  Well, again, see number 2 above.  Here's where we just disagree a bit.  You believe morality (for lack of a better term) is random nature created by biological particles, and..... again, I'm not smart enough for science talk...coupled with societal evolution.  Here's the shocker.  I don't necessarily disagree with you there.  I just feel that nature and societal evolution are not accidents cause by cosmic dust.  Consciousness and thought, feelings, opinions.... to ME, cannot be just accidental.  Those alone are proof enough to me that there is a devine being (in a general sense).  I, for one, believe that God & science actually coexist just fine.  Not sure why so many feel they're exclusive of each other.  To me, it's simple.  Again, God created consciousness and intelligence...thus, God created science.  Keep in mind, to a Christian, we also believe in Satan.  Satan does create.  It's his goal to cause confusion and doubt (just look at this thread).  He doesn't always do it through hate, etc.  He also t.does it through seduction.  A lot of people are fooled by being led down a path that makes them feel smart, good, sexy, whatever......   Satan's greatest weapon is his ability to convince one that he doesn't exist.

Number 4.  Animals that reason.  That's cool.  It was just a very general statement regarding the nature of preserving our environment.  I get it.  There are plenty of exceptions to most every rule.  I, for one, believe dogs DO go to Heaven!!! ..if for no other reason than God made them awesome!  We could actually learn a lot from dogs about unconditional love, loyalty & respect.

Appreciate the thoughtful conversation as always, my friend, and I really like to think that you're right on the bolded parts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Appreciate the thoughtful conversation as always, my friend, and I really like to think that you're right on the bolded parts. 

Me too bro!!! :cheers:   .....yes, I'm a Christian and I like to drink. 

Jesus did NOT drink non-alcoholic fruit juice no matter what Baptists in Tennessee would have you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

Me too bro!!! :cheers:   .....yes, I'm a Christian and I like to drink. 

Jesus did NOT drink non-alcoholic fruit juice no matter what Baptists in Tennessee would have you believe.

I've had scotch with Father Bill and done tequila shots with Father Doug. I'll never hold all Christians accountable for those Baptists in Tennessee!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUsince72 said:

Believe it or not most, if not all, Christians suffer questions of faith too.... 

Absolutely. Although, I struggle against the religion of Christianity more than the existence of God. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of God, one that I don't understand - in the same way that I don't understand the mysteries of the universe. I get uncomfortable when Christians place God into boxes, and purport to tell me what God thinks or feels or looks like. I understand what the Bible says. I also understand that as someone who claims to be a Christian, what I am saying is probably just one big contradiction. That being said, I like this description: 1 John 4:8, "Anyone who does not know love does not know God, because God is love." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

First off, I apologize if I misunderstood your argument because it just came off as hostile and aggressive in painting Christianity as being extreme. If you don't view Christianity negatively then I'm sorry for what I said. No problem at all, and I don't think Christianity is extreme -- I just think there is a small percentage of people who take it to the extreme like in every faiths. That is all I wanted to point out.

To the red bolded part, but that's pretty much what you posted in making a comparison between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists. It was basically saying that Christianity has just as many extreme folks as Islam does. That couldn't be more of a false argument. If you were comparing the 1800's Christianity to now, you'd have a more valid point. But Christianity has evolved some in the last century or two. Do you deny that? I'd refer you to @McLoofus's perfect response. It's deeper than just the faith. He nailed it.

To be fair it's not just you making that comparison. I've seen many of those who aren't Christian and even some people who are Christians feel the need to defend criticism of Islam and want to paint a picture that Christians and Muslims have the same amount of bad people. Are there Christian terrorists? Yes.... Are there Christian extremists? Yes... Are there as many bad Christians as there are bad Muslims? If you're going to use qualifiers like terrorists or extremists then my answer is no. There is no where close to being an equal or comparable amount of bad people between the two. One religion at the moment has rapidly been churning out terrorists. In fact, no other religion at the moment in my opinion comes close to producing as many terrorists or extremists. It may sound mean or unfair but unfortunately it's the reality. I wish it wasn't because I do think there are a lot of good Muslims. Terror networks like ISIS are a really big problem right now as we all know. But my point was never about who has more terrorists. In fact I don't think I ever made the assertion, or didn't mean to at least, but I'm too lazy to go back through my posts right now to confirm lol. This whole discussion drew me in because of the false premise that terrorism is limited to only Muslims and that Islam somehow encourages it. The sheer number of terrorists doesn't matter one bit to me as 1 person taking any faith's teaching to an extreme is too many in my opinion. But to the actual numbers you may be right there may be more terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists around the world than by other extremists and Mcloofus beautifully touched on why that could be the case -- it doesn't excuse it, hell no not at all and I hope that isn't the vibe I'm giving off just to be absolutely clear -- but it gives some insight as to some of the reasoning behind why it seems it's more prevalent in Islam. But to the actual numbers you may be right, but I have no idea.  

You see in many countries in the Middle East, where Islam is the predominate religion, gays being killed. How many Christian countries are there where gays are being killed simply for being gay and it's not a crime? That's considered a hate crime here in the U.S. and people are charged with it See Mcloofus' post.

My point is not the same as Proud Tiger's. I've never implied or made any suggestion that there were no Christian terrorists or that Christians couldn't be terrorists.. But I'm also not  going along with comparing Christians to having just as many terrorists or extreme folks as Islam. That comes off as just a convenient stance for you to lump all religions together as having bad people and it comes off as a lazy argument to me. While we are on the same page with who can and can't be classified a terrorist as I said above, it's not really about the numbers for me and I didn't mean to insinuate that it was if I did give that impression. 

For the record in case you're wondering, I am Christian. I believe in God. However; I don't go to church and haven't been to church in years. I know there are many Christians who are hypocrites and those who act one way in church but don't act the same way outside of church. I'm not fond of those type Christians. I try to be a good person and I also don't think you have to go to church to prove how good of a Christian you are. I don't consider myself an overly religious person and I certainly don't go out of my way to promote that I'm Christian. I feel that it's a personal decision and I'm not going to force my views on anyone. I 100000% respect this and can relate to it as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

Absolutely. Although, I struggle against the religion of Christianity more than the existence of God. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of God, one that I don't understand - in the same way that I don't understand the mysteries of the universe. I get uncomfortable when Christians place God into boxes, and purport to tell me what God thinks or feels or looks like. I understand what the Bible says. I also understand that as someone who claims to be a Christian, what I am saying is probably just one big contradiction. That being said, I like this description: 1 John 4:8, "Anyone who does not know love does not know God, because God is love." 

Beautiful verse and so true.  But then, the Bible is full of truth :jossun:.

I think I follow you.  I'd phrase it a bit different in only to say, for me, the struggle is not against Christianity but rather, perhaps, against certain denominations and/or those who have lost their way (often unknowingly, through sin) and have become hypocrites.

Raw Christianity is simply the belief that the only way to The Father is through The Son.  Crystal clear.  The rest of it just becomes "religion" which can be a minefield for those truly seeking the truth of Christ.  Humans, often led by sin, can confuse things like nobody's business.  When that happens you're absolutely right when they think they know better than God Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

Beautiful verse and so true.  But then, the Bible is full of truth :jossun:.

I think I follow you.  I'd phrase it a bit different in only to say, for me, the struggle is not against Christianity but rather, perhaps, against certain denominations and/or those who have lost their way (often unknowingly, through sin) and have become hypocrites.

Raw Christianity is simply the belief that the only way to The Father is through The Son.  Crystal clear.  The rest of it just becomes "religion" which can be a minefield for those truly seeking the truth of Christ.  Humans, often led by sin, can confuse things like nobody's business.  When that happens you're absolutely right when they think they know better than God Himself.

And to expound ...through the son meaning through sacrificial love, which is what Christ represents. To me, the message of the gospel is just incredibly beautiful, whether you believe in God or not. I also think its largely misunderstood - not just by non-believers, but by Christians as you mentioned.

Boiled down, what I understand is that Jesus came to abolish religion. He came so that no one could attain salvation through works, or status, or knowledge, power, money, etc. Jesus' gift wasn't moral superiority or distinction. Jesus' gift was his example. By displaying total humility through literal self-sacrifice, he provided a gateway to God, a gateway to the love that is God. So, Christians aren't called to uphold or impose morality upon our culture. We aren't called to be law-bearers. Jesus abolished the law. He said, if you want to honor God then follow my example, not by your works, but by mirroring the altogether humble, self-sacrificial, pure and unconditional love of Christ to the world. So, when thinking about "sharing Christ with the world", I think of it more as "giving" Christ to the world - taking the gift of love that he gave me, and giving it to someone else. I don't think it's about a "promise" or "giving your life to him". He already gave us life through his love. Go give that to someone else. 

That's my basic understanding of Christianity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

And to expound ...through the son meaning through sacrificial love, which is what Christ represents. To me, the message of the gospel is just incredibly beautiful, whether you believe in God or not. I also think its largely misunderstood - not just by non-believers, but by Christians as you mentioned.

Boiled down, what I understand is that Jesus came to abolish religion. He came so that no one could attain salvation through works, or status, or knowledge, power, money, etc. Jesus' gift wasn't moral superiority or distinction. Jesus' gift was his example. By displaying total humility through literal self-sacrifice, he provided a gateway to God, a gateway to the love that is God. So, Christians aren't called to uphold or impose morality upon our culture. We aren't called to be law-bearers. Jesus abolished the law. He said, if you want to honor God then follow my example, not by your works, but by mirroring the altogether humble, self-sacrificial, pure and unconditional love of Christ to the world. So, when thinking about "sharing Christ with the world", I think of it more as "giving" Christ to the world - taking the gift of love that he gave me, and giving it to someone else. I don't think it's about a "promise" or "giving your life to him". He already gave us life through his love. Go give that to someone else. 

That's my basic understanding of Christianity. 

Seems to me that your "basic understanding" is better than 90% of the Christians I've met in my life.

I don't think that I can intelligently add anything more to what you said.  Well done.

God bless you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2018 at 4:42 PM, triangletiger said:

You can start with knowing that you are.  The next question is, Can you trust what your senses are telling you?

Still, just a start (Part II of a difficult, for me, writing exercise)

As I type this response (or at least think I type, confirming at least my existence in the here-and-now), I “see” your earlier post above. I also “remember” having seen it before and thinking you deserved a better response than I gave at the time. The currently apparent sensory input, and the apparent memory of similar inputs and of thinking about them, provides supporting (if not conclusive) evidence that there exists some reality beyond my current self, and that such reality likely (to some unknown level) includes you. This “personal lore” also includes memories (of various clarity) of sensory inputs, including reports from others, dating back to (what I’ve been told fits with) age of ~21 months.

My lore, however, also includes instances in which my senses, my memories, and my external sources may all be called into question. In poor lighting, I’ve flinched at corner-of-the eye sightings of things that weren’t there; in sickness, I’ve felt “feverish chills;” in reading, I’ve learned that the lenses of my eyeballs invert the images produced by incoming light and that only through reprocessing within my brain can such images be rectified to my tactile sense of a floor beneath my feet. I remember remembering things that I no longer remember: I know pi to many fewer digits than I once did; I remember reciting the capitals of all States and now find gaps in the memorized list; ever since I got a cell phone (brain damage?), I can’t for the life of me remember phone numbers. At some point, I was told that the meat-on-Friday thing was a thing, and that St. Christopher was a Saint.

While I can’t “trust” my senses (or memories thereof) as sources of factual information concerning any reality external to myself, lore does provide considerable reason to “leap” (ever since well before I realized it was a leap) to them as a source of information (e.g., “look both ways before crossing the street”) likely meaningful to my current (continued?) existence.

 

Apologies for the all-about-me flavor of this conversation so far, but I think it’s going somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2018 at 7:48 PM, AUDub said:

No. Think of it like flipping a coin. Your odds are 50/50 each time you flip. The odds of getting a certain result are the same for each flip, independent of previous or future flips, however, the odds of getting a particular sequence of results go down with each subsequent flip. 

One flip:(1/2)=50%

Two flips:(1/2)(1/2)=25%

...

Ten flips:(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)=0.0009765625%

For the cards, on paper, it would look like this:

(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 )=1.537104e-136%

Really hate to even participate in Forum activities when leaving IOUs all over the place, but another thanks coming for this whole conversation/tutorial.

Gotta ask though - What in the blue-eyed world you got up there that displays like, what, 50-55 significant figures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

Really hate to even participate in Forum activities when leaving IOUs all over the place, but another thanks coming for this whole conversation/tutorial.

Gotta ask though - What in the blue-eyed world you got up there that displays like, what, 50-55 significant figures?

I have no calculators that can do that. They all flip to e-notation with the quickness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

Really hate to even participate in Forum activities when leaving IOUs all over the place, but another thanks coming for this whole conversation/tutorial.

Likewise, particularly to all who have posted recently.

Was thinking about this conversation this morning in the car, as I was listening to Marc Maron interview Bassem Yousseff. Short version: Yousseff is an Egyptian and Muslim who recreated the Daily Show in Egypt. It went okay for awhile until Morsi got tired of it and "compelled" Yousseff to flee to the West. 

With regards to Islamic extremism, he said that there are in fact a lot of Islamic extremists. He reiterated that it is *not* a function of Islamic ideology, dogma or scripture, though. What it *is* a function of in most cases is authoritarian governments hiding behind an extremely conservative (read: extremist) interpretation of the Quran to maintain power and suppress free speech and thought as a faux theocracy. In other words, to criticize or defy the government is to criticize or defy God. Also, the governments- under this guise of religious doctrine- control the media, so basically every single person is informed almost exclusively by a single, hyper-conservative news source that is friendly to the government. Simultaneously, the governments informally allow the Muslim Brotherhoods and such to do their policing for them. As long as enemy #1 is your fellow citizen, the State (and faith) remains safe. (Perhaps best discussed elsewhere, but I hope some of you sense the weight of these potential parallels. Irony seems too frivolous a word here.) 

Anyway, much of this is redundant to thoughts that @Tiger has already shared. But I wanted to offer these thoughts from a Muslim with an extremely broad, intimate and informed perspective. The point remains the same. For any religion, you have to look beyond doctrine towards the world in which that religion exists and is practiced. To borrow a phrase, books don't kill people. People kill people. (Except books don't literally kill real people. Only imagined ones.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2018 at 8:20 AM, McLoofus said:

This would seem to be the same logic the ancient Greeks used when inventing their belief system. 

 

 

 

Damn Greeks knew I should not have become a Theta Chi. All we knew for OUR beliefs was girls girls girls girls......beer beer beer and more beer. damn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2018 at 9:11 AM, AUDub said:

I have no calculators that can do that. They all flip to e-notation with the quickness.

Again, many thanks.

Google (whom I should have asked 1st?) is my frenemy. My search shows that the web is, indeed, littered with your number and with analytical perspectives based on it (though, so far, I have not found who or what went through the drudgery of calculating it).

The sheer magnitude of it is mind-boggling in and of itself, and my poor little spreadsheet cannot argue with it, but I (with my meager human brain) also find the precision, and the implied computational skills/endurance, to be nigh unto unnatural.

80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 [Mr. Dub, from above]

80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 [Spread]

[apologies for my computer illiteracy - before I pasted it in here, the digits lined up vertically, which would have illustrated the point more visually clear]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2018 at 9:31 AM, McLoofus said:

Likewise, particularly to all who have posted recently.

Was thinking about this conversation this morning in the car, as I was listening to Marc Maron interview Bassem Yousseff. Short version: Yousseff is an Egyptian and Muslim who recreated the Daily Show in Egypt. It went okay for awhile until Morsi got tired of it and "compelled" Yousseff to flee to the West. 

With regards to Islamic extremism, he said that there are in fact a lot of Islamic extremists. He reiterated that it is *not* a function of Islamic ideology, dogma or scripture, though. What it *is* a function of in most cases is authoritarian governments hiding behind an extremely conservative (read: extremist) interpretation of the Quran to maintain power and suppress free speech and thought as a faux theocracy. In other words, to criticize or defy the government is to criticize or defy God. Also, the governments- under this guise of religious doctrine- control the media, so basically every single person is informed almost exclusively by a single, hyper-conservative news source that is friendly to the government. Simultaneously, the governments informally allow the Muslim Brotherhoods and such to do their policing for them. As long as enemy #1 is your fellow citizen, the State (and faith) remains safe. (Perhaps best discussed elsewhere, but I hope some of you sense the weight of these potential parallels. Irony seems too frivolous a word here.) 

Anyway, much of this is redundant to thoughts that @Tiger has already shared. But I wanted to offer these thoughts from a Muslim with an extremely broad, intimate and informed perspective. The point remains the same. For any religion, you have to look beyond doctrine towards the world in which that religion exists and is practiced. To borrow a phrase, books don't kill people. People kill people. (Except books don't literally kill real people. Only imagined ones.)

 

and just to be clear, I'm quite tolerant of 

using my false name in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

Again, many thanks.

Google (whom I should have asked 1st?) is my frenemy. My search shows that the web is, indeed, littered with your number and with analytical perspectives based on it (though, so far, I have not found who or what went through the drudgery of calculating it).

As I said, it's a common example. It may seem mindblowing for folks that don't know how stats and combinatorics work, but a lot of math and a lot about the natural world are. When you realize 1 of those 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 possible outcomes had to occur, it's a lot less shocking.

Quote

The sheer magnitude of it is mind-boggling in and of itself, and my poor little spreadsheet cannot argue with it, but I (with my meager human brain) also find the precision, and the implied computational skills/endurance, to be nigh unto unnatural.

80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 [Mr. Dub, from above]

80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 [Spread]

[apologies for my computer illiteracy - before I pasted it in here, the digits lined up vertically, which would have illustrated the point more visually clear]

Let's get more mind boggling. Full precision, anyone?

If we shuffled two decks of card's the odds of ending up with the decks in the same order would be:

(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)

=

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000015371038685533904304366275737191483132641394545325798676213199084154776476065398792524078205262370949995311057267664965143029358432746558969815042054844980515982166656138491614807164475696748925304752%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, AUDub said:

As I said, it's a common example. It may seem mindblowing for folks that don't know how stats and combinatorics work, but a lot of math and a lot about the natural world are. When you realize 1 of those 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 possible outcomes had to occur, it's a lot less shocking.

Let's get more mind boggling. Full precision, anyone?

If we shuffled two decks of card's the odds of ending up with the decks in the same order would be:

(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)

=

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000015371038685533904304366275737191483132641394545325798676213199084154776476065398792524078205262370949995311057267664965143029358432746558969815042054844980515982166656138491614807164475696748925304752%

 

Never happen in a 

Never mind. Well illustrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...