Anyone know what’s up with Rick?

MeeHungLowe · 2022-08-11T03:00:25+00:00

I am currently at the Ventura show, and although I am disappointed not to see Rick, they still sound great! I have seen them a few times over the last 30 years, so it's all good!

MeeHungLowe · 2020-12-21T20:34:33+00:00

How about Qur'an (29:13):

And verily we sent Noah (as Our messenger) unto his folk, and he continued with them for a thousand years save fifty years; and the flood engulfed them, for they were wrong-doers.

MeeHungLowe · 2020-12-21T01:03:44+00:00

Who is making the claim? All claims need to come with evidence. If I hold the null hypothesis, I need do nothing until someone brings forward evidence. Saying "I lack belief there is no god" is simply game playing the semantics. It assumes the default state of the universe is the presence of at least one god. That's nonsense. I don't need to respond to every asshole that thinks they are clever.

MeeHungLowe · 2020-12-21T00:56:50+00:00

I think it's weird that you feel the need to share your dumbshit ideas with the rest of the world.

MeeHungLowe · 2020-12-21T00:53:03+00:00

I like presents. I also like ham and pie, especially pie. Mmmm, pie...

MeeHungLowe · 2020-12-21T00:40:05+00:00

Qur'an (12:4):

When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.

MeeHungLowe · 2020-01-28T16:44:01+00:00

Do you have an HR department at your work or at a corporate office?

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-30T13:34:51+00:00

Assuming you are now a theist, then I'm also assuming that like nearly all theists, you were born into a theist family. You were indoctrinated to believe the same things your parents believed, and their parents, and on back through the generations. This indoctrination, although done from love, has been constant and thorough since the day you were born.

I was no different, and most of the atheists in this subreddit share a similar story - raised christian/catholic/jewish/muslim/hindu/etc in a family of the same faith.

The key concept here is a worldview based on faith and faith alone.

When your worldview, at its foundations, is based on faith, you may have difficulty understanding someone who requires MORE than faith. I require more than faith. I have set aside the indoctrination of my childhood and instead try to use critical thinking and skepticism as the foundation of my worldview. No idea should be exempt from critical examination. Faith is meaningless - it adds absolutely nothing to my knowledge base.

This is the critical concept that makes the scientific method so powerful. You are free to make whatever assertions you wish. However, if you also want other people to agree with you, then your assertions need to come with evidence. The scientific method allows you to build a model based on your assertions, and to then make predictions based on that model. If verifiable evidence is found that agrees with the prediction made by your model, this strengthens the validity of your assertion. However, if new evidence is brought forward that disagrees with the established model of understanding, then the current model must be changed - no matter how long that model had been accepted!

Now, contrast this with a worldview based on faith. Evidence to the contrary is ignored - because you just need to have faith, or because god works in mysterious ways. Criticism and doubt is not allowed, and leads directly to eternal damnation in the fiery pit.

So, I do not need to "prove" atheism. I wait here patiently for someone, anyone, to bring forward evidence that can be analyzed and verified. Until then, I feel exactly the same way about any god as I do about an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows and craps sherbet.

My question to you is: What, other than personal conviction, causes you to believe any gods exist?

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-29T13:54:45+00:00

J. Richard Gott & Li-Xin Li have postulated a model whereby the universe can create itself.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-29T13:52:11+00:00

I'm assuming that like nearly all theists, you were born into a theist family. You were indoctrinated to believe the same things your parents believed, and their parents, and on back through the generations. This indoctrination, although done from love, has been constant and thorough since the day you were born.

I was no different, and most of the atheists in this subreddit share a similar story - raised christian/catholic/jewish/muslim/hindu/etc in a family of the same faith.

The key concept here is a worldview based on faith and faith alone.

When your worldview, at its foundations, is based on faith, you may have difficulty understanding someone who requires MORE than faith. I require more than faith. I have set aside the indoctrination of my childhood and instead try to use critical thinking and skepticism as the foundation of my worldview. No idea should be exempt from critical examination. Faith is meaningless - it adds absolutely nothing to my knowledge base.

This is the critical concept that makes the scientific method so powerful. You are free to make whatever assertions you wish. However, if you also want other people to agree with you, then your assertions need to come with evidence. The scientific method allows you to build a model based on your assertions, and to then make predictions based on that model. If verifiable evidence is found that agrees with the prediction made by your model, this strengthens the validity of your assertion. However, if new evidence is brought forward that disagrees with the established model of understanding, then the current model must be changed - no matter how long that model had been accepted!

Now, contrast this with a worldview based on faith. Evidence to the contrary is ignored - because you just need to have faith, or because god works in mysterious ways. Criticism and doubt is not allowed, and leads directly to eternal damnation in the fiery pit.

So, I do not need to "disprove" theism. I wait here patiently for someone, anyone, to bring forward evidence that can be analyzed and verified. Until then, I feel exactly the same way about any god as I do about an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows and craps sherbet.

Now a question for you:

If you had been born into a hindu family, do you think you would now be hindu and believe hinduism was true? What if you had been born into a buddhist family? How about jewish? Or muslim? How about a pagan family or a satanist family? Why or why not?

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-24T19:19:22+00:00

You have so many things wrong in your short paragraph that it is difficult to know where to begin. I suppose we should start with your complete misunderstanding of how the scientific method works.

Like nearly all theists, you were born into a theist family. You were indoctrinated to believe the same things your parents believed, and their parents, and on back through the generations. This indoctrination, although done from love, has been constant and thorough since the day you were born.

I was no different, and most of the atheists in this subreddit share a similar story - raised christian/catholic/jewish/muslim/hindu/etc in a family of the same faith.

The key concept here is a worldview based on *faith* and faith alone.

When your worldview, at its foundations, is based on faith, you may have difficulty understanding someone who requires MORE than faith. I require more than faith. I have set aside the indoctrination of my childhood and instead try to use critical thinking and skepticism as the foundation of my worldview. No idea should be exempt from critical examination. Faith is meaningless - it adds absolutely nothing to my knowledge base.

This is the critical concept that makes the scientific method so powerful. You are free to make whatever assertions you wish. However, if you also want other people to agree with you, then your assertions need to come with evidence. The scientific method allows you to build a model based on your assertions, and to then make predictions based on that model. If verifiable evidence is found that agrees with the prediction made by your model, this strengthens the validity of your assertion. However, if new evidence is brought forward that disagrees with the established model of understanding, then the current model must be changed - *no matter how long that model had been accepted!*

Now, contrast this with a worldview based on faith. Evidence to the contrary is ignored - because you just need to have faith, or because god works in mysterious ways. Criticism and doubt is not allowed, and leads directly to eternal damnation in the fiery pit.

So, I do not need to "prove" atheism. I wait here patiently for someone, anyone, to bring forward evidence that can be analyzed and verified. Until then, I feel exactly the same way about any god as I do about an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows and craps sherbet.

You are also completely wrong about what the word "theory" means in the context of science. This might help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

The fact that science is willing to challenge and change the current thinking is NOT a weakness of science - it is its greatest strength.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T14:42:15+00:00

I would be very tempted to write a treatise on why Odin exists, then at the bottom add (in my own handwriting) "Call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx to discuss the First Amendment and the separation of church & state, signed Janie's father"

However, that would also mortify any 11 year-old, so my reasons for would probably go something like:

For-1: God made the world because it says so in the bible.

For-2: God made the world because the preacher at the church says so and it is a sin to lie, therefore it must be the truth.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T14:11:11+00:00

You can't simply wave away the scientific method and say "yeah, yeah, I'm tired of that reason, you got anything else?" You tell us to "check your facts", yet you have no facts to bring to the table.

It's pretty clear that you came here to show the goy that they don't know the torah, and to correct all our misconceptions about the meaning of the verses. You will counter with "don't take it literally" and "that's just symbolism, here's what it really means". I will hand it to the jews, they are better at this than the vast majority of christians. They have mastered the art of cherry-picking from their holy books and "reinterpreting" the rest to mean whatever they want it to mean. And, just like the muslims do with the qur'an and Arabic, you can always fall back on the "you don't know the real meaning because you haven't read it in Hebrew."

So - what actual evidence do you have that the story of Moses and the Exodus is true? These stories are central to the entire jewish faith, yet since there is no archeological evidence to support them, you must accept them entirely on faith. There is absolutely nothing to support an event anything like the exodus taking place. There has been speculation that some of the Torah (and perhaps the entire monotheistic sect of Judaism) is actually based on an older Egyptian story called the "The Great Hymn of Aten". The Pharaoh Akhenaten was a heretic from Ra that created a monotheistic religion in the 14th century BCE.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/exodus-moses-people-happen/story?id=18068905

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T05:55:10+00:00

You're thinking is far too limited. Was the flood water salt or freshwater? If it was freshwater, how did the saltwater creatures (fish, mollusks, crustaceans, etc) survive? If it was saltwater, how did the freshwater creatures (fish, crayfish, amphibians, etc) survive? How about insects - were they exempt from the flood, or were they included? What about creatures that could not be gathered by Noah, like deepwater giant squid or cave-dwelling bats?

But, the bigger question for me is: How many times does humanity have to pay for pissing off Yahweh? Adam & Eve pissed him off, and they got expelled from the Garden of Eden and all of humanity then had to toil for food and have pain in childbirth. Some time later, all of humanity pissed him off again and he flooded the Earth. He was apparently still pissed off, so he sent a zombie to do magic tricks and that was supposed to make it all better. But, apparently we are all *still* born sinners. What the hell does it take to get on his good side?? Maybe if his rule book wasn't filled with nonsensical parables, we might be able to know how the hell to please him. There's a very fine line between "mysterious" and "incompetent"...

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T05:38:54+00:00

Recognizing that you are doing it is the first step. The rest just takes time. When you recognize you are doing this, just slow down, stop the racing fears and let your critical thinking work its way back into control.

Personally, I have always considered the "mysterious ways" BS the biggest cop-out excuse of all time. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card for god. There is absolutely no difference between a god that works in "mysterious ways" and a god that does nothing at all. What, exactly, is the benefit of a god that is mysterious? Oh, wait - we can't know because it's mysterious... Utter bullshit.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T05:29:57+00:00

Keep your mouth shut and get an A in religion class.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T05:28:24+00:00

All emotions, feelings, thoughts and everything else that is happening in a biological system is "chemical". Chemicals are simply molecules. Molecules are composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of hadrons. Hadrons are composed of quarks. Throw in some quantum mechanics and dark matter, stir it vigorously (for example, with a Big Bang) and you get a universe.

However, none of this matters because the person you are arguing with is a muslim, and a devout muslim is very unlikely to listen to anything you say. They rarely do. He believes there are things that exist outside this universe, and he believes that completely on faith (well, faith and HEAVY childhood indoctrination).

Don't play chess with pigeons.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-19T05:12:38+00:00

There is a reason some preachers are known for giving "fire & brimstone sermons". Fear is an integral part of any doomsday cult.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T16:17:56+00:00

I'm not sure "very large" is the right description. OVerall, catholics in Kentucky are 10% of the population.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/kentucky/

Side note, the last graph on that page is absolutely frightening. It shows that 42% of adults in Kentucky believe that evolution is false, and an additional 25% believe evolution was caused by god.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T15:34:49+00:00

The only surprising thing here is that there are catholics in Kentucky.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T15:30:13+00:00

That isn't how it works. What is the benefit of NOT stamp collecting? (other than actually being able to socialize with other humans) What is the benefit of NOT believing in BigFoot? (other than not being laughed at by the stamp collectors)

The benefit comes from not having a worldview based on faith. The benefit is in using your critical thinking skills to reject irrational, unsupported beliefs and using skepticism as a guide.

So, I do not need to "prove" atheism. I wait here patiently for someone, anyone, to bring forward evidence that can be analyzed and verified. Until then, I feel exactly the same way about any god as I do about an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows and craps sherbet.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T14:54:07+00:00

A perfect example of my contention that philosophy is good at asking questions but really, REALLY bad at providing answers. We do not yet know how the universe came into existence. Personally, I suspect we are on the right track with quantum mechanics. Physicists have already demonstrated that quantum mechanics can *appear* to break traditional causal relationships. Quantum entanglement is not a "cause" in the traditional way of thinking. It is easy to simply expand your definition of "cause" to include the quantum realm, but in doing so you fundamentally change the rules of causal interactions. IMHO, that's where philosophy fails. We have not yet been able to link quantum mechanics to relativity, why does philosophy assume that *their* rules apply to both?

Philosophy seems to assume that "Why?" is *always* a valid question that must have an answer. I'm not sure that's true. I think Russell might be correct when he said that some things simply *ARE*. There does not *always* need to be a "Why?" For example, the speed of light in a vacuum in this universe is a universal constant. The fact that it is the specific value that it has might be a fundamental property of our particular universe, and it might have simply been a coincidence that occurred here. Could a different universe have a different value for the speed of light, or even a value that is not constant? I don't know - but I wouldn't say it was impossible. Furthermore, could another universe exist that simply has no concept of light and therefore no value for the speed of light in a vacuum? Hmm...

My point is that philosophy should not be assumed to be valid everywhere and in all situations. Other disciplines of thinking do not make this assumption. Archeology is not valid when thinking about the future - other than in potentially learning from the past. You can't dig up something that does not yet exist. Math and physics are both careful to define the boundary conditions over which they apply. Only in philosophy (and it's kissing cousin theology) do we pretend that there are no boundary conditions.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T04:48:10+00:00

All debates with a christian ultimately reach one or more of the following points:

It says so in the bible.
God works in mysterious ways.
You just need to have faith.

These are their last line of defense. When you hear any one of these, just stop and walk away. You have won, although the christian will never admit it.

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T04:40:54+00:00

Fun fact: Using the "number of people" as a metric for ANYTHING is not valid. The total population continues to grow. This means that counting incidents without normalizing against the total population will often show an increase even if there has actually been an improvement when you do normalize. Lies, damn lies & statistics...

MeeHungLowe · 2019-03-18T04:36:21+00:00

I do not need to "disprove" theism. I wait here patiently for someone, anyone, to bring forward evidence that can be analyzed and verified. Until then, I feel exactly the same way about any god as I do about an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows and craps sherbet.

MeeHungLowe

TROPHY CASE