Re: Marriage is under fire!!

From: Jonathan Kirwan (jkirwan_at_easystreet.com)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:24:53 GMT

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:38:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

>Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:59:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:
>
>>>But to go into that would only further
>>>convince everybody of my insanity, so I think I won't go there unless
>>
>> Perhaps so. Given the stream of claims from you so far without any
>> evidential showing, I wouldn't be surprised if more of the same would only
>> worsen impressions.
>>
>My claim that there's more to reality that we usually think?

No.

Now you are backing off of what I've read from you, so that you make it sound we
were talking about something else. That's not what you've been saying. Deal
with your earlier words, Rich, and don't retreat this way by trying to summarize
it all so reasonably.

Nice tactic, Rich. But it won't work.

>Of course there is no evidence, it can't be proved, and it's unscientific.

I've always wondered why some people are so adamant about holding onto ideas
they cannot even defend at all.

I mean, it's bad enough to only be able to manage some weakly made points. But
to be unable to come up with any at all that can be communicated and to then
still have the unmitigated gall and brazen effrontery to act as though it's an
"of course" and "obvious" kind of thing is as terribly sad as it is gutsy.

>So what?

Got me, Rich. I'm not terribly concerned what you believe. Especially those
parts you aren't willing to defend with objective statements.

The only turf I happen to care some about is when folks try and cloak their
insane beliefs as being tantamount to the scientific method, so that others
might then imagine their nutty ideas should be thought of with similar respect.

>Can your idol, Science, answer this question:
>
>How does a pile of quantum billiard-ball atoms come to contemplate its
>own existence?

Couch the question in clear, quantitative objective language and maybe I'll see
if there is some source you can go to. What is a "pile?" What is a "quantum
billiard-ball atom?" What is "contemplate?" What is "own?" What is
"existence?"

Science is very modest, Rich. Most of the real work is in asking the right
questions. And by the time you have those pretty well worked out, you are only
about 1 centimeter from the answer. Science works by moving slowly in these
tiny steps.

The really BIG questions, as I reminded you earlier about, are for the
philosophers and religious pundits. Go ask them your vague, big questions. I'm
sure they will have some wonderful answers for you.

Jon

Relevant Pages
Loading