The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Mick Wenlock]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

God is an untested and unfalsifiable concept. A mere hypothesis at best. The default position is non-acceptance of an unverifiable assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The universe is evidence of the universe. That's all.

It's easy to consider wishful flights of fancy to be real. And mythos is a vital part of culture. But I am not a 6' 2" 220# power hitting, great fielding 3rd baseman no matter WHAT I believe.

but do you self identify as a black female discus thrower?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I do get a bit self-conscious actually when the light shines on me in a flattering way when others are present who are also trying to speak; it makes me feel I am being rude to them and not including them. I do appreciate a compliment and the praise is fine if that is the purpose of the event. Let's say I had written a book and went to give a talk and everyone congratulated me and told me it was great. That's fun! I have read poetry at readings, and even won poetry slams and I drank it right in and felt great to take the praise. But being in a forum is not the sort of event to congratulate one person or a birthday party or a competition to see who was the winner. Maybe this response is showing me how regimented I am ! That I only want public compliments if its my awards ceremony, an event to celebrate something I did, or a birthday! LOL. I want the venue to be correct. Now how is that for a value I was harboring that I did not know I had ?

Giving compliments on a public forum is also a ticklish situation. In fact, an alternative, giving a compliment on a private forum such as an email or PM is also ticklish. The other alternative, just not saying anything even has a down side. In all alternatives there are potential negatives. ITYIWT's objection is a valid objection but if I were to send a PM stating the same thing, that might also be taken wrong by the recipient. You want to say something complimentary to another person, something sincere and from the heart. About 6 years ago on ESMB when I was a newby I made a decision. I sort of treat this situation like a game of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"

I write up the complimentary post and then I do something else for 5 minutes or so. If I still feel like sending the post, I send it. It's a bit like playing "Pin the tail on the donkey", one is sort of blindfolded, not knowing how the post will be received, but by pressing "Send", that equates to pinning the tail on the donkey. You can't see with your eyes what you are doing but you go by feel and pin the tail where you feel is the best place. The results can vary from perfect placement to outrageous placement, you never know. If the content of your thought is honest and you really feel your compliment to be true, then if the placement of the message strikes in a bad spot, the damages are limited, maybe a little embarrassment or a light reprimand but if the compliment is perfectly placed then it is even better for both parties.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Quote Originally Posted by SPsince83 View Post
God is an untested and unfalsifiable concept. A mere hypothesis at best. The default position is non-acceptance of an unverifiable assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The universe is evidence of the universe. That's all.

It's easy to consider wishful flights of fancy to be real. And mythos is a vital part of culture. But I am not a 6' 2" 220# power hitting, great fielding 3rd baseman no matter WHAT I believe.

I wanted to comment on this comment by SPsince 83. I do agree with this post, every word of it, except possibly your last line, but I feel that the same comment applies equally for models of the Universe which contain no God and are based on random chance.

For example, 'Some matter existed in some space and an enormous explosion happened to take place and over billions of years through random interaction of sub atomic particles the intricate systems forming our universe just happened to come into being simply on the basis of random chance. Life is an accident having to do with atoms and molecules interacting with water and sunlight, etc.' I feel there is no evidence whatever to that line of thinking and that concept must also be dismissed.

The thiest and the athiest are both on very weak footing as to the verifiability of their theories, just based on physical evidence. Our current societies tend to glorify athiestic thinking over Intelligent Design while past generations tended to do just the opposite. Neither assertion is verifiable.

The best humans can do is to gather and analyze large amounts of data and interpolate and extrapolate various possible outcomes which might be possible. When that is done, the theories which conform the best to what we can see, feel and measure tend to be the theories that society adopts and that is about the best we can do. God based systems tend to be based on faith. That makes just as much sense as scientifically based models because neither of them is based on a verifiable model.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I been watching some videos on youtube and thought this one might be enjoyed.

[video=youtube;94o-D2_k5ew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94o-D2_k5ew[/video]

 

[SPsince83]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Quote Originally Posted by SPsince83 View Post
God is an untested and unfalsifiable concept. A mere hypothesis at best. The default position is non-acceptance of an unverifiable assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The universe is evidence of the universe. That's all.

It's easy to consider wishful flights of fancy to be real. And mythos is a vital part of culture. But I am not a 6' 2" 220# power hitting, great fielding 3rd baseman no matter WHAT I believe.

I wanted to comment on this comment by SPsince 83. I do agree with this post, every word of it, except possibly your last line, but I feel that the same comment applies equally for models of the Universe which contain no God and are based on random chance.

For example, 'Some matter existed in some space and an enormous explosion happened to take place and over billions of years through random interaction of sub atomic particles the intricate systems forming our universe just happened to come into being simply on the basis of randing chance. Life is an accident having to do with atoms and molecules interacting with water and sunlight, etc.' I feel there is no evidence whatever to that line of thinking and that concept must also be dismissed.

The thiest and the athiest are both on very weak footing as to the verifiability of their theories, just based on physical evidence. Our current societies tend to glorify athiestic thinking over Intelligent Design while past generation tended to do just the opposite. Neither assertion is verifiable.

The best humans can do is to gather and analyze large sums of data and interpolate and extrapolate various possible outcomes which might be possible. When that is done, the theories which conform the best to what we can see, feel and measure tend to be the theories that society adopts and that is about the best we can do. God based systems tend to be based on faith. That makes just as much sense as scientifically based models because neither of them is based on a verifiable model.
Lakey

Theism is an unverifiable assertion and nothing else ever. Atheism is the default rejection of that assertion as unsupportable. I do not assert there is no possibility of some kind of god. I positevely state no Theist has demonstrated his case in the history of ever. Next verifiable proof of a god will be the first. I continue to practice breathing as holding my breath until it comes in could be fatal.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;-pb2KNUaDWE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pb2KNUaDWE[/video]
Translation not required.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;btyhpyJTyXg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btyhpyJTyXg[/video]
Words are useless...so beautiful.

I like the Monterey jazz festival versions of some of his compositions, as this is; if you like this, search ryuichi sakamoto monterey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;xgSeZpcMOBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgSeZpcMOBE[/video]
not the Monterey jazz festival version that I have on dvd, but nice...very nice.

[video=youtube;Ad1If8sBzbE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad1If8sBzbE[/video]
Monterey Jazz Festival version, '96.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Theism is an unverifiable assertion and nothing else ever. Atheism is the default rejection of that assertion as unsupportable. I do not assert there is no possibility of some kind of god. I positevely state no Theist has demonstrated his case in the history of ever. Next verifiable proof of a god will be the first. I continue to practice breathing as holding my breath until it comes in could be fatal.

I say Atheism in an unverifiable assertion and Theism is the default rejection of that assertion as unsupportable. I do not assert there is no possiblity of no God nor no intelligent design. I positively state that no Atheist has demonstrated his case in the history of ever. The next verifiable proof of no god will be the first. I continue to practice breathing as holding my breath until it comes in could be fatal.

Actually, I believe that where your argument goes wrong is in the assumption of a "default". I'm sure that you have heard something like the example I am about to give but I will say it anyway. Let's say that someone wakes up in a barren desert with no living things. He finds a new automobile sitting in the middle of the desert. He must conclude that the automobile came into being through some kind of intelligent design. You don't assume a default of no intelligent design in this case, that would be madness. Now the Universe is vastly more complex than any automobile and yet you are born into a Universe infinitely more complicated and complex than an automobile and assert that the default condition is no intelligent designer.

I do not see how any observer could make the assertion of no intelligent design in either case, either encountering a car in a vast desert or encountering life and life systems in a vastly complex Universe. Probably we should just agree to disagree on this topic because no amount of arguing is likely to change either of our minds.
Lakey

Lakey

 

[SPsince83]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I say Atheism in an unverifiable assertion and Theism is the default rejection of that assertion as unsupportable. I do not assert there is no possiblity of no God nor no intelligent design. I positively state that no Atheist has demonstrated his case in the history of ever. The next verifiable proof of no god will be the first. I continue to practice breathing as holding my breath until it comes in could be fatal.

Actually, I believe that where your argument goes wrong is in the assumption of a "default". I'm sure that you have heard something like the example I am about to give but I will say it anyway. Let's say that someone wakes up in a barren desert with no living things. He finds a new automobile sitting in the middle of the desert. He must conclude that the automobile came into being through some kind of intelligent design. You don't assume a default of no intelligent design in this case, that would be madness. Now the Universe is vastly more complex than any automobile and yet you are born into a Universe infinitely more complicated and complex than an automobile and assert that the default condition is no intelligent designer.

I do not see how any observer could make the assertion of no intelligent design in either case, either encountering a car in a vast desert or encountering life and life systems in a vastly complex Universe. Probably we should just agree to agree on this topic because no amount of arguing is likely to change either of our minds.
Lakey

Lakey

Simply false. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I'm done. There is nothing else to say on this subject. Show me verifiable evidence of a god after you define the characteristics that make a god and the thought process you used to arrive at the definition of those characteristics. Until then I am not interested in further discussion. You believe in gods? Fine. Why should I believe your claim of knowledge? On what basis do I examine nothing? How is the imperceptible differentiated from the non-existent?

 

[SPsince83]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

but do you self identify as a black female discus thrower?

No. Swimmer.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;-pb2KNUaDWE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pb2KNUaDWE[/video]
Translation not required.

Isn't this called slapstick comedy? It always seems to be good for a few laughs Charlie Chaplin was one early proponent of this form of humor.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Simply false. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I'm done. There is nothing else to say on this subject. Show me verifiable evidence of a god after you define the characteristics that make a god and the thought process you used to arrive at the definition of those characteristics. Until then I am not interested in further discussion. You believe in gods? Fine. Why should I believe your claim of knowledge? On what basis do I examine nothing? How is the imperceptible differentiated from the non-existent?

There are no claims for knowledge.

Only Love has claims.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Simply false. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I'm done. There is nothing else to say on this subject. Show me verifiable evidence of a god after you define the characteristics that make a god and the thought process you used to arrive at the definition of those characteristics. Until then I am not interested in further discussion. You believe in gods? Fine. Why should I believe your claim of knowledge? On what basis do I examine nothing? How is the imperceptible differentiated from the non-existent?

I was going to let this go with no comment but then you stated something incorrect about me which requires correction. You stated that I believe in gods, I've never said that so I wish to correct that assumption which you made about me. Also I'm not saying that you should believe my claim of knowledge. I"ve never said that nor do I believe it and I am not claiming any knowledge about God. Further, I don't have nor want any say in how you examine anything. I prefer that you examine things for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I do the same thing. Our conclusions may not always agree, I have no problem with that. If we differ, I respect your conclusions.

Just for the record, I am agnostic on whether or not God exists. I was raised in a religion and I find that I am happiest when I believe in a God. There is no possible way to have certainty one way or the other as to whether God exists but when I move in the direction that God exists, everything seems to go better for me. I make better friends,I have more love for family, friends. strangers, pets and nature, I seem to become more forgiving, more able to enjoy music and the arts, etc. Therefore, though I have no certainty whatever as to whether God exists or not, I proceed in my life as if God does exist. If there is a God, he built us so that we can't know for certain whether he exists so how could God judge us harshly if we are not certain of his existence? One has to have faith that God exists and since my life goes better when I have faith, I chose to have it. .

For you, it seems as if you are happier not believing in God. I am happy for you, I hate proselytizers and I am not one myself. Maybe your calling in life is to not believe in God and I support you 100% if you make that choice. I don't think your soul needs to be saved, nor mine either for that matter.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Isn't this called slapstick comedy? It always seems to be good for a few laughs Charlie Chaplin was one early proponent of this form of humor.
Lakey

I found it sublime actually.

The human condition.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;O3OPZny6bMo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3OPZny6bMo&list=PL0snuBhsw0p9lGtADeqnzCCm _aCf1PVta[/video]

Oh Whatever, I have to post here it here too. So nice. It's on the folk thread for posterity. For here it's just a passing thing...a beauty passing along the shore, glimpsed....

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I found it sublime actually.

The human condition.

OMG, that meaning totally escaped me! Sadly, I have no choice but to agree with you. Portraying the human condition in a 2 1/2 minute slapstick video is sublime, really an act of creative genius.

Every once in a while, some among us do some things very inspirational and worthwhile. I would put on a companion video to illustrate what the human condition could be like or should be like. I can only think of a couple of things, maybe the closing scene of the movie, The Wizard of Oz, maybe a beautiful painting of one of the Masters, maybe some great utterance of one of the great philosophers, maybe a great piece of music. I am not up to the task.

Somehow, I get the feeling that you may have something in mind. If that is the case would you please post it. If I am wrong and you have nothing to post, no harm will have been done.
Lakey

PS: Thank God, you and I were on the same page. Your above post was not there when I started this post but was there when I finished it. Thank you for posting that, it is very beautiful, sort of the other side of the coin of the slapstick post.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OMG, that meaning totally escaped me! Sadly, I have no choice but to agree with you. Portraying the human condition in a 2 1/2 minute slapstick video is sublime, really an act of creative genius.

Every once in a while, some among us do some things very inspirational and worthwhile. I would put on a companion video to illustrate what the human condition could be like or should be like. I can only think of a couple of things, maybe the closing scene of the movie, The Wizard of Oz, maybe a beautiful painting of one of the Masters, maybe some great utterance of one of the great philosophers, maybe a great piece of music. I am not up to the task.

Somehow, I get the feeling that you may have something in mind. If that is the case would you please post it. If I am wrong and you have nothing to post, no harm will have been done.
Lakey

PS: Thank God, you and I were on the same page. Your above post was not there when I started this post but was there when I finished it. Thank you for posting that, it is very beautiful, sort of the other side of the coin of the slapstick post.

I don't like to 'evaluate'. LOL. Maybe others won't see what I saw. I didn't keep track of what page I was on or with whom. Not for me to judge. Just hoped someone saw it, shared, how humans try and try and are slapped back. The human condition, a glimpse.

I posted this below on Cat's folk music thread, so pretty...explains why logic fails and why I don't really care about philosophy or religion. Like who cares about all this crap!!!???

[video=youtube;LP6us-ZeiSk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP6us-ZeiSk[/video]

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This little country music song is not exactly the other side of the coin in response to the slapstick comedy video portraying the condition of the world. However it scores well, in many departments. If it cute, fun lively, creative and lighthearted plus the words make sense and are timely to the topic and it is just very good piece of music in the Country Music genre!

I give you Iris DeMent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmDDOFXSgAs[/video]