[blackshoe]

"Your job is not to die for your country. It's to make the other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country." - George C. Scott, as General George S. Patton.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Hmmm. Self-righteous atheist. I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

In my experience, it's closer to tautological by the same definition.

[Aberlour10]

PassedOut, on Mar 31 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

From what I'm reading, the Moscow subway attacks, like most suicide bombings, have little to do with religion:

These attacks have nothing to do with "Free Chechenya" (not more),but with try to establish the Islamic Republic in entire North Caucasus. This is not Kremlin propaganda, this is what these terrorists open say, with their leader Dokka Umarov on the top.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Mar 31 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Hmmm.  Self-righteous atheist.  I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

In my experience, it's closer to tautological by the same definition.

Perhaps you are mistaking arrogance as self-righteousness? There is no doubt that unbridled arrogance can be as smug-acting as self-righteousness. I simply see them as different because the root cause of the belief is different - one sees himself as intellectually superior while the other finds himself to be morally superior based upon his understanding of an infallible god being.

[kenberg]

Over the years I have seen many atheists, perhaps even Winston, speak in very moralistic terms. Who knows, perhaps even I have done so! Nah. That would be Wrong!

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Mar 31 2010, 05:41 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 31 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Hmmm.  Self-righteous atheist.  I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

In my experience, it's closer to tautological by the same definition.

Perhaps you are mistaking arrogance as self-righteousness? There is no doubt that unbridled arrogance can be as smug-acting as self-righteousness. I simply see them as different because the root cause of the belief is different - one sees himself as intellectually superior while the other finds himself to be morally superior based upon his understanding of an infallible god being.

I'm not speaking of intellectual arrogance. I'm speaking of a belief in one's own moral superiority, granted, albeit, that in atheists this belief is not based upon one's understanding of an infallible god being. However, I don't think the source of the belief in one's own moral superiority is a necessary component of self-righteousness.

[Winstonm]

Quote

However, I don't think the source of the belief in one's own moral superiority is a necessary component of self-righteousness

.

That would certainly seem to fit in well with the Alice-in-Wonderland concept that words mean exactly what I want them to mean when I say them and nothing else. I don't want to be the only one accused of self-righteousness so I will expand the definition to fit the actions.

Funny, but I used the same idea for reworking the definition of asshole. I'm not alone anymore - welcome aboard!

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Mar 31 2010, 09:49 PM, said:

Quote

However, I don't think the source of the belief in one's own moral superiority is a necessary component of self-righteousness

.

That would certainly seem to fit in well with the Alice-in-Wonderland concept that words mean exactly what I want them to mean when I say them and nothing else. I don't want to be the only one accused of self-righteousness so I will expand the definition to fit the actions.

Funny, but I used the same idea for reworking the definition of asshole. I'm not alone anymore - welcome aboard!

"confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others."

www.dictionary.com, taken from Random House, actually, not Alice. Nothing at all in there about the source of that smug moralism. Perhaps you incorporate it into your definition so that it doesn't fit you?

By your definition, by the way, I'd be immune from accusations of self-righteousness, as I am not a theist.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2010, 01:26 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 30 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

I think a more realistic option would be to store all our souls on a computer, program it to simulate some fairy planet like Pandora from Avatar, equip it with nuclear fuel enough to power it for a billion years, and then ship it to deep space so that the Iranian missiles can't reach it.

But Mikeh told me that that's impossible so I guess we are stuck with the Earth.

did he happen to mention why it's impossible?

I think his case was the same as the one made by Jeff Hawkins: http://en.wikipedia....On_Intelligence

Wow! When did I do that? I tried to read the wiki entry and gave up, so if my arguments are like hawkins', trust me, it's a coincidence.

I do find a logical flaw with the idea of uploading ourselves into computers, if we mean moving ourselves from a meat brain into an electronic one...by some form of copying. A more plausible means seems to me to be that eventually we may be able to have electronic (or man-made and replaceable biological) machines that we add to our brains...and that we gradually increase the effective power and capacity of these add-ons and whatever 'we' are becomes increasingly based in those extensions.....ultimately the original meat part becomes unnecessary...in other words, my issue is continuity of whatever the mind may be...I don't see the mind as being something that can be separated from the matrix from which it emerges...so to move it to another matrix requires that the new matrix be initially part of or intimately connected to the original.

Of course, I don't believe in a 'soul'. Let me know if and when there is reproducible evidence of one's existence

[mikeh]

gwnn, on Mar 30 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

what's wrong with this planet? the designer of it even got an award for the Norwegian fjords...

But which one are we living on? Wasn't slarty bard-fast assigned to do Africa the 2nd time around? Hmmm...I guess that means we are on the original and must be close to discovering the question.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Apr 1 2010, 12:22 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 30 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2010, 01:26 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 30 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

I think a more realistic option would be to store all our souls on a computer, program it to simulate some fairy planet like Pandora from Avatar, equip it with nuclear fuel enough to power it for a billion years, and then ship it to deep space so that the Iranian missiles can't reach it.

But Mikeh told me that that's impossible so I guess we are stuck with the Earth.

did he happen to mention why it's impossible?

I think his case was the same as the one made by Jeff Hawkins: http://en.wikipedia....On_Intelligence

Wow! When did I do that? I tried to read the wiki entry and gave up, so if my arguments are like hawkins', trust me, it's a coincidence.

I do find a logical flaw with the idea of uploading ourselves into computers, if we mean moving ourselves from a meat brain into an electronic one...by some form of copying. A more plausible means seems to me to be that eventually we may be able to have electronic (or man-made and replaceable biological) machines that we add to our brains...and that we gradually increase the effective power and capacity of these add-ons and whatever 'we' are becomes increasingly based in those extensions.....ultimately the original meat part becomes unnecessary...in other words, my issue is continuity of whatever the mind may be...I don't see the mind as being something that can be separated from the matrix from which it emerges...so to move it to another matrix requires that the new matrix be initially part of or intimately connected to the original.

Of course, I don't believe in a 'soul'. Let me know if and when there is reproducible evidence of one's existence

see Singularity thread in water cooler.


http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...&hl=singularity


See evolution threads.