This video needs no comment:

[Joe Chi Minh]

I received the video with this preamble:

I received the video with this explanation:

"A son says to his father: 'Dad, would you be willing to run a marathon with
me?'
The father, despite his age and a heart disease, says 'YES'.

And they run that marathon, together.

The son asks: 'Dad, can you run another marathon with me?' Again father says
'YES'.
They run another marathon, together.

One day the son asks his father: 'Dad, would please do the Iron Man with
me?'
Now just in case you wouldn't know, 'The Iron Man' is the toughest triathlon
in existence; 2.4 mile swim, then 112 miles by bike, and finally another
marathon 26.2 mile running, in one stroke.

Again father says 'YES' – now watch the movie ..."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMbk9dtpdY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eshadowmus

[Buzz Clik]

1. This guy has been at this for quite some time.

The first time I saw this guy, his son was fairly small. Now, the son is a man. I cannot imagine what this guy is made of.

[darkstar3]

2. OK

I watched the video, and the only tie to God that I see is the fadeout at the end where the author put up the Bible verse that he felt was applicable to this story.

I'll say this: The concept is a testament to human endurance and emotional fortitude, but I really don't think you want to bring God into this. It WILL lead to the inevitable questions about the source of handicaps and the twisted nature of God's supposed plan.

[trotsky]

5. There's not a story on earth that arrogant religionists haven't tried to co-opt

and make it one about their gods. They can't explain tragedy (babies born with disabilities, airplane crashes, diseases, etc.) so instead they steal the limited good news within (the Hoyts, the occasional survivor, etc.) and claim their god is responsible for it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. Dojn't you worry about that. Athesits will, but Christians have known and

pondered such matters for a long, long time.

[rd_kent]

9. Pondered what matters for a long time? The fact that the xtian god seems a mean and spiteful SOB?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. What's the matter. Cat got your tongue? Long ago, philosophers of science

confirmed what Neils Bohr had at least hinted at, namely, that there was no such thing as objective empirical truth; only inter-subjective. Not unreminiscent of the insight of one of the ancient Jewish mystics, who said somethng to the effect that when a man dies a whole world dies with him.

[rd_kent]

20. Do you talk just to hear yourself speak?

You make no sense and have no rational argument. None of what you claim has been proven, sorry.

NEXT!

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uberllama42]

30. No one responds to your mental diarrhea for five minutes and you declare victory?

You must be a very very sad man.

[darkstar3]

16. Einstein proved no such thing.

"There is a god"? REALLY? Einstein proved this?? If that was the case, you KNOW that proof would be propagated all over the place by giddy Christians intent on proselytizing to the rest of us.

Einstein proved no such thing. Your statements here attempting to summarize what you THINK Einstein said are radically egocentric, and if I'm reading them correctly in context they completely misconstrue the Theory of Relativity.

But I'm willing to read, especially anything from Einstein. If you think Einstein proved there was a God, post the documentation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. Just look up Special Relativity in Wikipedia and it's there in black and white.

The physics was tested a long time ago, and there is simply no escaping the simple, logical implications. Anyway, as I said to a woman in the Guardian, "See who wins."

[darkstar3]

92. Just as I suspected.

The theories of Relativity and Special Relativity in no way prove the existence of any gods, personal or otherwise. To claim that they do is a radical stretch, and requires quite a bit of very detailed explanation on your part.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

121. Time and space dilations mean God exists? Most outlandish non sequitur EVER.

I could as easily say that the absence of a fraction for epresing the diagonal of a square proves God does NOT exist. It would make exactly as much sense.

(Look up the "diagonal of a square" thing. It upset Pythagoras a great deal.)

[rd_kent]

19. Thanks joe, for the lesson in sophistry.

But Einstein proved no such thing and your ramblings are nothing more than speculation.

[trotsky]

24. There is really no limit to the immorality of the devoutly religious.

Einstein "proved" there is a personal god, huh?

I guess he didn't "prove" it to himself.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[rd_kent]

26. Great post, trotsky. Maybe it will shut him up, or at least make him argue with facts.

[trotsky]

27. Well, that one is a real gem of a believer.

Foul as they come.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

45. I am having the worst case of deja vu.

I have read this post so many times in the past. It's astounding how many times that quote needs to be pulled out.

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. Indeed he did prove it to himself, as is clear from his steadfast refusal to

don the cloak of an atheist. Why do you think he admired that philosopher of science, who claimed that the light from a distant galaxy must have known where a particular observer of that light would be, before it set off on its journey. Because that is the only way in which a materialist can express the implications of this personalized 'beaming' (something, nevertheless Einstein certainly was not). Trouble is, it's demonstrably daft, while it only confirms what the great religions have always maintained, namely, the close identity of God with light.

[trotsky]

85. "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Can you read it yet? I know that lots of Christians throughout history have considered it perfectly fine to lie for Jesus. Do you?

[Silent3]

31. Minkowski geometry is how I explain the constancy of the speed of light.

It doesn't take a personal God personally adjusting the speeds of photons to make the speed of light (in a vacuum, to be precise) a constant for all observers. It's a natural outcome of the geometry of spacetime.

Besides, Einstein plainly stated that he didn't believe in a personal God, but Spinoza's God.

[Joe Chi Minh]

82. 'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit

who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.'

Call it what you want. Einstein clearly contradicted himself in this matter. To him, God was not a mere philosophical concept, but the ineffable designer of the universe, as the above quotation makes abundantly clear.

Of course, he was confused in his own mind, but it was the honest confusion of someone who believed in 'that illimitable superior spirit', yet accepted that, while no atheist, he was too agnostic to believe in a personal god. Given that he was Jewish and the monstrous horrors that were being inflicted on his people at that time - and frankly, the state of the Christian Church, notably then, but right up to Vatican II, I don't find it difficult to understand. Particularly, in view of his expression of unbounded admiration of Judaeo-Christianity as the matchless guarantor of goodness and decency in mankind.

Like so many others, he never lost the outraged innnocence of the child, who loved the religion, but couldn't come to terms with the depths of depravity of the Church's leadership at different times in its history, never mind that there were always great men and women toiling humbly in the field, doing good. In a way, that makes it harder to take.

[Silent3]

89. Still, you have to admit...

...(well, OK, this is the internet, no one has to admit being wrong ever, and they seldom do), your point about the speed of light was way, way off base.

I've done the math myself. I was the author of an award-winning piece of educational software for teaching special relativity, where you could construct all sort of virtual experiments demonstrating the relativity of velocity, time and distance. No special effort was needed to make the speed of light come out the same for everyone. It's a natural outcome of some fairly simply math.

This is the distance formula in two dimensions: d = sqrt((x1 - x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2) (distance equals the square root of the sums of the squares of the x and y differences)

This is the formula for something called "interval" between two "event"s, with two dimensions of space and one dimension of time: d = sqrt((x1 - x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2 - (t1 - t2)^2). You can throw in a z term if you like for three dimensions of space. If t is measured in seconds, x and y must be measure in light-seconds for the math to work out.

The "interval" between two events is the same for all non-accelerating observers (dealing with acceleration requires general relativity, much more complicated, but not important here), even though differing velocities for different observers can yield wildly different values for the x's, y's, and t's of two different events, even different views of which event occurred before or after the other.


Note that the square of the time difference is subtracted, not added. That subtraction is the "magic" that makes the constancy of the speed of light work out, no God-like intervention for every person measuring the speed of light required.

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. And who do you think designed it in that way? It's still personalized.

As philosophers of science established some decades ago, at least, there is no such thing as objective physical reality; only 'inter-subjective'. Again, working towards that sense of a personalized world. Einstein considered that 'reality is only an illusion, albeit a very persistent one'. They must all have emanated from reflection on Special Relativity.

Pretty much in line with an ancient Jewish mystic's insight to the effect that, when a man dies, a whole world dies with him.

[Silent3]

104. Who say it has to be designed?

I deny the necessity of that question.

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. Only an idiot looks at a complex mechansim which fulfils a dedicated function, and

denies that it was designed. It's too elementary to teach an infant. It's the most patent and instinctive common sense. You'd have done better to remain silent a 4th time, or just 'period'. This is what is so infuriating with people interested in science: as well as attracting people for positive reasons, it also attracts people who are beguiled by its simplicity, dealing as it does, with the grossest, most basic aspects of human life, creation.

But when the first devotees take it to another level, the latter misunderstand everything. The spectrum is so broad it could make you weep. All the more so, in that the stupidest - and I'm not necessarily making a judgement on you, personally - are the ones who are the first to crawl out of the woodwork, mob-handed, when a religious post appears here, and full of the most misconceived arrogance sneer at the post, whil vaunting - no, don't laugh - ther own special gift for LOGIC!

I've got some news for them (I want to check it all out on Google): there are approximately 2 billion Catholics and the figure is growing, half billion more than there are Moslems, and of course, many, many more than there are atheists. so if they think they're going to win the day... it gives you some measure of their intelligence, or rather want thereof. Very amusingly, the journalist who quoted the figures seemed to preface the paragraph with the mention of an 'alarming growth in fundamentalism'...!! Tee Hee.

[lazarus]

116. Ah, that one

There are more of you, so you must be right. Sure.

Read The Blind Watchmaker. Or just study some science. You only think it's all designed because you've been conditioned to think that. Would intelligent design have led to my kidney stone? Or my infant's dying of SIDS? Or is that all part of the Mystical Plan we don't know anything about, but that you people are convinced actually exists? With no evidence, I might add.

[Silent3]

117. Have you learned absolutely nothing from this place?

Even if you think the argument you're using for why there has to be a God, one that's so old it has a name, the Argument from Design, is a good argument, you show no signs of even knowing any of the arguments against it.

You're upset at what you call arrogance? Yet here you are, repeating a centuries old argument as if you were delivering shocking news that should blow people away? And then you end with "Tee Hee" even? This is nothing more than the behavior of a child who fancies himself far more clever than he actually is.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

138. You're just bubbling over with rage. Where's the substance?

There are things you've been told many times by many people in these forums that show no signs of sinking in with you. I don't mean that I'm expecting to see that you agree with and accept those things, what I mean is that you show not even the slightest recognition recall, no signs of ever having even heard any of it before.

You post one of your angry little "So, there! Hah! That'll show you atheists!" bits, or something supposedly so inspirational that anyone who isn't moved to belief in God must be a stubborn evil troll bits, then you're criticized (and rightly so, in my opinion) for poor arguments and lack of substance, you get all pissy, you eventually get sick of it an give up...

And then, other than the fact that you're touchier and angrier and even quicker to treat anyone who disagrees with you as a cardboard-cutout stereotype, you come back and do it all over again, as if the Big Reset Button in the Sky has been pressed, acting like a complete neophyte in theological debate.

As I've mentioned on here before, immaturity is one of the chief characteristics to understanding the atheists.

Laughable hypocrisy from someone who thinks the way to drive a point home is to end a post with "tee hee".

Agnosticism can be admirable, on the other hand, and a sign of great integrity.

Many atheists are agnostics, both by the bastardized common usage of "agnostic" (not claiming either that God exists or does not exist) and by the more technical usage (that the existence of deities is beyond our knowing, perhaps unknowable).

So who exactly is admirable and who is immature again? If you're both atheist and agnostic do those qualities cancel out? :eyes:

In my opinion the so-called "agnostic" who thinks that treating all unknowns as 50/50 propositions isn't doing anything laudable, he's just being intellectually lazy.

Let's not lose track of the fact that I'm criticizing your use of the Argument from Design, not just that argument itself, but the shallowness of your understanding of it. If you think the Argument from Design is a slam-dunk case, while showing no understanding of the long debate associated with it, if you present it as if it's something none of us have even heard before (with a "Betcha didn't think about THAT, Mr. Smartypants Atheist, you!" attitude), it makes you come across as having nothing but petulant bluster to offer.

There are plenty of theists who will tell you that the Argument from Design is not a strong case for the existence of God. Many of the supposedly admirable so-called agnostics you speak of will tell you the same thing. It hardly takes an atheist to recognize your "Yeah!? Well who designed it that way!?" challenge to be a very hollow challenge. There are theists and agnostics who will tell you that that's not the "gotcha!" stumper you seem to think it is.

[Laura902]

35. Einstein did not actually believe in a personal god

Richard Dawkins mentions this in one of his books that letters reveal he did not, you can listen to Dawkins explanation at http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c114612/audio/2008/BBC%20Radio%20Scotland%20Einstein.mp3

[Joe Chi Minh]

98. I made that point, myself. He was clearly a theist, as these words of his

indicate.

'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.'

.. and others in similar vein.

Forget Dawkins. He's an idiot.

[darkstar3]

100. That sentence does not mean that Einstein was a theist.

A deist, perhaps, but more likely than not a naturalist, and most certainly not a believer in a personal god.

[Laura902]

107. No, your the one who clearly is not looking at all the facts.

Many scientists such as stephian Hawking use the term "god" in speaking all the time, but he is not a theist.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. What on earth can he mean? Surely, not an intelligent designer of the universe....?

PS: No-one looks at all the facts. One has to have a sufficiently analytical mind to prioritise and follow the most logical paths - not necessarily, the received wisdom, either, or a fashionable subcult, such as that of the Dawkins tribe.

Here is the text of a lecture entitled, Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God, which ws apparently delivered by
Henry F. Schaefer III

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

The implications of the Big Bang are obvious but scary to those who don't want to believe in a Creator. For years, atheists fought against the theorem, but I once came across the claim (characteristic, I'm afraid of the many scientisificsist noggin-heads) by one such 'luminary', that the Big Bang finally disproved the existence of God!

[Laura902]

120. wow

The implications of the big bang do not call for a creator-This matter has always existed only in the beginning it is theorized that, quarks (thought to be the smallest particle that exists) actually were all densely packed together before the explosion-so dense that a teaspoon of this material would be heavier than the Himalayan mountain range. The big bang doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of a god but, assuming this is the way the universe was created, it disproves all major religions with a creation theory that supposes the world was created in 7 days or hatched from a giant chicken in the sky-both are completely equally plausible.

[Joe Chi Minh]

126. .. a stream of particles, Laura, fror the Singularity; about which we not only know nothing,

but will never be able to do so via science.

Physics has now reached a wall of paradoxes, necessarily impenetrable to our minds, at the extremes of magnitude. A certain amount of useful management of the paradoxes has been achieved, and may yet be refined, but the basic mysteries will remain. That is 'a priori' truth, simple logic; They must inevitably remain mysteries to atheists, just as they must to Christians - at least this side of eternity. It's what 'paradox' means.

The origin of life on earth must remain a mystery to atheists, since the only knowledge and understanding they are capable of is experimental; while to the Christian, creating anything out of nothing is a mystery, though accepted as true. Einstein apparenty rated intuition above the so-called 'scientific method', but our juvenile scientismificists on here scoff at anything that can't be proved. The greatest, most innovative thinkers were lost in wonder at the impossibility of knowing more than the tiny amount they did, and indeed, considered man would ever be capable of.

One doesn't, however, need to go back as far as the Big Bang to see the inability of the scientismificist's grasp of the limited scope of science, since the proper reference-frame of light is clearly as exogenous as the Singularity (surely, being, itself, the Singularity: the interface of the Holy Spirit with the universe he created and maintains) - even while it interacts in space-time and can be subjected in various ways to agencies within it.

[uberllama42]

46. Really, calling other posters "you SOBs" is against the rules

Your speed-of-light argument is so incoherent, I don't even know what to say about it. This will have to suffice--

It doesn't follow that, because light traveling through a vacuum always travels at the same speed relative to an observer, regardless of the observer's speed relative to other objects, a personal god must be manipulating the light.

Einstein described his discovery about relativity as showing there there are "no privileged frames of reference." That is quite the opposite of what you describe--a deity with a mind in some way like the human mind, which interferes to make light behave a certain way relative to observers. What you have described is a non sequitur in the profoundest sense of the term.

[trotsky]

56. It may be against the rules, but apparently it's good Christian behavior.

WWJD? Insult the fuck out of anyone who believes differently, I guess. Feel the love.

[Joe Chi Minh]

83. Anyone who calls my God a SOB can expect no mercy from me. This forum

is not a legalistic monolith. The moderators try to see not only what is written in an aggressive post, but the nature of the post to which it responded. Don't insult others and then whine and cry like a baby, when you get back as good as you gave.

[trotsky]

87. You sure are a shining example of Christian tolerance and love.

Truly I can see the peaceful and loving nature of Jesus in you. What a fantastic representative of Christ on earth you are, flinging poo and insults whenever you can. Praise Jeebus!

[Joe Chi Minh]

94. Ha! Ha! the very response I wanted. You love to shove an open door,

kick people who you know (think you know) won't kick you back hard. Then you whine. And whine. And whine. 'Trotsky', my eye! I don't see him as a nerdy whiner.

Nobody asks you to come on these religious threads. You must bore each other rigid in your own little thread. You and your pals evidently neither wish, nor are able to contribute anything but pathetic insults to people, like that father and son, whose shoes you're not fit to lick.

[trotsky]

101. Ah yes, "an eye for an eye" was a teaching of Jesus, wasn't it?

:eyes:

What peace and love you have emanating from you. A shining emissary of your faith. You're sure to convince people Christianity is the way to go with such a foul, nasty, insulting, bitter attitude.

[Joe Chi Minh]

128. There , there. Never mind! From someone like you, that's hilarious. It does

warm the cockles of my heart when atheists who infest religious threads on here, whine and blubber because someone gives them some of their own treatment.

Your constant bad-mouthing of Christianity on here is unuusually intrusive, since we are not supposed to throw 'pearls before... what was that sweet and gentle word Christ used...?

[trotsky]

131. I can take everything you dish out, and much much more.

Which is a lot, since your foul mouth and insulting tone have resulted (as usual) in multiple posts of yours being deleted for their despicable content. Jesus must be so proud of you. Funny how it's your posts being deleted and not those of the mean old atheist. :rofl:

[Joe Chi Minh]

132. That's the way! Laughing through your tears. And you'd sounded so bitter.

Tell me. How long do you think Christ would have lasted on here? Some how, I think my deleted posts lasted longer on here than his would have. I've never actually called you 'swine' - though I called you SOBs in response to your blasphemous use of the word.

This folder is entitled Religion/Theology. How is it your post was not deleted? I suppose in deference to DU's being primarily liberal atheist.

[trotsky]

133. Laughing at hypocrisy is one of my favorite hobbies.

I thank you for giving me lots of material.

"How long do you think Christ would have lasted on here?"

Fictional characters can't type, so I would imagine not long.

[Joe Chi Minh]

134. Here's a good one for you to laugh at, when you get over your pique.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=232330&mesg_id=232707

[trotsky]

136. You flatter yourself if you think you could ever hurt me, Name Removed.

At least you admit you don't care about stealing a story and trying to push your religion with it. Hell, that's the history OF your religion so it fits right in.

[Joe Chi Minh]

137. Thank you. I couldn't have asked for a greater compliment.

But why were you grizzling and whining like that? When it is always you who begin with the snidey, rancorous comments? I'm just puzzled, as it's the kind of behaviour you expect of infants. One tot hits another, gets hit back, then starts crying and pointing at the villanous aggressor! Aren't you embarrassed?

[trotsky]

139. Wha...? I'm not embarrassed in the slightest.

You, with all the posts deleted for personal attacks and insults, are the one with egg on your face. In your own thread about how wonderful your belief is, no less! You do far more damage to Christianity than even the most militant atheist could ever hope to accomplish. :rofl:

[Joe Chi Minh]

140. Obviously, you're not. What would you know about Christianity? Apart from

the letter of the law?

[trotsky]

141. I learned enough from my 20 years of being one...

to know that you are one of the worst examples of your faith. Congratulations.

[Joe Chi Minh]

142. Thank you. That's a relief. Sarcasm. Phew. Atheists are evidently a protected

species on DU, but it's healthier not to belong to one. I believe Polish Catholics were better off spiritually under the hostile, Communist regime than now.

Anyway, that's it now. I'll leave the Religion/Theology folder to you and your pals. But I won't be posting to the atheist one, for sure.

[trotsky]

146. That's a pretty weak attempt to save face.

Not that any of your attempts were anything but weak. And no, you're not welcome in the atheist "folder" because unlike the Religion/Theology FORUM, it's a Group. Read up on the DU rules. You're not allowed there any more than I would be allowed in your Catholic and Orthodox group. And if you think atheists receive some sort of special protection on DU, it's called an equal platform. I know you're not used to that in the real world, where everything is slanted in favor of the believer. Deal with it, or leave. Although if you keep with your usual agenda of slandering others and insulting them, the mods will escort you out.

[Joe Chi Minh]

147. It wouldn't be the end of the world for me, I assure you. I only came on this folder

in a moment of carelessness. I avoided it for a long time. But I suppose I couldn't imagine human beings expressing such rancour over a video like that. You're some piece of work.

[trotsky]

148. And as has been pointed out to you at least a half dozen times on this thread,

the "rancor" isn't over a video. It's over the dishonesty and tastelessness of Christians such as yourself who take a beautiful human story and steal it for your own proselytizing, as some of the worst elements of your religion have done throughout history. Now go crawl back under your rock.

[uberllama42]

150. You probably don't even realize what you did there.

Only I and one other poster in this thread have actually criticized what Team Hoyt did. Everyone else has been talking almost exclusively about you. People have criticized your attitude toward the Hoyts, your incoherent arguments and your antisocial behavior.

There is almost no "rancour over a video like that" in this thread at all. This is not a thread full of people disparaging Dick Hoyt's athletic achievement and vehement love for his son. It's mostly a thread full of people arguing with you. But you don't seem to know the difference. You have confused yourself with someone you consider praiseworthy.

You have projected your own sense of victimization onto someone else, apparently in an unconscious and ultimately vain search for the moral high ground.

[54anickel]

151. +1 Great post and summation of the issues of this somewhat incoherent thread.

Thank you!

[uberllama42]

108. It's clear that you want to drag me down into a pissing contest

Fuck that noise. Obviously my pointing out that you blatantly flouted the rules of the forum touched a nerve, but I didn't insult you and I don't intend to start now.

[Babyhoneylips]

99. It's Banana Theory Pt 2

The banana fits in the hand therefore god exists!
Light hits the eyes at the speed of light therefore god exists!

THESE ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE! YOU CAN"T DENY IT!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

122. Yeah, that's about it.

[immoderate]

113. Did you know that anyplace you go...

there you are!

It happens every time. It can't be a coincidence. Personal God steps in and adjusts the reality. This has been simple logic for a pretty long time too. (I don't know about a hundred years though.:crazy:)

--imm

[uberllama42]

123. Well you can penetrate any place you go

Yes, you can penetrate any place you go
I told you so
All I want is you
Everything has got to be just like you want it to
Because-

[darkstar3]

10. I'd be careful with the use of the word "known" in that context. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. I'm sure you would.

[darkstar3]

18. I would, and you should too.

Do you think $.02 worth of clever wordplay somehow constitutes a response to the fact that you are claiming knowledge where you only have wild speculation?

[dmallind]

3. This is just BS on too many levels to count.

[darkstar3]

4. I kind of agree

I mean, kudos to the dad for doing something I and many others could never do. The Iron Man is probably the most grueling, punishing thing that a person can volunteer for, but at the same time...literally carrying someone through seems a little...weird, for lack of a better word, to me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. The heart has its reasons that reason knows not of, as the genuine scientific

luminary and mystic, Blaise Pascal once observed.

I doubt if people who think the mind is everything and the heart irrelevant in the scheme of things would ever understand it. Don't you think so, mallind? Pass...

[dmallind]

8. Me? I think that's just empty twaddle.

The mind is biochemical reactions in the brain. The heart is a muscle (well bundle of muscles and other tissue really) that pumps blood. If people decide running marathons or triathlons is important enough to them and if they are physically capable of training hard enough to make it possible for them then they can do it. The only thing the heart determines is their level of cardiovascular capability.

Keep telling yourself you're some kind of higher being who "understands" things I don't if it makes you feel better. I prefer reality myself.

[darkstar3]

11. Pascal was a simpleton,

terrified of eternal retribution and unable to shake the boogeyman tales told to him as a child.

Do you actually think that your physical heart controls any of your emotions or thoughts? Do you think that it contains anything besides muscle mass and blood?

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. Your question is too cretinous to read (inspiring a boundless incredulity) never mind to respond to.

[darkstar3]

17. You're the one who broached the topic.

To quote:
I doubt if people who think the mind is everything and the heart irrelevant in the scheme of things would ever understand it.

This statement clearly implies that you think "the heart" provides some extra form of understanding or emotional supplementation. What I want to know is, are you referring literally to the human heart presumably contained within your own chest?

[Joe Chi Minh]

76. Well, oddly enough, there is indeed some mysterious kind of connection,

as there apparently is to a surprising degree our kidneys. Although this has been discovered by transplant recipients, it seems such a connectin was envisaged earlier. Once again, Jewish sages were on the mark:

http://www.bartleby.com/81/9534.html

In the Christian tradition and, I believe that of every other mainstream religion, the heart has enjoyed special pre-eminence as the seat of wisdom and understanding. We choose our most basic assumptions about the imponderables of spiritual truth primarily by the heart, since they are too subtle for the worldly intelligence the unaided brain to comprehend, indeed increasingly they tend increasingly towards the paradoxical (even in physics at both the micro and the macro levels).

Christ's Gospel teachings were all based on what I believe philosophers call the voluntarist school, which posits that we know what we want to know. Despite the World's glorification of the hapless, worldly intelligence, God was never going to judge our merits on that. If one has a sharper than average worldly intellect then it was given to us for the soul purpose of assisting the less worldly and correspondingly more spiritual.

You should read Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy on comparative religion. A word of advice though. You won't find it in the gardening section.

[darkstar3]

96. Show me the proof

of that connection. That bartleby site you sent me to has nothing to do with scientific data on emotional connections being managed by internal organs other than the brain. Where do you get this information? What is it that tells you there is a "mysterious kind of connection" with the heart or the kidneys?

[rd_kent]

21. So, what you're saying is that you don't have an ansewr to that. Got it.

[Jim__]

23. Pascal was a simpleton? Do you have any idea how childish you sound? - n/t

[darkstar3]

25. Childish?

It's funny you should mention that word, considering that Pascal's Wager is entirely childish.

[Jim__]

29. Yes. Pascal was considered brilliant during his lifetime.

Today, almost 350 years after his death, he is still considered brilliant.

[darkstar3]

32. Have you read anything but my topic sentences? n/t

[Jim__]

33. Yes. - n/t

[darkstar3]

34. So what are you saying?

First, do you consider Pascal's Wager anything other than childish?

Second, who exactly in our modern time considers Pascal to have been brilliant besides you? It sounds to me like we simply have a large difference of opinion on Pascal's import, and you're trying to claim an argument from authority without any statistics or references to back you up.

[Jim__]

36. I'm saying that Pascal was brilliant.

Pascal's contributions to mathematics (source):

Blaise Pascal was born in Clermont-Ferrand on June 19, 1623. As a boy Pascal proved to be a math prodigy. At the age of 16 he formulated one of the basic theorems of projective geometry, known as Pascal's theorem and described in his Essay on Conics, 1663. In 1642 he invented the first adding machine. In 1654 in conjunction with the French mathematician Pierre de Fermat, Pascal formulated the mathematical theory of probability, which has become important in such fields as actuarial, mathematical, and social statistics and as a fundamental element in the calculations of modern theoretical physics.

As to Pascal's Wager, yes I consider it something other than childish, from wiki:

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

People with those types of accomplishments are normally considered brilliant.

[Silent3]

37. The general intelligence of Pascal, the man,...

...and the intelligence of Pascal's Wager are two different things.

The Wager is a moderately clever idea as ideas go (you have to be smart to come up with an idea like that in first place), but it doesn't hold up well to scrutiny. Clinging to such an idea after it had been run up the flag pole and convincingly shot down isn't a brilliant thing to do.

[darkstar3]

38. His contributions to mathematics were great,

but for some reason you never hear anyone call Leibnitz brilliant or great, and he made very important contributions to mathematics as well. In short, it takes more than a gift in a single field to be brilliant, unless of course people wish to hold you up for other reasons, like your attempt to prove God.

As for your Wiki link on Pascal's Wager, I disagree with its statements. Firstly, because the concept of infinity dates all the way back to Zeno in 4xxBC, and secondly because Pascal's attempt at decision theory setup a false dichotomy. He completely ignores the possibility that there might be a God, but no Hell.

Further, his entire Wager boils down to fear of Hell, and as any good Pastor will tell you, fear of Hell is not enough to escape it.

I've met many a gifted math student that could still be very aptly described as a simpleton, and I see Pascal as no different. Gifted in one field, and blind to much else.

[Jim__]

40. My attempt to prove God?

I assume that you're try to say my attempt to prove the existence of God. But, then, I've never argued for that. My argument is always that there is no proof for or against the existence of God.

You've never heard anyone call Liebniz brilliant? Well here's a new experience for you:

Leibniz, brilliant in matters ranging from engineering and mechanics to political and theological theory, traveled widely, corresponded frequently and, in many instances, worked privately on metaphysical and mathematical problems.

Further, his entire Wager boils down to fear of Hell, ...

No, it actually doesn't. He uses the fact that the possibility of infinite gain will always outweigh the possibility of finite gain, no matter what the probabilities involved. His wager doesn't mention hell at all.

I've met many a gifted math student that could still be very aptly described as a simpleton, and I see Pascal as no different.

I doubt you know any math student that will be remembered for his contribution to math 350 years from now. Very few people are in that class. As to your judgement about people, you've called Pascal a simpleton in this thread and in another thread you've claimed that Kant did nothing but armchair quarterbacking. Such claims, about people who have remained famous for their intelligence across the centuries, leave little credibility in your judgement.

[darkstar3]

42. Not YOUR attempt.

I was talking about Pascal's attempt to prove God.

And if hell isn't mentioned in Pascal's Wager, then every version I've ever read of it (many on the internet) and been told about by others has been flat out misrepresented. In fact, reading here, I find this quote:
What about the utilities for the other possible outcomes? There is some dispute over the utility of “misery”. Hacking interprets this as “damnation”, and Pascal does later speak of “hell” as the outcome in this case.

Also, Pascal pigeonholes God. According to him, if God exists, you have to assume that he is good, and the benefits of his existence are not insignificant. Both are pure speculation on his part, and if you look at his "wager for God" vs. "wager against God" dichotomy, it becomes clear that he grossly oversimplified the debate.

As for people who have remained famous for many centuries, that is again an argument from authority. This is a logical fallacy for a very specific reason: While some thinkers from antiquity made true contributions to the realms of medicine, psychology, mathematics, physics, and others, that does not mean that these people are any more guaranteed than you or I to possess truth or fact with regard to the supernatural.

And BTW, attempting to dismiss what I have to say simply because I don't think highly of your favorite philosophers is simple ad hom.

[Jim__]

48. Pascal's decision matrix has no negative values - no hell.

The gist of his argument is that a potential infinite reward, no matter how small the corresponding non-zero probabilty, always outweighs any finite reward. He didn't include any negatives in his argument. People later tried to fill in other elements of the matrix; but that was not part of Pascal's argument.

Pascal's contributions and Kant's contributions are hardly arguments from authority. Their work has stood the test of time. Pascal's contributions to probability theory and decision theory are real. Certain of Kant's arguments are no longer accepted - due to Einstein's Relativity, but even that is not a clear refutation of his arguments with respect to space; and his arguments with respect to the lack of proof for the existence of God are still authoritative. His contribution to philosophy is real.

Neither Kant nor Pascal are my favorite philosophers. It is perfectly valid to challenge their arguments. However, to dismiss them as simpletons or armchair quarterbacks is to be ridiculous.

[darkstar3]

50. ALL philosophy is armchair quarterbacking.

It uses no empirical data. None of the speculations or hypotheses put forward in philosophical arguments can be proven or disproven by scientific means.

Mel Brooks was a genius in more ways than one...

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullshit* artist!

Every once in a while, a clear-thinking philosopher might actually reveal some form of truth. This is not by nature of philosophy itself, but merely an armchair quarterback getting lucky on his call.

And I will say this again in a slightly different way because it bears repeating: When it comes to the supernatural, there isn't a single person in this world, living or dead, who has a better chance of revealing truth or fact than you or I.

As for Pascal, his contributions to Probability and Decision Theory are real, but his first documented attempt at using Decision Theory falls flat on its face for many reasons, all of which I detailed above. Further, I find it interesting that a self-described agnostic would defend Pascal's Wager, since it requires ONLY the use of the classical depiction of the Christian God, and only makes sense from within the frame of reference of Christianity. As soon as you look at Pascal's Wager from "outside the circle", as it were, it falls completely apart. And while calling upon the philosophic offerings of dead thinkers is not in itself an argument from authority, claiming that these people are somehow more qualified to answer philosophical questions because "their work has stood the test of time" certainly falls into the category of logical fallacy.

[Jim__]

51. Is a number a real entity or an arbitrary label? What do you base your answer on?

It uses no empirical data.

What is the basis of empirical data? How is empirical data used to form hypotheses? How do you distinguish a scientific hypothesis from a philosphical hypothesis?

None of the speculations or hypotheses put forward in philosophical arguments can be proven or disproven by scientific means.

Which scientific hypotheses can be proven by scientific means?

As to Pascal's wager, why does it only make sense within a Christian frame of reference?


Edited to add: Have you ever read Two Dogmas of Empiricism?

[darkstar3]

53. I'm not playing your evidence game,

as I have become sick and tired of people asking "well what is evidence/empirical data/proof?" These are simple scientific concepts that are not in dispute, and any education on the Scientific Method should have revealed this information to you in high school. I will not repeat this information ad nauseum here.

As to your final question, that I will answer:
If you read this site, and especially pay attention to Pascal's quotes and assumptions, it becomes abundantly clear that Pascal was speaking specifically about the classical Christian God as depicted in the Bible. When you consider the possibility that God may not be entirely good, as some cultures have put forth, the Wager makes no sense. When you consider the possibility that God may exist and not give a damn one way or the other about what you think of him, the Wager falls apart. In fact, if you try to plug many non-Abrahamic gods into Pascal's "Wager for God" scenario, the whole decision matrix makes no sense, because those gods violate his "premise 3."

To make a long, drawn out argument short, Pascal starts from a wildly narrow false premise, namely that if God exists, it must only be the Christian God as described in the Bible, and none other. He also leaves out the position many liberal Christians here take, which is that we're all going to the same place regardless of what we believe.

[Jim__]

55. Evidence is not a game. Nor is philosophy.

As to your claims about Pascal's Wager, the site that you cited does not make any ultimate claim about the correctness of the wager. Nor does anything restrict it to Christianity.

[darkstar3]

57. .

Evidence is not a game, but trying to claim that you somehow don't know what constitutes evidence most definitely is a rhetorical game, and I'm not playing.

Of course the site I linked to doesn't make an ultimate claim about the correctness of the Wager. It is a site of explanation, not analysis. The final call on the validity of the Wager is left to the reader. And if you had read section 4, it would be clear to you that only the Christian God fits both the matrix put forward by Pascal, and the premises and conclusions that he subjected that matrix to. Further quotes from Pascal noted in section 2 make it even clearer which specific God he's referring to. But if you're going to continue claiming that this Wager is not restricted to Christianity (or at least to the God of Abraham), then I encourage you to attempt the wager with Hindu gods, gods worshipped by native tribes of Africa, Australia, and America, the gods of ancient Greece or Rome, or for a really fun exercise, Cthulu. :)

[Jim__]

62. "... trying to claim that you somehow don't know what constitutes evidence most definitely is

a rhetorical game..."

No. Actually what constitutes evidence is an important issue. And your answer shows that you are blissfully unaware of that. The question about the nature of number is important too. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. You can claim that ALL philosophy is armchair quarterbacking; but you're just displaying your ignorance.

[darkstar3]

64. That is your assertion.

You say these questions are important, but that is merely your assertion. What you're doing is trying to change the frame of the debate. We started outside the realm of philosophy, talking about it on a meta level and debating its value, and now you want to drag me into a philosophical debate on evidence and abstracts, forcing me to accept your premise that philosophy does indeed have value.

To reiterate what I said in another post, my assertion that all philosophy is armchair quarterbacking does not necessarily mean that I assign no value to the field. I simply think that philosophy and imagination are very similar concepts. They both have their place, and they both provide certain benefits to scientific and worldly progression, but neither should be taken very seriously because they can't provide a singular pathway to any truth.

[Jim__]

70. From your post #50: It uses no empirical data. None of the speculations or hypotheses put forward ..

in philosophical arguments ...

now you want to drag me into a philosophical debate on evidence and abstracts, forcing me to accept your premise that philosophy does indeed have value.

my assertion that all philosophy is armchair quarterbacking does not necessarily mean that I assign no value to the field.

No, actually what I'm saying is that philosophy is not armchair quarterbacking. Many philosophical concepts are absolutely crucial to science. If you think that philosophy and imagination are similar concepts, you have the same type of confusion about the word "philosophy" that creationists show about the word "theory." yes, there is a soft meaning to philosophy; bur read some serious philosophers and you may see the difference. Try Kant. If you've never read him, you will learn something.

[darkstar3]

71. .

No, actually what I'm saying is that philosophy is not armchair quarterbacking.
You're doing a piss-poor job. You can say it 'till your face turns blue, but you haven't shown me anything yet to make me believe you.

Many philosophical concepts are absolutely crucial to science.
OK, as I said before that philosophy helps with scientific progression, I'll accept that premise for the moment, but I challenge you to name three philosophical concepts crucial to modern science.

The rest of your post is simply insulting me because you don't like what I have to say. I do, however, find it amusing that a) you assume that I haven't read Kant, and b) you think insulting my intelligence is a way to get me to read something you consider recommendable.

[Jim__]

75. I feel like Arnold Horshack - raising my hand and crying out: Ooh, ooh, ooooh!

I know that one! I know that one! Ooh, ooh!

Let me see. Three philosophical concepts crucial to modern science: ooh, ooh - empiricism; rationalism; and ooh, ooh, and ooh, ooh scientific evidence.

The rest of your post is simply insulting me because you don't like what I have to say. I do, however, find it amusing that a) you assume that I haven't read Kant, and b) you think insulting my intelligence is a way to get me to read something you consider recommendable.

Actually, given your view about philosophy, I would have considered it insulting you to assume you had read Kant.

This discussion has been beat to death, I'm done.

[Silent3]

59. The God of Pascal's wager doesn't have to be *exactly*...

...the same as the Christian God, but He at least has to similar in important ways.

Similar it what ways?

The God of Pascal's Wager is singular, not plural. The possibility of multiple gods throws the Wager all to hell. Perhaps lumping all of the gods together as if they were one would annoy the gods more than disbelieving them entirely.

The God of Pascal's Wager cares whether or not you believe in Him. Why not a deity that doesn't care either way, or perhaps even a deity that values skepticism over faith, who might be more inclined to reward disbelievers over believers?

[Jim__]

63. First, I agree that it doesn't have to be in a christian frame.

But, I disagree that the possibility of multiple gods throws his wager all to hell. As long as the presumption of discrete sets of gods remain as the choice, and infinte reward for the right choice. The matrix expands, but only choices that result in infinity are retained. all non-infinite choices are discarded. Then any randomized method for choosing 1 of the set of choices with infinite value remains rational. Part of Pascal's constraints are that you have to make a choice. Limiting your choice to the occurrences of the highest value is a rational decision process.

[darkstar3]

65. But Pascal sets up a false dichotomy.

Outside the frame of the Abrahamic God, it is not necessarily true that you MUST either "wager for God" or "wager against God". Take Hinduism as one example: Hindus believe in gods, but also believe in reincarnation, and there is no infinite positive outcome in reincarnation, since you could come back as pretty much anything. So how does Hinduism fit into the Wager?

[Jim__]

68. Saying that it doesn't always apply is not saying that it never applies,

or only applies in one case. Pascal came up with the decision in 17th century France.

[darkstar3]

73. When the possibility

of the existence of God or gods runs the gambit from a single Biblical-type deity to an entire pantheon of beings little more advanced than humans themselves, a decision matrix that applies only to a ridiculously small subset of those possibilities is useless.

[Silent3]

66. There's no clear correct choice, however...

...that can only lead to infinite reward with no down side if you're wrong or you don't make a choice. Pascal's Wager discounts, without evidence, the possibility of an unseen power structure in the universe that favors doubt or lack of commitment to a choice over faith or provisional belief. The most likely reason for this oversight is that Pascal had the Christian God, or at least a very similar deity, in mind.

[Jim__]

69. Of course he had the Christian God in mind.

It was 17th century France.

[Silent3]

74. That's an excuse for failure, however...

...not a justification for brilliance. Even in 17th century France an educated person could have explored different god concepts.

And whether or not you think it's a good excuse, being yourself someone who should be able to see beyond that excuse, you should be able to see how the Wager is fatally flawed. Even with a Christian God in mind, the argument is a bit weak if you stop to consider whether a "safe bet" and "faith" are the same thing. The Wager would at best be a strategy to guide you to mouth the words of faith and go through the motions of faith, hoping that's enough to impress a God who might be insistent that you feel your faith in your heart.

[Silent3]

52. What makes a philosopher famous is not necessarily the quality of his work.

Often it's merely how well that philosopher epitomizes or evokes a particular school of thought.

At any rate, while I agree with you about the logical fallacy of "their work has stood the test of time", I don't share quite so dim a view of philosophy in general as you seem to have. The scientific method itself is a philosophy, one that arises from thinking long and hard about human nature and the nature of thought so we can understand our own biases and failings. Only by doing so do we arrive at the methodologies which help move us beyond those limitations to discover more clearly the nature of the universe that we live in.

In other areas of philosophy, while you might not ever discover definitive answers, sometimes taking the journey is more important than arriving at a particular destination. While we can use the sciences of biology and evolution and psychology to understand a lot about human nature, such as where our motivations and morality come from, none of those things tell you why you should or shouldn't be compassionate, why you should or shouldn't be selfish rather than self-sacrificing, whether to value truth over comfortable illusions.

[darkstar3]

54. You're right,

and I think that what's happening here is a little confusion, which may be my fault.

I'm not saying that philosophy has zero value, I'm simply saying that it starts from supposition, speculation, and usually untestable hypotheses. That said, it still serves a purpose, and the chief one in my mind is the guiding of many scientific pursuits. Philosophers often provide the imaginative exploration necessary to give the scientists something to investigate.

I think, however, that I disagree with you on the source of certain knowledge. What from philosophy tells us something about compassion, altruism, or the value of truth that isn't already revealed by sociology, psychology, and biology? We learn in biology the evolutionary benefits of compassion and altruism. We learn from sociology the cohesive benefits of compassion, altruism, and truth. We learn from psychology the mental health benefits of truth itself. What more is required?

[Silent3]

58. To know that compassion and altruism have evolutionary value...

...is not the same thing as caring that they do. That's a personal value choice. There is no purely logical reason for me to care about how our species came to be, whether the species continues to survive, or why I shouldn't do anything I want so long as I can "get away with it".

I wouldn't say philosophy will provide definitive answers where science can't, but it can help reveal the nature of the choices we make, it can help reveal what we choose to value or devalue, it can help expose logical inconsistencies in the values systems we adopt.

[darkstar3]

60. Let me start by saying I see your point,

but let me play "devil's advocate" for a moment and ask this question: From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, does it not follow that what is shown to have a scientific benefit should be adhered to?

Let me illustrate that question: Suppose I am a strict utilitarian. It matters not whether I care that compassion and altruism have evolutionary (survival) value. Since it is a scientific fact that these traits yield a positive outcome, I should espouse these traits. N'est pas?

Edit: word choice and clarity.

[Silent3]

61. Utilitarianism itself is a nonlogical value choice

It is neither logical nor illogical, it's a purely personal choice whether or not you value "utility".

I'd say the value of science when it comes to ethics and morality has two main aspects. First, understanding where our basic ethical and moral tendencies come from -- the evolved social dynamics of a social species.

Secondly, whether or not your own values match the general pattern of evolved human values, science can help you maximize whatever it is that you choose to value.

[Joe Chi Minh]

78. No, of course he doesn't, but I know your question was rhetorical.

the dimmer they are, the more arrogantly they posture as paragons of logical thought. I'm sure most of them are still in high-school.

[darkstar3]

95. I have to agree with trotsky,

you really do seem to be a paragon of Christian love and tolerance. :sarcasm:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

22. What the hell was that?

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. It's just this old man dragging around this cripple. And we're supposed to look on like it's some kind of accomplishment. It's just bizarre and obscene. And it doesn't even approach having anything to do with god.

[54anickel]

67. It WAS an accomplishment, and I guess I wouldn't agree with your definition of obscene.

I'm sure you could probably come up with more "ridiculous" things that you've seen than this "old man dragging around this cripple" if you thought about it (the entire W administration comes to my mind).

Couldn't you make your final point regarding your opinion that this has nothing to do with god without ridiculing the man and his son in the video? Your opening abuse of the subjects used in the image discredits the validity of your opinion.

Of course, that's just in my opinion. :eyes:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

102. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who finds this image deeply, deeply disturbing.

The Iron Man is already bordering on self-abuse, and I'm a little suspicious of anyone who undertakes in under normal circumstances. But to add the burden of pushing/pulling another person around is just bizarre. It's like those people who pull buses with meat hooks stuck in their backs, or who walk around with 128 clothespins stuck to their heads; it's bizarre and creepy. Sure, I suppose on some level it's an accomplishment, but that doesn't stop it from being deeply disturbing.

Look, it's nice that the father is dedicated and likes to help his son. And it would be fine if he had said, "Dad, help me live a normal life." But to say, "Dad, please pull me 2.4 miles through the water, 112 miles on a bicycle, and then push my wheelchair for 26.2 miles, despite your old age and heart condition" is just weird. And I don't find the fact that he actually decided to do it to be inspiring or uplifting. I find it just as weird.

I don't care about the last point. JCM is doing a fine job discrediting himself.

Oh, I'm not watching your video. Too creepy. :scared:

[54anickel]

105. Maybe someone else who's also "creeped out" will speak up. I'm sorry you can't watch the

other video, it was both interesting and inspiring. It is all about helping his son live a "normal life" and believing in the human spirit. I can understand if you're creeped out over the Iron Man triathlon because you see it as self-abuse. I just couldn't let your rather personal ridicule of this family go unchallenged. Your "old man dragging around this cripple" shows total disrespect and lack of compassion for people who don't fit your idea of "normal". It also hit rather close to home. I could be wrong, but I'm betting you're still fairly young --- I'm just an old :hippie:

My best friend's son had CP and his father would have done the same for him. They fought, and continue to fight many battles for handicapped equality in their community. That's also what the Hoyt Foundation does. http://www.teamhoyt.com/hoyt-foundation/index.html

The Hoyt Foundation aspires to build the individual character, self-confidence and self-esteem of America's disabled young people through inclusion in all facets of daily life; including in family and community activities, especially sports, at home, in schools, and in the workplace....

And you're right, JCM is doing a fine job of discrediting himself and alienating all sorts of people, including people of faith.

:hi:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

109. I don't place any negative value judgment on being old or disabled.

I just think the fact that the father is old and the son disabled adds to the unusual quality of the scene. It would be unusual if a young man were pushing his perfectly-abled buddy all that way, but adding the father-son relationship and the age/disability factor just pushes this over the visceral edge for me. Their lives together must be alread a grueling journey, so to add the freakish spectacle of the Iron Man to it seems to me frankly self-abusive.

I didn't mean for my words to be insulting to them. I meant for them to convey how deeply I feel the scenario to be, frankly, fucked up. I don't think they're either of them bad or in any way "less" than others because of how they are. The son certainly didn't choose to be disabled, and I understand that everybody has to get old. I'm sorry if I insulted you for being old. I recognize that someday it might happen to me myself. :) I also didn't mean to denigrate your friend or his son. I'm aware how hard it is to be disabled/take care of someone who is disabled, and I understand the importance of efforts to aid people in that situation.

[54anickel]

118. Thank you (and the others) for the response. I suppose I may have more empathy for them

because of my friend's son, he was a normal kid stuck inside a broken body. He'd play sports with the neighbor kids, they'd take turns being his legs or arms while pushing him around in his chair. (That and the fact that I'm old.) ;-) Your choice of words did convey a visceral response, and I took it as addressed directly at the people vs. the scene.

I do feel his Dad might have some emotional/personality issues as to why he continues to do this. That thought made it a bit difficult for me to watch. It hit me when the Iron Man clip starts it explanation of the father's drive coming from being a former Marine (that made my gut take a turn). Now that I'm typing this I've got to wondering how driven the father might have been and whether he was hard on his kids.

[uberllama42]

110. FWIW, I also found the video disturbing

I didn't express that because I thought to do so would have been indiscreet. I didn't want to become embroiled in a senseless and vicious exchange of insults. Over the past two days, I've had to sidestep two such incipient exchanges with two of the posters in this thread, and I think the things I said to incur their ire before were much less controversial than criticizing the Hoyt family.

Reading about Rick Hoyt's request to his father bothered me profoundly. Of course, I am not disabled, and I don't know anyone who has any degenerative muscular disorder or any form of quadriplegia. The closest I can come to understanding his experience is my own frustration with injuries from running. About a year ago I started training to run a marathon, but after a series of injuries, it looks like I'll never be able to complete one. That alone is a difficult fact to accept. At most, that could give me a remote glimmer of what it is like to be quadriplegic.

With that being said, my take on Rick's idea is this: He asked his father to do something grueling and painful merely to demonstrate his love for his son. The elder Hoyt didn't exert himself to bring his son to the top of a mountain of to allow him some other experience that he would otherwise be denied. He didn't run these marathons or the triathlon to raise money to treat or cure CP. When I decided to run a marathon, I thought it would be a constructive experience for me merely because it was going to be so difficult. But asking your father, who has shown his love and devotion to you for your entire life, to do something just because it's difficult, strikes me as perverse.

I hate being a burden on others. It makes me uncomfortable when someone has to go out of their way to accommodate my vegetarianism. It was embarrassing when I hurt my leg over the summer and someone had to spend their afternoon driving me to the doctor. If I was disabled, having someone with the use of both their legs physically push and pull me nearly 150 miles would make me feel like a sack of meat. I don't understand how Rick Hoyt or anyone else in a similar situation feels loved when someone pushes them through a marathon. It looks like they're being treated as inanimate objects.

[darkstar3]

111. Perfectly stated. n/t

[uberllama42]

112. Thank you n/t

[54anickel]

119. Your take on it in the 3rd paragraph is interesting. It's not my understanding from what I've read

and heard about the family, perhaps you're seeing something deeper than their own understanding of what's going on.

From what I know, it started with Rick wanting to run in a short, fund-raiser run and his father obliged. Then Rick told his dad that when he's running, he doesn't feel like he's disabled. (From my experience with my friend's son and his playground buddies, that makes perfect sense.) That seems to be what got the ball rolling for the Hoyts. Then it seemed to become an obsession for both of them. Hard to know who was pushing who, and does appear to be a dysfunctional family system at work from the outside...then again aren't we all somehow affected by family systems.

Thank you for sharing your honest response.

[54anickel]

72. Oh, I forgot....

Please meet this "old man dragging around this cripple", Dick & Rick Hoyt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDnrLv6z-mM

[Joe Chi Minh]

84. The cream of the joke is that you're right. It is mad. It's just that it's a divine madness

it seems highly unlikely you would ever be able to understand. On with the motley, I say, Christians! The Lord of the Dance is a good wee hymn.

[54anickel]

86. Huh? What "seems highly unlikely" that I would "EVER be able to understand"? I believe you are

making some unfounded presumptions about me...but by all means, feel free to continue donning the motley.

[Joe Chi Minh]

93. Well, no. They seem well enough founded. If you can't see the beauty in a madly

self-giving love - he knew the delight his kid got from it - no-one can teach you it.

Genuine Christians - not all formal Christians, of course - catch on to its meaningfulness, immediately. It adds a rare dimension to life, or rather a rarely-perceived dimension, although we are surrounded by heroic love on all sides. Most of the time, it looks like failure.

[rug]

28. K&R if only to watch the running of the churls.

[rd_kent]

39. As usual, you have no argument so you sink to insults.

[rug]

41. Case in point.

:hi:

[rd_kent]

47. What? That you have no point or that you resort to insults?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

43. Why take a noteable athletic effort...

...and ruin it with mawkishness and a ham-handed attempt to promote religious sentiments?

[54anickel]

77. Agreed. Team Hoyt does some great work for disabled young people. I find it rather

distasteful to co-opt the Hoyt's struggles and message of courage, love, hope and "Yes you can" for someone's own sentiments - religious or otherwise.

[onager]

44. Do you mean this Einstein, or some Einstein in an alternate universe?

“I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist..." - Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.

That grumpy old Einstein non-believing poopy-head didn't even SPARE THE CHILDREN!!! I bet this answer made Non-Existent Baby Jesus cry:

“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.” - Albert Einstein, in response to a child who had written him in 1936 and asked if scientists pray; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 32.

A Baptist preacher didn't do any better:

“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” - Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.

“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” - Albert Einstein, letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 201.

Here's a few hundred more Einstein quotes on Gawd, Jebus and religion. But not a single one where he proved the existence of any deity:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

90. I think you're (deliberately?) confusing two different meanings of "materialist".

There's possessive materialism meaning greed for material possesions, only taking pleasure in material, physical things, and scientific materialism, that the explanations for the qualities of the world around us can be found in physical law with the need to resort to the supernatural.

Einstein was a materialist of the second sort, not the first. The two kinds of materialism have very little to do to each other. One can certainly value imagination, intuition, and personal character without abandoning scientific materialism in the slightest.

[Joe Chi Minh]

91. I did mean the second kind, but do they/you(?) attribute a non-material provenance to

imagnation, intuition and personal character? If so, they are not quite as dumb.

[Silent3]

103. The way you asked that question is confusing, but I'll try to answer...

...what I think you're getting at, and least for my own opinion. I don't know which "they" you are referring to.

I see no reason why imagination, intuition and personal character require anything non-physical to be explained. That doesn't mean you can isolate those things in a test tube or view them in a microscope. But they are the result of physical processes, or names we give to patterns which arise in physical processes.

[Joe Chi Minh]

129. By the way, I think you would avoid being confused by people's posts on here, if, at the

outset, you considered the context of the post you are responding to. It can make a big difference to your enjoyment of DU, if wildly extraneous meanings don't commend themselves to you, as being of equal plausibilty as ones that fit the context.

'But they are the result of physical processes, or names we give to patterns which arise in physical processes.'

Patterns of what? Those mysterious patterns may 'arise in a physical process', but they are clearly not physical themselves, are they? But I have to say, that was a neat way you got round it.

[Silent3]

149. What is falling? What is wind? What is daytime?

None of these things are physical substances. They aren't forms of energy (there is such a thing as "wind energy", of course, but the wind and its energy are not completely synonymous). They are descriptions of things that happen involving mass and energy, however. That they aren't substances themselves doesn't mean that they aren't material phenomena, that we need demons drag things down to the ground, that we need a Wind God makes the wind blow, or that we need a Sun God to make the sun to rise.

To not understand that scientific materialism embraces the patterns of interaction of physical objects, and that you can name those patterns without assigning a substance or material to the patterns themselves, is either naive or a kind of deliberate obtuseness one might employ when one wants to set up a straw man form of materialism that's easy to take cheap shots at.

What is a game of chess? If you take chess pieces and a chess board and grind them up, then boil then down, will you be able to extract "essence of chess"? Does the fact that you never find such a substance mean that chess must be a supernatural phenomenon?

A game of chess is what happens when things we call "chess pieces", be they plastic, glass, wood, or certain bits in the RAM of a computer, move (whether that movement is actually physical displacement of a particular object, or the virtual motion of rearranged logical bits) in accordance with rules we call "the rules of chess".

Similarly, human emotions, or moments of inspiration and intuition, can be described, without any need to resort to supernaturalism, as what happens when neurons fire in some particular cascade of patterns, leading to various chemical changes, body movements, vocalization, patterns of memory which later effect future patterns of behavior, etc.

Just because we don't know the intricacies of human thoughts, down to every axon and dendrite and neurochemical receptor, doesn't mean we have to give up on physical explanations and invoke ghosts or spirits or demons or dryads to explain what happens. Why shouldn't something as complex as a human brain be able to give rise to imagination and sadness and anger by way complex webs of cause and effect as one chemical component interacts with another?

[onager]

106. It's also a catapult, onager-hole.

BTW, I sourced all my quotes. You didn't.

The rest of the post is just your usual personal puffing, condescension, and ad hominem crap.

If you read more of Einstein's sayings you'll find he became increasingly contemptuous of the scientismifical community...

Thanks for the lecture, Professor. Now try getting your Einstein quotes from someplace other than Fundie web sites.

[LAGC]

124. I wonder if Team Hoyt approves of the religious message.

Being co-opted like that, footage of them being spliced together with religious song and scripture quoted at the end.

I'd imagine they'd be pretty pissed if they aren't religious.

[Joe Chi Minh]

130. Oh, I'm sure they'd object furiously. Ironically, I wasn't moved to post

this video on here on account of the biblical quotation - which I scarcely read, and certainly can't remember.

I posted a YT video-clip on here of a man's powerful and wonderfully mad love for his son, because I knew that Christians would get the point, straight away, and would be very moved by it; a living testimony of great love.

And what do you atheists obsess about? Just like the scribes and the Pharisees, you obsess about the tiny quotation from Scripture, tacked on right at the end. Unbelievable! Not.

[54anickel]

144. Well, I obviously don't meet your definition of Christian, from your previous reply to my post in

this convoluted thread, but I didn't get your interpretation of "the point, straight away" to be "very moved by it".

Perhaps it wasn't simply the quote at the end, but also the musical selection and the fact that it was posted in the R/T forum that stirred up the religious context controversy. Regardless, I don't see anyone obsessing over the quotation of Scripture, which is your current claim.

Perhaps some other Christians will chime in as to their interpretation of the clip. Personally, I found the co-opting of Team Hoyt by StarlightMyst on YouTube to be distasteful and opportunistic. The video clips were taken out their original context, which was the actual interview of the Hoyts where the father and son give their own testimony of the bond and love between them. You just don't co-opt someone else's story for bonus points/hits on YouTube like that.

[darkstar3]

145. That's not in the least what set people off on this thread.

You think it was the Bible quote? How blind can you be?

It's the fact that you specifically and Christians in general are trying to co-opt the story of this father and son for your own proselytizing purposes. You can't just let it be a story of human perseverance and endurance, oh no, it had to be God that made it possible.

In fact, now that I realize that's exactly what you meant by posting this video, I understand a little better every post that you've made in this thread. You are the biggest proponent of the "God of the gaps" fallacy I've ever seen. You don't understand how this man could have survived the Iron man, you don't understand the Big Bang, you don't understand Special Relativity, and in fact the list of what you don't understand goes on and on, but that's OK for you, because you can just say that "God did it."

I'll say this once, though it probably won't make it through the first five layers of your skull: The lack of understanding of a physical phenomenon does not automatically mean that God must have caused that physical phenomenon.

[rrneck]

127. For a video that needs no comment

this one seems to have generated quite a few.

[Joe Chi Minh]

135. Alas, 'needs' and 'generates' express two very different concepts.

[rrneck]

143. Need caused them to be generated. nt

[rd_kent]

153. It may NEED no comment on its own, but in the context you posted it, it does NEED comment

in order to debunk what you are implying.

And I would say that THAT is a mission accomplished.

[Meshuga]

152. Sorry but this video needs comment because there is something very wrong here

The video attributes faith and God as providing strength so Dick Hoyt could finish the Iron Man competition taking away Rick Hoyt's credit for inspiring and giving strength to his father. So, do you think it is right to take something so powerful and beautiful away from a handicapped person and give it to God so we can praise him?