God, Religion, Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons

[Catatonic]

pickup.....could you please explain the last 3 terms in the thread title? Merriam-Webster showed nothing.

My dear, you will have to ask Hoaxster as he is the one the that created the title of this thread when he ARBITRARILY split this thread off from its mother thread. Good luck getting an answer from him, he can be very evasive!

Wasn't arbitrary in any sense of the word.
It was targeted and specific and criteria was applied and each post analyzed to determine if should stay with the original thread or here.

Kurt Vonnegut published a book back in the 70's that was a collection of essays and thoughts he had written on various subjects.
From his book "Cat's Cradle" the definition of these three words are as follows:

A "wampeter" is an object around which the lives of many otherwise unrelated people may revolve. The Holy Grail would be a case in point.
"Foma" are harmless untruths, intended to comfort simple souls. An example: "Prosperity is just around the corner."
A "granfalloon" is a proud and meaningless association of human beings.

Seemed rather appropriate to pull this title from the wrinkles of my mind and apply them to this discussion.

 

[pickup]

Wasn't arbitrary in any sense of the word.
It was targeted and specific and criteria was applied and each post analyzed to determine if should stay with the original thread or here.

Kurt Vonnegut published a book back in the 70's that was a collection of essays and thoughts he had written on various subjects.
From his book "Cat's Cradle" the definition of these three words are as follows:

A "wampeter" is an object around which the lives of many otherwise unrelated people may revolve. The Holy Grail would be a case in point.
"Foma" are harmless untruths, intended to comfort simple souls. An example: "Prosperity is just around the corner."
A "granfalloon" is a proud and meaningless association of human beings.

Seemed rather appropriate to pull this title from the wrinkles of my mind and apply them to this discussion.

Good job on several fronts , Hoaxster. I will have to refresh myself with Cat's Cradle. I read it over two decades ago.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

He is--Klein is "The Biggest Loser".

That's very Darwinian of you.

2 full quotes of blather, and you call me BC Lite? Besides your Catholic upbringing and the fish and chips story, this was all you had to add. It's funny how when you do something and someone calls you on it, you get upset with that individual. I guess you were posting the above comments for their great value, the value of adding to your numerous amount of posts. You may want to try multi-quoting once in awhile. I bet if you did that, you'd still be at around 4000 posts.

What did it take ? About 1200-1400 years after Christ, that civilization knew the world was round ?
They were mostly afraid to ship into sea too far, because they figured they would drop of the planet.

Why couldn't Jesus tell people way back then, how our planet really works and how it was built ?
Instead it was all prayer and some facts that don't even make sense.

Why, why, why........DREAM ON!

[video=youtube;5PpFwH_OObA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PpFwH_OObA[/video]

 

[jimstud]

My dear, you will have to ask Hoaxster as he is the one the that created the title of this thread when he ARBITRARILY split this thread off from its mother thread. Good luck getting an answer from him, he can be very evasive!

I just googled the last three terms and this is what I got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampeters,_Foma_and_Granfalloons

just another ups supervisor/moderator with a god complex . i can do what i want when i want.

 

[Catatonic]

just another ups supervisor/moderator with a god complex . i can do what i want when i want.

That's funny and even a bit witty ...
however, not even worth an "Anti-Socks" reply but keep trying. I know you have the potential.

i can do what i want when i want.

I thought that was a teenager complex.

 

[jimstud]

I thought that was a teenager complex.[/QUOTE]

no just on car sup and above especially division manager.

 

[Jones]

Wasn't arbitrary in any sense of the word.
It was targeted and specific and criteria was applied and each post analyzed to determine if should stay with the original thread or here.

Kurt Vonnegut published a book back in the 70's that was a collection of essays and thoughts he had written on various subjects.
From his book "Cat's Cradle" the definition of these three words are as follows:

A "wampeter" is an object around which the lives of many otherwise unrelated people may revolve. The Holy Grail would be a case in point.
"Foma" are harmless untruths, intended to comfort simple souls. An example: "Prosperity is just around the corner."
A "granfalloon" is a proud and meaningless association of human beings.

Seemed rather appropriate to pull this title from the wrinkles of my mind and apply them to this discussion.

Save your fancy words.
It was a terrible injustice and further evidence of your low moral character/ god complex pathology, don't bother trying to spin it any other way!
I'm out!

 

[Catatonic]

pickup.....could you please explain the last 3 terms in the thread title? Merriam-Webster showed nothing.

Save your fancy words.
It was a terrible injustice and further evidence of your low moral character/ god complex pathology, don't bother trying to spin it any other way!
I'm out!

Why Thank You ... may I have another?!?!
Definitely witty.

 

[wkmac]

Re: United Way Intimidation

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." ~ H.L. Mencken





"Sunday — A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in Hell." ~ H.L. Mencken

 

[Jones]

Mencken had some pretty acerbic things to say about religious belief. I salute you for choosing some of his least offensive quotes .

 

[Catatonic]

Mencken had some pretty acerbic things to say about religious belief.

Don't forget Jesus either ... he had some rather acerbic things to say about organized religion.

 

[bbsam]

Re: United Way Intimidation

Actually, evolution (descent with modification) is accepted as a fact. Evolutionary theory is the explanation of how it works. In science a theory is an explanation, not a guess. In the same way gravity is an observable fact (we stick to the ground) and gravitational theory is an explanation of how and why. The same holds true for electrical theory, atomic theory, etc.

Actually if given a "momentary suspension of disbelief" one could probably link the two. Creationism states that first the heavens, the sun and the moon were created and then the earth and the sea. Then the fishes and creatures of the sea and then land animals and finally man. Considering the science of the time and simple scientific observation of the order of things, I'd say they weren't too far off.

 

[Jones]

Re: United Way Intimidation

Don't forget Jesus either ... he had some rather acerbic things to say about organized religion.

Yeah, I'm sure he'd have a field day if he was still around. It honestly never occurred to me that Mencken might be channeling JC, but that's an interesting thought

Actually if given a "momentary suspension of disbelief" one could probably link the two. Creationism states that first the heavens, the sun and the moon were created and then the earth and the sea. Then the fishes and creatures of the sea and then land animals and finally man. Considering the science of the time and simple scientific observation of the order of things, I'd say they weren't too far off.

I don't know about all that, but evolutionary theory certainly isn't incompatible with religious belief as there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are also devout christians. Foremost is probably Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular high school biology text book.

 

[bbsam]

As a Christian myself, I simply don't see what the big conflict is about. The only conflict is in the mind.

 

[tourists24]

and the key word to evolution is that it is "accepted" to many as fact. There is a reason for that. Two things keep that reasoning afloat. One, you cant add genetic information to the DNA code to get the desired evolution needed to turn things from mush to humans, horses, birds, etc. You can get mutant DNA or sorting of existing DNA, but not new non existent code. Second, it's never been proven something comes from absolutely nothing. The universe is extremely complex to come from absolutely nothing. Evolution is kind of a religion, it requires a faith that something has happened.

 

[tourists24]

Re: United Way Intimidation

That's why Evolution and the Abiogenesis are considered separately. One is not dependent upon the other.

how is that exactly Jones? or why for that matter? If you take evolution back and back and back it has to get to a beginning?

 

[Jones]

Re: United Way Intimidation

how is that exactly Jones? or why for that matter? If you take evolution back and back and back it has to get to a beginning?

Because evolution works the the same way regardless of how life first started. Whether god created the first life form, or aliens seeded the earth, or life rose through some natural process that scientists have not figured out yet, the principles of evolution would function the same way. Abiogenesis is interesting, but it's not fundamental to evolution.

 

[tourists24]

Re: United Way Intimidation

Because evolution works the the same way regardless of how life first started. Whether god created the first life form, or aliens seeded the earth, or life rose through some natural process that scientists have not figured out yet, the principles of evolution would function the same way. Abiogenesis is interesting, but it's not fundamental to evolution.

but it has to have a start. Evolution is based on things having a common ancestry and evolving to more complex beings. Everything from ants to fish to trees to humans have all come from ultimately a common ancestor. How does science prove evolution if it cant even show what came from what. Science has never actually proven how something goes from sludge to anything, and can you imagine the number of all the intermediate fossils that would have piled up over "billions" of years. You cant add genetic information to a DNA code either to show all these changes. Science has shown how one form of cat can change to another form of cat, but not how a "widget" can evolve into a dog. It's still the same "kind" of animal

 

[Jones]

I feel like you're just talking past me on the origin of life thing. Evolution is not the origin of life, and evolutionary theory is not an explanation of the origin of life. Evolution is not "based on things having a common ancestry and evolving to more complex beings". All these misconceptions about evolution are part of the problem and they're so widespread that when someone tells you that they "don't believe in evolution" it's a pretty safe bet that they don't really understand what evolution is. If they tell you that the reason they don't believe in evolution is because it doesn't explain the origin of life it goes from being a safe bet to a certainty. Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. Saying that evolution is useless if it can't explain the origins of life is like saying that an umbrella is useless if you don't understand meteorology.
Talking about "adding genetic information" is a red herring regardless of whether or not it's possible because it's not part of evolutionary theory, nor is "a widget evolving into a dog". Sorting animals by "kind" is a creationist construct and is pretty inexact (what "kind" is a lemur for instance? Or a duck billed platypus?) If it works for you that's fine, but it's not the way that biologists look at the animal kingdom.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

I feel like you're just talking past me on the origin of life thing. Evolution is not the origin of life, and evolutionary theory is not an explanation of the origin of life. Evolution is not "based on things having a common ancestry and evolving to more complex beings". All these misconceptions about evolution are part of the problem and they're so widespread that when someone tells you that they "don't believe in evolution" it's a pretty safe bet that they don't really understand what evolution is. If they tell you that the reason they don't believe in evolution is because it doesn't explain the origin of life it goes from being a safe bet to a certainty. Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. Saying that evolution is useless if it can't explain the origins of life is like saying that an umbrella is useless if you don't understand meteorology.
Talking about "adding genetic information" is a red herring regardless of whether or not it's possible because it's not part of evolutionary theory, nor is "a widget evolving into a dog". Sorting animals by "kind" is a creationist construct and is pretty inexact (what "kind" is a lemur for instance? Or a duck billed platypus?) If it works for you that's fine, but it's not the way that biologists look at the animal kingdom.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm seeing where you're coming from. BTW, what happened to your avatar, and mine, for that matter?