home
Bomb Threat at Jerry Falwell's Funeral | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

et al (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:04:36 PM EST
There is little doubt that he was too stupid to make a bomb.

The FBI must have entrapped him...

Did he have a map????

Opppps.. Sorry. For a moment there I thought thread was about the Ft Dix 6...

Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:57:14 PM EST
There is little doubt that he was too stupid to make a bomb.

Well that is a big problem because these are the people being hired by Republican operatives for the last 10 years.

And they are all coming out of the right wing religious colleges.

[ Parent ]

Maybe next time they'll blow the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:17:35 PM EST
breasts off of justice.  

[ Parent ]
The danger is not (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Al on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:01:23 AM EST
that he might successfully make a bomb. The danger is that he might one day become Attorney General.

[ Parent ]
Too stupid? (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:44:45 AM EST
Maybe the local pizza joint delivered the instructions.

[ Parent ]
It was going to be (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:45:53 AM EST
a stink bomb.

[ Parent ]
May as well be.... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:36:08 AM EST
talking about Ft. Dix...both cases seem to involve the violent knucklehead syndrome that has plagued mankind since the caveman era.  Black, white, brown, muslim, christian, jew, and atheist alike.

It's an uncurable plague I think...one we can only hope to contain.

[ Parent ]

Wasn't there an Einstein (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:39:04 AM EST
quote - something about stupidity and hydrogen being the two most common elements in the universe?

[ Parent ]
Einstein (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:01:45 PM EST
did say:

"The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

and

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#23)
by Deconstructionist on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:11:48 AM EST
but Einstein  did say things such as: (paraphrasing): before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish; and that the only limitless things he knew of were the universe and human stupidity -- and he wasn't surew about the first.

  Pithy quotes although not much related to his genius and the most noteworthy thing for some of you to note might be that before God suggests Einstein did not think belief in god was anti-scientific.

[ Parent ]

And his conception of God... (none / 0) (#29)
by Dadler on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:14:45 PM EST
...bears no resemblence to that which is promulgated from the pulpit.

[ Parent ]
dadler (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:49:01 AM EST
Got a sermon or two from him? Didn't know he was into describing God.

[ Parent ]
You really didn't know this about him? (none / 0) (#34)
by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:13:11 AM EST
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"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)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

[ Parent ]

Sounds like ID to me. (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:43:35 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Not to Einstein (none / 0) (#36)
by Dadler on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:10:49 AM EST
He would heartily disagree when you claim there is an "intelligence" behind it, that's his entire point. His God is the unfathomable mystery of existence, the entirely unanswerable question -- as he states clearly.  To label that mystery ID in such a facile manner is to reject the mystery and improperly personalize it, which Einstein would find absurd.  

The "intelligent designer" is a concept forged by humans completely in the image of humans.  Which is what he rejects as God.

[ Parent ]

Dadler and jim (none / 0) (#39)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:12:08 PM EST
here are simply projecting their biases on Einstein's words.

  His mystery is just that-- something he does not, and accepts that he cannot, know. He neither claims  nor denies the existence of an "intelligence" responsible for the order and complexity that amazes him.

  Neither of you speak for Einstein and beyond saying he he did not belive in a God  concerned with the day to day fates and action of men his words clearly reveal that he knew enough and was wise enough not to be as certain about the unknowable as you two.


[ Parent ]

agreed (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:34:06 PM EST
but he sure as hell wouldn't believve in ID which flies in the face of logic and science.

[ Parent ]
Against ID (none / 0) (#49)
by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:52:50 PM EST
ID is a combination of fear and moral religion quite distinct from  Einstein's concept of Cosmic Religion.

What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!

Comic religion is another way of talking about profound wonder and imagination.  Einstein speaks about his awe of the unknowable. It is unnameable and therefore a perpetual source of wonder and inspiration.

Beauty is a driving force of his concept of Cosmic religion. One could say that the pursuit of beauty is what drove the great scientists and artists and continues to drive them today.

[ Parent ]

id (none / 0) (#51)
by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:42:08 PM EST
I don't think that proponents of ID would deny that the universe is beautiful. Just because you believe that something intelligent was behind the creation of the universe (I have no idea, really) does not mean you cannot be motivated by wonder and imagination in uncovering the principals of celestial mechanics. Beauty is universal and can be appreciated by anyone in any religion or under the spell of any cultural paradigm.

[ Parent ]
Beauty (none / 0) (#52)
by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:00:58 PM EST
The ID people are intent on naming and categorizing the beauty. That kills it and empyies it out.  The adherents then accept the dogma and wonder is no longer operative.

If the church would allow forCosmic Religion there would be no dogma and the flock of sheep would be more like a herd of cats.

Also the beauty that Einstein is talking about is not casual but one that drives admirers to tirelessly examine it until they are dead.

[ Parent ]

OK Squeaky, (none / 0) (#53)
by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:50:44 PM EST


[ Parent ]
HAHAHAH (none / 0) (#40)
by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:20:07 PM EST
Dadler and jim here are simply projecting their biases on Einstein's words.

But you are presenting an objective picture of Einstein's religious beliefs?

Your grandiosity always amazes me. I should be used to it by now but I am still suprised by your gall.

[ Parent ]

Well, if you have (none / 0) (#43)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:34:11 PM EST
 some issue to raise with my interpretation OF HIS WORDS then do it. If you have nothing better to do than your persistent stalking of me to interject something stupid, your job is done.

[ Parent ]
Hahahahah (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:42:28 PM EST
Stalking You?

Hahahahaha

You and the rude she pundit obviously have the same delusions.

Ego mania seems to be the common denominator.  

[ Parent ]

Didn't Einstein (none / 0) (#45)
by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:01:57 PM EST
said about Quantum Mechanics that

"God doesn't play dice."

Its been awhile but I recall something like Einstien believing that we may not ever understand the secrets of the universe, but the idea that we might is what motivates him and science.

As far as ID, I would guess that Einstein would not be in favor of teaching it over evolution or even alongside of evolution, but not because it defies logic and Science. After all, what Einstein what Einstein proposed with relativity defied logic and science at the time. To defy logic and science is a requirement for making progress in science by breaking apart old paradigms and replacing them with new ones. Wasn't that what Kuhn argued?

[ Parent ]

to be presumptuous (none / 0) (#46)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:16:06 PM EST
I'd speculate Einstein would not support teaching ID in schools, but he would favor thinking and exploration to advance knowledge and understanding  that was not bound by blind faith in the impossibility of it being correct.

  Personally, I find the hypothesis that the simultaneous complexity and order of the natural universe is entirely the product of random chance to be very dubious (not impossible but dubious).

  Ignoring the possibility that something purposefully caused it would seem about as anti-intellectual and anti-scientific as believing Dinosaurs and man co-existed.

  The uses of the word "intelligence" is perhaps not a good idea, because we cannot even agree about what that word means in human and other animal life and we can't really understand it except in reference to human characteristics. (i.e. animals are more intelligent in the context as to whether their cognition is closer to ours).

 Tthe reason I think so many people get so frightened by applying reason to the issue is because it might require challenging prejudicial assumptions they don't want challenged. That trait seems equally pronounced in the fundamentalist religions and the fundamentalist rejectionists.

 

[ Parent ]

Lileks' theory (none / 0) (#47)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:42:18 PM EST
I find James Lileks' has phrased it best:

I believe in evolution, because I think to disbelieve in evolution is like watching one of those elaborate displays of falling dominos, and saying the dominos aren't falling. Obviously they are; it's a question of whether the first one fell because there was a minor earthquake or because a finger tipped it over. And of course there's the matter of who set them up.


[ Parent ]
I said exactly what you did (none / 0) (#55)
by Dadler on Sun May 27, 2007 at 12:34:21 PM EST
"His mystery is just that-- something he does not, and accepts that he cannot, know."

What did I tell Jim?  Just that.  The unfathomable mystery of existence.  I quoted Einstein, and spoke of his beliefs in the context of his own words.  He stated he did not believe in a personal god.  ID assumes a personal God.  

Come on, D, read what I wrote.  I wrote using Einsteing words in support of Einstein's known and stated views.

[ Parent ]

Zappa (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:50:57 AM EST
was the source of the nitrogen and stupidity quote, if Im not mistaken.

[ Parent ]
And apparently (none / 0) (#48)
by Edger on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:51:15 PM EST
he did once say, "It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with stupidity, and make it work for you."

[ Parent ]

Bomb Threat at Jerry Falwell's Funeral | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft