Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › When can we conclude that dark matter does not exist?
- This topic has 40 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 5, 2017 at 6:42 am #62403
nittany ramModeratorJanuary 5, 2017 at 8:29 am #62405
bnwBlockedWe can’t. The universe is so immense as to make intercepting a dust size particle of dark matter a virtual impossibility given the few detecters and the very short timeframe of active search. Another theory will have to replace it and be proven before the theory of dark matter is discredited.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 5, 2017 at 9:37 am #62410
znModeratorThe problem is that three decades of searching have not been able to produce any direct detection of dark matter particles.
Well they haven’t detected a particle yet, but they have other, very reliable, but more indirect evidence it does exist. THAT evidence does not go away just because they have not added new evidence in the form of detecting a particle.
From the wiki.
Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe’s large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background.
January 5, 2017 at 11:38 am #62413
AgamemnonModeratorDark Matter is winning. It seems to beat out Modified Gravity and the Electric Universe.
AgamemnonJanuary 5, 2017 at 12:53 pm #62424
NewMexicoRamParticipantUsing the same logic evident here, I have a question:
Can we conclude that God does not exist?
There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.
Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.
Why is that? What is the logical difference here?
January 5, 2017 at 2:14 pm #62427bnwBlockedUsing the same logic evident here, I have a question:
Can we conclude that God does not exist?
There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.
Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.
Why is that? What is the logical difference here?
The liberal mind.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm #62428znModeratorUsing the same logic evident here, I have a question:
Can we conclude that God does not exist?
There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.
Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.
Why is that? What is the logical difference here?
This is why it’s faith. The evidence for the existence of dark matter depends upon precise mathematical measurements of the effects of gravity.
The “indirect evidence” for God is not “evidence.” It’s something in the world people of faith seize upon and see a certain way. It is then a foundation of faith.
And besides, again, there’s no LACK of evidence for dark matter. There’s a ton of evidence for dark matter. We just can’t detect the particle it is made of. But there’s a reason for that. The reason dark matter is “dark” in the first place is because it does not interact with electro-magnetic fields, just with gravity. As a result it cannot be seen or touched, since both of those things depend upon the workings of electro-magnetic fields.
As for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.
January 5, 2017 at 2:42 pm #62429Billy_TParticipantUsing the same logic evident here, I have a question:
Can we conclude that God does not exist?
There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.
Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.
Why is that? What is the logical difference here?
IMO, NMR, it’s impossible to answer your question because there isn’t any agreement on what “god” is. Across time and space, humans have had a gazillion different versions/visions of him, her, it, etc. and that alone, just the multiplicity of those conceptions of the divine, etc. etc. make it impossible to even start the search. We’d have to agree on the definition of “god” first, and the 7.3 billion humans on earth now, and the billions who have already passed on, don’t.
In short, how can you find “proof” of something without definition?
Personally, I don’t believe in a “god” of any kind, though I once did. I was raised Methodist, but then had a revelation at the age of nine while reading mythology. That revelation led to serious study of comparative myth and religion, and I’ve never looked back. I realized if there is such a multiplicity of conceptual beliefs, and myriad definitions of gods and goddesses, him, her, it, then no one vision/version could possibly be right — much less “the one true god.” It all depended upon our various cultures and indoctrination, our time and place, our birth lottery, etc. etc. Change that and we believe in something completely different, or in no deities at all.
As in, there is no “X” to solve for, therefore no “proof” of its existence is possible.
Add to that, the absurd nature of most religious texts, the physical impossibility of the bulk of their stories through time, and the fact that, especially when it comes to the three monotheisms of the Levant, no one really should even want these monsters to exist (as depicted) . . . I, personally, find the search for proof to be futile and contrary to the idea of “faith” to begin with. But to each their own, etc.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
January 5, 2017 at 3:05 pm #62431Billy_TParticipantAdding a bit more:
What I discovered at age nine, and then refined a great deal as I grew older, is that “god” is not really the variable. We are. So rather than trying to solve for “X” as “god,” we need to look at ourselves and figure that out.
As in, since it’s the case that visions and versions of “god” have almost zero consistency through time, and change radically depending upon where and when we’re born, and all the various socialization and indoctrination we go through . . . . that also tells me there can’t be some timeless, deathless thing out there for us to discover, especially not one who demands obedience and worship. Especially if that timeless, deathless being is all-powerful and all-knowing. No such being would ever allow such a chaos of belief, such a babel of perceptions regarding his or her divinity. He, she or it would have made themselves known to us from the beginning, and it wouldn’t have mattered if we were from the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia, Polynesia, the Americas, etc. etc. . . . We would have unity at least about that.
Which leads me to the mystics, whom I’ve studied in the past as well. Ironically, with exceptions, they do find a kind of unity across time and space. Mystics from most of the major religions started out accepting the earthly divisions between East and West, North and South, that we’re generally taught. But they almost always ended up casting all of that aside once they reached their journey’s end. With few exceptions, their ultimate revelation was that “all is one” and that there is no “one true god.”
January 5, 2017 at 5:15 pm #62434NewMexicoRamParticipantI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
January 5, 2017 at 6:23 pm #62438Billy_TParticipantI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
January 5, 2017 at 9:09 pm #62450bnwBlockedAs for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.
Sure we all know how treasured the religious democrats are within the democrat party. Religious liberals even more so given the wikileaks email in which the Hildabeast campaign was conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church. Such a pious bunch!
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 5, 2017 at 10:40 pm #62453Billy_TParticipantAs for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.
Sure we all know how treasured the religious democrats are within the democrat party. Religious liberals even more so given the wikileaks email in which the Hildabeast campaign was conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church. Such a pious bunch!
I know this is hopeless. But, nowhere in any of the leaked emails is there even a whiff of what you describe. “Conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church”? Via an email exchange by two people? Jennifer Palmieri, a practicing Catholic, and John Halpin had what they thought was a private conversation about the reasons why some conservatives choose Catholicism over Protestant Evangelical churches. Two people. Private conversation. The comments were mild beyond belief, and you think it’s a “conspiracy”?
Oh, and Podesta is a practicing Catholic, too. Though he wasn’t a part of the exchange.
Can you please demonstrate how their words equal a conspiracy against the Roman Catholic church? Their exact words. Not right-wing, freak-out, Op-Ed translations of their words. Their exact words, in context, please.
January 6, 2017 at 7:02 am #62462nittany ramModeratorThe problem is that three decades of searching have not been able to produce any direct detection of dark matter particles.
Well they haven’t detected a particle yet, but they have other, very reliable, but more indirect evidence it does exist. THAT evidence does not go away just because they have not added new evidence in the form of detecting a particle.
From the wiki.
Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe’s large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background.
Well, I don’t know much about dark matter but I know you and Ag are interested in it so I thought this article might drum up some discussion.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you but to play devil’s advocate, the author addresses the circumstantial evidence for its existence in the comments section:
I agree with many of the commenters that there is other circumstantial evidence for dark matter other than spiral galaxy velocities. This is why scientists have granted it provisional existence status. But at some point there will have to be some positive evidence for it to be conclusive.
It’s kind of like the Higgs particle recently (and the neutrino earlier). It was believed to exist because of strong circumstantial evidence. But the positive detection was the clincher. If efforts to detect it had continued to be thwarted, at some point its existence would have been called into question, like with phlogiston a few centuries ago.Could the indirect evidence that is currently used to support the dark matter hypothesis be caused by something else? Astronomers were mathematically predicting the movement of planets with a great degree of accuracy long before dark matter was hypothesized. How were they able to this without taking the effect of its gravitational forces into consideration?
January 6, 2017 at 7:19 am #62464AgamemnonModeratorThe solar system is too small. You have to look at the effects of orbital velocities of stars in galaxies to see an effect. There isn’t enough mass to provide the necessary gravity to hold the outer stars in orbit. The outer stars are traveling too fast. Without extra mass or something else they should fly out of the galaxy. This is a short crude description.
He says even MOND needs some dark matter.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by Agamemnon.
AgamemnonJanuary 6, 2017 at 7:45 am #62466AgamemnonModeratorA more ?radical/not main stream view of dark matter. Just to show that there are other ideas out there.
.
Their idea is that Plasma Physics [electro-magnetic forces] can explain the effects attributed to dark matter.-
This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by Agamemnon.
AgamemnonJanuary 6, 2017 at 8:16 am #62469NewMexicoRamParticipantI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”
And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.
January 6, 2017 at 8:41 am #62476Billy_TParticipantI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”
And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.
This is just my own view. In no way do I expect others to follow, etc. etc.
I don’t see “evil” or “good” as separate entities, or gods, or manifestations of gods, or Platonic essences, etc. etc. I see them as things people do to one another, and the perceptions and feelings that engenders. We choose how we define those things. We choose. No one else.
To me, “evil” and “good” come solely from within us, not outside us. And we use those words because we humans constantly feel the need to make sense of things, to order the chaos, the find patterns and structure in what is really a completely indifferent universe. This reality is something we can’t stand, consciously and/or sub-consciously. We can’t stand the idea that the universe wasn’t made for us, and we aren’t the center of it, and there is no purpose to our lives beyond what we create.
It’s all on us. It’s all up to us. All “meaning” comes from us — with regard to the world itself and our place within it and so much more. We are all writers and readers of fiction, when it comes to that. We create new fictions and/or accept the fictions we’ve been taught, primarily because it helps us survive and navigate and manage our way through this world.
The reasons we do need this, the reasons we feel we must, are complex. But I think a great deal of it is genetic, biological. We’re born with these needs. The rest is nurture, socialization, indoctrination, etc. Both/And. Nature and Nurture.
So, again, going back to “evil” and “good,” I think that is just what we call the things humans do to one another, and the reactions to all of that. It all comes from within us, as did all the gods and goddesses, which we alone invented. We alone created “god” in our own image, not the reverse. We alone, of all animal species, as far as we know, feel the need to do this . . .
(More on this later. I don’t want to make this post too long . . .)
January 6, 2017 at 8:45 am #62477nittany ramModeratorI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”
And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.
Well, there really isn’t evil and good. There are events, behaviors, people, etc that we as a society might classify as evil or good based on our perspective at that moment in history. But good and evil are in the eye of the beholder and change over time. An over simplistic example would be that burning a witch was once considered good. Now, not so much.
January 6, 2017 at 9:02 am #62479Billy_TParticipantI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”
And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.
Well, there really isn’t evil and good. There are events, behaviors, people, etc that we as a society might classify as evil or good based on our perspective at that moment in history. But good and evil are in the eye of the beholder and change over time. An over simplistic example would be that burning a witch was once considered good. Now, not so much.
Nittany, that’s well said. Basically what I was going after, but in far fewer words than my own attempt . . . and the board likely thanks you for that difference.
;>)
Speaking of witches. I’m including them in my new novel, but more as a way to throw the reader off the scent. A temporary distraction of sorts, and to help make larger points about “witch hunts” in general.
Really interesting book: The Witches: Salem, 1692. It took some time to get used to her style in this one, which was different from two other books I’ve read by her — on Franklin and Cleopatra. Both very good, too.
January 6, 2017 at 9:45 am #62480nittany ramModeratorI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”
And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.
Well, there really isn’t evil and good. There are events, behaviors, people, etc that we as a society might classify as evil or good based on our perspective at that moment in history. But good and evil are in the eye of the beholder and change over time. An over simplistic example would be that burning a witch was once considered good. Now, not so much.
Nittany, that’s well said. Basically what I was going after, but in far fewer words than my own attempt . . . and the board likely thanks you for that difference.
;>)
Speaking of witches. I’m including them in my new novel, but more as a way to throw the reader off the scent. A temporary distraction of sorts, and to help make larger points about “witch hunts” in general.
Really interesting book: The Witches: Salem, 1692. It took some time to get used to her style in this one, which was different from two other books I’ve read by her — on Franklin and Cleopatra. Both very good, too.
Your response was much more thorough than mine. The term ‘evil’ often has a religious connotation to it. Something is evil because it was ordained by a diety to be so. That’s what I was responding to. Whereas, to me, it is simply a term that’s been inconsistently applied to all sorts of things throughout history.
January 6, 2017 at 9:51 am #62481znModeratorThere isn’t enough mass to provide the necessary gravity to hold the outer stars in orbit.
That’s one of the keys. When people measured the orbital velocities of stars at the inside and the outside of galaxies, the stars on the outside were going too fast. Given their velocity they OUGHT to be flying off into space, not orbiting. The only possible explanation was that there was more sources of gravity present than we could see.
Since that discovery, there have been many others–all of which work the same way: that is, the phenomenon we were measuring simply did not work unless you put more matter into the equation. Things like gravitational lensing and the patterns of movement you see in colliding galaxies. With the visible matter accounted for, things were working in a way that made no sense unless you added dark matter.
So we know it exists. BUT it is nearly impossible to detect any particles associated with it, because that which makes dark matter “dark” in the first place makes it virtually undetectable at the particle level. You can see the effects in astrophysics at huge scales, like you said, but not on the micro level…so far.
January 6, 2017 at 10:01 am #62482bnwBlockedAs for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.
Sure we all know how treasured the religious democrats are within the democrat party. Religious liberals even more so given the wikileaks email in which the Hildabeast campaign was conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church. Such a pious bunch!
I know this is hopeless. But, nowhere in any of the leaked emails is there even a whiff of what you describe. “Conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church”? Via an email exchange by two people? Jennifer Palmieri, a practicing Catholic, and John Halpin had what they thought was a private conversation about the reasons why some conservatives choose Catholicism over Protestant Evangelical churches. Two people. Private conversation. The comments were mild beyond belief, and you think it’s a “conspiracy”?
Oh, and Podesta is a practicing Catholic, too. Though he wasn’t a part of the exchange.
Can you please demonstrate how their words equal a conspiracy against the Roman Catholic church? Their exact words. Not right-wing, freak-out, Op-Ed translations of their words. Their exact words, in context, please.
Heres an article from the Catholic News Service-
Podesta admits conspiracy and owns it. From the CNS article-
Other emails leaked by WikiLeaks included an 2012 email to Podesta from Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress. “This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage, even though 98 percent of Catholic women, and their conjugal partners, have used contraception, has me thinking,” said Newman. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle Ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
“Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen?” he asked in a Feb. 10, 2012, email.
In response to Newman’s question, Podesta tells him: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”That is a conspiracy, def. conspiracy- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 6, 2017 at 10:06 am #62484bnwBlockedSo we know it exists. BUT it is nearly impossible to detect any particles associated with it, because that which makes dark matter “dark” in the first place makes it virtually undetectable at the particle level. You can see the effects in astrophysics at huge scales, like you said, but not on the micro level…so far.
No, we don’t know that it exists. It is a theory. A theory that I believe best explains what can be observed today but nevertheless remains a theory. It has yet to be proven.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 6, 2017 at 10:21 am #62487Billy_TParticipantHeres an article from the Catholic News Service-
Podesta admits conspiracy and owns it. From the CNS article-
Other emails leaked by WikiLeaks included an 2012 email to Podesta from Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress. “This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage, even though 98 percent of Catholic women, and their conjugal partners, have used contraception, has me thinking,” said Newman. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle Ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
“Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen?” he asked in a Feb. 10, 2012, email.
In response to Newman’s question, Podesta tells him: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”That is a conspiracy, def. conspiracy- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
________
BNW, here’s the definition of conspiracy:
con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun
noun: conspiracy; plural noun: conspiraciesa secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
“a conspiracy to destroy the government”
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
“a conspiracy to manipulate the results”
the action of plotting or conspiring.
“they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
“conspiracy to commit murder”What you’ve described isn’t in the same universe as “conspiracy.” You’ve simply described political opposition to reactionary Catholic doctrine. And Podesta’s own words — and, again, he’s a practicing Catholic — make it sound like this opposition is half-hearted and disorganized.
When you call something a “conspiracy to foment strife,” you’re saying it’s something sinister, illegal, secretive and malicious. What you’ve described, instead, is none of those things. It’s garden-variety political opposition, utilizing the First Amendment, and it sounds all too weak, disorganized and ineffective, which Podesta implies himself.
January 6, 2017 at 10:39 am #62492bnwBlockedHeres an article from the Catholic News Service-
Podesta admits conspiracy and owns it. From the CNS article-
Other emails leaked by WikiLeaks included an 2012 email to Podesta from Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress. “This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage, even though 98 percent of Catholic women, and their conjugal partners, have used contraception, has me thinking,” said Newman. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle Ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
“Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen?” he asked in a Feb. 10, 2012, email.
In response to Newman’s question, Podesta tells him: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”That is a conspiracy, def. conspiracy- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
________
BNW, here’s the definition of conspiracy:
con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun
noun: conspiracy; plural noun: conspiraciesa secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
“a conspiracy to destroy the government”
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
“a conspiracy to manipulate the results”
the action of plotting or conspiring.
“they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
“conspiracy to commit murder”What you’ve described isn’t in the same universe as “conspiracy.” You’ve simply described political opposition to reactionary Catholic doctrine. And Podesta’s own words — and, again, he’s a practicing Catholic — make it sound like this opposition is half-hearted and disorganized.
When you call something a “conspiracy to foment strife,” you’re saying it’s something sinister, illegal, secretive and malicious. What you’ve described, instead, is none of those things. It’s garden-variety political opposition, utilizing the First Amendment, and it sounds all too weak, disorganized and ineffective, which Podesta implies himself.
I’m Roman Catholic, you’re an atheist. There is great concern with the statements Pope Francis has made in regards to previous doctrine within the laity and clergy. Since that is true regarding Pope francis I assure you it is true of the position and actions of one John Podesta.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 6, 2017 at 11:02 am #62494Billy_TParticipantWhat you’ve described isn’t in the same universe as “conspiracy.” You’ve simply described political opposition to reactionary Catholic doctrine. And Podesta’s own words — and, again, he’s a practicing Catholic — make it sound like this opposition is half-hearted and disorganized.
When you call something a “conspiracy to foment strife,” you’re saying it’s something sinister, illegal, secretive and malicious. What you’ve described, instead, is none of those things. It’s garden-variety political opposition, utilizing the First Amendment, and it sounds all too weak, disorganized and ineffective, which Podesta implies himself.
I’m Roman Catholic, you’re an atheist. There is great concern with the statements Pope Francis has made in regards to previous doctrine within the laity and clergy. Since that is true regarding Pope francis I assure you it is true of the position and actions of one John Podesta.
Great concern by whom, BNW? Just conservative Catholics. That’s it. The majority of Catholics don’t agree with right-wing positions on the vast majority of issues. You’re in the minority, and your own pope doesn’t agree with you, either, on most things.
Podesta’s views align far more closely with the majority of Catholics. So why would he even need to set up a “conspiracy to foment strife in the Catholic Church”? All he needs to do is voice his opinions, which are shared by a majority of Catholics, in the full light of day. There is no need for any secret, back-door, sinister and malicious plan. Ironically, it’s right-wing Catholics who are far more likely to need that. Demographics are against you, not people like Podesta.
Beyond all of that, and aside from the obvious paranoia in play, right-wing media is building up the Dems and folks like Podesta to an absurd degree, and making mountains out of molehills via those email leaks. They didn’t display powerful super-villains, capable of wreaking havoc on America. They showed the most mundane, everyday things imaginable, the same kinds of things you would find in GOP email exchanges, in fact.
In short, the main reason I responded to your posts here, BNW, is this: Just trying to get you to think that maybe, just maybe, your media sources have blown this stuff up waaaaay out of proportion to its actual impact. You believe the media does this to Trump all the time, right? I just wish you would apply at least the same level of skepticism when it comes to these kinds of reports.
January 6, 2017 at 11:05 am #62495Billy_TParticipantApologies for the poor formatting.
Trying to cut down the length of these posts, and it’s not working so well.
January 6, 2017 at 12:45 pm #62496NewMexicoRamParticipantI appreciate the comments above.
For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.
I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.
So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?
Infinite regress, etc. etc.
Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.
;>)
Happy New Year, NMR.
If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”
And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.
This is just my own view. In no way do I expect others to follow, etc. etc.
I don’t see “evil” or “good” as separate entities, or gods, or manifestations of gods, or Platonic essences, etc. etc. I see them as things people do to one another, and the perceptions and feelings that engenders. We choose how we define those things. We choose. No one else.
To me, “evil” and “good” come solely from within us, not outside us. And we use those words because we humans constantly feel the need to make sense of things, to order the chaos, the find patterns and structure in what is really a completely indifferent universe. This reality is something we can’t stand, consciously and/or sub-consciously. We can’t stand the idea that the universe wasn’t made for us, and we aren’t the center of it, and there is no purpose to our lives beyond what we create.
It’s all on us. It’s all up to us. All “meaning” comes from us — with regard to the world itself and our place within it and so much more. We are all writers and readers of fiction, when it comes to that. We create new fictions and/or accept the fictions we’ve been taught, primarily because it helps us survive and navigate and manage our way through this world.
The reasons we do need this, the reasons we feel we must, are complex. But I think a great deal of it is genetic, biological. We’re born with these needs. The rest is nurture, socialization, indoctrination, etc. Both/And. Nature and Nurture.
So, again, going back to “evil” and “good,” I think that is just what we call the things humans do to one another, and the reactions to all of that. It all comes from within us, as did all the gods and goddesses, which we alone invented. We alone created “god” in our own image, not the reverse. We alone, of all animal species, as far as we know, feel the need to do this . . .
(More on this later. I don’t want to make this post too long . . .)
___________________________________________________________
If the concept of “good and evil” come within ourselves, how does that negate the existence of a supreme intelligent being, otherwise thought of as God? In your initial response, you indicated that the existence of evil helped you to decide not to follow the Christian experience.
January 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm #62501Billy_TParticipantIf the concept of “good and evil” come within ourselves, how does that negate the existence of a supreme intelligent being, otherwise thought of as God? In your initial response, you indicated that the existence of evil helped you to decide not to follow the Christian experience.
It’s complicated. And it’s not just the existence of “evil,” it’s the existence of suffering, inequality, the arbitrary, irrational and inexplicable differences in one person’s life versus another. If there were a supreme being, an all-knowing, all-seeing, compassionate father-god, say, he wouldn’t allow this. He wouldn’t allow so much misery and suffering. He would stop our endless wars, our sadism toward each other and Nature. He wouldn’t be okay with someone living like a king while another grows up in the slums or worse.
And if he were okay with that, why would anyone want to “worship” such a monster? And what purpose would he serve to begin with?
I just don’t think it makes any sense that a supreme being exists, or existed. Though, as mentioned, when I was younger, I was open to the idea that a completely detached, “clockmaker god” was possible, one that never intruded on our lives, being completely indifferent to them, like the universe itself.
But after that revelation I mentioned, I knew it was absolutely impossible that any god like the Yahweh of the bible could exist, as depicted by the humans who wrote it. As time went on, I also, after studying the texts, backgrounds and historical contexts closely, gained enough objectivity to be highly critical of the stories themselves. I won’t get into that right now, because I don’t want to needlessly offend anyone. But, suffice it to say, I don’t see the god of the bible in the same way believers do.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
