Pagan Fest

[Deadwood]

rearrot

Thanks, I am a very colourful person.

Coming from you, who prefers canned faith over genuine thought and resolution--

Actually I prefer genuine faith over canned(as in rubbish) thought and resolution.

I don't have to believe everything I hear. But it is interesting how non-Christian posters can never pickup the same idiosynchrosies of each other. so I think in this case it was Pragmathen who was using "TOny1" tactics here. But surprise surprise, you never picked up on it.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Deadwood
What you stated a couple of posts ago that you were "rehashing" was actually sadi by the Mathematician Pascal.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

The calculation of the true risk of ignoring infinite reward in favor of a known loss or vice versa was proposed by M. P., as you say.
Interestingly, he was Christian, as I recall.

In case you're getting dejavu from my posts, some stuff bears repeating.

Originally posted by tiassa
you forgot to address one of Cupric's questions:Why don't you try answering a vital issue for once,...?

Vital issue?

Anyway, tell you what, I'll trade.
You resolve Haldane's dilemma and I'll answer Cupric's question.

flippant negativity toward humanity.

Nope.
God isn't giving up on people and neither am I.

...be a parrot
...
so Clancy Wiggum would say.

Fine job of parroting the Simpsons there, tiassa.

So far, you established the ability to parrot quite well...
Montesquieu, Crowley, Perdurabo, various Early Church Fathers, Pope Leo X, Satan, the list goes on.

But if parroting is so bad, why do you do it?

Originally posted by Deadwood
I don't have to believe everything I hear.

Right on.
Ever notice how atheists, pagans, wiccans, etc. DO have to believe everything they hear, except of course, the gospel?

 

[Tiassa]

You're on, Tony1

What is Haldane's Dilemma?

Haldane claimed that in a fixed population (a population that is neither growing nor shrinking in the number of its member animals) of relatively slowly reproducing mammals, no more than 1 gene could be fixed per 300 generations due to the cost of substitution. Haldane assumed that the deaths caused by the newly disadvantageous gene's lower fitness (possibly due to a change in environment) would be over and above the "background" death rate - the naturally occurring deaths due to all reasons other than the lowered fitness of the gene. Haldane estimated that the substitution cost (for a diploid) would require the deaths of 30 times the population size for a single gene fixation from a very rare mutation to homozygous for the entire population. Since he claimed that the intensity of selection rarely exceeded 10%, Haldane believed a cost of 30 times the population size for the substitution would require 300 generations (30 / 0.1) to fix a single gene.

Um ... show me an ecosystem so balanced as to fix a population. At that point, you achieve something I've mentioned in passing here, that evolution becomes unnecessary because the environment is perfectly suited to the the adaptations of the population; they have no need to evolve. Show me a fixed population in any biosystem or ecosystem and we have a place to start investigating the validity of the claim, but the critical fault here is the assumption of a fixed population.

The principle is invalid.

Your turn. The question at hand, just so you aren't tempted to dodge out, is from Cupric: Tony, what do you suppose you know about pagans? And from what source? It's showtime, Tony.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Deadwood]

But if parroting is so bad, why do you do it?

Actually what is parroting? I actually found it quite funny to be called a parrot. It just sounded funny to me because I never knew there was such a term.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by tiassa
The principle is invalid.

Maybe, but the dilemma isn't.

Your turn.

Originally posted by Deadwood
It just sounded funny to me because I never knew there was such a term.

It means acting like a parrot, saying things with no clue as to the meaning, because one heard or read them somewhere.
Sometimes known as "quoting" or "citing."

It's one of those things that pops up in a "serious" discussion.

 

[Tiassa]

Tony, you coward

The dilemma is resolved: we'll have to deal with it when we achieve a perfect balance so that no population in the biosystem is growing.

In the meantime, you have refused to address Cupric's question, demonstrating exactly the kind of cowardice needed to spout the ignorance you have.

Thank you for demonstrating the moral worth of your faith, and what value it contributes ( ) to society.

Do you ever have anything to say?

Why, then, do you bother at all?

Do better, Tony ... when people hear you spouting that kind of irresponsible ignorance they will tend to conclude that Christianity must be about empowering haughtiness and making life easier by never engaging reality.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
The dilemma is resolved: we'll have to deal with it when we achieve a perfect balance so that no population in the biosystem is growing.*

Aah, tiassa, tiassa, tiassa.

You're forgetting that in the evolutionary theory, there IS a time when all populations are static.

It occurs just before there is life.

Besides, the dilemma wasn't addressing all of the populations at once; it was addressing populations one at a time.
Thus, other populations may be growing, while the one being addressed is not.
As you know, populations do not increase linearly, but in steps.

If you have 2 units in a population, there is not a gradual increase to three, it suddenly jumps to three.
Thus, there are many periods of punctuated equilibrium in a population.

The fact that the length of these periods of equilibrium is less than the estimated 300 generation requirement simply establishes that NOT ONE SINGLE new gene will ever be fixed.

Thus your argument is just one more in a huge flurry of manure that erupts every so often during your brainquakes.

 

[Tiassa]

Pathetic, Tony1

I just can't believe you're that afraid to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about when you slander paganism. Do me a favor: take your crap and go find a Catholic to hate. At least there you're arguing about the same book--well, essentially; if you holier-than-Catholic types hadn't come along and removed material from it, but you get the point.

That you are incapable of understanding the difference between a theory and its field application is well-noted at Sciforums. So take your inapplicable hatred of science and stuff it as well. If you ever had anything to say, we'd think of your evasions in a different light. But since smarm and weave are all you seem to know, get a new act. Your Q-rating is in the gutter, boy, and it's nobody's fault but your own.

Put down the nails and quit trying to tack yourself to the wall.

--Tiassa

 

[Cupric]

Oh, Tony, tony, tony...

Funny how the most you could do with my post is clip little lines and spew (mostly) meaningless one-liners in response. C'mon Tony, you can do better!

You never did answer to whether or not you felt Christians that worshipped from home were true Christians or not. You instead mentioned a couple of times that you felt solitary pagans were indeed true pagans, but no mention about the Christians. Since I consider you completely unqualified to make any sort of judgement on pagans or paganism, it stands out glaringly to me. Why the hesitation to speak about Christianity? Do you only speak about things you are completely unqualified to speak on??

And I wonder why you won't answer Tiassa's repeated proddings to answer my original question. It's increasingly obvious that you have no true source to your (mis)information. I bet it consists of Church gossip and Jack Chick tracts. I at least have taken the time to read the bible. Yes, cover to cover. I suppose it's that Christian fear thing, they're so damn afraid to open their eyes and look around a bit because Yaweh might toss some brimstone their way. :rolleyes

Thousands of Christians on TV every day...yah, an AUDIENCE listening to a preacher. Show me a group of 300 Christians from different denominations ( including some Catholics, I mean REAL diversity) celebrating a holiday, with each person able to have a meaningful part in the celebration. I have yet to see such a thing.

This brings me to your next comment about Woodstock. I'm confused as to what the hell that has to do with anything we're talking about here. Do you have any statistics about the religious makeup of the audience? Since Christianity is the "default" religion in this country, I'm willing to bet that at least 50% if not more of that audience would list Christianity as their faith if asked. That, or atheism. Until you can show me some figures that show that Pagans made up the majority of that audience, this is completely irrelevant.

If I'm right, Jesus *is* indeed one of the many ways to the divine. I agree with that 100%. I just don't buy all the rest of the mythos that goes with Jesus, the guy that lived and died a few thousand years ago. I don't believe in Satan, that's an invention of the Christians. The very appearance of Satan (horns, tail, cloven hoof) was stolen from the Pagan description of the God of the Wild back in the 1700's. Small surprise, Christianity swiped much from Pagans.

Let me ask you this, Tony, do you erect a Christmas tree? Decorate with holly or mistletoe? Keep Pointsettias in the house? Celebrate Jesus's birth right around the winter solstice? Do you dye Easter eggs? Gift elderly family with Easter Lillies? Light candles at Candlemass or to pray for someone? Burn or smell incense burning in Church? These are all Pagan symbols and traditions, modified and borrowed by the Christians in an effort to override Pagan celebrations. Jesus wasn't born in the winter, that celebration was moved to usurp the Pagan Solstice celebration. In several Pagan traditions, Yule (Winter Solstice) is when the Sun King is born, God of light. Sound familiar? If you do ANY of these things, you're practicing paganism.

 

[Tiassa]

Aww, Cupric ...

He'll just remind you that you're being too Catholic

I'm sorry to usurp your question but he seems to be painting himself into a corner on this one; if only he'd stuck to the ignorance he knows best, instead of trying to pioneer new editions of How to Sound Like an Idiot, For Dummies. Then again, coming from such an authoratative source as Tony1 is proving to be, the book should be a bestseller in a matter of days.

re: Yule/solstice--what's even more ironic is the idea of precession, or the notion that we "gain" a day every 400 years in the comparison of our calendar to astronomical phenomena. Christmas is the 25th; the solstice is the 21st. Sixteen-hundred years ago, the solstice occurred about four days later on the calendar. Sixteen-hundred, I say? Well:

The first mention of December 25 as the birth date of Jesus occurred in A.D. 336 in an early Roman calendar. The celebration of this day as Jesus' birth date was probably influenced by pagan (unchristian) festivals held at that time. The ancient Romans held year-end celebrations to honor Saturn, their harvest god; and Mithras, the god of light.

* http://www.worldbook.com/fun/holidays/html/history.htm

Just thought I'd throw that in ...

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
I just can't believe you're that afraid to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about when you slander paganism.*
How can anyone slander paganism?

*...smarm and weave...*

What do you call it when you do it?

It was your idea to highlight the concept of "static" in the definition of Haldane's dilemma.
If you don't like the meaning of "static," too bad.
You should have thought ahead.

*Originally posted by Cupric
C'mon Tony, you can do better! *

What is this?
If all you are going to do is quote tiassa, just put a link to his post.

*You never did answer to whether or not you felt Christians that worshipped from home were true Christians or not....but no mention about the Christians. Since I consider you completely unqualified to make any sort of judgement on pagans or paganism,*

Luckily, I consider you completely unqualified, too.
I thought it would be obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out.
True Christians who worship at home are true Christians.

*And I wonder why you won't answer Tiassa's repeated proddings to answer my original question.*

It's because tiassa won't answer any questions at all.
I tied Haldane's dilemma to your original question.
He hasn't delivered on his part of the bargain.

*I bet it consists of Church gossip*

Oh yeah, the pagan dream.
Christians have nothing else to talk about but pagans.

*I'm willing to bet that at least 50% if not more of that audience would list Christianity as their faith if asked.*

Christianity isn't based on what one thinks one's "faith" is.

*If I'm right, Jesus *is* indeed one of the many ways to the divine. I agree with that 100%*

He is THE way, which means that you agree with that 0%.

*I don't believe in Satan, that's an invention of the Christians. *

When you read the Bible from cover to cover, you couldn't have read it very carefully.
Satan was around long before there were any Christians.

*The very appearance of Satan (horns, tail, cloven hoof) was stolen from the Pagan description of the God of the Wild back in the 1700's. Small surprise, Christianity swiped much from Pagans. *

What? People actually think that is what Satan looks like?

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
(2 Corinthians 11:14, KJV).

If you don't know what that means, ask tiassa.
He's seen that angel of light, although for some strange reason, he thinks it is a goddess.
Maybe the light got in his eyes.

*Let me ask you this, Tony, do you erect a Christmas tree? Decorate with holly or mistletoe? Keep Pointsettias in the house? Celebrate Jesus's birth right around the winter solstice? Do you dye Easter eggs? Gift elderly family with Easter Lillies? Light candles at Candlemass or to pray for someone? Burn or smell incense burning in Church? These are all Pagan symbols and traditions, modified and borrowed by the Christians in an effort to override Pagan celebrations. Jesus wasn't born in the winter, that celebration was moved to usurp the Pagan Solstice celebration. In several Pagan traditions, Yule (Winter Solstice) is when the Sun King is born, God of light. Sound familiar? If you do ANY of these things, you're practicing paganism.*

Not one single Christian was involved with any of that.
The Catholics did and do all of that, so I guess they owe you a debt of gratitude.

*Originally posted by tiassa
He'll just remind you that you're being too Catholic*

Actually, I was planning on reminding him that the Catholics were being far too pagan, which is just one more reason they aren't Christians.

*pioneer new editions of How to Sound Like an Idiot, For Dummies.*

I thought you had the market cornered on that.

*Just thought I'd throw that in ... *

Well, it is handy.
Just makes it tougher for you to claim that Catholics are Christians.
It is odd though, since most people would want to prove their own point.

 

[Tiassa]

Tony1, stop being lazy

It's because tiassa won't answer any questions at all.
I tied Haldane's dilemma to your original question.
He hasn't delivered on his part of the bargain.

Well, Tony1, since I haven't gone to medical school and deemed myself too smart for it, and since I haven't learned nine languages in which I refuse to communicate, I would think that someone so enlightened as you could figure out that if your superior intelligence is incapable of solving Haldane's dilemma, then why should my inferior, pagan brain be capable of doing what you cannot?

Now, what, then, is the significance of the dilemma? Well, you've posed it as a counterpoint to evolution. The application of this dilemma, as I've noted is invalid. Thus, to solve the dilemma would be academic futility; since neither of us can find an applicable situation that meets the basic fault I've presented, we might conclude that Haldane's dilemma has no practical weight in an argument against evolution. Therefore, why are you blowing smoke?

And why should I have to "deliver" on anything just because you are incapable of answering Cupric's question? It seems to me that you haven't delivered in a single one of the debates you've entered.

Truly, sir, you are a testament to the power of the Lord.

Now, get over yourself and contribute something of value to these discussions, or else take your hateful bigotries elsewhere, and might I suggest a bathhouse so you can work some of that tension loose? For heaven's sake, man, just get laid. It's easier than your campaign to escape the shadows of history and faith.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
I would think that someone so enlightened as you could figure out that if your superior intelligence is incapable of solving Haldane's dilemma, then why should my inferior, pagan brain be capable of doing what you cannot?*

Well, since that was my point, I, uh, concede the point, uh, to myself.

*Now, what, then, is the significance of the dilemma? Well, you've posed it as a counterpoint to evolution. The application of this dilemma, as I've noted is invalid. Thus, to solve the dilemma would be academic futility; since neither of us can find an applicable situation that meets the basic fault I've presented, we might conclude that Haldane's dilemma has no practical weight in an argument against evolution. *

There is that period of equilibrium I pointed out.
Since you pointed out the word "static," I pointed out the static nature of a population between increases in that population.

We might conclude that it has no weight, but we won't.
We won't because a static population is not evolving, for sure.
We also won't because a non-static population isn't evolving, either.
If it were, then one should be able to conclude, based on evolutionary claims, that the trillions of trillions of generations of "evolving" bacteria should have evolved into something by now.
They haven't, since we still have bacteria.
Haldane merely claimed that a relatively small number of generations should be required to permanently introduce a new gene.
Empirical evidence suggests his claim was low by millions of orders of magnitude.

 

[Tiassa]

Really, Tony1, do better ... and answer the issue for once!

Tony1--

I can only conclude, considering your apathy toward the invalidity of the dilemma you've presented, that you're using it to deflect the larger issue, and that is the question Cupric has asked, and I have reiterated. Over a month has passed, and you still refuse to address the issue.

Tony, what do you suppose you know about pagans? And from what source?

Cowardice ... illiteracy ... sheer disrespect ... you're welcome to add to the list of options, Tony1: What would you like us to think of your inability to answer the question that has been posed in response to your slanders of people?

The weakness of your assertions is showing; your clinging to an invalid principle indicates the paucity of your position. The threadbare cloak of faith belies its suggestion of wisdom.

The spotlight's on you, boy, and so far you're just standing there, stuttering and wetting yourself.

--Tiassa

 

[Bebelina]

Go Tiassa!

No mercy for the weak!

About the evolution of bacteria however, I must give my allknowing input.
Each individual bacteria has evolved individually into more and more complicated lifeforms, so an individual bacteria that lived for three million years ago, could in it´s present evolved lifeform be a human being.

Anybody who remembers being a bacteria in a previous life?

My theory is that all lifeforms that have chosen to evolve on Earth, must go through the whole chain of evolution of the individual lifeform, from the smallest and most simple construction to the most complex, and humans are to be found somewhere in between, I guess.

Well, that was just a sidetrack....

Keep up the good work , Tiassa!

 

[Tiassa]

Tony1, cheer up!

*Let me ask you this, Tony, do you erect a Christmas tree? Decorate with holly or mistletoe? Keep Pointsettias in the house? Celebrate Jesus's birth right around the winter solstice? Do you dye Easter eggs? Gift elderly family with Easter Lillies? Light candles at Candlemass or to pray for someone? Burn or smell incense burning in Church? These are all Pagan symbols and traditions, modified and borrowed by the Christians in an effort to override Pagan celebrations. Jesus wasn't born in the winter, that celebration was moved to usurp the Pagan Solstice celebration. In several Pagan traditions, Yule (Winter Solstice) is when the Sun King is born, God of light. Sound familiar? If you do ANY of these things, you're practicing paganism.*

Not one single Christian was involved with any of that.
The Catholics did and do all of that, so I guess they owe you a debt of gratitude.

Wow ... that many millions of pagans celebrating the birth of Jesus ... it oughta warm your heart and count for something, Tony1.

So tell us, Tony1 ... if your salvation is assured, and if you should happen to find no pleasure in that many billions of pagans honoring Jesus' birth, why do you bother to communicate with us lowly infidels? Your tone reeks of self-assuming righteousness, and your conduct is hardly befitting what those of us who left Christianity recall being ideal Christian behavior. So I, at least, am curious as to whether or not you have any stake other than disrupting other people's exchanges with your smug attitude. Since this is the topic where you're having the most trouble even dealing with the issues you've chosen to raise, I figured it's as good a place as any to call you out on this point.

So let's see some genuine celebration and communal joy, Tony1 ... your foul condemnation of other people's ideas and your intolerance toward the natural diversity of Christianity are exemplary when someone like me is asked to describe why we left Christianity behind. So, in that sense, you, too, are a little more Catholic than you'd like to think.

And a little more Lutheran.

And a little more Jehovah's Witness.

And a little more Baptist ....

In other words, sir, you're just a little more commonplace of a Christian than you like to imagine in your smug delusion.

--Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Bebelina

Hmmm ... it's an intriguing theory on evolution to say the least; it half makes sense and half doesn't, so I'm sure I'm grabbing hold of it in the wrong way. But, given various reincarnation theories I've been exposed to in my day, it's hardly implausible.

Thanx for the battle-cry , and take comfort in knowing that the human race will endure this disease of individualist Christianity. Dance for the Unity, and remember to leave the gate open in case any of them want to come up the hill from the shadowy Valley of Death and join the living celebration ....

peace, harmony, & lotsa good stuff--
Tiassa

 

[HOWARDSTERN]

PAGAN FEST!!!!!!!!!

Never been to a Pagan Fest before, but I've heard that they're pretty damned wild!!!!!

Lots of good smoke and drugs?

When is the next one scheduled and where?

CAN'T WAIT ! ! ! ! ! !

......HS/HS.........

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

I'm a bit confused over whether you mean Pagan or pagan.... because they're unbelievable different... but "Pagan" is the better one.