RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,06:57   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 05 2007,20:00)
<yawns>
<goes back to ontological proofs of elan vitale>

Don't forget essentialism, aka what Dawkins would call the tyranny of the discontinuous mind. Essentialism is the (ahem) essence of Skeptic's Obliviot's position.

Which is, erm, well ANOTHER reason why it's a huge crock of horseshit.

Anyway, I'm off on holiday tomorrow, so have fun all. Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.

Until then, Adios Amoebas! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,08:25   

Quote
Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.


don't count on it louis.  or the email part either.  

by the way you atheist darwinist frustrated materialist from ATBC can't explain the meaning of yellow either.  

</chases rabbit back down hole>

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:17   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 07 2007,06:57)
...
Anyway, I'm off on holiday tomorrow, so have fun all. Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.

Until then, Adios Amoebas! ;-)

Louis

Toodle pip old chap.
Have fun.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,15:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 06 2007,06:46)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 06 2007,00:56)
I'm pressed for time but you guys have raised two questions I'd like to get into in more depth. ?One, a concept of a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation and two, how faith can generate knowledge through various sources such as revelation and what that knowledge looks like. ?The second is certainly a rehash but I don't feel (and I assume you all agree) that I've adequately expounded on this topic in a coherent manner. ?I'll get to work on these two and get back to you...

As you develop your thoughts on "a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation" I'd be interested to hear your acknowledgment that that THIS sort of soul:
 
Quote
"a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body" (Augustine)...Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings..." Roman Catholic beliefs:... The soul is the center of the human will, intellect (or mind), and imagination (or memory), and the source of all free human acts, although good acts are aided by God's grace.

IS central to many religious systems and DOES cross into the realm of scientific investigation. Your previous response was to assert a different sort of soul, but my point is that this very common conception is in conflict with science, since it postulates a basis for human behavior that competes with naturalistic accounts.

No one is arguing that ALL notions that are religious in nature conflict with the scientific world picture. But some clearly do. This one does. And it is quite central to most Christian views of morality and it's consequences, as well as the consequences of belief vs. "unbelief" (the Christian made-up word that lands with a groaning "thud"). I find it difficult to see how a concept of soul designed not to entail agency can do the moral work that this more common conception accomplishes.

I for one would be grateful if you would acknowledge the above and either assent to it or state why it is incorrect, rather than maneuver around it, before going on to report your own view.

It would be very difficult for me to make a determination as to the universal nature of this definition.  To be honest, I've never read this before and it may well represent a common view but there is no way I could know that.  One thing that struck me after reading this was the insistence that the soul directs actions and has some independent existence.  On a personal note, I see a direct contradiction with the notion of free will that is also central to many religious beliefs.  Again, that is just my thoughts and I am at a loss to make a judgment concerning a conflict.  I would say, and agree with you, that this definition of a soul would open itself up to possible conflict depending upon interpretation.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,15:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 07 2007,16:06)
It would be very difficult for me to make a determination as to the universal nature of this definition.  To be honest, I've never read this before and it may well represent a common view but there is no way I could know that.  One thing that struck me after reading this was the insistence that the soul directs actions and has some independent existence.  On a personal note, I see a direct contradiction with the notion of free will that is also central to many religious beliefs.  Again, that is just my thoughts and I am at a loss to make a judgment concerning a conflict.  I would say, and agree with you, that this definition of a soul would open itself up to possible conflict depending upon interpretation.

Skeptic: Thank you.

I would argue that this notion of soul is quite widespread, evident throughout many religions and informal beliefs: many forms of Christian soul, the souls that transmigrate from incarnation to incarnation in Hinduism, spirits of the departed that can be contacted following death, etc. I would also argue that it is central to those religions that postulate such a soul.

It is certainly NOT universal, nor have I maintained that it was. I offered it as an example of a central (so some) religious belief that conflicts with the scientific world picture, as some have maintained that there are no such conflicts.

With respect to "free will" I would argue that, within this soulful world picture, persons are essentially ("really") souls (not their bodies) and it is ultimately the soul that expresses free will. Just a guess - naturally, these propositions are not decidable by objective (or any other) means.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,18:34   

I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel.  It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person.  The idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind.  But I agree there's no objective way we can talk about it.  In the same way, I think this leaves science out of it because that is the language that science speaks in.  The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts.  As I see it, even if we were to assume that the souls directs behaviors and we isolate the chemical processes associated with said behaviors does this rule out the existence of the soul.  No, maybe it eliminates the necessity of the soul but that's not entirely the same thing.  Since we can not completely describe the universe there's limitations to science even in those areas we can objectively pursue.  Who knows how much more is objective and beyond our understanding and subjective and applicable to different methods of understanding, i.e. irrational methods?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,20:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 07 2007,19:34)
I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel.  It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person.  The idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind.  But I agree there's no objective way we can talk about it.  In the same way, I think this leaves science out of it because that is the language that science speaks in.  The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts.  As I see it, even if we were to assume that the souls directs behaviors and we isolate the chemical processes associated with said behaviors does this rule out the existence of the soul.  No, maybe it eliminates the necessity of the soul but that's not entirely the same thing.  Since we can not completely describe the universe there's limitations to science even in those areas we can objectively pursue.  Who knows how much more is objective and beyond our understanding and subjective and applicable to different methods of understanding, i.e. irrational methods?

You make valuable points with which I don't have a quarrel.

I personally find the assertion of a "soul" that lives beyond the body a form a denial (death isn't "really" death), one that takes us further from authentic human experience rather than closer, but that itself is certainly a personal, not scientific, assertion.

That said, while it is certainly true (as you say) that there are many things human beings don't and maybe can't represent and grasp by means of scientific understanding, it doesn't follow that the human animal will itself remain one of them. What has been scientifically clear ever since Darwin is that human beings emerged from the natural world, and no special explanation is required relative to other organisms with regard to our origins. Moreover, it is equally plain that all of the astonishing (and appalling) deeds of which we are collectively capable, which sometimes seem so qualitatively different from those of other animals, are clearly hosted within brains that differ only quantitatively, rather than qualitatively, relative to our, well, relatives. As the organization of this brain is disclosed by neuroscience and incorporated into cognitive science, it is clear that many of the powers long assigned to "souls" or "immaterial selves" will be in fact seen to emerge from this quantitatively enhanced brain, adapted as it is to be immersed in language and culture.

Persons who deny the facts of organic evolution and human history on religious bases certainly do make assertions that intrude into and compete with this scientific picture - even, as you say, the abstract notions of god and soul remain scientifically untestable. ID is obviously the worst offender with respect to biology, as it claims to offer a causal account of the facts of biology that is religious at heart (their tiresome denials notwithstanding). Hence ID intrudes into a scientific domain while making no contributions to it, all the while making assertions are inherently untestable. The fact that their claims are beyond objective adjudication is a weakness of their position, not a strength. And they do damage, as the public is often unable to evaluate their claims.  

I haven't read Uncommonly Denyse's latest book, but I'll be astonished if she doesn't, on behalf of the same community, make analogous claims vis human neurobiology and cognitive functioning and seek to deny humanity's place in nature and in history. Perhaps you will cringe too as you read it, if the anticipated prosaic portrait of a "soul" that is pulling and organizing neural strings is indeed there.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,23:15   

skeptic, Phineas Gage?

show me 'the essence of a person' and i will show you their gym socks.  nothing more.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,07:47   

Bloody hell.  I go away on some extended fieldwork for a few weeks and look at all the verbiage.  Anyone care to summarise for me where this discussion is in three lines or less?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,09:07   

George:

Skeptic:  Essences exist, you just can't see them.
Louis:  Show me how you know that.
Skeptic:  I imagine essences can exist, therefore they do, and you are dishonest.  And mean.  Lenny agrees.  Lenny?  Lennnnnny?  where'd you go?

<snipped a lot of peanut gallery heckling>

that help?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,15:54   

one correction, Erasmus:

Louis: and you're dishonest

there, that's better.

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,16:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 07 2007,18:34)
I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel.  It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person.


So you are saying that the people who think otherwise are flat out wrong.

So I say to you "No, there is no such thing as a soul.  There are only quizkerfloofs.  They are passive objects similar to vessals.  They contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the eactions and behaviors of the person...but they absolutely are NOT souls.  They just aren't.  Souls are made of soul stuff, and quizkerfloofs are made of snurfladoodles.  Totally different things."

You don't actually have a response, do you?  I have a perfectly ready one, which is that it's utterly insane to talk about the properties of objects that can't even be shown to exist.  But that's not open to you.

Can you explain to me why I am wrong?  Can you give my ideas the same respect that you believe yours are worth?

I think not.

 
Quote
idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind.


Oh, good grief.  You haven't shows that the Mind exists, remember?  Everyone asked you to, and then you eventually realized that you didn't dare to try.  Mostly because the only way to prove that the Mind wasn't physical would be to remove the physical (your brain) from the equation, and see what was left.  And you are absoutely 100% sure than when put to the test, your vaunted magic "Mind" simply won't work without the physical proceses of your brain.

But since that's what the rest of us have been telling you, you can't admit it.  It's transparently pathetic.

 
Quote
The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts.


Yes, which is why you are doing exactly what most undisciplined human beings do in this situation.  You solve the conflict by picking the side that is most convenient and comfortable.

The rest of us recognize that this is a terrible way of approaching problems.  Satisfying yes.  Revel in the feeling of self-satisfaction today, deal with the consequences...whenever they come.  We understand the appeal.  

But the rest of us recognize that the scientific method (namely, the notion that you don't accept any idea as true unelss 1) it's possible for it to be proved false and 2) there is positive evidence supporting the truth of the idea) works, really, really well.  If you name a disease, you could generate a whole list of scientific papers, documenting how treatment and cures on that disease are progressing.  How much progress can you point out into the question "Is the soul passive or active"?

You are asking us to throw away a system of thinking that actually works, so that you can indulge in your happy fantasies.

Well, no one here is ready to do that for you.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,19:02   

Actually you couldn't be more wrong.  I'm not asking you to do anything.  I'm telling you what I do and nothing more.  Personally, I wouldn't throw away a perfectly good way of thinking I'd augment it.  This is not an either-or-situation.

Lenny, if you're still out there, you might be interested to know that I'm reading Capra's Web of Life and it's interesting to hear his explanation of why there is and isn't conflict.  Essentially, we represent the intersection of the two realms of faith and reason and we can not separate them within ourselves but at the same time we should know the difference where one applies and the other doesn't.  Seems very neat and tidy but I'll keep reading to see what I think.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,21:47   

skeptic fair enough, but i figured that was the general consensus of all involved and that is dividing by one.

now, i will give my decree about where the NOMA line is.  It is precisely where the boundaries of your body (hence the subjective notions you carry around with you) ends.  Once your faith/religion/denial/dualism/woo assertions extend beyond your corporeal body, they are up for falsification.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,00:43   

I would say that that is the point where you put your thoughts, ideas, etc into action.  I'm not so sure that a blanket statement can be made that those ideas are up for falsification.  The actions may be and that falls right into Louis' context argument.  The actions under said conditions can then be judged against expected outcomes.  I wouldn't say in all cases that the initial idea is necessarily up for falsification.  Does that make any sense?  It may be just my bias as an idealist but I would view the idea as "pure" until utilized by man and that makes it subject to "corruption."  It's getting late and I'm not sure that even makes sense to me.  I'll get some sleep and try again tomorrow.

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,07:17   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 10 2007,09:07)
George:

Skeptic:  Essences exist, you just can't see them.
Louis:  Show me how you know that.
Skeptic:  I imagine essences can exist, therefore they do, and you are dishonest.  And mean.  Lenny agrees.  Lenny?  Lennnnnny?  where'd you go?

<snipped a lot of peanut gallery heckling>

that help?

Thanks for the uber-summary!  Not sure if I want to dip my toes in this discussion again.  There's uncharted reefs and mudsharks in there.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,00:02   

I seem to remember that we had some physicists here and I was trying to digest what I was reading today so here goes.  If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam and is essentially probabilities, what are the implications for physical reality?  Just got me thinking.  Thanks for any replies.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,08:51   

Quote
If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam


It doesn't.  Just because you may describe something a certain way doesn't imply that it IS that way.

Emergent properties are not reducible.  (or are they?  I summon Laplace)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 14 2007,06:02)
I seem to remember that we had some physicists here and I was trying to digest what I was reading today so here goes.  If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam and is essentially probabilities, what are the implications for physical reality?  Just got me thinking.  Thanks for any replies.

Stick the observer in there and it all becomes clear.
Its all probabilities: to the observer at a given time.
It all reduces to a quantum foam: i.e from the observers standpoint the underlying reality is "formless", and can be analogised to a foam (and the observer gets one bubble or another, but can never see the whole foam).
Does that help?

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,19:06   

doesn't this always require an observer?  Some kind of tree falling in the woods analogy?

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,21:17   

skeptic:
Quote
I am at a loss


Got that right!  

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:19   

Two weeks. Two WHOLE weeks. Two weeks in which I haven't even been available online to use the word "bastard" and in that time no actual dealing with any argument I have made has been accomplished by Skeptic.

Pearls before bloody swine.

Someone remind me that treating Skeptic as capable of a rational conversation (as opposed to the asinine ad nauseum restatement of his original claims without any support) is a mistake should I attempt it in future.

Louis

P.S. Had a wonderful time in Cyprus btw. Sun, sea, sand, mountain climbing, halloumi from my ancestral village, zivaniya (don't ask), lots of family visits and  controversial discussions about land, religion, corruption and the Turkish invasion (pleasantly executed due to the participation of honest, rational, intelligent individuals. They exist!). Swimming, mountain hikes, drinking (oh yes, there was drinking), comedically insecure girlfriends of villa mates, drinking (did I mention the drinking?) and the consumption of vastly too many mezes. The only downside of the holiday was travelling to a local (ish) bar to watch the England v South Africa game and watch a very capable and suprised South Africa completely decimate a pathetic and ill-disciplined England. Still the tournament has provided some massive upsets and close matches so far, I am still watching with interest.

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:08   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,08:19)
Two weeks. Two WHOLE weeks. Two weeks in which I haven't even been available online to use the word "bastard" and in that time no actual dealing with any argument I have made has been accomplished by Skeptic.

Pearls before bloody swine.

Someone remind me that treating Skeptic as capable of a rational conversation (as opposed to the asinine ad nauseum restatement of his original claims without any support) is a mistake should I attempt it in future.

Louis

P.S. Had a wonderful time in Cyprus btw. Sun, sea, sand, mountain climbing, halloumi from my ancestral village, zivaniya (don't ask), lots of family visits and  controversial discussions about land, religion, corruption and the Turkish invasion (pleasantly executed due to the participation of honest, rational, intelligent individuals. They exist!). Swimming, mountain hikes, drinking (oh yes, there was drinking), comedically insecure girlfriends of villa mates, drinking (did I mention the drinking?) and the consumption of vastly too many mezes. The only downside of the holiday was travelling to a local (ish) bar to watch the England v South Africa game and watch a very capable and suprised South Africa completely decimate a pathetic and ill-disciplined England. Still the tournament has provided some massive upsets and close matches so far, I am still watching with interest.

Hey dude, welcome back.

Don't forget about the Tour de Frank, which passes through London tomorrow. You won't regret attending.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:27   

I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:36   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2007,14:08)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,08:19)
Two weeks. Two WHOLE weeks. Two weeks in which I haven't even been available online to use the word "bastard" and in that time no actual dealing with any argument I have made has been accomplished by Skeptic.

Pearls before bloody swine.

Someone remind me that treating Skeptic as capable of a rational conversation (as opposed to the asinine ad nauseum restatement of his original claims without any support) is a mistake should I attempt it in future.

Louis

P.S. Had a wonderful time in Cyprus btw. Sun, sea, sand, mountain climbing, halloumi from my ancestral village, zivaniya (don't ask), lots of family visits and  controversial discussions about land, religion, corruption and the Turkish invasion (pleasantly executed due to the participation of honest, rational, intelligent individuals. They exist!). Swimming, mountain hikes, drinking (oh yes, there was drinking), comedically insecure girlfriends of villa mates, drinking (did I mention the drinking?) and the consumption of vastly too many mezes. The only downside of the holiday was travelling to a local (ish) bar to watch the England v South Africa game and watch a very capable and suprised South Africa completely decimate a pathetic and ill-disciplined England. Still the tournament has provided some massive upsets and close matches so far, I am still watching with interest.

Hey dude, welcome back.

Don't forget about the Tour de Frank, which passes through London tomorrow. You won't regret attending.

Thanks Bill.

Tour de Frank? Enlighten me, I may be able to be in the heart of the old metrop tomorrow....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:37   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 24 2007,14:27)
I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

I wonder, is this a pathetic attmept at sarcasm or yet further evidence that Skeptic can't actually read?

Either way, it says little that is good about the tiresome excresence.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:41   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,11:36)
Quote
Don't forget about the Tour de Frank, which passes through London tomorrow. You won't regret attending.

Thanks Bill.

Tour de Frank? Enlighten me, I may be able to be in the heart of the old metrop tomorrow....

Louis

Refers to the Zappa Plays Zappa concert I mentioned earlier - Dweezil Zappa touring with a band that does a incredible job performing and memorializing his father and his music.

Edit: Website for tour here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:48   

{slaps forehead}

Ah! Yes I remember you mentioning it (crickey, I'm senile at 32! Worrying!).

I haven't got tickets so I doubt I'll go.

{sound of Louis hitting Google}

Mmmm tickets available eh?

I'll do some constructive begging of the Mrs and see what I can come up with. ;-) Doubtful because I spent a fortune in Cyprus (this month is going to be well behaved) and I'm off to India soon (ish), but I'm keen.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: I'd love to see it in the Melkweg, but sadly am REALLY not going to be able to swing that with work, wife or wallet!

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,11:32   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,10:48)
{slaps forehead}

Ah! Yes I remember you mentioning it (crickey, I'm senile at 32! Worrying!).

I haven't got tickets so I doubt I'll go.

{sound of Louis hitting Google}

Mmmm tickets available eh?

I'll do some constructive begging of the Mrs and see what I can come up with. ;-) Doubtful because I spent a fortune in Cyprus (this month is going to be well behaved) and I'm off to India soon (ish), but I'm keen.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: I'd love to see it in the Melkweg, but sadly am REALLY not going to be able to swing that with work, wife or wallet!


Short of Funds?  Well, worry no more friend!  All you need to do is start The First Church Of The Designer, link up to the DI, promise to fight The Darwinists and watch the funds roll in.

Correct spelling and grammer is optional.  Ideas do not have to be original, nor make sense.  Bad sweaters however, are required.

ps:  Welcome back, it looks like you had fun.  Don't overlook ERV's blog where Demsbksi got pantsed.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:41   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,10:37)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 24 2007,14:27)
I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

I wonder, is this a pathetic attmept at sarcasm or yet further evidence that Skeptic can't actually read?

Either way, it says little that is good about the tiresome excresence.

Louis

Just a statement of fact (you do know what is, don't you).  It has been quiet and peaceful.

  
  1091 replies since Aug. 06 2007,07:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]