 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> The term
> "fundamentalism" and
> "fundamentalist" in current usage almost always refers to violent sects.
Well, you either have the choice of being offended by the term as it is now,
or being offended by the term as it was intended 100 years ago. If you pick
the worst possible interpretation from both, you're just reaching for it.
> Other than that they are almost always pejorative.
Only when used pejoratively.
> And for that matter what do you mean by "protestant"?
Why don't you ask Princeton professors these questions? It isn't my definition.
> Also do you mean by "Bible Belt" an area where the Bible is read a lot
> or do you mean an area
> where the Bible is interpreted in a certain way?
I gave you a map.
> answer to some of the questions lies in the history of the term. "Bible
> Belt" was coined by H. L.
> Mencken as a derisive term. :)
Yes. Even 100 years ago, people were making fun of creationists. Funny, that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Did you read the accompanying text on Wiki? The term "Bible Belt" is a
>> derisive term
>
> Not any more. Indeed, 25 years after it was coined, the president didn't
> seem to have any problem using the term.
I must confess that I did not listen to a lot of what our previous
President said.
>
> And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely
> about it being coined.
I see you aren't familiar with H. L. Mencken. You ought to try him. If I
remember
right, Mencken is fun to read even if you disagree or even dislike him.
>
> You really don't have to act offended or disgusted by someone using the
> same terminology that Truman used 50 years ago.
Oh you meant Truman, well I was too young to listen to him, but I
wouldn't say
that a term wasn't derisive just because he used it. That would depend
on the context.
>Unless, of course,
> offense is a smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)
I'm not sure what this sentence means or what it could mean in the
context, but I
think it's an insult or a attempt a one. :) Be that as it may, I don't
believe that in my
original response to the tirade against the "south", that I objected to
the tern "Bible Belt".
I do think that it is hardly ever used in any but a pejorative sense
(except in the cases
where someone something like "I'm glad I live in the Bible Belt"
--there it's laudatory).
I doubt that it is ever used as a pure descriptive term. Often I think
the user has no
denotative meaning at all in mind.
As to lack of content -- well, it should have been abundantly clear that
my original response
to said tirade had no *denotative* meaning. :)
But if anyone wishes to use the term "Bible Belt" anyway he likes, let
him do so. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-8-2009 6:40, Darren New wrote:
>
> Yes. I'm just disputing the word "knowledge." I think using "knowledge"
> to mean the same as "faith" is diluting the word and making it useless
> for discourse. We already have a word for "knowledge for which I have no
> justification and which I wouldn't disbelieve regardless of presented
> evidence", and that's "faith".
What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
right. E.g. I know that no god exists for any accepted definition of
god. I can not prove it, yet I will never say the 'I believe that god
does not exist'. Unless from the context it is clear that 'believe' is
meant as an almost synonym for 'know'. I am aware that technically it is
just something I believe and others believe different, that does not
change the fact that I know god does not exist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> And for that matter what do you mean by "protestant"?
>
> Why don't you ask Princeton professors these questions? It isn't my
> definition.
>
Currently they do not seem to be involved in this discussion. Are you
simply quoting
them and don't know what they mean. It is always unwise to use words one
doesn't know
the meaning of, even if one is quoting a Princeton or even a Harvard
professor -- although
we are all guilty of it. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Currently they do not seem to be involved in this discussion. Are you
> simply quoting
> them and don't know what they mean.
I know what *I* mean. You're the one disputing whether the terms means what
I say they mean.
Just so you know, falling back on the "every single word in the entire
discussion has to be extensively and precisely defined, even tho all
participants already know what it means" is an old and foolish debating trick.
If you don't know what it means, why are you expressing disapproval and disgust?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> I must confess that I did not listen to a lot of what our previous
> President said.
I think there are probably few people on this newsgroup who listened to what
Truman said live, yes.
>> And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely
>> about it being coined.
> I see you aren't familiar with H. L. Mencken. You ought to try him. If I
> remember
> right, Mencken is fun to read even if you disagree or even dislike him.
I'm merely disputing your ridiculing me by asking if I'd even read the page.
>> Unless, of course, offense is a smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)
>
> I'm not sure what this sentence means or what it could mean in the
> context, but I
> think it's an insult or a attempt a one. :)
No, it's just an expression that maybe you're not being as clever
conversationally as you might think you are.
> Be that as it may, I don't
> believe that in my
> original response to the tirade against the "south",
It wasn't a tirade. It was a comment that prejudice against atheists is more
common in the south of the USA. Why, do you have some evidence that it
happens more often in the north?
> I doubt that it is ever used as a pure descriptive term.
It is when you're explaining to someone that the southern area of the USA is
so well known for fundamentalist christians that it's been given the name
"the bible belt", you see.
> But if anyone wishes to use the term "Bible Belt" anyway he likes, let
> him do so. :)
I'm using it as explanatory subtext for someone from a country with very
little religious faith asking about the behavior of people prejudiced
against atheists. If you have some evidence that people outside the bible
belt are more often prejudiced against atheists than people inside the bible
belt, you should present that instead of taking mindless offense as
perceived slights.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
> right.
Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've
eliminated the usefulness of the word.
If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what would
you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew that for a
fact? Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
> I can not prove it,
You have justification for your belief.
One can argue over whether there is sufficient justification to turn a
belief in something that happens to be true into knowledge, sure. But no
amount of confidence without justification will turn belief into knowledge.
> that does not change the fact that I know god does not exist.
You may have justification in your belief. Others may have justification in
theirs. But just as I wouldn't call any amount of belief in something false
to be "knowledge", I wouldn't call any amount of belief in something
unjustified to be "knowledge."
The idea that you "know" that you "should have" taken another route home is
silly. To "feel strongly" and to "know" are two different words, and it's
intellectually dishonest to use one instead of the other when you know better.
If you've had first-hand experience with deities, then saying you "know"
deities exist is reasonable, even if it turns out later you're mistaken and
you simply justifiably believed in something false.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to say "I know X", when indeed
you're mistaken about it. But you don't have the knowledge. You either
believe something false, or you accidentally believe something true without
any justification.
Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually
deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by
overstating their knowledge.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Just so you know, falling back on the "every single word in the entire
> discussion has to be extensively and precisely defined, even tho all
> participants already know what it means" is an old and foolish debating
> trick.
Why foolish? Seems reasonable to me. Make sure everyone's on the same
proverbial page, and clarifies things.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:10:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
>>
>> Citation?
>>
> Uh.. Such numbers are also made up and wrong, more than half the time?
> lol
It is true that 78.64% (I'm rounding) of all statistics are made up on
the spot. :-)
> Seriously though, I don't know the actual number, or have a cite, but I
> *have* seen cases dealing with cognition, where you can not only get
> 50-50 fails, but even 99% failures. One of the best examples is the,
> "two people with a big sign walking rudely between two people talking.",
> experiment they run, yearly, at some colleges, for their psychology
> experiments. The one where they replace the person asking the question
> of some random person with someone the wrong height, dressed wrong, in
> clothing some **totally** different color, or even the wrong gender, and
> like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
> brain just starts over where it was interrupted, so long as the
> conversation "seems" to be the same, and ignore **everything** else. The
> replacement could probably be standing their nude and the only reaction
> you would get was, "Damn, I didn't realize when you came up that you
> where nude.", not, "Where the hell did the original person I was talking
> to go?"
>
> The ease by which the mind can be tricked is actually quite scary.
True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts. I
seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct that
something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find that
better than 90% of the time, I'm right. That's far better than the luck
of averages.
I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good -
I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
deception. Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to trust
very easily because I know that people will generally try to get away
with whatever they can.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:34:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.
>
> No you don't. You just strongly believe it.
Well, that's your read of it, but I know differently. It's difficult to
explain, but there is a distinct difference in my own mindset when I know
something vs. when I strongly suspect something.
> no longer really "instinctive.") And of course if you do it correctly
> and repeatedly, then it's worth looking into, but so far nobody has
> measured proper psi powers.
I don't think it's anything like that - I think it's that I have a good
instinct for reading people and situations. Maybe it's something I've
learned on a subconscious level, I don't know. I'm not claiming to be
'supernatural" or anything silly like that.
> I know exactly what you're talking about, now.
:-)
> Sometimes I wake from a dream, *knowing* I solved some problem while I
> was dreaming, but I just can't remember it now. Did I really solve the
> problem while I was dreaming, or am I just <ahem> dreaming? How is your
> experience different?
Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming, I was
driving home. I sure hope I wasn't sleeping. ;-)
But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
> friends have been replaced with duplicates, etc, you realize no, you
> didn't know, you're just convinced you knew.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
> The very fact that you're convinced is what makes you think it's
> knowledge and not belief. Yet conviction is a state of mind. You're
> saying "because my brain has decided it's knowledge, that makes it
> knowledge and not just a hunch/guess/faith."
Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.
> I really do believe there are faithful who have as much conviction about
> something as you did about your route home. I believe that's what a lot
> of the sudden unprompted "born again" stuff is about. I don't disparage
> that, but I don't count that as "knowledge" either.
I think part of it with me is that I tend to attribute "faith" and
"belief" with "religion", so I shy away from those terms because of those
connotations, which I consider undesirable connotations.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
