 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
> > or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
> Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
> people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena and
> who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
I'm not so sure of that. I suppose it depends a lot on the movement inside
the religion, the local church/congregation and the individual person.
Many religious people are quite predisposed to accept the existence of
all kinds of supernatural phenomena which are not part of the teachings
of their own religion. They simply state that it's the work of Satan (or
whatever antagonist the religion might have).
There are also many movements of eg. Christianity where the people are
quite predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, such as Freemasons
being a NWO secret cult which is secretly pulling the strings behind the
scenes and are aiming at total world domination. (And all this simply
because someone *told* them that.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
> or are they true and ok.
They are not popular.
> Where is agnostism ?
Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
An emphasized *distrust* of the government goes to the boundaries of
conspiracy theories.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 3:54 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Really?
>
> What, you mean that "science" isn't just saying about waving expensive
> equipment around and saying sciency words at it?
>
My PKE meter says .. hmm, never saw that reading before.. <taps meter on
desk>
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/10/2010 18:45, Warp nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
>> or are they true and ok.
>
> They are not popular.
>
>> Where is agnostism ?
>
> Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
agnostim is not atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
It's an open table with meals for everyone... far too much to be true.
>
>> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
>> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
>
> An emphasized *distrust* of the government goes to the boundaries of
> conspiracy theories.
>
Conspiracy theories have the subtitle that they have an agenda (or many)
and they are acting cleverly (for their agenda). It might be more stupid
and selfish than that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> >> Where is agnostism ?
> >
> > Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
> agnostim
You keep using that word...
> is not atheism.
Which atheism, exactly? Agnostic atheism or strong atheism?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
> It's an open table with meals for everyone... far too much to be true.
The only thing that agnosticism claims is that it's impossible for us
to know if there exists a deity or deities.
How you *interpret* that stance is a different question. Some might
interpret it as "it's ok to believe in anything you want, because it
might (or might not) be the truth", while others might interpret it as
"it's foolish to believe in deities because even if there are any,
it's impossible for us to know it, or their nature" (and likewise it's
foolish to claim that there are no deities because, once again, we cannot
know).
(The difference between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the
latter takes the stance "there's no *reason* to believe any deities
exist because there is no evidence". It doesn't claim there are none,
just that there's no reason to believe there are. Unlike strong atheism,
which outright claims that there are none.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 8:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> there is a marked difference between "still accepted" beliefs, and
>> those rejected as mythology.
>
> Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
>
As far as I know, flying horses and golden plates are *not* in that
category, which is what the later part of my posting relates to. My
point being that, once the idea is no longer considered "modern", it
becomes non-attributable to religion, and therefor rejected. The only
difference therefor is whether or not someone still follows it, how
many, and whether or not the person examining the entity in question is
**aware** that someone still follows it. If these criteria are met, the
theist invariably lumps such things into, "part of my mythology, but not
what those other bozos imagine it is", with the only conclusions tending
to be either that its for or against their position. The only real
exception to this rule are people that have formal logic training, as
applied to a specific branch of science, but still apply mis-logic to
other propositions. In there case, someone pointed out, the issue
becomes one of rigor. Tests, questions, skepticism, and application of
careful examination of premises, get applied asymmetrically. When
applied to their field of study, the number of allowed categories of
evidence is highly narrow. When applied to faith, or even other fields
of science, presuppositions, conclusions, and even evidence, which
would, in their own field, have been rejected as absurd to the point of
completely rejecting them on their most basic foundations, are not only
accepted, but presented as evidence for the phenomena.
Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
have it spill over into your own discipline, either by creating barriers
to examination, where questions are not asked, or risking running across
evidence that could be applied to other things, which would, if so
applied, logically contradict those other positions (and thus either
undermine them, or undermine acceptance of the principles that led to
the contradiction, and thus their own field of study).
I flat out do not believe that such a complete disparity in positions
does not produce failures, albeit, often hard to find ones, in the
thinking about the subject for which the ridiculous *is* readily
rejected, if such quality substance is accepted in other venues.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2010 9:41 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
>>> or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
>
>> Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
>> people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena and
>> who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
>
> I'm not so sure of that. I suppose it depends a lot on the movement inside
> the religion, the local church/congregation and the individual person.
>
> Many religious people are quite predisposed to accept the existence of
> all kinds of supernatural phenomena which are not part of the teachings
> of their own religion. They simply state that it's the work of Satan (or
> whatever antagonist the religion might have).
>
> There are also many movements of eg. Christianity where the people are
> quite predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, such as Freemasons
> being a NWO secret cult which is secretly pulling the strings behind the
> scenes and are aiming at total world domination. (And all this simply
> because someone *told* them that.)
>
Which is my point. You can't conclude that there are theists which
accept their own, but reject others. This doesn't even happen,
necessarily, among non-theists. Rather, its creating false categories.
Everything that they accept which is absurd, but I don't know about is
in category A, but since category B seems to be empty, I have no reason
to presume category A either. Basic psychology should present grounds
for category A (and its near infinite collection of things you don't
know they believe), while B is simply a subset of those, which you *may
have* considered bringing up at one time or another, when talking with them.
Darren's assertion is one I find implausible, based on the fact that
even I catch myself still thinking some things may be reasonable, due to
insufficient reason to reject them, and lack of care in questioning.
Claiming, on the other hand, that theists are, generally, far more
likely to fall prey to these sorts of errors is supported both by their
initial error, the prevalence of those that do hold multiple categories
of woo, *and* the fact that even those that reject almost all of them,
including religion, still fall prey to such mistakes, in some cases.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 11:17 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
>
The only people claiming to even believe such a proposition are the ones
attempting to use it to undermine the system. Like the tea party -
"We will repeal Obama Care, then pass it again, but defund it, and give
money back the rich, then turn all government programs into capitalistic
ones, run by the very people that sell you the insurance this was all
created to protect you against. Trust us! We are the new, better
government!"
Had a real WTF moment when I realize this is almost *exactly* what they
are proposing, well, after impeaching everyone they don't like, for
things that are not offenses, repelling half the shit their own party
spent the last 30 years claiming they cared about (like infrastructure
spending), and changing laws, and the constitution, to make it all more
"Jesus!".
No one thinks the government isn't part of the problem. But, only
idiots, liars, and would be dictators, claim that the solution to the
problem is to completely ignore why, defund everything, then replace it
all with libertarian, Jesus freak, capitalists, who **defend** the
practice of shipping jobs out of the country, want to reduce the minimum
wage to 50% of poverty level, and give themselves a pay raise. This
isn't "understanding" the problem, or "fixing" the system, it is either
blind stupidity *or* an attempt to, as a few of the outliers, which have
been quietly swept under the rug, have hinted at, creating a new
theocracy, because this whole, "Do what the people want.", thing didn't
work for the people that wanted absolute power to dictate everything
from morality, to social status, to life styles, to all the "lesser" people.
The government isn't the problem, the people intentionally trying to
break the damn thing are. The solution isn't the demolish it, its to
patch the damn holes, stop spending money on Senator Q's jewel encrusted
gold fish collection (marked in the filing department as "school
resources for my state"), and take rational actions. Sadly, the only
people really pushing to do this, since, normally it would be political
suicide, are the bad guys, from the cast of Looney Toons.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2010 12:37 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Conspiracy theories have the subtitle that they have an agenda (or many)
> and they are acting cleverly (for their agenda). It might be more stupid
> and selfish than that.
Might be?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2010 1:33 PM, Warp wrote:
> (The difference between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the
> latter takes the stance "there's no *reason* to believe any deities
> exist because there is no evidence". It doesn't claim there are none,
> just that there's no reason to believe there are. Unlike strong atheism,
> which outright claims that there are none.)
>
Actually, this is not entirely correct. Even "strong" atheists will
generally state that its not *completely* impossible for something to
exist like that. Rather, the argument tends to be:
1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
as "supernatural".
2) You cannot, even in such a hypothetical, rule out numerous other
plausible, possibly more plausible, explanations, such as advanced tech
being used to present the evidence, in a way that *known* understandings
of technology cannot explain.
3) Trying to pin anyone claiming plausibility of a god down on what the
hell they actually mean by that isn't a matter of goal post shifting,
where by any definition that gets undermines is simply modified to be
more vague, imprecise, or simply sufficiently different that it no
longer fits the original claim itself. Rather, as PZ Myers recently
called it, it is a case of "motorized goalposts". They don't merely move
them around, to find some new "god" that you can't undermine, they move
themselves around, automatically, in reaction to any conflict, on little
robotic wheels...
You can't present even a plausibility of god existing, if you can't even
pin down a definition of what they bloody heck it is you are implying
might exist. Is it a rock? Its not unlike a rock! Is a it a boulder? No,
but its sort of like that too. A tree? No, but sort of. A bird?... ad
infinitum. Its like nothing, but everything, but undefinable, but still
definable enough that agnostics think its somehow *possible* for it to
be out there. Uh.. Ok. So, what the hell is it then? And to how many
decimal places? What are we talking about, so I can say, without
sounding like the Mad Hatter, from Alice in Wonderland, whether or not
its something that *might* plausibly exist, in any fashion, at all?
Because, nothing anyone comes up with is either testable **at all** in
any way, so knowable, or, if testable, implies any reasonable criteria
by which to claim, "It might be real after all".
That is the problem "strong atheism" has with the whole mess.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
