 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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.)
>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
XKCD is oddly relevant today: http://www.xkcd.com/808/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> 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".
There's a complication with the definition of the concept "natural".
"Natural" would be something bound to the laws of the Universe. *This*
Universe where we are in.
Now, it may be possible that this Universe is all that there is. There's
nothing outside this Universe (and it's not only that "there's nothing
outside this Universe", but moreover, there is no outside, the "outside"
doesn't exist; this Universe is all that there is).
If there is somehing outside of this Universe, it could not be bound to
the laws of this Universe because eg. time and space, iow. the geometry
of this Univserse, is bound by definition to this Universe, and this
geometry does not extend outside. This Universe is a closed system in
geometry and content (nothing inside can leave it by our current
understanding of the laws of this Universe. because there is no way
out, due to the Universe's geometry).
Hence if there is something outside of this Universe (ie. the "outside"
*exists* in some way), it has to exist in some kind of "superior" form
of existence which is not bound by the geometry and laws of our Universe.
Maybe the geometry of the "outside" (if we can define it as such, with
our limited view of the Universe) is more complicated than ours, and our
Universe's geometry is only a subset of this "supergeometry".
Likewise the physical laws of our Universe would probably be a subset
of the physical laws of this "superuniverse".
Thus if we define "natural" as anything inside our Universe and bound
to its physical laws, anything *outside* our Universe (if it exists) would,
by definition, be "supernatural" (in the sense that it would be bound to
a *superset* of our own physical laws).
Of course even if there is a "superuniverse" (within which our Universe
is only a small subset), that doesn't automatically imply that there
exists any intelligent "life" (by whatever definition) there, or any
"life" at all. Maybe our Universe simply popped into existence inside
this "superuniverse" by some ("supernatural") physical phenomenon there
(something popping out of nothing is actually not a completely alien
concept even inside our own Universe, with quantum mechanics having
defined such concepts already, eg. in the form of virtual particles).
Maybe there are countless universes popping into existence in this
"superuniverse", each one with differing energy and internal physical
laws (and our Universe just happened by chance to be perfect to form
life as we know it).
A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
"superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.
You are uneducated.
> theist invariably lumps such things into,
That hasn't been my experience.
> 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,
Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are devoutly
religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that Jesus sacrificed
himself to save you would interfere with your ability to design computer
software, for example.
> I flat out do not believe
So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren's assertion is one I find implausible,
You find it implausible that someone could believe in Jesus without
believing in CIA mind-control beams, moon trip hoaxes, and space aliens
making crop circles?
You find it implausible that someone could believe in God, but not believe
Jesus is his son, or that Mohamed or John Smith spoke to him directly?
You find it implausible that someone could believe Mohamed is the one true
prophet, but there aren't any Thetans living inside people?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
I'm not sure this follows, given that it's possible for the superuniverse to
affect this universe. We don't have to reach out to run experiments, if we
can observe what's happening. And I can demonstrate this with an example:
Let's say the superuniverse exists, and not only that, our universe was
specifically created and controlled by a being there whom we will call God
for want of a better name. Think of our universe as a giant (deterministic)
game of The Sims for God.
Interestingly, this give all kinds of attributes to "God" that are usually
discussed in earth religions nowadays: Created the universe. Omnipotent, by
the simple expedient that he can modify any bit of the code to make it do
what he wants, or change data structures with a debugger, etc. Omniscient,
by the simple expedient of checkpointing the simulation, letting it run, and
seeing what happens, then winding it back again. Capricious, possibly.
Interested in humans, likely, unless God is only interested in some other
bunch of aliens. Desiring of worship, perhaps, if that's how he gets his
rocks off. Probably still not infinitely loving and caring, but I'm pretty
sure last I looked that only Christians think of God that way.
Certainly if such a supernatural being exists, it might be easy for him to
simply reveal such a fact to everyone in unarguable ways, definitively
answering whether there is such a thing as "supernatural", even beyond the
ability of alien technology, such as altering fundamental physical
constants, predicting the results of quantum events, moving things around
faster than light, etc.
Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point,
it's a semantic argument.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
