Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <4753d58b@news.povray.org>, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at 
> vtSPAM.edu"> says...
>> Atheists can fall into the same trap, the difference being that the
>> perceived sin is a lack of scientific reasoning. I forget if it was
>> Dawkins or someone else who made a statement that amounted to religion
>> being a genetic hold over or even a mental illness.
>>
> 
> Just for the sake of argument, show me any case where blind faith that 
> something is true has every turned out to be right,

That I like pizza and* sushi, but not both at the same time. I've never
actually tried both at once, but I'm pretty willing to bet that I would
not enjoy it.

*technically, xor. But this is the English language.

> save by pure 
> accident, and more to the point, how any other case has *not* been based 
> on seeing evidence, forming a theory based on that evidence, and then 
> testing, in some fashion, if that conclusion was *actually* correct, or 
> needed modification... We start out with science, experimenting with our 
> world and figuring out what works and doesn't work, and forming 
> **justified** opinions about why and how. Then, about the point where we 
> start talking people start telling us that some things are better 
> explained by the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Jesus. I can't imagine 
> *why* atheists would think scientific thinking was the corner stone of 
> rational thought... Snort!
> 

I was not suggesting that scientific reasoning was bad. The connection I
was making was that both the very religious and the ardent atheists make
the same judgment about the other group: They are wrong and worthy of
scorn. What does that judgment actually gain either group, though? It
doesn't convince anyone else, it doesn't invite discussion. It just
alienates anyone who might have a question.

Post a reply to this message

> I already granted that I was reading an English translation and therefore 
> was several steps removed. That "kill" isn't what it says in the old 
> testament isn't really the point - the point is that Jesus, for example, 
> can't reasonably be said to provide context for the meaning of the ten 
> commandments, nor can Pope John Paul III, or etc etc etc.


Matthew 22:34-40
But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees,
they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question,
testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment
in the law?" Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God
with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is 
the
first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love
your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the
Law and the Prophets."

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:08:11 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> <snip>
>> (Again, if one admits the Bible is simply allegorical fiction, on par
>> with Zeus, Muhammed, and Qutezycoatl, then I'm cool with that. I only
>> argue against people who somehow think their religion is more real than
>> someone else's, or more real than actual experience as actual science,
>> for example.)
>
>
> I'll admit my religion is less real then someone elses, does that win me
> an internet cookie?

cookie

>>>   How could it not be context-dependent?
>>
>> I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)
>>
>> I mean, if the message is so important you're going to condemn every
>> single animal, plant, and human to eternal torture, you could manage to
>> be clear about what you want.
>
> And that's the problem with arguing about religion. There are always
> people willing to take the same book and make opposing claims about it.
> A sect of the Southern Baptist that I'm familiar with claim that every
> word in the Bible is divine and was meant to be read in English, so
> every phrase can be taken completely out of context.

Makes sense, as an omniscient then God would know that the Bible would be  
translated into English and thus had the original Aramaic/Greek written in  
such a way to convey the True Word of God™ only when translated. Now which  
one of the definitive English versions shall we use today?

> Arguing about
> contradictory phrases resulted in the fall-back argument that one should
> "just do what the church says is right." A person was expected to read
> the Bible and ask God for the answer, and in the supposed rare case
> where that didn't work should slowly escalate their question through the
> church ranks, like a tech support request.

Works for Hindus "Have you tried rebooting?"

<snip>
>>>   Or maybe if you try to understand the message instead of trying
>>> deliberately to misunderstand it to attack people.
>>
>> I'm not attacking any person or people. And I *do* understand the
>> message. I just don't understand it the same way you do.
>
> Is there such a thing as a deliberate misunderstanding?

I don't understand what you're asking ;-)

>> I, however, have no personal interaction with any dieties,

Heh I love this misspelling just needs an "ar" to make it dietaries. Makes  
reading this much more interesting.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>>>> That is why, in public, I let the
>>>> people that are good at this stuff make the statements. They are *far*
>>>> better at it. And some, like Greta Christina:
>>>>
>>>> http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/
>>>>
>>>> do so with a profound grace and choice of words that often leaves me
>>>> absolutely astounded.
>>> looks like a slut and sounds like a slut.  oh wait, she's actually a pro... :P
>>>
>>> That was a loong rant, sir. 
>> Indeed it was. I don't think that helps to get the message across. 
>> Perhaps Patrick would also benefit from watching some Marx Brothers 
>> movies ;)
>>> The thing atheists don't seem to grasp is that they
>>> sound just about as annoying and boring in their anti-religion rants as
>>> religious fanatics in their convert stories...
>>>
>> As just another atheist I'd like to point out that atheism is a religion 
>> too. Many deists think that an atheist is someone who is not convinced 
>> that God does exist (or worse: not yet). They are wrong. I *believe* 
>> that God does not exist and I mean that in the same way as a Christian 
>> or Muslim or whatever believes the opposite. I.e. I *know* that God does 
>> not exit moreover my ethical values are fundamentally based on the non 
>> existence of God. If it turned out she did exist after all, I would need 
>> a couple of weeks to rethink my ethics.
>> We atheist have no reason to form churches and that means that we have 
>> no religious leaders. Sadly that means that our believe is less 
>> protected than the church forming religions. That is already subtly 
>> noticeable even in the Netherlands. In the US it seems to be much worse, 
>> and under the inspired leadership of the current president it has 
>> apparently even reached the level of discrimination. I think that was 
>> one of the more important points of Patrick.
>>
> Speak for yourself. 
I did.

> You are what some of us call "hard atheists", and we 
> do consider you as much a believer in unfounded woo as the other side, 
> even while you are on ours. 
us, we, ours?
> In fact, atheists run the gambit from those 
> that just provisionally reject **churches**, but sort of kind of believe 
> in some stuff that might lead to god, if anyone could ever prove that 
> one was believable, to those like myself, who provisionally reject 
> **any** gods, both because none of the definitions make any sense, and 
> because there doesn't seem to be any valid reason why there needs to be 
> one, to those that, like you, insist that there absolutely can't be one, 
> which is *not* a rational conclusion. So, you want to claim you are 
> religious, on the grounds that your own view is purely emotional, not 
> rational, then go ahead, but please, call yourself something else, 
> because we have enough problems with the idiots that **want** to insist 
> atheism is a religion (never mind that the very definition of religion 
> means, "belief in the stuff atheists pretty much all reject as 
> unbelievable".), without you giving the wackos something to quote mine
> as some sort of ammunition for why secular views should be rejected 
> **instead** of theirs.

Sorry Patrick for not using the words with exactly the same meaning as 
you. I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being an atheist is 
simply part of who I am. It is in every cell of my body, in every 
thought that even remotely touches ethics, in how I interact with others 
and in all my scientific work. In short it is part of me the same way as 
believe in a God is for some others, that is why I said it is a 
religion. If some moron rejects that word because in his views that 
implies that it has to be unfounded, so be it. If you think it is an 
irrational emotional thing, think again. Besides if you think that for a 
true believer in God that is only for emotional reasons and that that 
can't be rational, you can not be more wrong than that.

[snipped the rest. Too long, but I did read and it did not add much ;) ]

Disclaimer: I am Dutch, my views may be influenced by other Dutch people.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In article <4753d58b@news.povray.org>, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at 
>> vtSPAM.edu"> says...
>>> Atheists can fall into the same trap, the difference being that the
>>> perceived sin is a lack of scientific reasoning. I forget if it was
>>> Dawkins or someone else who made a statement that amounted to religion
>>> being a genetic hold over or even a mental illness.
>>>
>> Just for the sake of argument, show me any case where blind faith that 
>> something is true has every turned out to be right,
> 
> That I like pizza and* sushi, but not both at the same time. I've never
> actually tried both at once, but I'm pretty willing to bet that I would
> not enjoy it.
> 
> *technically, xor. But this is the English language.
> 
>> save by pure 
>> accident, and more to the point, how any other case has *not* been based 
>> on seeing evidence, forming a theory based on that evidence, and then 
>> testing, in some fashion, if that conclusion was *actually* correct, or 
>> needed modification... We start out with science, experimenting with our 
>> world and figuring out what works and doesn't work, and forming 
>> **justified** opinions about why and how. Then, about the point where we 
>> start talking people start telling us that some things are better 
>> explained by the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Jesus. I can't imagine 
>> *why* atheists would think scientific thinking was the corner stone of 
>> rational thought... Snort!
Patrick, you completely lost me there.
>>
> 
> I was not suggesting that scientific reasoning was bad. The connection I
> was making was that both the very religious and the ardent atheists make
> the same judgment about the other group: They are wrong and worthy of
> scorn. 
As a 'hard atheist' (according to Patrick) I disagree. I feel 
philosophically most at home among other religious people. I.e the kind 
who deeply believe that God exist and make that a focal point in their 
thinking and acting. I indeed feel absolute not at home among those who 
blindly follow someone who claims to know what god wants, and think that 
therefore they themselves are very religious. But worthy of scorn? no, 
pity, suspicion and being on guard I would say.
> What does that judgment actually gain either group, though? It
> doesn't convince anyone else, it doesn't invite discussion. It just
> alienates anyone who might have a question.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <4753b011$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> Ethics is almost entirely 
>>> arbitrary, aside some fundamental survival derivatives.
>> I would disagree, but that's OK.
>>
> I would disagree too. You don't learn ethics by someone *telling* you 
> that its bad, you do so by testing the boundaries of what, first, you 
> parents allow, then society, and concluding, based on evidence, that 
> there are **consequences** for acting unethically. Its only arbitrary in 
> the sense that "sometimes" the rules are based on irrational projections 
> of imaginary consequences, or misinterpretations of the magnitude, 
> nature, existence or even the actual cause of real consequences.
> 
That is not ethics, that is culture. You learn ethics by finding out why 
the universe exist and what it's ultimate goal is. Use that as a basis 
to explain mankind's existence and its final purpose. From that you can 
derive what you as a person should do. At least that is how I did it 
(granted, I still have to fill in some minor details).

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being an atheist is
> simply part of who I am. It is in every cell of my body, in every
> thought that even remotely touches ethics

don't worry:  you're still a son of God and He still loves you. :)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:11:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Just for the sake of argument, show me any case where blind faith that
> something is true has every turned out to be right, save by pure
> accident,

I do believe this is an unwinnable argument, though - if someone shows an 
example of "blind faith", the obvious counter is "well, that was an 
accident".

I am probably best described as emphatically non-religious, but I do have 
a certain set of beliefs that could be described as "faith".  I have 
faith, for example, that for me things will work out even when it looks 
like they're not.  Consistently that has been my experience; I lost a 
job, was unemployed for a period of months (4 IIRC), and I landed a much 
better job than the one I lost (it's debatable whether I resigned or was 
fired, but ultimately it matters very little).

Now, was it "blind faith" that I had that things would work out and that 
I wouldn't lose my house?  Probably not - I didn't sit and wait for 
something to land in my lap, but rather after a couple weeks started 
trying to find something.  The connections I made over that time were not 
expected, and I probably wouldn't have gotten the job if I'd applied 
directly for it instead of the way I did (but of course we'll never know 
if that's the case or not).  For me, that was a sort of faith that things 
will work out better in the end.  It took longer than I would've liked, 
but the end result was a positive outcome.

Someone once said "the harder I work, the luckier I am" (or something to 
that effect).  There's an element of truth in that - so maybe instead, my 
"faith" as it were, is that when the chips are down, I'm going to do 
what's necessary to make things better.

Is self-faith blind?  I dunno; maybe not blind per se, but it is 
certainly coloured by one's experiences.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:15:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I can't imagine
>> *why* atheists would think scientific thinking was the corner stone of
>> rational thought... Snort!
> 
> Here's the other thing: Atheists can generally provide a long list of
> "here's things that would convince me to be religious."  Theists can
> rarely provide a single answer to "what would convince you you're
> wrong?"

Well, that's proving a negative (after a fashion, perhaps), which is not 
generally regarded, AIUI, as a valid scientific approach.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

By definition (I use the OED 2e for my definition here), Ethics is the 
science of Morals - also defined as "the moral principles by which a 
person is guided" or "The rules of conduct recognized in certain 
associations or departments of human life".

Within that definition, I'd say Patrick hit it on the head as to what it 
is.

FWIW.

Jim

Post a reply to this message