On 24-4-2011 7:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>> evidence.
>>
>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend
>> contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence
>> my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true
>> for other atheists as well.
>
> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?

yes

> I find that *highly* unusual.

I don't think it is, I just say it. No matter what evidence they come up 
with (other than the person/thing itself, see below) I would always 
assume that they made a mistake or used a false assumption, even if I 
didn't see immediately what was wrong.

>>> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced
>>> there is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the
>>> question of whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.
>>
>> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them
>> and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am
>> defending the truth and they a fallacy.
>
> Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.

I know some people in this group have trouble accepting that I am a 
religious atheist, but that is what I think too.

> Otherwise, you'd
> have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me, I
> don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I wouldn't
> just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That doesn't mean
> I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.

I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it 
existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.

>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>
>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>
> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?

When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started 
with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking 
not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then 
were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the chauvinist 
western view a couple of years ago.

The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and 
native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries whose 
inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;) )


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message