 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> So... God would prefer his favored creation to be divided into factions,
> fight and squabbling, with a good deal of killing eachother, than a
> harmonious planet were we get along?
Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
marked and tracked as an animal.
> Oh, yeah, there was that whole tower of babel thing..
If I remember correctly the moral behind that story was that man was
trying to reach God's throne in a vain fashion, and God was asserting
his superior wisdom. "You can't reach spiritual heights with muscle/mind
alone."
Of course, we go up into space all the time these days without
experiencing too many mishaps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
> beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
> marked and tracked as an animal.
Although it's the most famous contemporary interpretation of that "Mark/Number
of the Beast" thing, John's Apocalypsis is not nearly that clear. A simple
uniform sign would fit the bill, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, the one world government is supposed to "mark" or "tag" people as
>> beasts, via... the number of the beast of course. It's demeaning to be
>> marked and tracked as an animal.
>
> Although it's the most famous contemporary interpretation of that "Mark/Number
> of the Beast" thing, John's Apocalypsis is not nearly that clear. A simple
> uniform sign would fit the bill, too.
I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
> myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
> think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
Implanted chips are all the rage these days. They seem to have become quite
popular for pets already, instead of ear tattoos.
A few years ago, some company seems to actually have proposed such a chip to be
implanted into the hand as a replacement for credit cards. As you can imagine,
fundamental christians got a *bit* upset about this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> stbenge <" <-"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I actually don't know the current interpretations, I was just asking
>> myself, "what would the Number look like today?" I can't help but to
>> think people tracking people with RFID tags or some such thing.
>
> Implanted chips are all the rage these days. They seem to have become quite
> popular for pets already, instead of ear tattoos.
>
> A few years ago, some company seems to actually have proposed such a chip to be
> implanted into the hand as a replacement for credit cards. As you can imagine,
> fundamental christians got a *bit* upset about this.
I for one would rather not have a tag implanted into my body. Sure, a
person would have to get close to scan you, but still... It's creepy and
reminds me of the Borg somehow :/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> If I remember correctly the moral behind that story was that man was
> trying to reach God's throne in a vain fashion, and God was asserting
> his superior wisdom. "You can't reach spiritual heights with muscle/mind
> alone."
... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower, because
otherwise they might have reached his throne.
When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense. "God
intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would have failed."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
They think that the governments will all agree to outlaw Christianity in
general, or their church in particular.
The fact that quite a few governments, even in recently history, have
gone after Christians simply for being Christians, certainly adds fuel
to the flames.
In any event, there are plenty of secular reasons to regard a one world
government with alarm.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> ... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower, because
> otherwise they might have reached his throne.
But, He also scattered their languages so they could no longer work
together and communicate.
> When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense.
> "God intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would have
> failed."
>
Sometimes, just reading the stories makes me wonder ... maybe God is the
evil one ... I mean, he basically sent the Jews on a wild goose chase... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> In any event, there are plenty of secular reasons to regard a one world
> government with alarm.
Do you have some examples of this? Is this based on a fear that a single
world government would become fascist, for example? Or is it a fear that
individual cultures will be homogenized into a single conglomerate
culture with no real identity?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > In any event, there are plenty of secular reasons to regard a one world
> > government with alarm.
> Do you have some examples of this? Is this based on a fear that a single
> world government would become fascist, for example? Or is it a fear that
> individual cultures will be homogenized into a single conglomerate
> culture with no real identity?
I think the main reason is the same as why economic monopolies are bad.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why are certain forms of Christianity so scared of nation working
> together cooperatively (i.e. a single world government)?
> --
> ~Mike
Speaking as one who is a non-Christian, but by no means an anti-Christian, I
have some doubts about whether or not the phrase "a single world government"
has, generally speaking, the same meaning as "nation(s) working together
cooperatively."
At a glance, it just seems to be "common sense" that the global nature of the
problems currently confronting humankind calls for an equally global system for
addressing them. If there does exist a plausible means organizing the world's
resources on a global scale for the betterment of the human race (or better
yet, all life) as a whole, we would clearly be fools not to avail ourselves of
it.
Whether or not such a thing IS plausible, however, is quite a serious question.
The "putting all your eggs in one basket" analogy may be a tad cliche, but I
believe it to be applicable. It doesn't require one of the world's greatest
scholars in the field of history to notice that when we humans centralize
authority to avail ourselves of some of the obvious practical advantages of
doing so, things can (and often do) go horribly wrong.
Sure enough,there are(sadly)plenty of folks who tend to oppose anything and
everything they associate with "globalization" simply because they don't much
care for them thar ferriners. It's a tremendous oversimplification, however, to
imply that anyone with reservations about the possible consequences of
centralizing authority over human activity on a global scale is of that limited
frame of mind.*
Hopefully, we will be clever enough to find ways to develop global systems for
social, political and economic interaction that enable and facilitate
cooperative action without falling into the trap of creating a "world overseer"
in the process. If not, perhaps the arthropods will have better luck in a few
billion years.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
* I wish to make clear that this statement addresses the discussion that tends
to take place on this topic generally. I am most definitely NOT saying that
any particular person on this forum has implied such a thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think the main reason is the same as why economic monopolies are bad.
That was always my guess.
Plus, of course, it's unstable. Imagine a single world government taken over
by a military coup. What would you think happens next?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>>
>> ... after which, God used muscle power to bring down the tower,
>> because otherwise they might have reached his throne.
>
> But, He also scattered their languages so they could no longer work
> together and communicate.
>
>> When you actually follow through, most of the stories make no sense.
>> "God intervened to make them fail, because if he hadn't, they would
>> have failed."
>>
>
> Sometimes, just reading the stories makes me wonder ... maybe God is the
> evil one ... I mean, he basically sent the Jews on a wild goose
> chase... :)
>
Yes, well, in "one" much earlier religion, Yehweh was one of three sons
of the "true" creator, a war monger, and got his toys taken away, along
with the other two sons, for all being too stupid to correctly run the
kingdoms they where given by daddy. lol
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yes, well, in "one" much earlier religion, Yehweh was one of three sons
> of the "true" creator, a war monger, and got his toys taken away, along
> with the other two sons, for all being too stupid to correctly run the
> kingdoms they where given by daddy. lol
That's an interesting view...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yes, well, in "one" much earlier religion, Yehweh was one of three
>> sons of the "true" creator, a war monger, and got his toys taken away,
>> along with the other two sons, for all being too stupid to correctly
>> run the kingdoms they where given by daddy. lol
>
> That's an interesting view...
>
I found it, ironically, on a Jewish site, talking about the nature of
the OT god, and whether or not the NT one is the "same" as that OT one.
Their answer seemed to be "no".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not directly related but:
Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
In other words, atheists who pretend to be believers because else they
would be discriminated against in the community they live in.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
"practicing atheists"
(i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) who don't see to be
especially "discriminated
against". I have a friend who is definitely an atheist and makes no
secret of it. He claims to
be discriminated against, but I've seen no sign of it. The best concrete
evidence he has been
able to give me is that people invite him to church or try to "convert"
him. He believes in, or claims
to believe in, all sorts of "Christian" conspiracies from the White
House under Bush to the
management where he works, though he seems to have been above average in
receiving the
credit, honor, and promotion due him for his excellent work.
It quite possible that if he lived in a small less educated community,
his fears might be more realized,
but I think not -- or if he had an offensive personality.
David
Warp wrote:
> Not directly related but:
>
> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
> In other words, atheists who pretend to be believers because else they
> would be discriminated against in the community they live in.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point of
being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind. Just the
very religious parts.)
And of course many young adults who are atheist but don't want to cause a
problem with their family.
Of course, most places aren't like that, but when the evangelicals wind up
being 75% of the population, you wind up having nobody in authority who will
stand up for you, which is really the problem. I.e., when the school board,
most of the police force, all the judges, and all the teachers think atheism
is a sign of the devil, it's hard for a kid to complain they shouldn't be
praying in grade school.
--
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 <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
> there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point of
> being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind. Just the
> very religious parts.)
> And of course many young adults who are atheist but don't want to cause a
> problem with their family.
> Of course, most places aren't like that, but when the evangelicals wind up
> being 75% of the population, you wind up having nobody in authority who will
> stand up for you, which is really the problem. I.e., when the school board,
> most of the police force, all the judges, and all the teachers think atheism
> is a sign of the devil, it's hard for a kid to complain they shouldn't be
> praying in grade school.
And nothing is being done about this clear constitutional violation?
That kind of situation feels somehow foreign to me. Here people are more
or less by default considered atheists, and someone telling they are actually
a christian believer is more an exception than the rule. (Usually people don't
discriminate christians in any way, but they often get questioned a lot. "Why
do you believe that?" etc.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And nothing is being done about this clear constitutional violation?
That's the problem. When everyone involved in enforcing the laws disagree
with the laws, it's hard to change things. You have to take the complaints
so high that you're outside your own little town, so you get someone
interested in making a change to the situation, and for most people it's
easier to not say anything than to fight such all the way up to the supreme
court.
Kind of like when southerners were harassing blacks. When all the cops and
judges are white former slave-owners, you get a lot of nasty stuff going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party
That's the source of a lot of America's more oppressive gun laws, I
understand. The "ban on weapons" they protested was passed because blacks
were openly carrying shotguns on their motorcycles because the police were
arresting them and beating the crap out of them.
I don't think it's *quite* that bad with atheists, but it's also I think the
case that there are far more evangelical Christians willing to do persistent
low-level harassment (like graffiti on your house and beating up your kids
at school, rather than burning your house down) than there were
average-citizen people willing to try to beat up a gang of black folks on
motorcycles. :-)
I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas if they
just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of complaining about
prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on government buildings and such.
> That kind of situation feels somehow foreign to me.
Me too. It's only in certain very provincial areas. The same kinds of areas
where you hear jokes about people holding up the Bible and saying "If
English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
> discriminate christians in any way, but they often get questioned a lot. "Why
> do you believe that?" etc.)
A can understand that, if most people around you while you were growing up
are atheist.
--
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:
> Warp wrote:
>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>
> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
> there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point
> of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind.
> Just the very religious parts.)
Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by
benighted morons
who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other
reason. Why don't y'all
enlightened, rational, and wise folk who know us so well just flood us
with nerve gas and
improve the human race!
(No icon I know is applicable here.)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
>
> (No icon I know is applicable here.)
On second thought is there one, for complete disgust?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
> "practicing atheists"
> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) who don't see to be
> especially "discriminated
> against". I have a friend who is definitely an atheist and makes no
> secret of it. He claims to
> be discriminated against, but I've seen no sign of it. The best concrete
> evidence he has been
> able to give me is that people invite him to church or try to "convert"
> him. He believes in, or claims
> to believe in, all sorts of "Christian" conspiracies from the White
> House under Bush to the
> management where he works, though he seems to have been above average in
> receiving the
> credit, honor, and promotion due him for his excellent work.
>
Your friend may be somewhat correct about some of it too, but no, sounds
like he is just worried about the cases he knows about in other parts of
the US. There is a reason why the ranks have doubled in the past 5-6
years, and its not because twice as many people just "happened" to
deconvert. Its because there is a perception, often fairly correct, that
you *will* run into problems if people know. In point of fact, I would
say that maybe 2-3 people at my job may suspect, my family knows, maybe
1-2 friends, but this is a city that, the years I moved here, actually
had a book burning planned. I have no idea what effect it would have,
but given that I have seen all of two cars, out of hundreds, showing
anything not overtly Christian, and one of those was a Californian on
vacation, I don't think the result would be positive. And, this is in
Arizona. There are states in the US that, in contradiction to the US
constitution, deny atheists the run for public office. There are some
schools that have tried, and succeeded, at running the local *known*
atheist family out of town, when it was merely "suspected" that they
where not Christian, due to a refusal to pray before a ball game. There
are top level people in the government, who in candid moments, have all
but declared that they would prefer a Satanist over and atheist, because
it least the former admitted god was real, and Bush, who ordered some
things removed from things like public health sites, and replaced with
abstinence links, who created new, and imho, illegal means to support
"faith based", which means almost entirely Christian, programs, and in a
speech actually went as far as suggesting that *maybe* atheists should
lose citizenship rights. This isn't Europe. Some people here are not
merely annoyed by, or uncomfortable with, atheism, they **hate** it,
would like to see it banned, if they could, and people *have* lost jobs,
friends, etc. over the discovery that they where one.
We are the new "gay movement". Everything wrong with society is our
fault, supposedly, even when its the religious people that came up with
the ideas that screwed things up, and we are all plotting, according to
entire counties, in some cases, to erase religion, somehow. They want
us, out of sight, out of mind, unwilling to speak, and accommodating to
everyone, and there are entire books being written by various clowns in
the US about how it "hurts our cause", to actually point out that we
don't believe religion, why, and by being *willing* to express anger at
certain ideas, and actions, instead of playing nice with the liberal
Christians, in the hope they all grow back bones, and actually stop
voting for dishonest, ignorant, superstitious, or just plain stupid,
people all the time, because they claim high levels of piety.
Hell yes there are "closet" atheists in the US. Its 90% of the people in
that category, including the "accomidationists", who think, despite 200
years of evidence otherwise, that you can make progress, by quietly
sitting at the side lines, mouthing prayers you don't believe in, (like
I do every time I have to attend some family gathering with the god
botherers in my own near relatives), and not saying anything about how
silly the whole mess is, or pointing out when some idea, generated from
it, is dumb, counter productive, or actually likely to have the
*opposite* results, and you have clear facts to prove it. Most of us
will either a) not attend things that we *have to* pretend at, b)
pretend, to play nice to people we don't want to hurt, or c) pretend all
the time, because we know that there *are* people in our lives that
would ruin us, if they knew about it. Which one you are, and often even,
to what degree, and when, depends on if you recognize there *are* others
that can support you, whether those people are any where near you at all
(i.e., don't move to most of the south eastern states), and how big a
risk you think it is to admit it. Some places, its almost no risk at
all, others... there are still places you might not make it out alive,
if you also make the mistake of pissing off the local wackos while
admitting it.
Nah.. The one guy a while back that was found beat to death by rednecks
in one of those states was obviously a total coincidence, never mind the
fact that he had *recently* annoyed the local city council by admitting
being an atheist, and the last recorded case of such a beating in the
area was 50 years or more ago, to a black man... Total coincidence...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>
> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible belt")
> there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to the point
> of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many parts," mind.
> Just the very religious parts.)
>
> And of course many young adults who are atheist but don't want to cause
> a problem with their family.
>
> Of course, most places aren't like that, but when the evangelicals wind
> up being 75% of the population, you wind up having nobody in authority
> who will stand up for you, which is really the problem. I.e., when the
> school board, most of the police force, all the judges, and all the
> teachers think atheism is a sign of the devil, it's hard for a kid to
> complain they shouldn't be praying in grade school.
>
They are not 75% of the population, well.. except in the south. The
problem is, they are 75% of the electorate. :( For some reason,
religious people will ignore "everything" about a candidate, as long as
they babble about how faithful and "family values" they are... Drives me
nuts.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas if
> they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of
> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on government
> buildings and such.
>
Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well.. pretty much any
and all non-Christians that have been attacked, slandered, defamed,
driven out of town, or otherwise harassed, for pointing out "exactly"
the same things. The problem is, its a damn simplistic bit of advice,
given that none of these things are being posted to show off how
Christian the locals are, its being done to promote revisionist history,
distort the playing field, so people are more likely to allow more
extreme things, and, when successful, is pointed to as an example of our
"Christian nation, which therefor means that gay marriage, real sex
education, evolution, fact based medicines, secular programs, secular
education, which doesn't have a specific religious agenda, and just
about everything else, is the 'true way things should work'". Its real
simple, if you can't conquer some place, then rewrite the history, just
rewrite the history, and be as loud as possible, in hopes that you can
win, before the ones that are not falling for it react to the problem.
You do know, BTW, that, "In God We Trust", was invented by "precisely"
the sort of ignorant twit that we currently have trying to claim that
the public education system, which is mandated in the constitution under
the rights and requirements of a state, to enter the union, i.e., not
even an amendment, but the original document, is unconstitutional?
Seems, some overly pious guy working for the mint was unaware that "E
Pluribus Unum" was **already** the national motto, so opted to make up
his own, and some other equally clueless fool went, "Ah, OK, sounds
good, lets start putting it on all the money!" Joked a while back on a
blog, "So, when is it they are going to finally replace the original EPU
motto, and replace it with, 'Yo Football!', again?", in response to some
of this wonderful revisionism they love to do. They claim to be
protecting the nation. Their real goal is to do everything possible to
reinvent it, and its history, to create a defacto state religion,
legally, without having to break the law, by declaring it directly.
If this wasn't their goal, and some of them where not stupid enough to
actually admit it to their followers, because they know those followers
want such a thing, no one would have a single problem with this sort of
things. But.. its telling that they back down 90% of the time, when its
suggested that "other" documents should stand beside the ten
commandments, or someone suggests that a comparative religion course in
a school would be OK, but not one slanted in favor of Christianity, or,
anything else that would let them do these things, without implying,
suggesting, or demanding acceptance, of the idea that Christianity *is*
the national religion for some reason other than its unfortunate popularity.
And, your right, we spent 200 years "not" challenging such things. In
that time we went from a nation with where 90% of the population
couldn't read, but the ones that did *knew* their Bibles, and most of
them where heavily invested in religion (accept for some of the ones
that read it), to one where everyone can read, but 90% of the country
doesn't bother to understand anything past what the preacher tells them,
most don't read anything challenging, even the well educated people are
dumb as bricks, too often, outside their own narrow expertise, and
people are **actually** claiming that the facts taught in Civics classes
for the last 200 years, about the founders, their ideals, the meaning of
the constitution, and its intent, and even, sometimes, like the case of
the moron in Texas claiming that public education isn't constitutional,
confusing documents, or insisting that the ones they obviously
***haven't even read***, say the complete opposite of what they do say.
We kept quiet, watched the march of progress, oohed and awed over all
the discoveries and advances made in our technology and skill at making
things, and spent a lot of time telling the few of our number that spoke
up and said, "But... look at how stupid some of these people are!", to
shut the hell up, because it would upset the magic Utopia that was just
around the corner, where everyone had equal access to all information,
and the time and means to get at it. Its not *almost* that universal.
And the result... Instead of unlimited access to things that can tell
people how the real world works, you get pure idiocy like timecube.com,
conservapedia.com, and an **endless** collecting of religious sites, all
babbling stuff that neither the founders, nor a half dead goat herder,
sitting 5 miles away, during one of their Jesus' supposed speeches,
would have believed.
We tried being nice. We are not the **worst education** people on the
planet, outside of the Middle East, and even then, some of the places
over there may be better off, our colleges can't admit 90% of the high
school graduates without remedial courses, and even the ones that pass
those, can't afford the rest, in most cases, or graduate *still*
believing things that are completely *wrong* based on the courses they
just took. You don't need to rent the movie Idiocracy, all you have to
do is go to the nearest Bible thumper neighborhood, and listen to the
gibberish they say about how everything around them works, including, in
some cases, the nearly paranormal, and insane theories about how stuff
they *buy* in stores work, or get made.
And, there are people, who have used the, "be nice, play friendly, and
kiss ass at every opportunity, even if you have to lie 90% of the time
to do it", crowd, who have gotten elected to 80% of the positions in one
political party, and too many in the other as well, especially in
*local* areas, who actually believe that the solution to every problem
in the US is to get rid of more of the fact based 'atheist' education,
programs and laws (everything that isn't theologically driven is atheist
to them), and replace them with stuff that even liberal Christians know
is total bullshit (but, of course, according to these same people, such
Christians are not *real* Christians, so their opinion doesn't count,
except when they need to kiss ass, to get reelected).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>
>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible
>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to
>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many
>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
>
> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by
> benighted morons
> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other
> reason. Why don't y'all
> enlightened, rational, and wise folk who know us so well just flood us
> with nerve gas and
> improve the human race!
>
Much simpler. You can just succeed again. I understand someone in Texas
actually suggested this recently, but.. They seem to recently be
importing some of their real kooks from Nebraska, or some place. Latest
one is a global warming denier, who basis this on a 500 year old map,
showing Antarctica as the size of Africa, or bigger, complete with
rivers and lakes. Those of us getting a good laugh at it wondered if he
also found proof of "dragons" or "sea monsters" when examining it. lol
But, no. There are small pockets of sane in those states. And, sadly,
most of the people in them seem to be in general denial of how screwed
up and backward the rest of the state *actually* is, based on
descriptions from people that lived/live in them and don't share the
local predilection for shear crazy.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a719598$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes, just reading the stories makes me wonder ... maybe God is the
> evil one ... I mean, he basically sent the Jews on a wild goose chase...
> :)
If you are in for a bit of SF, you should read Philip Pullman's "His Dark
Materials" trilogy (Northern Lights; the Subtle Knife; The Amber Spyglass).
Very entertaining and proposing an interesting view on the nature of God.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
> "practicing atheists"
> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing)
I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God
exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not
referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Very entertaining and proposing an interesting view on the nature of God.
I found these to be tedious and silly, myself. It wasn't an interesting view
on the nature of God, IMO. There was still all the unexplained supernatural
nonsense with a token toss of "science" into the mix.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas if
>> they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of
>> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on government
>> buildings and such.
>>
> Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well..
I didn't say they *should*. I said they *can*. I.e., in contrast with being
black 100 years ago, where you couldn't avoid the racism by faking it.
--
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:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>
>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible
>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to
>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many
>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
>
> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by
> benighted morons
> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other
> reason.
Why are you taking offense? Are you claiming there isn't an area generally
referred to as "the bible belt"? Or that it isn't in the south? Or that
there aren't many places that discriminate against atheists? Or that there
are proportionally more in the south than the north? I may be mistaken
about that latter one, but I'm just basing it on the news I read.
If you're taking offense at true statements, then you're doing it wrong.
--
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:
> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
>> "practicing atheists"
>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing)
>
> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God
> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not
> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
Wouldn't even go that far for most of us. But, depends on your
definition of "believe". If you mean, in the sense, that "I believe
there is almost no chance I will spontaneously win the Australian
lottery.", you are likely correct. I have no idea "if" such a thing
exists, and even if it did, it would be hard to win, given that I don't
live there, and haven't bought a ticket. If it does, then... there is a
idiotically slim chance that someone might drop the winning ticket in
front of me, in the parking lot, at work, because they happened to be
visiting, while on vacation. Now, if you where to ask, "What are the
odds of you winning the Lilliputian lotto?", then I would say *zero*,
since Lilliput is a made up part of a silly book, and is in no way,
shape, or form, part of the real world. I.e., could there be a god? I
have no idea, but I place the odds very low, given the general lack of
any evidence, and the fact that everything that is presented as such is
better explained by something else. Does any "specific" god, as
described in someone's theology exist? Absolutely *not*, for the same
reasons.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas
>>> if they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of
>>> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on
>>> government buildings and such.
>>>
>> Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well..
>
> I didn't say they *should*. I said they *can*. I.e., in contrast with
> being black 100 years ago, where you couldn't avoid the racism by faking
> it.
>
Hmm. Point taken.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
>> "practicing atheists"
>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing)
>
> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God
> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not
> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
No offense intended. That's why I put the the phrase in quotes; perhaps,
Non-Believers would be a better term for those who believe nothing --but
that
term might be misread too. :)
"Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2009 22:15, David H. Burns wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of
>>> "practicing atheists"
>>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing)
>>
>> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God
>> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not
>> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
>
> No offense intended. That's why I put the the phrase in quotes; perhaps,
> Non-Believers would be a better term for those who believe nothing --but
> that
> term might be misread too. :)
>
> "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
Depends. A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but at
the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist.
An outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify
it as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge.
So whether it are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
(I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>>
>>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible
>>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to
>>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many
>>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
>>
>> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by
>> benighted morons
>> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other
>> reason.
>
> Why are you taking offense?
It's prejudice I take offense at -- though maybe "disgusted" may be a better
term than "offended" to describe my reaction. But I probably should have
resisted
the temptation to reply -- or just repeated the Kristofferson quote I
used earlier. :)
Are you claiming there isn't an area
> generally referred to as "the bible belt"? Or that it isn't in the
> south?
"Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no
descriptive value.
Or that there aren't many places that discriminate against
> atheists? Or that there are proportionally more in the south than the
> north?
My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never
seen such
discrimination. Off course I have heard and read people preach and rave
against atheists
and against christians, and against many other beliefs. But preaching
and raving aren't
especially southern phenomena.
I may be mistaken about that latter one, but I'm just basing it
> on the news I read.
What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.
To my mind, none of it is to be trusted too far.
David :)
I
>
> If you're taking offense at true statements, then you're doing it wrong.
>
I
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these
terms in opposite ways.
The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As long
as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I think
this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually certain
this is the truth."
So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what
attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in
god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a convincing
reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know why."
--
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:
A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but at
> the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist.
> An outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify
> it as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge.
> So whether it are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
to be understood .... :)
> (I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).
??
David :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> It's prejudice I take offense at
What prejudice do you think I'm exhibiting? That's the question I asked.
> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no
> descriptive value.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abible+belt
Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.
http://images.google.com/images?q=bible+belt
It sure looks like a pretty well-defined area, with five or six different
but substantially similar maps showing the american bible belt, as well as a
couple of Dutch bible belt maps.
As I said, if you're taking offense at the truth, you're doing it wrong.
> My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never
> seen such
> discrimination.
Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. Yet
I don't doubt it happens.
However, don't attribute to my prejudice what you can attribute to your
ignorance. A better response would be evidence that a wide-spread prejudice
is wrong, rather than simply calling someone names who hasn't said anything
bad about you.
> What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.
Certainly. But it's not like I go out picking news sources that reinforce my
beliefs. Quite the opposite, really.
--
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:
>> "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
>
> Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these
> terms in opposite ways.
>
> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As
> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
>
Are you speaking from experience?
> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know
> why."
It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has
actually said.
Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we
mean. You use of the
terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against.
> Yet I don't doubt it happens.
I, too, have seen little serious discrimination against black people,
but it certainly
happened, lot lot more in the past than in present, I'm glad to say. I
don't doubt either
that real a brutal acts of violence were perpetrated against black
people by non-blacks.
You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated
against" in their
modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in
themselves have little
emotive content. "Mistreatment" might be a more concrete, though perhaps
less
impressive term. Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by
"discrimination" in the context
we're using it here. Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing
a person which
might not be describe by either term. An these are possibly the most
damaging in the long
run -- and, of course, I've seen that against black people, and about
any "kind" of people
you might name.
>> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no descriptive value.
> Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.
OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
>
> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
> to be understood .... :)
Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through
the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty. I've
always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
do in your life". I've not completed my own pontifications on this
definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to
have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes
it "knowledge" from their point of view.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:00:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I
> think this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually
> certain this is the truth."
>
> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know
> why."
This is a much better way of saying what I just tried to say....Thanks!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty.
I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you can
know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how the
universe started.
> I've
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
> do in your life".
I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is defined.
The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without the
justification, you just have a "good guess".
> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.
I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just diluting
the term.
What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent with
the real world? I.e., not the "instinctive" 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
>> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As
>> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
> Are you speaking from experience?
To some extent, yes.
>> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
>> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know
>> what attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't
>> believe in god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually
>> give me a convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I
>> would know why."
>
> It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has
> actually said.
I wasn't talking about what he said. I was talking about my experiences in
general discussing this sort of stuff. Jim just gave another good example:
"I know *instinctively* that it's true."
> Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we
> mean. You use of the
> terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)
I was saying precisely what I meant. ;-) Faith is that which turns belief
into "knowledge", altho I obviously use that latter term losely.
--
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:
> You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated
> against" in their
> modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in
> themselves have little
> emotive content.
Have you any evidence to back this assertion up?
> Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by
> "discrimination" in the context
> we're using it here.
Sure, as long as it includes (for example) not selling houses to people, or
not giving them jobs, or things like that, even when it doesn't involve
violence.
> Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing
> a person which
> might not be describe by either term.
Sure. And when the president of the US gets up and says atheists shouldn't
be considered citizens, it's pretty blatant there *is* prejudice going on.
> OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)
Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I thought
"southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is
dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:10:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
>
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.
I am not so certain about that. But what you said (which I replied to
later in the thread) actually more closely approximates what I'm trying
to say here. It's hard to explain.
>> I've
>> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
>> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
>> do in your life".
>
> I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is
> defined.
>
> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
Justification comes in different ways for different people. There are
some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
>> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to have this
>> kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes it
>> "knowledge" from their point of view.
>
> I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just
> diluting the term.
>
> What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent
> with the real world? I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?
Learned knowledge. But more to the point, instinctive knowledge isn't
necessarily exclusive of learned knowledge. I can instinctively know
that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
prove that scientifically. That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
knowledge.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that.
I'm sorry.
>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>
> Justification comes in different ways for different people. There are
> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to say
"that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
justified." Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
> I can instinctively know
> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
> prove that scientifically. That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
> knowledge.
That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I am not so certain about that.
Actually, I'd go so far as to wonder whether it makes sense to talk about
knowledge as "instinctive". What is it that everyone (modulo birth defects
etc) knows when they're born? That's instinct. Knowing how to *learn* a
language is instinctive, but is it really knowledge? Is a falling pebble's
compliance with the laws of gravity caused by instinctive knowledge of
gravity by the pebble? If not, why is knowing how to learn a language
"knowledge"? Does yanking your hand out of the fire have anything to do with
knowing it's hot?
And certainly a Christian's knowledge of the existence of God isn't
instinctive, or people wouldn't take children to Sunday School and read
passages out of the bible. Perhaps the tendency to religion or other such
stories is instinctive, but again is that "knowledge" or just a natural
tendency?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
>
> I'm sorry.
Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with
not being certain about some things.
>>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>>
>> Justification comes in different ways for different people. There are
>> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
>
> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
> justified." Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
Exactly my point. People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that
phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.
It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality,
or it may coexist peacefully with reality. There is a lot of uncertainty
in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that
there's something bigger out there. That's fine with me; I don't
necessarily need that sort of certainty that we're here for a purpose or
whatever.
>> I can instinctively know
>> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
>> prove that scientifically. That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
>> knowledge.
>
> That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.
I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
cues. I just knew it. But the actual example isn't really the point,
the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used
hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
