Le 2011/04/14 12:53, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:23:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>
>>> It's a fairly fine distinction, I think.
>>>
>>>
>> Not that fine IMO
>
> How so?
>
> Jim

You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in 
something outside of any knowlege.

Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead 
to beleiving.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:53:16 -0400, Alain wrote:

> You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in
> something outside of any knowlege.
> 
> Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead
> to beleiving.

I can see that - and in the broader discussion of what is antithetical to 
knowledge, "faith" is a better answer than "belief".

But belief and faith are similar if belief isn't based on knowledge; the 
'fine distinction' I'm referring to is that faith implies no (need for) 
knowledge, whereas belief has no such inference.

I guess in some ways it depends on which definition of 'belief' you're 
using (much the same as my earlier discussion on the proper usage of 
'theory' by creationists).

OED says there are several definitions; the definition that requires 
knowledge (or one of them, in any event) has to do with 'mental 
acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground 
of authority or evidence.'.  That differs from definitions pertaining to 
religious belief, or the 'trust in God'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> On 4/13/2011 7:24 AM, Warp wrote:
>> (For example, what possible reason
>> can a creationist have to believe that genetic mutations are rare and
>> always destructive and cannot possibly explain the diversity of life?
>> There is no reason other than that they are just expanding their aversion
>> to the entirety of the theory and perceive it to be *entirely* wrong
>> in all
>> possible aspects, even in aspects that don't really matter from a
>> religious
>> point of view.)
>>
> Standard trope for them is that there are only a small number of
> "Kinds", of which humans are the unique one, without any kin, and that
> all the diversity came about shortly after the flood, when god simply
> "poofed" all the variations into existence. They need this to be true,
> otherwise the Ark and Noah's flood are not possible.

It seems like Noa was in fact Gilgamesh, modified in some romantic way 
making him older and whiser, and the Great Flood realy an exeptional, 
but still localised, flood in Mesopotamia. That "All Animals Of 
Creation" was rather "most commonly domesticated animals".

Viewed that way, the Ark was rather a compound rafts ship: A ship made 
up of a collection of several rafts linked together to reduce the 
manpower needed for navigation and increase the cargo capacity.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:47:58 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Damn. I had no idea the country I live in is so stupid...

Surprise, stupidity is a global phenomenon; one might say it's a human 
characteristic.

Scott Adams once said 'we're all idiots from time to time'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 12:41, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/13/2011 23:11, Warp wrote:
>> I don't really even understand why they are so fixated
>> about that "kind hypothesis" anyways, as if it was somehow crucial.
>
> Because we have examples of observed evolution of new species during
> sufficiently recent history that it's scientific evidence. Hence, they
> can't say a kind is a species, because then they'd be admitting
> evolution actually happens.
>

Since Darwin published his theory there have been many experiments made 
to test it. Some are under way right now, several that where started way 
back then.

Some preliminary results show mice and others that diverged from a 
common stock so much as to be incapable to cross breed. Including with 
decendents of the original population that lived under normal conditions.
You have mice that lived in total darkness, or high temperature, of near 
freesing temperature, with very scarse food, almost no water, to much 
water, that need to travel long distance to get food and water,... for 
over 200 generations and counting.
You also have insects subjected to such environments for over 1000 
generations.

We have created entirely new and distinct species that way.

Those very long term experiments are proving the validity of the theory.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 09:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Scott Adams once said 'we're all idiots from time to time'.

"Every man is a damned fool for at least five minutes of every day. 
Wisdom consists of not exceeding that quota." (?)

"There are only two things which are infinite - the universe, and human 
stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the first one." (Einstein)

"In summary, people are a problem." (Adams)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 12:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:16:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> The fundamental problem is that religious people have figured out that
>> they can complain that *other* people aren't religious in the same way
>> they are, and that's somehow harmful to them.
>
> Except that that didn't work in the appeal on Prop 8, as I understand it
> - didn't the court find that those who claimed that gay marriage harmed
> them didn't actually have standing to sue because they couldn't
> demonstrate how they were harmed?

Oh, it doesn't *always* work. But certainly it convinced a whole boatload of 
people that their own marriages were at risk due to gays still being allowed 
to marry.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 4/13/2011 23:16, Warp wrote:
>>> Neeum Zawan<fee### [at] festercom>   wrote:
>>>> Homicides have more to do with a certain amendment than with religious
>>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>>     The US is not the only western country where gun ownership is legal and
>>> popular. It is not the explanation.
>
>> I've heard it's much more likely the diversity of culture here than the
>> presence of guns. Give the same number of guns to the Swiss or the Japanese,
>> and you (do/would) get no problems at all.  But here we have neighbors each
>> thinking the other shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen because of their
>> skin color, their religious belief, etc.
>
>    I think Canada proves that hypothesis wrong, as Canada isn't any less
> multicultural as the US (and guns are quite popular there too).
>

Canada may be more multicultural than the USA.
Yes, guns are popular, mostly in the rural regions. In the cities, they 
are'nt.

There is a BIG difference:
In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take 
the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from 
abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".

In Canada, you are encouraged to, within the confine of the common laws 
and respect to all other cultures, keep your culture and *share* it with 
the society. We try hard to "Be Friends"! Make our difference something 
that brings us together.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/14 14:53, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/14/2011 11:48, Warp wrote:
>> And do you think burning coal is the solution?
>
> A solution to global warming? No. A solution to running out of oil?
> Quite possibly. A solution to having a power generation technology that
> a poor uneducated population can use without fear of actually killing
> people on the other side of the world when they screw up? Sure.
>

Burning coal is very poluting. More than oil.

Cheap? Not realy, with all those, potentialy toxic, ashes to dispose of, 
and the transportation of the needed coal.

If you must use coal power plants, make them as powerfull and effecient 
as possible and install good and effecient antipolution equipment.

That way, you'll mitigate the problem.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:42:24 -0400, Alain wrote:

> In the USA, you are expected to forego your original culture and take
> the Great Melting Pot as your culture. It looks, at least seem from
> abroad, that it's mostly "Do and be as I am".

I don't really see the majority opinion being the 'melting pot', but 
rather an "adopt our way of doing things or get out".  The melting pot 
idea is more about integrating other cultures into ours and the US 
growing that way, and there's an apparently strong movement to move 
towards less integration of other cultures' ideas into US culture and a 
strong push towards "you moved here, you're American now, so act like 
it!" (obvious in statements like 'learn English if you move here' and the 
recent laws that have been passed banning Sharia law (which I really 
don't understand the need for, quite stupid and ignorant if you ask me)).

Jim

Post a reply to this message