On 4/26/2011 10:19, andrel wrote:
> but without really being aware of it, it might happen to
> you too, and it probably has.

I know it has. I'm fully cognizant of my pathway from my childhood to where 
I am now, philosophically speaking.  I think the difference between me and 
many others I know is that I'm not worried by being illogical, irrational, 
etc.  I like to think I'm less irrational only to the extent that I know 
where I'm irrational.  At least, I like to think so.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2011 10:29, andrel wrote:
> On 26-4-2011 0:53, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/25/2011 14:33, andrel wrote:
>>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe. (my
>>> feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't you
>>> missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>>
>> As a native english speaker, I'd say
>>
>> "Only if it isn't nor ever was at any time able to interfere in this
>> universe."
>>
>> So, yeah, negate "is" as well. I can't say I could actually express as
>> rule why that's right, tho.
>
> for me that is strange because you than have a negated and an unnegated term
> in a (negated) disjuction.
>
> By De Morgan's law I would transform 'is nor was' into 'is not and was not'
> which is what I meant. But are ordinary natives aware of that?

You could also so

"Only if it neither is nor was at any time able to interfere."

So the "neither" means "that negation also applies to the 'is' part."

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

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2011 10:19 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 26-4-2011 0:50, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/25/2011 14:16, andrel wrote:
>>>> That's weird to me.
>>> Oh no, not again!
>>
>> I wasn't planning to discuss it further. I just wanted to be sure I had
>> understood your objection was to a deity, rather than a particular deity
>> interested in the doings of mankind.
>
> It is not so much an objection. The point is that being an atheist has
> become so much part of me over the years that a God in any form is not
> compatible with being me. Or to put it more technically, we are mutual
> exclusive. Either a God exists or me, not both at the same time.
> Part of the discussion with Jim was also that I think this sort of
> philosophical ideas creeping into your being is more common that you
> might expect. If they do they, become undiscussable. You and me notice
> that in religious people, but without really being aware of it, it might
> happen to you too, and it probably has. That also implies that we are
> less rational than we like to think.
> Although our level of irrationality is nowhere near that of some
> religious people. (But they might say the same)
>
Twain once stated something to the effect, "You could house all the sane 
people in one asylum, but if you tried to house all the insane ones, you 
would run out of building material."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:33:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 16:44, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:38:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim seems to think I
>>> cannot believe something to be true of which I am certain. I would
>>> find it very confusing if someone at Fred's funeral said "I can't
>>> believe Fred is dead" and meant it literally.
>>
>> Well, I'm talking about a literal sense, not a figurative sense of the
>> word.  "I can't believe Fred is dead" is a figurative use of the word
>> 'belief', or a type of denial (take your pick).
> 
> Right. That's what I'm saying. I can't believe anyone at the funeral
> would say "I can't believe Fred is dead *because* he's laying here right
> in front of me, not breathing!"

Well, I'm talking about the use of it in a literal sense (rather than a 
figurative sense). :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:47:55 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 16:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:44:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Do you believe Elvis is alive?  Do you believe Elvis is dead?  Can you
>>> really answer no to both of those questions?
>>
>> Sure, it's possible for someone with insufficient data to answer "no"
>> to both questions.
> 
> Sure. Can *you* say that?  If someone asked "Do you believe Elvis is
> alive?" would you say "No"?  If someone asked "Do you believe Elvis is
> dead?" would you say "No"?

I can't, because to me, there seems to be sufficient evidence to say that 
he is, in fact, dead.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:46:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 16:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But if I pull the curtains back and see that, yes, the sun is up, then
>> I no longer need to believe it because I can observe that it is up.
> 
> I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that's how normal
> people use that word outside of religious arguments.

I believe it is. ;)

> Would you say I'm wrong to state "I believe Elvis is dead"?

I don't have enough data to say whether it would be right or wrong for 
you to make that statement.

If I assume that you weren't there when he died and that you weren't 
present at the funeral, then I would say that you're probably right to 
state that because you've read reports of his death and they seem to 
point you in that direction (as they do me).

Philosophically, though, I don't have any direct experience with the fact 
that he's dead - I have to rely on others' accounts of the event, and I 
choose to trust them and believe that they are accurate and correct.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2011 12:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I believe it is. ;)

I think this might be the fundamental problem we're having:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in

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

Post a reply to this message

On 26-4-2011 21:05, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 10:19 AM, andrel wrote:
>> On 26-4-2011 0:50, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2011 14:16, andrel wrote:
>>>>> That's weird to me.
>>>> Oh no, not again!
>>>
>>> I wasn't planning to discuss it further. I just wanted to be sure I had
>>> understood your objection was to a deity, rather than a particular deity
>>> interested in the doings of mankind.
>>
>> It is not so much an objection. The point is that being an atheist has
>> become so much part of me over the years that a God in any form is not
>> compatible with being me. Or to put it more technically, we are mutual
>> exclusive. Either a God exists or me, not both at the same time.
>> Part of the discussion with Jim was also that I think this sort of
>> philosophical ideas creeping into your being is more common that you
>> might expect. If they do they, become undiscussable. You and me notice
>> that in religious people, but without really being aware of it, it might
>> happen to you too, and it probably has. That also implies that we are
>> less rational than we like to think.
>> Although our level of irrationality is nowhere near that of some
>> religious people. (But they might say the same)
>>
> Twain once stated something to the effect, "You could house all the sane
> people in one asylum, but if you tried to house all the insane ones, you
> would run out of building material."

The appropriate Adams quote would be about Wonko the Sane, but I'll 
leave that to someone else.



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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:57:04 +0200, andrel wrote:

> The appropriate Adams quote would be about Wonko the Sane, but I'll
> leave that to someone else.

Indeed, that would be appropriate - the idea that outside his house is 
the asylum. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:00:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/26/2011 12:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I believe it is. ;)
> 
> I think this might be the fundamental problem we're having:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in

That seems like a reasonable explanation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message