 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:15:58 -0500, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I've also heard the nonsensical proposition that atheists believe
> themselves to be God (or greater than God), and therefore feel justified
> in setting themselves up as "God" over others' lives. A case of
> projection, I think.
That's an interesting observation, and I think quite nonsensical myself.
"Tell me, is 3 greater than 0/0?"
How does one evaluate an expression where one value is calculable, and
one value is nonsense (mathematically, "not a number").
Or perhaps more effectively, "is 3 greater than a fish?"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:38:25 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:15:58 -0500, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> I've also heard the nonsensical proposition that atheists believe
>> themselves to be God (or greater than God), and therefore feel
>> justified in setting themselves up as "God" over others' lives. A case
>> of projection, I think.
>
> That's an interesting observation, and I think quite nonsensical myself.
>
> "Tell me, is 3 greater than 0/0?"
>
> How does one evaluate an expression where one value is calculable, and
> one value is nonsense (mathematically, "not a number").
>
> Or perhaps more effectively, "is 3 greater than a fish?"
Though arguably, "fish" is something demonstrably real.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> By the strict definition of atheism, buddhists are atheists. That's
> because they don't believe in any gods (in the theistic sense). AFAIK
> in buddhism the question of where the universe and life came from is
> irrelevant, and one shouldn't bother oneself with such inconsequential
> questions.
>
In many ways, Buddhism is more a phylosophyc system than a religion.
It's about enlightment, and don't mention any "god".
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> are evil monsters. Alas, Christian logic doesn't work that way. Since Hitler
> was a monster, he must surely have been an atheist. This piece of backward
> reasoning is so slick that most Christians aren't aware that they're doing it.
The classical "no true scotsman" fallacy.
And bonus points for circular argumentation on top of it: "Hitler must have
been an atheist because he was so evil. Because atheist *are* evil. How do you
know? Well, look at Hitler: He was an atheist and very evil. QED."
while(true) std::cout << "circular logic works because ";
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/27/2011 15:55, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> there are no stupid questions.
There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people asking questions.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/1/2012 21:14, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> include, "It feels like its true, or makes me happy.", as a valid criteria
> for testing an ideas validity,
To be fair, when the idea you're testing is "how can I be happy", this makes
perfect sense.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 15:55, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > there are no stupid questions.
> There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people asking questions.
"There are no stupid questions until you ask them."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/3/2012 8:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/1/2012 21:14, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> include, "It feels like its true, or makes me happy.", as a valid
>> criteria
>> for testing an ideas validity,
>
> To be fair, when the idea you're testing is "how can I be happy", this
> makes perfect sense.
>
Usually its not though. Its quite often, "if it makes me happy,
shouldn't it make everyone else?" The logical answer is, "not
necessarily", the believers answer is, "of course, they just don't yet
comprehend how to be happy the way I am, so I need to make them." That
your basic assumptions may be wrong, those being that a) it would make
others happy, and b) your not just happy because your slightly nuts, may
be wrong is only part of the problem. There is the whole, "If I force
this one someone, will they be happy, even if I am right?", question can
be kind of important too. Sometimes, even if the answer to the later is,
"no, they wouldn't be", its short term pain, but if one, or both, of
your prior premises are wrong, and a lot of other people not being happy
*while* living under the same assumptions may be a hint there is a
problem, then you can also, logically, end up with long term unhappiness
too.
As a rule, such questions are not asked, assumed to already be answered,
or waved away as, "Not understanding how my exactly identical gibberish
is superior to that other persons gibberish, so you will be happy with
mine, even though you are not with their." Its got bells on it, or
something, so its, like, you know, different and stuff... lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:49:37 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/1/2012 21:14, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> include, "It feels like its true, or makes me happy.", as a valid
>> criteria for testing an ideas validity,
>
> To be fair, when the idea you're testing is "how can I be happy", this
> makes perfect sense.
That depends on whether what it is that is making you happy is subjective
or objective.
Greta Christina had an excellent blog post about this topic (indeed, the
"Straw Vulcan" talk she references from Skepticon was also interesting).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/12/28/more-rational-than-thou/
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/4/2012 19:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Usually its not though. Its quite often, "if it makes me happy, shouldn't it
> make everyone else?"
I as particularly addressing your comment about Buddhism.
> As a rule, such questions are not asked, assumed to already be answered, or
> waved away as, "Not understanding how my exactly identical gibberish is
> superior to that other persons gibberish, so you will be happy with mine,
> even though you are not with their." Its got bells on it, or something, so
> its, like, you know, different and stuff... lol
Very true.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
