On 1/23/2014 5:20 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 05:03, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> On 1/21/2014 4:53 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Note that theism and atheism aren't black-and-white; there's quite a
>>> wide spectrum between the two, and it's full of people.
>>>
>> Umm. I think I am with others in that there "is" a wide gap between.
>> Gods exist, or they provisionally don't. There isn't much wiggle room in
>> there. Its literally the difference between, "Did someone eat the last
>> donut, or is it still in the box?" You can have, to some extent, varied
>> opinions on how likely one or the other position may be, or even about
>> which one "is" real, but you kind of have to be fairly well on one side
>> of the line or the other, in terms of "existence".
>
> I'm not talking about the spectrum of /what/ people believe, but how
> /strongly/ they believe in it. There is no gap anywhere between "it's
> undeniable truth" and "it's utter nonsense", just endless shades of grey.
>
> In science there is the same thing going on: A theory either holds or it
> doesn't; but when scientists conduct experiments, the answer is /never/
> actually "yes" or "no", but "yes/no with a /confidence/ of X%". Even if
> the confidence level isn't statet explicitly, it just means that it is
> (by typical convention) 95% or higher.
>
And, I would argue, with good evidence, that its pretty much impossible 
to have a 50% confidence in the "existence" of a god without either 
being a) disingenuous, or b) completely ignorant of the concept. Worse, 
for those not so heavily invested in thinking that, for some purely 
personal reason, that it ***must*** be true, any actual knowledge or 
information on the subject tends to skew the probabilities heavily in 
favor of like 95% chance, or better of there not being one at all. So, 
again.. I am not seeing either a "wide spectrum", or a coherent 
argument, in the case of those proposing that one exists, for placing 
the number anywhere near the middle, never mind opposite end of the 
spectrum. Not without a whole lot of just plain ignorance, or personal 
desire, being involved.


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> >> a criminal
> >>
> >
> >
> > Not as much of a criminal as someone who starts a sentence with a lower case
> > letter. :-P
>
> ... or someone who calls an article and a noun a sentence, for that
> matter. :-P

Have you not heard of a "minor sentence"?

A sentence can consist of only one word. Not uncommon if it is an answer. :-P
;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 18:05, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> And, I would argue, with good evidence, that its pretty much impossible
> to have a 50% confidence in the "existence" of a god without either
> being a) disingenuous, or b) completely ignorant of the concept. Worse,
> for those not so heavily invested in thinking that, for some purely
> personal reason, that it ***must*** be true, any actual knowledge or
> information on the subject tends to skew the probabilities heavily in
> favor of like 95% chance, or better of there not being one at all. So,
> again.. I am not seeing either a "wide spectrum", or a coherent
> argument, in the case of those proposing that one exists, for placing
> the number anywhere near the middle, never mind opposite end of the
> spectrum. Not without a whole lot of just plain ignorance, or personal
> desire, being involved.

But that's exactly the point: How confident someone is about the 
existence of a supreme something /is/ painted with personal desire, 
fears, subjective observation, and all sorts of other things.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 21:02, schrieb Stephen:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 23.01.2014 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>>> a criminal
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not as much of a criminal as someone who starts a sentence with a lower case
>>> letter. :-P
>>
>> ... or someone who calls an article and a noun a sentence, for that
>> matter. :-P
>
> Have you not heard of a "minor sentence"?
>
> A sentence can consist of only one word. Not uncommon if it is an answer. :-P
> ;-)

Darn, why do I feel out-nitpicked now? :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 23-1-2014 22:25, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 21:02, schrieb Stephen:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Am 23.01.2014 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
>>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>>> a criminal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not as much of a criminal as someone who starts a sentence with a
>>>> lower case
>>>> letter. :-P
>>>
>>> ... or someone who calls an article and a noun a sentence, for that
>>> matter. :-P
>>
>> Have you not heard of a "minor sentence"?
>>
>> A sentence can consist of only one word. Not uncommon if it is an
>> answer. :-P
>> ;-)
>
> Darn, why do I feel out-nitpicked now? :-)
>
Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase 
first letter *and* a full stop.

In fact this was short for

a criminal
b insecure
c not fully brainwashed
d all of the above

(or may be it wasn't)



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:04:08 -0500, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Heck, I might even be inclined to hope there's no god, at least not the
>> vengeful one that demands tribute/worship, since I don't believe in
>> god,
> 
> Maybe the Gnostics have the right idea.

Perhaps....

>> if there is, I'm screwed if that's the god that is actually there.
>>
>>
> Well if we are screwed anyway because we don't believe. Then you might
> as well do what I've promised myself I would do. That is, give the deity
> a Glasgow kiss when confronted by It.

LOL



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:07:56 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 1/21/2014 4:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Heck, I might even be inclined to hope there's no god, at least not the
>> vengeful one that demands tribute/worship, since I don't believe in
>> god,
>> if there is, I'm screwed if that's the god that is actually there.
>>
> Except, the one on the other end of the spectrum is.. kind of
> incoherent, or impotent. Either allows, wants, or doesn't do anything
> about, problems in the world, or, imho, just as bad, if not worse, than
> "vengeful", imho, "has a plan for all of it". Why would such a thing
> deserve tribute/worship, or even acknowledgement? At best, they are no
> better than a human, and at worst, they are indistinguishable from their
> own supposed opposition.

Somehow my mind is going to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:59:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 1/23/2014 4:59 AM, clipka wrote:
>>>> Note that §1.4 doesn't tell me to respect others' rights that /I/
>>>> think they have, but others' rights that /they/ think they have.
>>>>
>>> Hmm. Pretty sure its a valid concept to disrespect the right that
>>> someone else thinks they have, to say.. shoot me, or like.. a lot of
>>> other things. Seems to me that there is just.. a tiny flaw in the
>>> logic some place. ;)
>>
>> No, it's just that conflicting cases are not covered by §1, and other
>> paragraphs - derived not from the basic agnostic position but from the
>> personal belief - have to kick in.
>>
> Sorry, but.. I don't want to be shot isn't a "personal belief". One
> can't exactly be agnostic about certain things and not be.. inhuman, or
> insane, or, at minimum, anti-social/destructive.

I think what clipka is saying is that his rules apply to things relating 
to religious faith (or lack thereof), but that's not the only factor.  
Not wanting to be shot isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of personal 
preference, so it's not covered by those rules.

It seems to be constrained by the idea that if someone else's religious 
beliefs/faith aren't affecting me, it doesn't matter.  If it does, then 
it's not a matter of faith any more, then it's a matter of "effects in 
the real world that impact one personally" and a different set of 
guidelines apply.

Have I understood you correctly, clipka?  I find it interesting.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:49:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> And, well, it gets a bit worse than that, because its not the toaster
> telling them this, its someone else, who told them that the toaster
> thought it was the case. So.. technically, they may not be "insane"
> themselves, but they are never the less following an idea that really
> truly is insane.

I think it comes down to what andrel was saying about trusting a prophet 
to have interpreted things correctly if you haven't been in direct 
contact with your deity - and if you have, that you may have interpreted 
things incorrectly as well.

Because interaction with a supernatural being is not verifiable.  What 
transpired isn't verifiable, so it can mean anything you say it means.

Some of the more religious that I've talked to about this in the past 
have said that it has to do with "internal consistency" when it comes to 
the bible (and I think they extend that to the deity telling you to do 
things that aren't compatible with the bible), but I've always found that 
to be a bit of a cop-out, because I have studied the bible a bit myself 
(I was raised Lutheran), and I found a fair number of inconsistencies 
myself.  The two faces of God (the forgiving one of the NT and the 
vengeful one of the OT) is the biggest example, and I've had the debates 
and arguments over the years about "no, it's not inconsistent" - and the 
arguments did not persuade me (so for those thinking this time may be 
different:  probably not, and I don't really have the time for a deep 
discussion of it now anyways).

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 17:59, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/23/2014 4:59 AM, clipka wrote:

>>>> they have, but others' rights that /they/ think they have.
>>>>
>>> Hmm. Pretty sure its a valid concept to disrespect the right that
>>> someone else thinks they have, to say.. shoot me, or like.. a lot of
>>> other things. Seems to me that there is just.. a tiny flaw in the logic
>>> some place. ;)
>>

>> paragraphs - derived not from the basic agnostic position but from the
>> personal belief - have to kick in.
>>
> Sorry, but.. I don't want to be shot isn't a "personal belief". One
> can't exactly be agnostic about certain things and not be.. inhuman, or
> insane, or, at minimum, anti-social/destructive.

"I don't /want/ to be shot" indeed isn't a personal belief - but "I 
don't /deserve/ to be shot" certainly is.

Post a reply to this message