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:
>>>> 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 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

Am 24.01.2014 07:03, schrieb Jim Henderson:

> 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.

Well, no - not exactly. See my other post.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:02:29 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 24.01.2014 07:03, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, no - not exactly. See my other post.

I saw it, thanks, that does clarify a bit.  Not sure I entirely agree, 
but it is an interesting perspective.

I've generally tended towards "your right to believe something ends at my 
nose" - ie, as long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way, we're 
fine.  If it starts to affect me in a negative way, then we're going to 
have a problem.

In the end, also, I'm the final arbiter of whether or not it's affecting 
me negatively or not.

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 1/23/2014 11:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
>
This is a perfectly reasonable stance, until you recognize that humans 
are social animals, which means that, in some indirect way, its likely 
that their beliefs "will" have an impact, even if its only as nebulous a 
one as paying money into something silly, which directs money away from 
something more useful, or something more direct, but still not 
specifically targeted at "you", like who they elect to a political 
office. However, such things can also result in more direct, but hidden 
issues, like them convincing someone to not hire you, or the like, or 
undermining your goals, in other ways, on the basis that you disagree 
with them on religious principles.

And, to be frank, there is the absolutely direct issue, which comes from 
my belief that a certain founding father was being naive when saying 
that his neighbors beliefs mean nothing, since having a different idea 
neither breaks his legs, nor steals his wallet - that his neighbor's 
neighbor may be planning both, and justifying it "with" their belief.

-- 
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

On 1/23/2014 11:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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
>
Well, its a little hard to have a consistent god, or message, when, back 
when the OT was being written, they couldn't even decide what the heck 
god they where actually following. Heck, some can't even today. If you 
look far enough back, you have either El aka Dagon, with three sons, 
Chemosh, Ba'al and Jehovah/Yehweh, and some sort of maybe fight over 
which one had the better ideas about running a society (Yehweh seemed to 
be of the modern Rethuglican strips, and considered, "Shoot first, then 
figure out how to rebuild their society.", to be a viable solution to 
thing - i.e., he was the "war expert"). Wander a bit forward from that 
and you get people using El as just "god", Dagon disappears, so does 
Chemosh, for the most part, but a bunch of others are popping up. Move a 
bit forward again and now you have some guy ranting about how there is 
only one "true" god, and its Yehweh, and the rest are all posers. Now, 
in modern times, you have really embarrassed "Christians", like the 
Seven Day Adventists (yeah, I was googling on this, and ran across the 
site in which they make this claim), who recognize that there where a 
lot of gods back then, and there seems to be historical evidence that a 
bloody lot of the "chosen people" where following Ba'al, so.. QED Ba'al 
must have just been their name for Yehweh! Oh, and.. its also OK now to 
make graven images, either crosses, or some guy nailed to two bits of wood!

Sigh...

Its only if you ignore the silly archeological and historical facts, and 
start trying to claim that the Bible is only about one god, instead of 
one culture, among a lot of gods, who managed to con, rape, and murder, 
their way into being the only ones that still had a god, when the dust 
settled, even if they still didn't exactly have a clear idea who that 
was, exactly. I mean, technically, it should be El, since he was the 
"father", but they insist its Yehweh, which is one of the sons, and just 
changed El into Elohym, making it a generic term, not a specific deity. 
But, the religion is definitely all a lot "simpler" now... lol

-- 
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

On 1/23/2014 2:23 PM, clipka wrote:
> 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.
>
Well, I think my point is, there isn't going to be a lot of people 
managing to dither themselves into a perfect state of, "I think the odds 
are 50:50." Not unless they are doing it as a hypothetical, for some 
silly assed equation. They are going to be on one end or the other, and 
the gap between, if they ever do reach it, isn't one they will be on for 
very long. Its kind of like a rickety rope bridge, or a narrow beam. 
Sane people are not going to stay on it longer than necessary, before 
either deciding that its not worth it to cross, or getting to the other 
side as fast as feasible.

Part of the problem, imho, for the believer side of the mess though is 
that there is some damn idiot with fog machine, on their side, making it 
impossible to see "if" there is something on the other side worth 
getting to, and his partner is describing all the horrible monsters they 
will find when they get there.

-- 
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

Am 24.01.2014 22:52, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/23/2014 2:23 PM, clipka wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Well, I think my point is, there isn't going to be a lot of people
> managing to dither themselves into a perfect state of, "I think the odds
> are 50:50." Not unless they are doing it as a hypothetical, for some
> silly assed equation. They are going to be on one end or the other, and
> the gap between, if they ever do reach it, isn't one they will be on for
> very long. Its kind of like a rickety rope bridge, or a narrow beam.
> Sane people are not going to stay on it longer than necessary, before
> either deciding that its not worth it to cross, or getting to the other
> side as fast as feasible.

What you're forgetting about is the abundance of people who think there 
might be some supreme something, but don't equate that to the guy from 
the Bible.


> Part of the problem, imho, for the believer side of the mess though is
> that there is some damn idiot with fog machine, on their side, making it
> impossible to see "if" there is something on the other side worth
> getting to, and his partner is describing all the horrible monsters they
> will find when they get there.

That's a serious problem with various religions, indeed. But that's 
nothing new.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2014 9:25 PM, 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? :-)
>

<Cue: Fafner and Fasolt's Leitmotif. >

http://youtu.be/Q1-ILVJxQLg

<Bows then curtsies>


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
> first letter *and* a full stop.
>

Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how 
can we believe that? :-P


> In fact this was short for
>
> a criminal
> b insecure
> c not fully brainwashed
> d all of the above
>

Nice one. :-)

> (or may be it wasn't)

Even nicer. :-D


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-1-2014 8:21, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>
>> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
>> first letter *and* a full stop.
>>
>
> Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how
> can we believe that? :-P

Because it is not my name? In fact it was my login name on machines so 
old that names were still single case only.


-- 
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

> <Cue: Fafner and Fasolt's Leitmotif. >
>
> http://youtu.be/Q1-ILVJxQLg
>
> <Bows then curtsies>

We are going to hear that soon live again. The Ring-cycle is going for 
the last time in the Audi/Haenchen version in Amsterdam next month.




-- 
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 25/01/2014 12:28 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> <Cue: Fafner and Fasolt's Leitmotif. >
>>
>> http://youtu.be/Q1-ILVJxQLg
>>
>> <Bows then curtsies>
>
> We are going to hear that soon live again. The Ring-cycle is going for
> the last time in the Audi/Haenchen version in Amsterdam next month.
>

I am quite envious. (I note that the website for the theatre has 
Saturday's date wrong.)

Occasionally Covent Garden will do a cycle over a weekend, starting on 
Friday evening to Sunday evening with Die Walküre as a Saturday matinee 
and Siegfried in the evening.
I have done that twice and came away shell-shocked. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2014 12:21 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 25-1-2014 8:21, Stephen wrote:
>> On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
>>> first letter *and* a full stop.
>>>
>>
>> Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how
>> can we believe that? :-P
>
> Because it is not my name?

Well, what do you know. And for all these years I thought it was.

"The name Andrel is of English origin."

The meaning of Andrel is "strong, manly, brave".

To continue the theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtqAwUVl00&feature=share&list=PL78TsyiiZjhHuIpSyDkJVgptMDvnJoauu&index=1

> In fact it was my login name on machines so
> old that names were still single case only.
>
>

That did cross my mind but since I did not say it...

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-1-2014 15:01, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/01/2014 12:21 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 25-1-2014 8:21, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
>>>> first letter *and* a full stop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how
>>> can we believe that? :-P
>>
>> Because it is not my name?
>
> Well, what do you know. And for all these years I thought it was.
>
> "The name Andrel is of English origin."

That is the first time someone pointed out that it may in fact be a 
genuine name. Though the jury seems not to be out on whether it is a boy 
or a girl name.
Andrel is of course derived from the greek word for man (or possibly in 
some other ancient languages too).
My Christian name is in fact Andreas, though IRL I am known an André. In 
cyberspace and e-mail (including p.o-t) I prefer andrel or Andrel.
Other common variants are Andrew (my name at the IEEE), Andrei (numerous 
people that can not read very well, or prefer something more common), 
Andree (one professor, that understands that é is a long e, and that it 
is not on a general keyboard), AndreL (someone who thinks he understands 
were the name comes from, but doesn't), and occasionally Anderlecht 
(autocorrect). And then there are the nicknames by family that are 
derivatives from my name.

> The meaning of Andrel is "strong, manly, brave".

Indeed, because of it's non English origin.


> To continue the theme:
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtqAwUVl00&feature=share&list=PL78TsyiiZjhHuIpSyDkJVgptMDvnJoauu&index=1
>
>
>> In fact it was my login name on machines so
>> old that names were still single case only.
>>
>>
>
> That did cross my mind but since I did not say it...

At least you were aware that I am a modern fossil.



-- 
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 1/24/2014 6:43 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.01.2014 22:52, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> On 1/23/2014 2:23 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Well, I think my point is, there isn't going to be a lot of people
>> managing to dither themselves into a perfect state of, "I think the odds
>> are 50:50." Not unless they are doing it as a hypothetical, for some
>> silly assed equation. They are going to be on one end or the other, and
>> the gap between, if they ever do reach it, isn't one they will be on for
>> very long. Its kind of like a rickety rope bridge, or a narrow beam.
>> Sane people are not going to stay on it longer than necessary, before
>> either deciding that its not worth it to cross, or getting to the other
>> side as fast as feasible.
>
> What you're forgetting about is the abundance of people who think there
> might be some supreme something, but don't equate that to the guy from
> the Bible.
>

No, I am not forgetting that. No one has *ever* come up with a coherent 
description of what that thing would be, what its attributes would be, 
etc., without relegating it to something untestable, which, in context, 
means also a) irrelevant, b) undetectable, and c) unable to have any 
verifiable effects. You can't get around that. Either it effects the 
universe, and therefor is detectable, or it doesn't, in which case its 
even less sensible than string theory, which at least "can" describe 
mathematically plausible universes, even if the exact formula for this 
one hasn't yet been teased out.

They can think this all they want, and, in their case, most of them are 
not trying to attribute a set of absurd moralistic rules, which we "have 
to follow". Mind, "most". There are still some that make the 
incomprehensible argument that such an entity invisibly, and 
undetectably, without somehow violating physical laws, or mathematical 
ones, in any way we notice, "intends" everyone to act in some way that 
is.. mysteriously similar to a certain guy from the Bible.. But, most of 
them don't, unless its being used as a bate and switch, to defend belief 
in the latter anyway, by trying to pretend that the former is the same 
thing somehow.

In any case.. It just isn't a coherent argument. Its like someone 
suggesting that a kids football game has a strange, invisible, referee, 
because they somehow managed to actually negotiate the rules, without a 
visible one. I mean, its an "undetectable" referee, but.. just look how 
close to the rules they are playing!

Usually this also comes with stupid BS like "fine tuning" arguments, and 
various other absurdities, many of which have the same, equally absurd 
conclusions. I mean, after all, if an invisible god of quantum mechanics 
"fine tuned" the universe, why would they fine tune it so mere humans 
could break the earth, right? Or, why wouldn't he/she/it just twiddle 
subatomic particles, to stop it from happening? I don't see getting rid 
of the bearded dude as removing the idiocy from the argument that a 
"creator" wouldn't have either rigged the deck, and/or, be magically, 
undetectably, to the extent of somehow making all changes conform so 
precisely to predictions that they don't cause massive violations of 
basic math, changing the number on the cards, to get what he wants. Its 
just... the total lack of evidence that this is happening that is kind 
of.. problematic. lol

-- 
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

On 25/01/2014 4:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> At least you were aware that I am a modern fossil.

There are a few Trilobites in these waters. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message