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

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