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