On 1/19/2014 10:13 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the
>>>> study of
>>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>>
>>> Erm... no, not really.
>>>
>>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>>
>> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>>
> I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about.
> Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you
> know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty,
> even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't
> suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there
> being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B).
> Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all,
> god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.
>
>
Uh, misread that slightly, and yeah, finding the 
Bose-Einstein-concensate kind of clinches things.

-- 
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 19.01.2014 16:57, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a
>> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.
>
>> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
>> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.
>
>> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
>> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
>> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
>> simply can't know for sure.
>
> You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Am I?

You failed to quote the following paragraph:

"Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on 'gut feeling' - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma."


> Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
> view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
> agnostic view is that it is not.

Be aware that the term gnosticism does /not/ denote the opposite view of 
agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


> A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
> (or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)
>
> An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
> doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.
>
> A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
> it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
> more or less what "strong atheism" means.
>
> An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
> assert it with certainty.
>
> People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
> That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

Are they?

I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

Though, to be more precise, I should indeed not call myself an agnostic, 
but rather a "meta-agnostic": Not only do I lean towards the agnostic 
stance that the existence or non-existence cannot be known for sure - I 
also lean towards the belief that we cannot even known for sure whether 
the agnostic stance in its strict sense is true. In other words, I 
suspect (but yet don't know for sure) that we cannot know whether we can 
know whether there is a supreme entity.

Or, to use the words of that famous Reborn Christian mantra: "I don't 
know whether we can know whether we can know..."


Also note that non-agnosticism only comes in the flavors of theism and 
atheism, while agnosticism does come in all shades of grey - theists, 
atheists, people who aren't sure but tend towards one or the other, 
people who have no idea and are still trying to figure out - and people 
who don't bother because they believe that it has no practical 
implication anyway.


> The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
are atheists.

The claim is usually made in the sense, "I'm not an atheist, I'm 
[merely] an agnostic [theist or somewhere in between theist and atheist]"

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.

No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability, 
saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's 
plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)

> The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming,
> when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is
> that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious
> believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god"
> involved spectacularly fails them.

... in which case they invoke - guess what - that we cannot put God to 
the test, and they may even reinterpret the "data" to confirm this 
aspect of God, rather than the one they intended to test for in the 
first place.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in
>> debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the
>> situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible
>> is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with
>> him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.
> 
> This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their world
> view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.

Yep.  I'm find with people believing things I consider to be crazy, so 
long as they don't use that belief to influence the world around them in 
a negative way.

So I'm find with young earth creationists believing the earth is 6000 
years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted - until they get 
elected to positions in the Texas Board of Education and use that belief 
to push this nonsense into public schools around the country and have it 
taught as a "fact."

> I once had a long email conversation with a young-earth creationist
> about the subject of honesty, and why most creationist arguments and
> tactics are not. For example, I tried to explain to him why quote-mining
> is a really dishonest tactic.

That's actually a very interesting point.  Context matters, and usually 
people like my brother's friend "F" does just that to try to make his 
point.  He also tries to use latin phrases he's heard (he goes on and on 
about how "ex nihilo" is impossible and only explainable by the 
introduction of *his* God - not even "just any deity," but explicitly the 
one he believes in) to convince people who are less educated that he 
knows what he's talking about.  Quite a dishonest tactic.

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 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind

"BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting 
Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal 
based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you 
guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

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 Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
> here:
> 
> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
> 
> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.

I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since 
about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later 
posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the 
possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been 
weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and 
stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's 
consistent with what he's thinking.

In one of his more recent posts, he talks about his methodology and the 
ties between belief and action.  I found it to be a very enlightening 
post, and I'm looking forward to seeing how he progresses through the 
year.

But my initial reaction was "this is a guy who actually probably /is/ an 
atheist, and is just coming to realize that himself.  He's at the point 
of consciously changing his behavior to match his current state of belief 
- or disbelief."

He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process 
and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who 
decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with 
teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those 
organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them 
ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience 
has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that 
"out" atheists experience.

But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as 
well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.

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 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:40:39 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as
> well.

Not quite.

Atheisim is about probability to many (or even most) atheists.  The 
evidence doesn't support there being a deity (or anything "supernatural") 
in the universe.  So while the word derives from the Greek for "denying 
god," practically, it's a bit more nuanced for most.

Most atheists are probably more accurately self-labeled "rationalists," 
because they take the stand that if testable evidence arose for the 
supernatural or deities, they would change their position.  But 
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, too - so it's not 
just "well, look at the Universe, it's just obvious that God created it."

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 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>
> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 19-1-2014 14:40, clipka wrote:
> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
> simply can't know for sure.
>
> Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in
> the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but
> either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.

I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After 
long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism 
can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you 
are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and 
disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can 
check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear 
that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the 
same god meant.

Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god 
does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a 
part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will 
be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)

I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I 
stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.


> It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

*) I do not mean they are incompatible. I do know many theists that live 
a very ethical life and don't bother that the prophet was possibly 
making things up. It does not stop them from being good.



-- 
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

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 

The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
the form:

1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
3) Therefore God exists.

This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
further evidence it's not possible to say.

The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.

Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
> the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
> towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
> as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:

Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> > The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> > It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

> That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
> are atheists.

I was talking about the *colloquial* usage of the term "agnostic", which
invariably means "I don't have a stance in one way or another on the
subject of whether a god exists."

(In philosophy "agnosticism" means something different, as I described
in my previous post.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> > views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

> It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
> is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
> common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact,
they are rather independent concepts that deal with different questions.
A person *can* be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Atheism deals with belief in a god.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

They don't even discuss the same subject matter.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 22:03, schrieb clipka:
> Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>>
>> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
>> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
>> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
>> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)
>
> Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Had to find this again on Youtube, just for the fun of watching it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>
> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

Would you say...

( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> > The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
> >
> > Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

> Would you say...

> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
you are.

Take for example, the definition in the The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the
belief that there exists none."

I know that many people for some reason want theism and atheism to be
the extreme ends of the spectrum and agnosticism to be right in the
middle, and all three to deal with the exact same subject, but that's
just not what the terms mean.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:

> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.

I actually find it pretty easy:


* I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or 
what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for 
sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may 
be, it may be wrong.

=> §1.1: Don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme 
something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor 
to anyone else.

=> §1.2: Don't judge yourself nor anyone else based on whether they 
believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature 
to be.

=> §1.3: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or 
fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme 
something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by 
§1.1 and §1.2.

=> §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or 
fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief 
re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits 
imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).


I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the 
agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.


Invoking §1.4, I also add some more rules of what I personaly and 
currently think the supreme something's nature is:

* I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme 
something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its 
nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout 
the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove 
it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such 
an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is 
nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.

=> §2.1: Embrace all world views; examine them; take what appears witty, 
humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.

=> §2.2: Strive to be witty, humorous, forgiving and benevolent yourself.


Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the 
"commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 00:19, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>>
>>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
>> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
>> Would you say...
>
>> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
>> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
>> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
> Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
> you are.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[27] 
contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an 
assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it 
requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as 
compatible with agnosticism,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and has also 
been contrasted with it.[35][36][37] A variety of categories have been 
used to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I interpret the term to require "a conscious, explicit rejection", 
because to me that appears to be closer to the typical use of the term 
in common English, i.e. when used neither colloquially, nor as a 
technical term of philosophy, nor as a technical term of conservative 
Christianism.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:08:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After
> long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism
> can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you
> are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and
> disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can
> check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear
> that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the
> same god meant.

That's a very interesting argument.  I like it.

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 1/19/2014 4:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>
>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
> Would you say...
>
> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
Umm. No, because it is "still" possible to conclude that all "extant" 
definitions of such a god are absurd (i.e., existing religions), while 
**provisionally** discounting one that is not yet defined, *but* still 
allowing that one's own knowledge may be insufficient to draw a 
conclusion. This is pretty much the stance of even the supposed "strict 
atheists", I have ever had describe their position. Even the ones that 
don't hold it do so on the sole basis that its an unnecessary addition 
to existing theory, which has consistently shown no evidence, or reason 
to suppose one might find such evidence, of supernatural entities, 
including gods.

Its still a "provisional" stance, but, in the same sense that one would 
not reject, say, the law of gravity, without a significantly radical 
replacement, and the necessary evidence to show that it possessed 
attributes which explain things the current concept does not. I.e, as 
close as possible to impossible, as possible.

-- 
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 1/19/2014 3:08 PM, andrel wrote:
> Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god
> does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a
> part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will
> be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)
>
Actually, my take would be much the same, I think, as that of PZ Myers. 
If a god did show up, and did things that seemed to defy natural laws, 
there would be a few moments of disconcert, then I would start thinking, 
"How exactly did they do that?" The default position would not be to 
presume that there was no explanation, or that the best explanation was 
that it was really god, but, rather, that they are doing something that 
is *possible* to achieve, and I just don't know exactly how yet.

This is, of course, the dead opposite of religious belief, where one 
"expects" to have some things only be possible if the god is the one 
doing it, and how they did it to be unexplainable, and unreproducible.

-- 
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 1/19/2014 5:20 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>
>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>
> I actually find it pretty easy:
>
>
> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
> sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
> be, it may be wrong.
>
> => §1.1: Don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme
> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
> to anyone else.
>
> => §1.2: Don't judge yourself nor anyone else based on whether they
> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
> to be.
>
> => §1.3: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by
> §1.1 and §1.2.
>
> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>
>
> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.
>

The problem, of course, is that the ones believing in supreme beings 
then tend to use that as justification for believing other vastly 
stupider things, and then imposing those things on other people. It this 
was avoidable, that would be one thing, but.. try being a woman, in a 
**huge**, and growing number, of US hospitals, who is in need to 
emergency services, to save her life, which the Catholic church doesn't 
like (i.e., anything that might threaten the life of an unborn child, 
even, stupidly, a non-viable one). If she is lucky, they ship her off to 
some place that will help, presuming there still is one, which the 
church hasn't bought out, and assuming she doesn't bleed to death, die 
of sepsis, or otherwise fail to make it to the other hospital in time.

There are consequences to other people's ideas, and, more to the point, 
if they are wrong about them. Sometimes, those consequences are not just 
that you have to listen to some fools talk about whether or not heaven 
has good Mexican food, from a nearby table. My "ethics", at least, imply 
that other people matter, and that magical thinking both a) doesn't tend 
to help people, b) often causes direct or indirect harm, c) its victim 
may be someone I know, and d), the inability to come to rational 
conclusions is rarely, if ever, exclusive to one single category of 
absurdities. Hence, the fact that a discussion about the 
existence/non-existence of a god **will not stop** before it gets into 
whether or not said god thinks its better to, say, infect millions of 
people with AIDS, rather than prevent a few pregnancies.

That it could be something as mild as whether or not, in complete 
contradiction to history, and reality, god "wants" baby boys to wear 
blue, and girls to wear pink. But.. if believing gets you to jump to a 
nonsense conclusion about the "truth" of that idea, what much worse 
things can they talk themselves into thinking are true, based on a game 
of, "What if this real god wants...."?

This is also why atheism devoid of critical thinking is, a bit of a 
problem itself. If you don't reach a logical conclusion via logic, there 
isn't going to be much to stop you from changing your mind, and reaching 
the dead opposite conclusion for just as illogical, poorly thought out, 
and invalid, reasons.

-- 
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 1/19/2014 12:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
>> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
>> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
>> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
>> here:
>>
>> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
>>
>> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
>> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
>> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
>> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
>> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
>> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
>> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.
>
> I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since
> about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later
> posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the
> possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been
> weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and
> stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's
> consistent with what he's thinking.
>
Yes, the article writer certainly seems to be in that particular 
category. The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the 
comment thread. But, there has definitely been a few people coming 
along, and, in connection with the original article, trying to tell some 
of the rest of us off for recommending books, as though, in fact, he 
really is someone who is just doing it as a lark, and we are trying to 
"convert him", or something.

My own recommendation was one a read recently about an ex-evangelicals 
similar journey from desperately trying to find sense, and some sort of 
real morality and purpose, in the whole "Bible Thumper" circuit, to 
finally concluding that it was all hollow, pointless, and a waste of time.

> He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process
> and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who
> decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with
> teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those
> organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them
> ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience
> has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that
> "out" atheists experience.
>
Yes, the author of the book I mention was fairly generous with most of 
the people he fell out with, over time, as well. They are stuck in a way 
of thinking that just can't allow for someone who doesn't fit, but for 
the most part don't intend any sort of malice.

I am not sure I could be quite so generous, but then, I am coming at it 
from the other direction, and whether or not you cause harm has very 
little to do, quite often, with whether or not it was "intended", and.. 
there is so much damage done, in the name of religion being "right", and 
other ideas being "wrong", that it really does, sometimes, matter far 
more that they *are* wrong, than whether or not they are nice about 
being so, nor is it so easy to forgive (since the later, to some extent, 
implies also leaving them to their folly, along with the consequence to 
bystanders).

> But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as
> well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.
>
Definitely.

> Jim
>


-- 
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 1/19/2014 11:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
>> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
>> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
>> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
>> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>
> No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability,
> saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's
> plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)
>
Well, no, in point of fact, only when it was "convenient" for.. 
presumably the latest bunch of priests, dealing with some uppity 
parishioners, who wanted evidence, did it say that. There was some bit, 
I don't remember which part, where the guy did everything short of 
asking god to personal come down and buff his shoes, and god, quite 
happily, did them all, as "proof" that he really was god. Typically, 
believers pick the silly bit later, which says you shouldn't go around 
testing him, and gloss over the other earlier bit, where he was 
perfectly fine with it.

-- 
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 1/19/2014 3:16 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>
> The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
> two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
> the form:
>
> 1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
> 2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
> 3) Therefore God exists.
>
> This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
> objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
> have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
> and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
> further evidence it's not possible to say.
>
> The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
> is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
> answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.
>
> Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
> conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.
>
And not just because, when they conduct them the answer seems to be, "We 
got his answering machine, or something, so he didn't answer them."

-- 
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 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:11:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the comment
> thread.

Oh, yeah, there's a lot of asshattery in the comments - which is why I've 
not read them.  The discussions are generally going to be pretty 
predictable, anyways.  There will be those who support him, those who 
have ideas and suggestions for changes to his approach, and those who are 
going to tell him he's going to hell for even considering the idea that 
there is no God.

I've got enough going on in my life without reading over those same 
arguments again. :)

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 Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:20:06 +0100, clipka wrote:

> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).

You had me up to this point, and only not here in a nuanced way.

I'm happy to let anyone follow any rules they derive from their personal 
and current belief, so long as they don't try to impose those on others 
ability to do the same - or if by doing so they put people in harm's way.

I'm happy, for example, to let devout Jehovah's Witnesses refuse a blood 
transfusion for themselves.  I'm not happy to let them refuse one for 
their child, because that is endangering the life of their child.

One might also say, though, that if they have a child, then they are 
endangering the child by refusing one for themselves as well.  That's a 
slightly thornier issue that involves making a decision by balancing a 
personal freedom against a personal responsibility.

And also:  Texas Board of Education.  If the individuals want to cripple 
their own childrens' understanding of science and handicap them in the 
real world, that's less a decision I feel I should get involved in.  When 
they use their influence to cram religious dogma into the public schools 
in ways that affect the entire country - no, they're not permitted to do 
that.

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 2014-01-19 04:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> And another thing. Every time somebody stands up and defends evolution,
> they start receiving death threats. When was the last time a good honest
> Christian received death threats from the scientists for daring to teach
> Genesis?

This is something I see crop up in a few places, and it makes me wonder: 
  does this argument that the most-victimised party is inherently more 
valid thing have a proper name?  It's a very specific subset of appeal 
to pity, I think.  'X group hasn't been oppressed as much as Y group, 
/therefore/ their position is false (or at least irrelevant).'

--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

> "why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which
> is obviously ridiculous?"

Religion.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I'm happy, for example, to let devout Jehovah's Witnesses refuse a blood 
> transfusion for themselves.

I'm not fully agreeing with that sentiment because I think it's sad
when someone puts themselves in danger because of false beliefs.

If you see someone going to make suicide, you generally try to talk
them out of it, to help them. You don't just watch by without doing
nothing and thinking "well, it's their personal choice".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:01:15 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I'm happy, for example, to let devout Jehovah's Witnesses refuse a
>> blood transfusion for themselves.
> 
> I'm not fully agreeing with that sentiment because I think it's sad when
> someone puts themselves in danger because of false beliefs.
> 
> If you see someone going to make suicide, you generally try to talk them
> out of it, to help them. You don't just watch by without doing nothing
> and thinking "well, it's their personal choice".

That's a fair point.

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 20/01/2014 4:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If you see someone going to make suicide, you generally try to talk them
>> >out of it, to help them. You don't just watch by without doing nothing
>> >and thinking "well, it's their personal choice".
> That's a fair point.

It is but balance that with the aims of Dignitas.

I don't want someone telling me, if I am in great pain at the end of my 
life. That I have got to suffer because the priests of the big man in 
the toga, says it is wrong.
Similarly I think Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed to take their 
chances. But not their children or dependants.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:51:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 20/01/2014 4:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> If you see someone going to make suicide, you generally try to talk
>>> them
>>> >out of it, to help them. You don't just watch by without doing
>>> >nothing and thinking "well, it's their personal choice".
>> That's a fair point.
> 
> It is but balance that with the aims of Dignitas.

Yes.

> I don't want someone telling me, if I am in great pain at the end of my
> life. That I have got to suffer because the priests of the big man in
> the toga, says it is wrong.
> Similarly I think Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed to take their
> chances. But not their children or dependants.

It also is a balance with the individual being of sound mind and acting 
with full awareness.  Where religious beliefs are concerned, though, that 
gets into more challenging territory, and is a bit muddier.

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 20-1-2014 1:20, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>
>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>
> I actually find it pretty easy:
>
>
> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
> sure.

nitpicking: a true agnost is sure (s)he is not able to know. That is 
what distinguishes her/him from an ordinary person that simply does not 
know.

> Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
> be, it may be wrong.
>
> => §1.1: Don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme
> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
> to anyone else.
>
> => §1.2: Don't judge yourself nor anyone else based on whether they
> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
> to be.
>
> => §1.3: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by
> §1.1 and §1.2.
>
> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>
>
> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.

I am afraid that I don't see how this helps in deciding what to do in 
any particular instance. §1.4 seem to say, make up any rule you like and 
follow that.

>
> Invoking §1.4, I also add some more rules of what I personaly and
> currently think the supreme something's nature is:
>
> * I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme
> something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its
> nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout
> the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove
> it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such
> an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is
> nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.
>
> => §2.1: Embrace all world views; examine them; take what appears witty,
> humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.
>
> => §2.2: Strive to be witty, humorous, forgiving and benevolent yourself.
>
>
> Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the
> "commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.

Going for the roundabout way of trying to second guess what a god would 
want if it did exist does not appeal to me.

BTW thinking about it, I think there is an agnostic way. Just find the 
common ground. If god exists do A and if god does not exist do A implies 
do A.
The problem is again in second guessing a non human. I am not good at that.
Another problem is that we seem to assume a single god, what if there 
are a large number of them and each has, just like us humans, different 
opinions.

OTOH if you take the assumption that if god exists it does not want us 
to be sure (insert THHGTTG quote here) you may only have to consider the 
situation that it does not exist.

-- 
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 20-1-2014 7:43, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-19 04:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> And another thing. Every time somebody stands up and defends evolution,
>> they start receiving death threats. When was the last time a good honest
>> Christian received death threats from the scientists for daring to teach
>> Genesis?
>
> This is something I see crop up in a few places, and it makes me wonder:
>   does this argument that the most-victimised party is inherently more
> valid thing have a proper name?  It's a very specific subset of appeal
> to pity, I think.  'X group hasn't been oppressed as much as Y group,
> /therefore/ their position is false (or at least irrelevant).'
>

underdog?

-- 
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

Am 20.01.2014 04:35, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/19/2014 11:12 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>>
>>> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
>>> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
>>> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
>>> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
>>> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>>
>> No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability,
>> saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's
>> plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)
>>
> Well, no, in point of fact, only when it was "convenient" for..
> presumably the latest bunch of priests, dealing with some uppity
> parishioners, who wanted evidence, did it say that. There was some bit,
> I don't remember which part, where the guy did everything short of
> asking god to personal come down and buff his shoes, and god, quite
> happily, did them all, as "proof" that he really was god. Typically,
> believers pick the silly bit later, which says you shouldn't go around
> testing him, and gloss over the other earlier bit, where he was
> perfectly fine with it.

Well, what evidence do we have regarding the question of whether God can 
be tested for?

We have one piece of evidence identicating that we cannot.
We have one piece of evidence identicating that we can.

That's two pieces of evidence, certainly far too few to draw any 
reliable conclusions from them as to whether or not God can be tested 
for; the prudent thing to do would be to assume that we indeed cannot, 
and not bother trying. But let us just pretend that we're happy with the 
sample size - then we must conclude that there is only a 50% chance that 
God can be tested for (give or take approximately 50%, but we're 
ignoring that bit).

In other words, even if we could actually come up with an otherwise 
infallible test for the existence of God, we do have this 50% 
probability of error, leaving us no more than 50% confidence in our test 
result.

Worse yet: This systematic error in testing for the existance of God 
must be assumed to be of such a nature that it not only applies to any 
/individual/ test (which would still leave us with the possibility to 
just repeat our test often enough to increase our confidence), but to 
any /series/ of tests, and even any collection of entirely /different/ 
tests.

Thus, no matter how hard we try, how often we repeat our experiments, 
and how many different experiments we come up with - nothing will ever 
be able to give us a confidence of more than 50% in the result of all 
our testing.

That's not /anywhere/ close to the 95% confidence typically required in 
science for the label "statistically significant".


Thus:

- Presuming that there are less than 20 pieces of scripture in total 
making any explicit statements or providing anecdotal evidence about 
whether God can be put to the test or not, and

- Given that there is at least one piece of scripture explicitly saying 
that he cannot,

- We cannot ever, under any circumstances, conclusively test any 
predictions made by the hypothesis of the existence of the biblical God, 
disqualifying it as a scientific theory.


q.e.d.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 03:56, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/19/2014 5:20 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>>
>>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>>
>> I actually find it pretty easy:
>>
>>
>> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
>> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
>> sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
>> be, it may be wrong.
>>
>> => §1.1: Don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme
>> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
>> to anyone else.
>>
>> => §1.2: Don't judge yourself nor anyone else based on whether they
>> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
>> to be.
>>
>> => §1.3: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
>> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by
>> §1.1 and §1.2.
>>
>> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
>> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>>
>>
>> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
>> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.
>>
>
> The problem, of course, is that the ones believing in supreme beings
> then tend to use that as justification for believing other vastly
> stupider things, and then imposing those things on other people. It this
> was avoidable, that would be one thing, but.. try being a woman, in a
> **huge**, and growing number, of US hospitals, who is in need to
> emergency services, to save her life, which the Catholic church doesn't
> like (i.e., anything that might threaten the life of an unborn child,
> even, stupidly, a non-viable one). If she is lucky, they ship her off to
> some place that will help, presuming there still is one, which the
> church hasn't bought out, and assuming she doesn't bleed to death, die
> of sepsis, or otherwise fail to make it to the other hospital in time.

Note that a person's current belief re a surpreme something will 
typically include that the person itself is entitled to "life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness" or some such. Thus, I consider this 
covered by §1.4's self-limitation.


BTW, I think that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies not only to 
mathematical systems, but also to moral ones: No matter how complex your 
set of rules, there's always at least one remaining problem with it. 
Therefore I allow my set of moral rules to be incomplete, and its 
application to be subject to case-by-case decision.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 05:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:20:06 +0100, clipka wrote:
>
>> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
>> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>
> You had me up to this point, and only not here in a nuanced way.
>
> I'm happy to let anyone follow any rules they derive from their personal
> and current belief, so long as they don't try to impose those on others
> ability to do the same - or if by doing so they put people in harm's way.

Hence the explicit limitation of §1.4 not only to the confines of §1.1 
to §1.3, but also of §1.4 itself.

> And also:  Texas Board of Education.  If the individuals want to cripple
> their own childrens' understanding of science and handicap them in the
> real world, that's less a decision I feel I should get involved in.  When
> they use their influence to cram religious dogma into the public schools
> in ways that affect the entire country - no, they're not permitted to do
> that.

And why do you feel like that?

I guess it's because it interferes with the rules you yourself derive 
from whatever world view you have - in this particular case it might be 
something like "strive to let future generations make educated, unbiased 
choices which religion or other world view to follow".

So, here's a conflict between what two people derive from their personal 
convictions, and consequently neither can claim the right to invoke §1.4 
- the matter needs to be settled on other, more specific moral rules, 
not derived from the generic agnostic point of view but from whatever 
flavor of it you lean towards.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 21:17, schrieb andrel:
> On 20-1-2014 1:20, clipka wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>>
>>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>>
>> I actually find it pretty easy:
>>
>>
>> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
>> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
>> sure.
>
> nitpicking: a true agnost is sure (s)he is not able to know. That is
> what distinguishes her/him from an ordinary person that simply does not
> know.

I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know, but I 
don't know that either.

Regardless, even if I was sure about the inability to know, the rules 
derived from it would be the same.


>> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
>> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).

> I am afraid that I don't see how this helps in deciding what to do in
> any particular instance. §1.4 seem to say, make up any rule you like and
> follow that.

I think there's plenty of stuff that can be derived from this particular 
rule:

- Base the rules you follow on your personal and current belief, not on 
what you just happen to feel like doing. (In other words, avoid hypocrisy).

- Allow others to follow different rules, regardless what belief they 
are based on. (To be precise, §1.4 demands this of me only as long as 
others' rules are not hypocritical.)

- Avoid conflicts between your rules and that of others.


Another thing I find fundamentally important is the words "freely and 
without shame or fear", and applying them to everyone, including myself.


>> Invoking §1.4, I also add some more rules of what I personaly and
>> currently think the supreme something's nature is:
>>
>> * I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme
>> something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its
>> nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout
>> the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove
>> it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such
>> an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is
>> nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.
>>
>> => §2.1: Embrace all world views; examine them; take what appears witty,
>> humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.
>>
>> => §2.2: Strive to be witty, humorous, forgiving and benevolent yourself.
>>
>>
>> Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the
>> "commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.
>
> Going for the roundabout way of trying to second guess what a god would
> want if it did exist does not appeal to me.

You're perfectly free to substitute your own §2.* instead; if your 
current belief is that there is no God, then by all means use that as a 
basis.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:12:04 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 20.01.2014 05:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:20:06 +0100, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current
>>> belief re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the
>>> limits imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>>
>> You had me up to this point, and only not here in a nuanced way.
>>
>> I'm happy to let anyone follow any rules they derive from their
>> personal and current belief, so long as they don't try to impose those
>> on others ability to do the same - or if by doing so they put people in
>> harm's way.
> 
> Hence the explicit limitation of §1.4 not only to the confines of §1.1
> to §1.3, but also of §1.4 itself.

I guess I'm not seeing how this applies.

>> And also:  Texas Board of Education.  If the individuals want to
>> cripple their own childrens' understanding of science and handicap them
>> in the real world, that's less a decision I feel I should get involved
>> in.  When they use their influence to cram religious dogma into the
>> public schools in ways that affect the entire country - no, they're not
>> permitted to do that.
> 
> And why do you feel like that?

Because they're subverting both the first amendment to the US 
Constitution (which prohibits the government establishment of religion - 
and SCOTUS has found that pushing religious doctrine into classrooms 
violates the establishment clause), and because they are forcing their 
beliefs onto others and using the schools as a means to convert people to 
their beliefs.

And because creationism isn't science, and doesn't belong in science 
classrooms.  The only controversy about evolution is in the minds of 
people who don't understand it.  Rather than push an "alternate theory" 
because they don't understand evolution, they need to learn what the 
current state of evolutionary science is.

Amongst scientists who study evolution, there are few who think it's 
bunk.  But those scientists also very strongly contest that creationism 
is horseshit, and I tend to agree.

> I guess it's because it interferes with the rules you yourself derive
> from whatever world view you have - in this particular case it might be
> something like "strive to let future generations make educated, unbiased
> choices which religion or other world view to follow".

That's a good start.  I would certainly encourage parents to let their 
children figure out the path that's right for them, rather than 
indoctrinate them into their faith.  You can teach morals and ethics 
without steeping it in religious doctrine and dogma.

> So, here's a conflict between what two people derive from their personal
> convictions, and consequently neither can claim the right to invoke §1.4
> - the matter needs to be settled on other, more specific moral rules,
> not derived from the generic agnostic point of view but from whatever
> flavor of it you lean towards.

Ah, I think I understand that. :)

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 21/01/2014 1:43 AM, clipka wrote:
> I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know, but I
> don't know that either.

What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?
Maybe not faith but sincerely hopes that there is not one.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.01.2014 08:14, schrieb Stephen:
> On 21/01/2014 1:43 AM, clipka wrote:
>> I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know, but I
>> don't know that either.
>
> What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?

An atheist.

> Maybe not faith but sincerely hopes that there is not one.

Sounds like a theist to me, as "sincerely hopes" to me implies that he 
suspects (and, in this case, probably fears) otherwise.

Probably a promising approach if he wants to acquire some psychological 
ailment or another. Or a sign that he already has.

Post a reply to this message

>> What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?
>
> An atheist.
>
>> Maybe not faith but sincerely hopes that there is not one.
>
> Sounds like a theist to me, as "sincerely hopes" to me implies that he
> suspects (and, in this case, probably fears) otherwise.
>
> Probably a promising approach if he wants to acquire some psychological
> ailment or another. Or a sign that he already has.

Or how about if you believe there *might* be some superior God-like 
thing, and you believe that one day it might be possible to prove 
whether there is one way or the other, and you don't believe anyone who 
says otherwise :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.01.2014 16:40, schrieb scott:
>>> What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?
>>
>> An atheist.
>>
>>> Maybe not faith but sincerely hopes that there is not one.
>>
>> Sounds like a theist to me, as "sincerely hopes" to me implies that he
>> suspects (and, in this case, probably fears) otherwise.
>>
>> Probably a promising approach if he wants to acquire some psychological
>> ailment or another. Or a sign that he already has.
>
> Or how about if you believe there *might* be some superior God-like
> thing, and you believe that one day it might be possible to prove
> whether there is one way or the other, and you don't believe anyone who
> says otherwise :-)

Any other nit you'd like to pick? :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2014 5:01 PM, clipka wrote:
> - We cannot ever, under any circumstances, conclusively test any
> predictions made by the hypothesis of the existence of the biblical God,
> disqualifying it as a scientific theory.
>
>
> q.e.d.
>
Umm. Why not just replicate the prior tests.. Lets see, it was something 
involving a rug, or seaweed, and them getting wet, while everything else 
didn't, or something like that... Mind, you would need to add controls, 
like, locking the thing in a sealed box, climate controlled box, so that 
normal weather phenomena wouldn't have an effect, come up with, and test 
alternative hypothesis about how it happened, etc., but.. in principle.

Of course, one suspects the "believer" would just drop a rug on the 
floor, so some praying, then fail to notice the smell of cat/dog pee, 
when it miraculously ended up wet... 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 1/20/2014 5:44 PM, clipka wrote:

> Note that a person's current belief re a surpreme something will
> typically include that the person itself is entitled to "life, liberty
> and the pursuit of happiness" or some such. Thus, I consider this
> covered by §1.4's self-limitation.
>
But, not necessarily that someone else is, if that someone else is 
violating some principle, derived from the idea that a supreme something 
is being violated, somehow.


>
> BTW, I think that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies not only to
> mathematical systems, but also to moral ones: No matter how complex your
> set of rules, there's always at least one remaining problem with it.
> Therefore I allow my set of moral rules to be incomplete, and its
> application to be subject to case-by-case decision.
>
Would where that true. Unfortunately, most believers in a system that 
would, to use the same example, kill the mother, and possibly the child, 
in the process, on the theory that the "child" is more important than 
the mother, and thus "must be protected", also tend to presume that the 
moral rule is **flawless**, and that its humans that are somehow 
failing, not the rule. In fact, religion often hinges on this assumption 
- if the rules are wrong, or incomplete, then the holy book is wrong, or 
incomplete, and if that is the case, maybe the whole belief system if 
wrong. Since this is impossible, none of it can be wrong, or incomplete.

A round about bit of absurdity, which waved about, when ever defending 
the indefensible, which causes harm to a third party, but which is, 
invariably, ignored, in many, if not all, cases, as soon as the one 
waving it about is the target of the results.

Basically, religion, which is to say "strict religion", which mandates 
that certain things are absolutes, doesn't allow for, "case-by-case 
decisions", especially in the case of third parties. And, even when it 
allows for such things, it often heavily restricts the cases, throws 
barriers up, to prevent making such decisions at all, and may even place 
the decision in the hands of the people most qualified to pontificate 
over the "rules", but least qualified to actually understand the 
problem, and make a decision.

-- 
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 1/19/2014 9:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And also:  Texas Board of Education.  If the individuals want to cripple
> their own childrens' understanding of science and handicap them in the
> real world, that's less a decision I feel I should get involved in.  When
> they use their influence to cram religious dogma into the public schools
> in ways that affect the entire country - no, they're not permitted to do
> that.
>
> Jim
>
And.. When there is a popular movement, like say.. McCarthyism, which 
does the same thing to, by, say, introducing revisionist history, which 
distorts the truth about both their own actions, and the actions of 
those they are apposed to, then... does it suddenly become OK because 
the "majority" is now supporting the wide spread proliferation of the 
resulting dogma?

See, that is the problem. As long as the "group" is small, 
inconsequential, and only impacts their own members, its fine. But, it 
often doesn't stay that way, and there are serious consequences to, 
gee.. the spread of hyper-capitalist, pro-corporate, US libertarianism, 
which presumes that "looters" are only ever poor people, or 
anti-communism, which goes so far as to undermine social programs, on 
the basis that "all" social programs are destructive to the nation, and 
so on. Oh, and lets also mention the new rise of snake oil sales, and 
its near total deregulation, as well as the unwillingness to call 
"alternative medicine" what it really is, which is a scam, that has been 
proven to not only not work as described, but kill people, where their 
problems are ones that don't go away on their own, given enough time.

It can be a.. fuzzy problem to deal with, but there are objectively 
better, and worse, things to "allow" people to push on themselves, and, 
yes, each other, and their kids. Its why we have laws specifically 
restricting a lot of things, and some of those things where, briefly, 
illegal (like most of the altie med/supplement stuff), until it was 
unintentionally let loose again.

Its kind of like the whole physic nonsense. For a while, there was a 
concerted effort to crack down on it, because it "did" have a major 
impact on people, financially or otherwise, and was deemed dangerous 
enough to do something about. Then, someone gave them a loophole. You 
can still charge for a "performance", that is "for entertainment", and 
unless you get sued over it... its all OK to still charge people, as 
long as its "small" amounts. It only becomes a "scam", somehow, if you 
charge them thousands (but, not if its for TV).

-- 
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 1/20/2014 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It also is a balance with the individual being of sound mind and acting
> with full awareness.  Where religious beliefs are concerned, though, that
> gets into more challenging territory, and is a bit muddier.
>
> Jim
>
Funny thing is, if you called it something "other" than religion, it 
wouldn't be muddy at all. Its only muddy **because** its religion, and 
therefor "protected" from its value, and whether or not it constitutes 
some mix of scam, and/or false advertising, or worse, being questioned.

-- 
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 1/21/2014 7:53 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.01.2014 08:14, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 21/01/2014 1:43 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know, but I
>>> don't know that either.
>>
>> What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?
>
> An atheist.
>
The problem hear is the term "faith". If you mean that word in the sense 
that, "I have faith that I have sufficient information to conclude that 
there isn't one.", that is one thing, since its based on evidence. If 
its, "I just have faith there isn't one..", then, that is no more 
coherent a position than the opposite one, and it suffers from the same 
problem - its too easy to switch sides, for purely irrational reasons, 
without having any more evidence, or reason, for making the switch, than 
having chosen the original position.

>> Maybe not faith but sincerely hopes that there is not one.
>
> Sounds like a theist to me, as "sincerely hopes" to me implies that he
> suspects (and, in this case, probably fears) otherwise.
>
> Probably a promising approach if he wants to acquire some psychological
> ailment or another. Or a sign that he already has.
>
Sounds to me like someone that hasn't come to a conclusion from a solid 
stance of facts, and who is ripe for a) being convinced by some other 
fool that god is love, and forgives, them, etc., and b) getting used as 
an example by the vast legion of dishonest religion supporters as, 
"Someone who gave up the false belief of there not being a god, for the 
true belief in religion X!" Unfortunately, there are no "nice" 
non-offensive words I can think of to describe such people. Its about as 
logical a position to hold as believing in Santa Claus one year, on the 
basis of getting exactly the toy they wanted, and denying them the next, 
on the basis of not getting anything they wanted at all, while still not 
"grasping" the idea that the parents are the ones buying the presents.

-- 
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 1/19/2014 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:11:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the comment
>> thread.
>
> Oh, yeah, there's a lot of asshattery in the comments - which is why I've
> not read them.  The discussions are generally going to be pretty
> predictable, anyways.  There will be those who support him, those who
> have ideas and suggestions for changes to his approach, and those who are
> going to tell him he's going to hell for even considering the idea that
> there is no God.
>
> I've got enough going on in my life without reading over those same
> arguments again. :)
>
> Jim
>
Actually, most of the comments where pretty positive. Its just the one 
"thread" in it, which might dear old "Paul" the biblical literalist, and 
"expert" on the subject of ignoring *everything* else we know about the 
Bible, history, archeology, and contemporary alternatives, for it, while 
having, apparently, "studied" the thing itself to tatters, which has 
gone seriously wacko.

I have mostly stopped posting, but.. I couldn't help bringing up the 
absurd fact, found with a google on, "chemosh Jehovah el baal", that 
half the "experts" seem to think that ba'al and Jehovah are the same 
gods, or that El was also Dagon, or that all 4 are the same god, or all 
separate gods, and three of them are the "sons" of El, or possibly 
Dagon, or.... well, you get the picture. lol

I described it as being like trying to analyze Tolkien, while ignoring 
the fact that he stole nearly everything in his books, including the 
made up languages, from Northern European mythology.

I am sure though, the joker will have some grand explanation for it. :p

-- 
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 21-1-2014 8:14, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/01/2014 1:43 AM, clipka wrote:
>> I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know, but I
>> don't know that either.
>
> What would you call someone who has faith that there is no god?
an atheist
> Maybe not faith but sincerely hopes that there is not one.

a criminal


-- 
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