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

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:25:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Actually, most of the comments where pretty positive.

That's good to hear. :)

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 Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:07:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, absolutely.  That's the reason I still struggle with deciding if 
such a circumstance requires intervention.

If someone said that their toaster told them not to get blood 
transfusions, they'd be thought to be a little crazy.

But if someone says their God told them not to get blood transfusions, 
then they're thought to be sane.

Just goes to show how deeply ingrained it is in the culture.

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 Tue, 21 Jan 2014 21:52:03 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> 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

I don't know that I'd go that far.  One might look at it as hoping that 
there isn't a god because they don't believe in it, but the 
representations of god that they're familiar with are the vengeful god 
who demands to be worshiped.

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.

;)

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 21.01.2014 20:38, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> 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.

Like I said, it all depends on whether the God of the bible can be 
tested for or not, which we can't answer conclusively in the first 
place, even in the framework of the hypothesis that he does exist, 
because that hypothesis predicts that one of the following will happen:

- The rug will get wet, because God answers prayers.

- The rug will not get wet, because God refuses to be put to the test.

If the rug does /not/ get wet, the answer is useless because it doesn't 
disprove God.

If however the rug /does/ get wet, that may be taken as a piece of 
evidence supportive of the hypothesis - or to the contrary be taken as a 
piece of evidence contradicting the hypothesis, depending on whether 
your version of the hypothesis claims that God refuses to be put to the 
test or not.

You /can/ take such a result as a piece of evidence that if the hypothis 
is true, then God does indeed allow to put him to the test, thus 
/shaping/ the theory; but if you use the test for such a purpose, then 
it no longer qualifies as a testable prediction.


I must correct myself however: Such tests would indeed make it possible 
to answer the question of whether the God of the bible, as postulated by 
the hypothesis of his existence, allows to be put to the test or not.

But although I haven't done any such experiments recently, I'm so bold 
as to make a bet that they would come out negative in a vast majority of 
cases, showing that any viable hypothesis postulating the existence of 
the biblical God must also postulate his general refusal to be put to 
the test.

If we come to that conclusion, we must also conclude that the hypothesis 
of the existence of the biblical God is systematically and fundamentally 
untestable, disqualifying it as a formal scientific theory once and for all.


Did I already say "q.e.d."? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.01.2014 20:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> 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.

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.

I consider that a quite important moral rule, and suspect that it can 
/only/ be deducted from agnosticism.


Also note that §1.4 does not say anything about what to do if the rights 
I think I have conflict with the rights others think they have; that, I 
think, is a situation for which there is no universally valid set of 
moral rules, and must instead be arbitrated between the parties involved.


>> 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
> [...]

Sounds like you agree on my applying Gödel's theorem to moral.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.01.2014 21:18, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> 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.

To me, "faith" is a great deal more than a mere hunch, and therefore 
quite a way from changing sides; in my book, it is a strong conviction 
that needs quite a lot of evidence to be eroded, and just one baby step 
short of knowledge.

I claim that knowledge can only apply to truth, and given that I don't 
know whether the [non-] existence of a God is truth, I must interpret 
any statement saying "I know that God does [not] exist" as "I have faith 
that God does [not] exist".


Note that theism and atheism aren't black-and-white; there's quite a 
wide spectrum between the two, and it's full of people.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:53:43 +0100, clipka wrote:

> To me, "faith" is a great deal more than a mere hunch, and therefore
> quite a way from changing sides; in my book, it is a strong conviction
> that needs quite a lot of evidence to be eroded, and just one baby step
> short of knowledge.

That seems to be a bit of an oxymoron - it's something you "know" (and I 
had that discussion with Darren a couple years ago - about something in 
my life that I "knew" but I couldn't prove.  Short version:  strong 
belief != knowledge) and need evidence to erode it, but there's no hard 
evidence needed to have it in the first place.

I had to ponder this idea that, no, I don't "know" that I would have died 
if I had gone home my normal way that night.  I had a very strong belief, 
based on no evidence at all.  I was spooked because of a long couple of 
days at work, it was late, I was tired.  Tired enough that I was 
hallucinating that my normal route home had physically changed.  Which, 
of course, it hadn't.

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 1/21/2014 4:21 PM, clipka wrote:


>
>  ...
>
> Did I already say "q.e.d."? ;-)
>

Wait, wait, wait! Is the cat still in the box, or not, with a dead 
parrot. Or, err.. what? 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 1/21/2014 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.01.2014 20:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> 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.
>
> 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. ;)


-- 
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 1:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:07:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yeah, absolutely.  That's the reason I still struggle with deciding if
> such a circumstance requires intervention.
>
> If someone said that their toaster told them not to get blood
> transfusions, they'd be thought to be a little crazy.
>
> But if someone says their God told them not to get blood transfusions,
> then they're thought to be sane.
>
> Just goes to show how deeply ingrained it is in the culture.
>
> Jim
>
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.

However, taken in that context, there is also a precedent for deciding 
that the overall well being of society is not served by allowing people 
to do something, simply because someone else convinced them that it is 
OK. And, in such a case, it shouldn't, logically, matter if it was their 
priest, who convinced them, or their coworker/boss/etc. IT may absolve 
them of some, though not necessarily all, of the responsibility for 
doing it anyway, but it also doesn't lend them undue protection, just 
because they assumed that this other, second party, had valid authority 
to tell them it was OK.

That its religion still makes it messy, since they can simply turn 
around and say that they "prayed" about it, and god, (aka their own 
head), told them it was right, but.. the problem is that, invariably, 
most of the people trying to make such arguments, when/if things get bad 
enough, resort to more reasonable methods. A good example being people 
who starve their kids, or fail to get them medical help, until they are 
on the verge of death, then *suddenly* decide that prayer isn't working, 
and they need assistance. They get by with this anyway, sadly, with some 
families having higher infant mortality rates in states that allow it, 
(Oregon being one that seems to be unwilling to put a stop to it, or 
prosecute over it), than third world countries.

But, if they suspected that, in that case, medicine "could work", but 
opted for prayer instead, then they can't, in principle, turn around and 
argue that god told them not to use the former, and stick with the 
latter. Sadly, principles go right out the window, along with logic, 
reason, and the value of human life, (as apposed to the value of 
'salvation'), when religion is involved.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2014 4:53 PM, clipka wrote:
> Note that theism and atheism aren't black-and-white; there's quite a
> wide spectrum between the two, and it's full of people.
>
Umm. I think I am with others in that there "is" a wide gap between. 
Gods exist, or they provisionally don't. There isn't much wiggle room in 
there. Its literally the difference between, "Did someone eat the last 
donut, or is it still in the box?" You can have, to some extent, varied 
opinions on how likely one or the other position may be, or even about 
which one "is" real, but you kind of have to be fairly well on one side 
of the line or the other, in terms of "existence".

Faith, in the sense that religion uses it is like pseudoscience, or as 
Shermer put it, also pseudohistory. It can change via personal belief, 
political, or ideology, but its not "cumulative". Faith, as it applies 
to science **implies** cumulative discovery, which changes the resulting 
expectations, not by opinion, but by accumulation better understanding 
of the subject.

Now, this is a bit of a problem for "god", because you can't a) 
accumulate information on it, if it isn't real, and b) you can't figure 
out if it is real, if no one can bloody define it in the first place. 
And, the latter issue is, for me, the clincher - there are insane 
numbers of "definitions", ranging from so vague you might as well be 
talking about time and space itself, with, or without, intelligence 
being involved, to so specific people paint portraits of them. The 
former are so vague you can't derive any useful information from, while 
the latter are all so specific you can debunk every one of them, based 
on who made them up in the first place.

More to the point, the one extreme is not worth believing in, it would 
be like having faith that "air" exists, and wants to let us breath. 
I.e., both obvious, and, at the same time, incoherent. While, on the 
other extreme, all the options are "unworthy" of being believed in, 
being obvious fabrications of the times they where made up in.

Its kind of hard to imagine what attributes a "god" would have to have 
to be some place between these extremes, and.. not be just as absurd as 
both of 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 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.

-- 
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

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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
>


Not as much of a criminal as someone who starts a sentence with a lower case
letter. :-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> 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.
>

Okay, I'll go with that.

> > 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.
>

"Suspects otherwise" Too strong a sentiment IMO. Maybe the person in question
(me) knows that he has been wrong about things before. And will certainly be
wrong about things in the future. Also since there is no spoon, oops! sorry
proof. One cannot tell until the dark dog comes calling.
As for "hoping", who wants to be beholden to the evil* thing that I hear and
read about called the god of love? Unless the God we hear about is not the
omnipresent,  omnipotent and omniscient entity were are assured that It is.

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

Ah! That reads "If you do not agree with <insert whatever here> then you are mad
or twisted." But I am sure that you did not mean that. **



* Yip! Thought about it and if you use your eyes and not your ears. No good
person can condone what goes on in Its realm. So Evil it is, in my
understanding.

** What is so great about being "normal" anyway?

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.


--

No Sig, no name, no pack drill.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 04:35, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/21/2014 4:21 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>
>>
>>  ...
>>
>> Did I already say "q.e.d."? ;-)
>>
>
> Wait, wait, wait! Is the cat still in the box, or not, with a dead
> parrot. Or, err.. what? lol

The parrot is dead, yes :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 04:37, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/21/2014 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 21.01.2014 20:50, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 05:03, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/21/2014 4:53 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Note that theism and atheism aren't black-and-white; there's quite a
>> wide spectrum between the two, and it's full of people.
>>
> Umm. I think I am with others in that there "is" a wide gap between.
> Gods exist, or they provisionally don't. There isn't much wiggle room in
> there. Its literally the difference between, "Did someone eat the last
> donut, or is it still in the box?" You can have, to some extent, varied
> opinions on how likely one or the other position may be, or even about
> which one "is" real, but you kind of have to be fairly well on one side
> of the line or the other, in terms of "existence".

I'm not talking about the spectrum of /what/ people believe, but how 
/strongly/ they believe in it. There is no gap anywhere between "it's 
undeniable truth" and "it's utter nonsense", just endless shades of grey.

In science there is the same thing going on: A theory either holds or it 
doesn't; but when scientists conduct experiments, the answer is /never/ 
actually "yes" or "no", but "yes/no with a /confidence/ of X%". Even if 
the confidence level isn't statet explicitly, it just means that it is 
(by typical convention) 95% or higher.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 04:35, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> > On 1/21/2014 4:21 PM, clipka wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>  ...
> >>
> >> Did I already say "q.e.d."? ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Wait, wait, wait! Is the cat still in the box, or not, with a dead
> > parrot. Or, err.. what? lol
>
> The parrot is dead, yes :-)

No. The parrot is just asleep. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 11:56, schrieb Stephen:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 21.01.2014 08:14, schrieb Stephen:
...
>>> 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.
>
> "Suspects otherwise" Too strong a sentiment IMO. Maybe the person in question
> (me) knows that he has been wrong about things before. And will certainly be
> wrong about things in the future. Also since there is no spoon, oops! sorry
> proof. One cannot tell until the dark dog comes calling.
> As for "hoping", who wants to be beholden to the evil* thing that I hear and
> read about called the god of love? Unless the God we hear about is not the
> omnipresent,  omnipotent and omniscient entity were are assured that It is.

As I said, "sincerely hopes" to me implies that the person is also 
sincerely worried that he/she might be wrong. Which in turn implies that 
the person considers it more than just a theoretic possibility. If 
that's not what you meant, then what I wrote doesn't apply.

>> Probably a promising approach if he wants to acquire some psychological
>> ailment or another. Or a sign that he already has.
>
> Ah! That reads "If you do not agree with <insert whatever here> then you are mad
> or twisted." But I am sure that you did not mean that. **

No, indeed not. More like: "Being genuinely afraid of any supreme being 
you suspect to exist may lead to severe depression, fear disorder, 
and/or other psycho stuff you don't want." And: "It may itself be an 
expression of some earlier psychological trauma."


> ** What is so great about being "normal" anyway?

Nothing. Everyone's got some mental quirks; being "normal" just means 
hiding them. (Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing 
them into full-fledged ailments.)

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> As I said, "sincerely hopes" to me implies that the person is also
> sincerely worried that he/she might be wrong. Which in turn implies that
> the person considers it more than just a theoretic possibility. If
> that's not what you meant, then what I wrote doesn't apply.
>

I can see your reasoning. It is not what I meant.
Can you have "Faith" without a belief in a god?


> >> Probably a promising approach if he wants to acquire some psychological
> >> ailment or another. Or a sign that he already has.
> >
> > Ah! That reads "If you do not agree with <insert whatever here> then you are mad
> > or twisted." But I am sure that you did not mean that. **
>
> No, indeed not. More like: "Being genuinely afraid of any supreme being
> you suspect to exist may lead to severe depression, fear disorder,
> and/or other psycho stuff you don't want." And: "It may itself be an
> expression of some earlier psychological trauma."
>
>

Okay. A better fit for me would be:
Being afraid that a supreme does exist. Is cause for depression and/or other
psycho stuff.

What would really depress me is if reincarnation was real.
Once is enough. I have the "I have been born and lived on Earth and all I got
was this lousy T-shirt." T-Shirt.

> > ** What is so great about being "normal" anyway?
>
> Nothing. Everyone's got some mental quirks;

Thus spake thee. I am normal, perfectly, normally normal. ;-)

> being "normal" just means hiding them.

True. :-)

>(Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing
> them into full-fledged ailments.)

Yes and no. Sometimes keeping things under control is good.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 14:27, schrieb Stephen:

>>> ** What is so great about being "normal" anyway?
>>
>> Nothing. Everyone's got some mental quirks;
>
> Thus spake thee. I am normal, perfectly, normally normal. ;-)
>
>> being "normal" just means hiding them.
>
> True. :-)
>
>> (Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing
>> them into full-fledged ailments.)
>
> Yes and no. Sometimes keeping things under control is good.

I think not hiding one's quirks sometimes actually makes it easier to 
keep things under control.

But of course there are situations where social pressure demands that 
you keep your quirks to yourself; and I think that's the type of 
situations that, when too frequent, may turn our quirks into something 
worse.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 14:27, schrieb Stephen:

> >
> >> (Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing
> >> them into full-fledged ailments.)
> >
> > Yes and no. Sometimes keeping things under control is good.
>
> I think not hiding one's quirks sometimes actually makes it easier to
> keep things under control.
>

I agree, Be true to your self(ish) ;-)

> But of course there are situations where social pressure demands that
> you keep your quirks to yourself; and I think that's the type of
> situations that, when too frequent, may turn our quirks into something
> worse.

I will not argue with that. But...

I find that the public expression of certain emotions might be harmful to
people.
I come from a society where happy feelings were shared but sad ones or grief
were kept to yourself (close friends and family excepted). Not only do I not
understand the demand for "closure" but I am sure that in the majority of cases
it is harmful to brood on the bad things that have happened. Of course there are
exceptions and not everyone is the same. But it does not seem healthy to me.

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
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