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.
>>

>> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
>> to anyone else.
>>

>> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
>> to be.
>>

>> 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

>>

>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits

>>
>>
>> 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 




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.



>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits


> I am afraid that I don't see how this helps in deciding what to do in

> 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 

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.



>> 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.
>>

>> humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.
>>

>>
>>
>> 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.


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

>
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.


>

> 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