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

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