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

>>
> 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.


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.



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.



>> 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
> [...]

Post a reply to this message