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

>>>
>> 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.
>
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