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

>>>>
>>> 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. ;)


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