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

Am 23.01.2014 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
> 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

... or someone who calls an article and a noun a sentence, for that 
matter. :-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I can see your reasoning. It is not what I meant.
Can you have "Faith" without a belief in a god?


> >> 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."
>
>

Okay. A better fit for me would be:
Being afraid that a supreme does exist. Is cause for depression and/or other
psycho stuff.

What would really depress me is if reincarnation was real.
Once is enough. I have the "I have been born and lived on Earth and all I got
was this lousy T-shirt." T-Shirt.

> > ** What is so great about being "normal" anyway?
>
> Nothing. Everyone's got some mental quirks;

Thus spake thee. I am normal, perfectly, normally normal. ;-)

> being "normal" just means hiding them.

True. :-)

>(Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing
> them into full-fledged ailments.)

Yes and no. Sometimes keeping things under control is good.

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.01.2014 14:27, schrieb Stephen:

>>> ** What is so great about being "normal" anyway?
>>
>> Nothing. Everyone's got some mental quirks;
>
> Thus spake thee. I am normal, perfectly, normally normal. ;-)
>
>> being "normal" just means hiding them.
>
> True. :-)
>
>> (Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing
>> them into full-fledged ailments.)
>
> Yes and no. Sometimes keeping things under control is good.

I think not hiding one's quirks sometimes actually makes it easier to 
keep things under control.

But of course there are situations where social pressure demands that 
you keep your quirks to yourself; and I think that's the type of 
situations that, when too frequent, may turn our quirks into something 
worse.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 14:27, schrieb Stephen:

> >
> >> (Which, by the way, is a promising approach for developing
> >> them into full-fledged ailments.)
> >
> > Yes and no. Sometimes keeping things under control is good.
>
> I think not hiding one's quirks sometimes actually makes it easier to
> keep things under control.
>

I agree, Be true to your self(ish) ;-)

> But of course there are situations where social pressure demands that
> you keep your quirks to yourself; and I think that's the type of
> situations that, when too frequent, may turn our quirks into something
> worse.

I will not argue with that. But...

I find that the public expression of certain emotions might be harmful to
people.
I come from a society where happy feelings were shared but sad ones or grief
were kept to yourself (close friends and family excepted). Not only do I not
understand the demand for "closure" but I am sure that in the majority of cases
it is harmful to brood on the bad things that have happened. Of course there are
exceptions and not everyone is the same. But it does not seem healthy to me.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/23/2014 4:59 AM, clipka wrote:

>>> 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.
>
Sorry, but.. I don't want to be shot isn't a "personal belief". One 
can't exactly be agnostic about certain things and not be.. inhuman, or 
insane, or, at minimum, anti-social/destructive.

-- 
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