Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> And Faith is not something you can instil or teach.

Actually it is: Just brainwash the person since they are little.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> > And Faith is not something you can instil or teach.
>
> Actually it is: Just brainwash the person since they are little.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

I was hoping no one would notice that. :-)
It is the basis of cults.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/30/2014 3:32 AM, Stephen wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> And Faith is not something you can instil or teach.
>>
>> Actually it is: Just brainwash the person since they are little.
>>
>> --
>>                                                            - Warp
>
> I was hoping no one would notice that. :-)
> It is the basis of cults.
>
>
Hmm. More like the basis of "all" religions. You will no more believe in 
any religion, without exposure to it, than you would spontaneously 
develop a belief in Santa Claus, while living in the Amazon jungle. But, 
you would pick up the local belief in, "spirits of the forest", but not, 
from what I remember of those tribes, some idea of one great spirit, in 
charge of it all.

-- 
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 Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:39:54 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yep.  My theory is that they're losing, and they know it - so they're
>> fighting harder.  It's only a matter of time, but until they have
>> finally "lost" (which generally means that they get treated like
>> everyone else rather than being treated "specially"), we're going to
>> have a lot of this kind of nonsense going on.
> 
> I find it somewhat ironic that for those American Christians "losing"
> means becoming a sensible free modern society with equal rights that
> cares about the wellbeing of its citizens...

You're not the only one....I saw a comic recently that summed it up 
nicely as the "loss" being "everyone else gets treated equally".

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 Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:11:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> But.. We can't have a real national ID, because it would like.. let the
> government screw us even more, or like be the, "mark of the beast", or
> something. Sigh...

Yeah, I know.  States' rights and all that - even though it's an 
*inconvenience* for the citizens to have to deal with that stuff.  We 
have freedom of movement inside the country, unless you can't afford to 
replace a driver's license or other documentation you have to have (photo 
ID of any sort, really).

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, 29 Jul 2014 19:57:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> True. But that is how we are distracted.
>>
>> It happens.  Squirrel! ;)
>>
>>
> You don't catch me like that again.

We'll see. :)

>> Yep.  As long as they're not affecting the lives of others around them
>> in a negative way, I generally don't care.  The problem is that a lot
>> of these nitwits *do* affect the lives of others around them in a
>> negative way - like insisting that science classes "teach the
>> controversy" of evolution vs. creationism - as if creationism is
>> anything like science.
>>
> Where?

Pick a state in the southeastern US.  Or Texas.  Seriously, the Texas 
Board of Education decides textbook standards for the entire country, 
because of the number of students they have.  So when they get a bunch of 
whackadoodle creationist types on their BoE who say that creationism is 
science and who won't approve textbooks that don't praise God, the entire 
country suffers with crap textbooks that teach non-science.

>> Or that anyone other than nitwits like Ken Ham think that creationism
>> *is* a valid theory of how the world works, especially young earth
>> creationism.
>>
>> If they want to believe that, fine.  But when they're people who sit on
>> the Texas Board of Education (which for reasons of scale ends up
>> deciding what's in science textbooks across the United States), then I
>> have a HUGE problem with them.
>>
>>
> I've given up reading about it.
> I sympathise but what can you do when you see militant fundamentalist
> "Christians" to the west and militant fundamentalist "Muslims" to the
> east. Even Buddhists are killing people.

Yeah, it makes things kinda difficult.  I'm glad K was able to get a real 
education and can recognise this kind of BS a mile away.

>>> On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for
>>> stories.
>>
>> True, and mythology recognized as mythology is a pretty cool thing. 
>> But I wouldn't dream of thinking that the Arthurian mythos are a basis
>> for defining a morality.
> 
> How about the Druids and Wiccan? Religions made up in Victorian times, I
> think.

I think the Druids go back farther, would have to check the books.  I 
passed through a Wiccan phase before going full Atheist, but I don't 
remember a lot of the specifics about when/where stuff happened.

>> They're pretty good, especially when retold by Monty Python (just came
>> back from watching that in the cinema, in fact). :)
>>
>>
> Bad memories that one for me. While listening to the album and "tuning
> in". A friend had a bad time. I had to talk them down for about six
> hours with insects crawling out of the walls. Bummer!
> On the bright side. It wasn't me. :-)

Good thing it wasn't you, but ... album?  OK, now I'm puzzled.

>>> Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?
>>
>> I haven't, but I think I might have to. :)
>>
>>
> Where?

If I can get a digital copy, on my eReader.

>>> Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the
>>> forces from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.
>>
>> *Definitely* have to check it out. :)
>>
>>
> You do. If you go to his website http://www.antipope.org/
> Fun name, what!
> There is some free stuff there. His early Hard SF is recommended.

Cool - will add it to my list.

>> You are?  It's not really coming through. ;)
>>
>>
> Good! I might get away with it for a few more years yet. ;-)

LOL

> Where! Tell Me! Tell Me. Where?

OK, now I'm confused again.  Probably because I've lost the thread - a 
week in Vancouver, BC will do that to you. :)

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, 29 Jul 2014 19:32:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 28/07/2014 00:28, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> IMO That is what organised religion is all about. Keeping the masses
>>> in
>>> >their place.
>> Yep.
>>
>> Which is why my reaction these days to people who say they believe is
>> generally one of surprise, especially people whom I consider to be
>> intelligent.
> 
> 
> I don't think that you can equate intelligence with "not believing".
> Believing has to do with Faith. And Faith is not something you can
> instil or teach. It is not logical you either have it or you don't and I
> for one don't.

I don't think it's an equation of belief and intelligence - but belief 
implies a willingness (or even a desire) to not think of something 
rationally and to not examine it too closely.

That's not a trait I associate with people who are intelligent.

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 23/07/2014 12:37, James Holsenback wrote:
> Sad state of affairs ... don't you think?

You are not alone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/04/2014 05:55 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/07/2014 12:37, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Sad state of affairs ... don't you think?
>
> You are not alone.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115
>
>

Hmmmm ... lord have mercy on /their/ souls (pun intended)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115

"She said many were worried about being ostracised or were even scared
of violence if they revealed they did not believe in God."

Ah, the peaceful, tolerant, loving American Christians...

I think they have misunderstood what "turn the other cheek" means.
It doesn't mean "hit the unbeliever in the cheek, then turn their
other cheek and hit it as well".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2014 17:27, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115
>
> "She said many were worried about being ostracised or were even scared
> of violence if they revealed they did not believe in God."
>
> Ah, the peaceful, tolerant, loving American Christians...
>

We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing 
religious intolerance. But to practice it.
Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more 
intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.

> I think they have misunderstood what "turn the other cheek" means.
> It doesn't mean "hit the unbeliever in the cheek, then turn their
> other cheek and hit it as well".
>

That does seem to be the favoured interpretation. Run a close second by:
Do unto others what the would do unto you. But first.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2014 23:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >I don't think that you can equate intelligence with "not believing".
>> >Believing has to do with Faith. And Faith is not something you can
>> >instil or teach. It is not logical you either have it or you don't and I
>> >for one don't.
> I don't think it's an equation of belief and intelligence - but belief
> implies a willingness (or even a desire) to not think of something
> rationally and to not examine it too closely.
>

There is a scale of belief IMO.
A difference in intensity between "I believe the weather will clear 
up.", I believe that it it daylight, just now."  and "I believe in God 
the Father, God the..."

I would call the latter usage Faith.

> That's not a trait I associate with people who are intelligent.

 From what I can gather. Faith is something that can and does fly in the 
face of logic.

You can no more stop some one from throwing salt over their shoulder to 
bring luck. Than you can make someone believe there is a god by telling 
them. (Unless you are holding a sword.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/4/2014 10:11 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> That's not a trait I associate with people who are intelligent.
>
>  From what I can gather. Faith is something that can and does fly in the
> face of logic.
>

Just had a post I replied to on a blog with the usual "Science and 
religion are compatible, just look at all the religious people who 
did/do good science!" I gave an example of one physicist going so far 
off the rails it was flat nuts, because he "believed" in telepathy and 
psychic powers, and decided to test if the incidental flashes of light, 
produced by the body's own chemical reactions in cells, would provide a, 
"means to explain how some people could detect other people's thoughts."

My argument on the subject is, simply, "Sure, they can be compatible, 
right up until the person with that rift in their perceptions stops 
doing science, and starts doing something else entirely." That, in a nut 
shell, its like enjoying scifi flicks, involving aliens, while not 
believing in UFOs, vs. someone that hates scifi shows, because they 
"depict aliens wrong", based on their belief in UFOs. The one is 
"compatible", the other.. not so much.

And, more to the point, maybe "compatible" isn't the word they need to 
be using to describe the phenomena...

-- 
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 Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:12:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  "Science and
> religion are compatible, just look at all the religious people who
> did/do good science!"

It only works if the person doing the science doesn't let their religious 
beliefs colour their results, or when they get results that conflict with 
their religious beliefs don't immediately say "well, that can't be right, 
because $DEITY!"

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 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.

Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following 
this thread.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I gave an example of one physicist going so far 
> off the rails it was flat nuts, because he "believed" in telepathy and 
> psychic powers, and decided to test if the incidental flashes of light, 
> produced by the body's own chemical reactions in cells, would provide a, 
> "means to explain how some people could detect other people's thoughts."

Crazy experiments are ok... as long as you follow good scientific
procedures to test them!

It's a common problem with woo "science" that the experiments they
perform are extremely faulty. They fail to perform proper double
blind testing, they fail to have controls, they often use sample
sizes that are statistically too small, and they often engage in
confirmation and publication bias.

Publication bias is something that very easily misleads, and is
easily missed by the public.

It works like this: Perform many trials (preferably with small sample
sizes to maximize variation). Even if there is no correlation between
your hypothesis and the (alleged) phenomenon you are testing, just by
statistical probability a few of the trials will show a positive
correlation between them (while likewise a few will show a negative
correlation, and the rest will show no statistically significant
correlation). Discard all the trials except the ones that showed a
positive correlation, and publish those.

For example homeopaths do this all the time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2014 15:55, Warp wrote:
> It works like this: Perform many trials (preferably with small sample

[Snip]
>
> For example homeopaths do this all the time.


If you have not read Ben Goldacre you might find his views interesting. 
He is a real medical doctor who goes sub-orbital on that subject. :-D

http://www.badscience.net/

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2014 7:55 AM, Warp wrote:
> It's a common problem with woo "science" that the experiments they
> perform are extremely faulty. They fail to perform proper double
> blind testing, they fail to have controls, they often use sample
> sizes that are statistically too small, and they often engage in
> confirmation and publication bias.
>
> Publication bias is something that very easily misleads, and is
> easily missed by the public.
>
Lets me honest here - publication bias means a) nearly everything ends 
up behind a pay wall, or in a pop-sci mag, where they may not even get 
the facts right, when they have real facts, and b) negative results, as 
in, "We didn't find anything.", are ***never*** published where they can 
be easily found, never mind where the public will see them. So, yeah, 
bias... Kind of like how reading an old book on, "things to see, and 
have fun at, in country X.", is a tad "biased" against the small war 
that just broke out there, and the people shooting tourists who show up 
to look at the attraction that was just blown up by rebels...

Its such a minor "bias".

And, its only getting worse as the publishers are pushing harder and 
harder to make more money, by putting *everything* behind a pay wall, 
permanently, instead of allowing it to be release via things like Pubmed.

-- 
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 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>
> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
> this thread.
>

Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded 
with my Foundling?
Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6-8-2014 21:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
>>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
>>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>>
>> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
>> this thread.
>>
>
> Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
> with my Foundling?

The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants. Besides, I guess 
that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th 
century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably. The 
result is a weird societal concoction.

> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.

Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who knows.

We still have our own little bible belt though.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.08.2014 09:28, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 6-8-2014 21:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
>>>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>>>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
>>>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>>>
>>> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
>>> this thread.
>>>
>>
>> Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
>> with my Foundling?
>
> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants. Besides, I guess
> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably. The
> result is a weird societal concoction.
>
>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>
> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
> knows.
>
> We still have our own little bible belt though.

Same in Germany, too, as it seems.

In plenty of regions in Germany we have a tradition called 
"Schützenfest" (literally "marksmen's festival"), where members of a 
local so-called "Schützenverein" ("marksmen club") gather together for a 
shooting competition with small-caliber or air rifles (but more 
importantly for disposing of lots of beer, a task in which non-members 
also help generously). The winner of those competitions is then declared 
the "Schützenkönig" ("marksmen's king").

Now just a few days ago regional news reported of a case where a 
(well-integrated) muslim had become the Schützenkönig - and raised a 
stir in the Schützenverein's umbrella organization, because their rules 
(and, as was noticed only then, also the rules of that particular 
Schützenverein) require that all Schützenverein members must be of 
christian faith.

So much for religious tolerance in Germany.

(It should be said though that there are other umbrella organizations 
for Schützenvereine, and this one is the most catholic-dominated of them 
all.)


Edit: Just read up the latest news on this topic: The umbrella 
organization in question, the "Bund der Historischen Deutschen 
Schützenbruderschaften (BHDS)", apparently under public pressure, has 
decided in this particular case to make an exception, and allow the 
muslim to retain the title of Schützenkönig. So that's some good news here.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2014 10:03, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.08.2014 09:28, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 6-8-2014 21:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe
>>>>> fleeing
>>>>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>>>>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a
>>>>> more
>>>>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
>>>> this thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
>>> with my Foundling?
>>
>> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants. Besides, I guess
>> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
>> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably. The
>> result is a weird societal concoction.
>>
>>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>>
>> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
>> knows.
>>
>> We still have our own little bible belt though.
>
> Same in Germany, too, as it seems.
>
> In plenty of regions in Germany we have a tradition called
> "Schützenfest" (literally "marksmen's festival"), where members of a
> local so-called "Schützenverein" ("marksmen club") gather together for a
> shooting competition with small-caliber or air rifles (but more
> importantly for disposing of lots of beer, a task in which non-members
> also help generously). The winner of those competitions is then declared
> the "Schützenkönig" ("marksmen's king").

Very quaint :-) I use to watch them on TV at their yearly parade.

[...]

> Edit: Just read up the latest news on this topic: The umbrella
> organization in question, the "Bund der Historischen Deutschen
> Schützenbruderschaften (BHDS)", apparently under public pressure, has
> decided in this particular case to make an exception, and allow the
> muslim to retain the title of Schützenkönig. So that's some good news here.
>

Yes it is indeed. It could be worse. The fact that there still is polio 
in the Netherlands for instance is because of religious obscurantism in 
certain (protestant) groups refusing vaccination.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants.

Okay.

> Besides, I guess
> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably.

I would think, more on the protestant side. If history is anything to go 
by. (I was christened a Catholic but brought up a Prody in a sectarian 
society. I say protestant but it was the CoE, which was considered a bit 
too close to Rome for most peoples liking.)

> The result is a weird societal concoction.
>

No arguments there. ;-)

>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>
> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
> knows.
>

Purgatory, not Hell, by comparison.

> We still have our own little bible belt though.


Don't we all. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2014 15:14, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants.
>
> Okay.
>
>> Besides, I guess
>> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
>> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably.
>
> I would think, more on the protestant side. If history is anything to go
> by. (I was christened a Catholic but brought up a Prody in a sectarian
> society. I say protestant but it was the CoE, which was considered a bit
> too close to Rome for most peoples liking.)

Yes, You are right. I was brought up a Catholic and am glad I was, 
rather than another creed. ;-P

>
>> The result is a weird societal concoction.
>>
>
> No arguments there. ;-)
>
>>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>>
>> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
>> knows.
>>
>
> Purgatory, not Hell, by comparison.

It depends how /liberalism/ was interpreted...

>
>> We still have our own little bible belt though.
>
>
> Don't we all. :-)

I suppose so. As long as one does not have to live within ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message