Warning notice to theists:
Tichy
news:<01HW.B76382CC0...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 5:15:05 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
> message <Zs4%6.69032$_T2.17...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
>
> >
> > "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:01HW.B762D1330...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:39:55 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
> >> message <%Nw_6.54841$WB1.15...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
> >>
> >>> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> >>> news:<01HW.B76073A60...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> >>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 2:08:41 +1000 the muse struck Mike Smith
> >>>> mike...@apexmail.com, who wrote (in message
> >>>> <9gt659$iij$2...@news.chorus.net>):
> >>>>
> >>>>> chibiabos <chib...@SPAMBLOCK.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --snip--
> >>>>> =Tichy is a pompous fool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What makes you think he's a fool?
> >>>>> I think he's a great example of a good mind that's
> >>>>> handicapped by dragging around the anvil of
> >>>>> Rationalizing His Faith.
> >>>>
> >>>> No fair! You answered your own question!
> >>>
> >>> It's a bad thing that I'm interested in trying my worldview alongside
> others
> >>> in the biased court of public opinion?
> >>
> >> Does foolish=a bad thing?
> >
> > Could be. Are you avoiding the question?
>
> No. Given I spend some of my time acting the fool, I obviously don't
> think it is always a bad thing.
Took you long enough to answer the question that you supposedly weren't
avoiding . . .
>
>
> >> Does "Rationalizing His Faith"="trying [his] worldview alongside others
> >> in the biased court of public opinion"?
> >>
> >> I don't think they do.
> >
> > Nor do I, but the comparison has been made and you appear to support it.
>
> It looks to me as though you were the one equating them.
In doing so, you grant the assertion that I serve as an example of one
burdened by a need to rationalize my "faith".
I do not grant that assertion, therefore I am not equating the two. My
statement encourages (I hope) those who would discuss my alleged handicap to
provide evidence that their presentation of my posting history is accurate.
>
> >> Wouldn't you describe 'rationalised faith' as self-contradictory?
> >
> > No, for I do not accept the straw man version of faith that you are
> > apparently (in true "Knee Jerk" style) referring to.
>
> Care to share the version of faith that succumbs to rationalisation
> then?
See dictionary.com, the Merriam-Webster online collegiate dictionary, or the
Webster hypertext dictionary. Granted, a definition of faith as belief sans
or despite evidence *exists*, but it is not the biblical view of faith.
>
>
> > [if
> >> it was rational, it wouldn't be faith] Wouldn't someone who spent their
> >> time attempting that be spending their time foolishly?
> >
> > If they recognized that version of faith as a straw man, certainly.
>
>
>
> >> IMHO, Mike provided a reason for _him_ thinking you a fool, just after
> >> asking why chib thought you a fool. Hence my response.
> >
> > Ah, so you allowed your straw man/personal (influenced by your own
> > world-view?) notion of "faith" to entirely color your response.
> >
> > That adequately explains it.
>
> I have liitle choice but to have my world-view filter all I input and
> output. I'm not an automaton.
If you weren't an automaton, I might presume that you have the ability to
amend your own worldview as you deem it necessary.
>
> "It tickled my funny bone" explains it even better.
Simply symptomatic of the effect your worldview blinders had on you,
apparently. Not necessarily a different explanation at all.
<snip>
Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
Martin Crisp
message <Ctv27.211265$WB1.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
ROFL! I wonder are you a hypocrite, or the victim of a patchy newsfeed?
My "Sent Articles" indicates my reply was sent on June 30 (local time,
1:30pm, or about 2am, June 30 GMT), a bare 8 hours after the datestamp
on your earlier message. 8 hours is too long? Gee, so sorry I wasn't
awaiting your on-high pronouncements with bated breath. Maybe this is a
data point towards me accepting the first part of Chib's assessment of
you, to whit: 'pompous'. And this certainly, to me, makes you look a
fool.
Same place ("Sent Articles") indicates that a post, in reply to you,
was sent on 19 July 2000. I haven't seen any reply. Note: _I_ haven't
_seen_ any reply. Not "You haven't answered -> you're avoiding the
questions...". and, btw, I've actively looked for such reply outside my
own newsfeed.
BTW: here's the google link to my article that "took me long enough" to
send:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=01HW.B76382CC0001946A0D717E20%
40news.ozemail.com.au
Please, quote the date that Google received it in any reply.
Seems to me your vision is occluded by a sequioa, Tichy.
>>>> Does "Rationalizing His Faith"="trying [his] worldview alongside others
>>>> in the biased court of public opinion"?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think they do.
>>>
>>> Nor do I, but the comparison has been made and you appear to support it.
>>
>> It looks to me as though you were the one equating them.
>
> In doing so, you grant the assertion that I serve as an example of one
> burdened by a need to rationalize my "faith".
No. You were the one who introduced the terms which you equated to
previously used terms. i.e. you equated your terms to those used
previously, this is hardly my problem.
> I do not grant that assertion, therefore I am not equating the two. My
> statement encourages (I hope) those who would discuss my alleged handicap to
> provide evidence that their presentation of my posting history is accurate.
Fine. As also noted, _I_ was not the one to do so.
>>>> Wouldn't you describe 'rationalised faith' as self-contradictory?
>>>
>>> No, for I do not accept the straw man version of faith that you are
>>> apparently (in true "Knee Jerk" style) referring to.
>>
>> Care to share the version of faith that succumbs to rationalisation
>> then?
>
> See dictionary.com, the Merriam-Webster online collegiate dictionary, or the
> Webster hypertext dictionary. Granted, a definition of faith as belief sans
> or despite evidence *exists*, but it is not the biblical view of faith.
Isn't it? Please, present this biblical version.
Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin one's
~ on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly) 2.(Theol) belief in religious
doctrines, esp. such as affects character and conduct, spiritual
apprehension of divine truth apart from proof; system of religious
belief....
Excerpted from Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1st Ed 1987,
Oxford University Press. [bold, italic etc removed from original for
clarity in this medium]
>>> [if
>>>> it was rational, it wouldn't be faith] Wouldn't someone who spent their
>>>> time attempting that be spending their time foolishly?
>>>
>>> If they recognized that version of faith as a straw man, certainly.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> IMHO, Mike provided a reason for _him_ thinking you a fool, just after
>>>> asking why chib thought you a fool. Hence my response.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you allowed your straw man/personal (influenced by your own
>>> world-view?) notion of "faith" to entirely color your response.
>>>
>>> That adequately explains it.
>>
>> I have liitle choice but to have my world-view filter all I input and
>> output. I'm not an automaton.
>
> If you weren't an automaton, I might presume that you have the ability to
> amend your own worldview as you deem it necessary.
I would have thought that was implicit in noting that I accept input.
>> "It tickled my funny bone" explains it even better.
>
> Simply symptomatic of the effect your worldview blinders had on you,
> apparently. Not necessarily a different explanation at all.
ROFL! No, as I said, Mike, in my opinion, seemed to provide a reason
for him to think you a fool. When someone asks a question that they
then answer themselves, all while not realising they answered it, I get
a giggle.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Tichy
Heh. I wasn't referring to the chronology of your post, but the location of
your reply within the exchange, Crispy. Where you reply "no" to the
question as to whether or not you are avoiding the question, you have not
yet answered the question.
<snip slam predicated on the assumption that my comment was based upon the
chronology of the posts rather than upon the structure of the post itself>
Wow! There's *more*!
<snip>
<snip>
> Please, quote the date that Google received it in any reply.
Heh.
>
> Seems to me your vision is occluded by a sequioa, Tichy.
Heh. Yeah, whatever.
>
> >>>> Does "Rationalizing His Faith"="trying [his] worldview alongside
others
> >>>> in the biased court of public opinion"?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think they do.
> >>>
> >>> Nor do I, but the comparison has been made and you appear to support
it.
> >>
> >> It looks to me as though you were the one equating them.
> >
> > In doing so, you grant the assertion that I serve as an example of one
> > burdened by a need to rationalize my "faith".
>
> No. You were the one who introduced the terms which you equated to
> previously used terms. i.e. you equated your terms to those used
> previously, this is hardly my problem.
Uh, yes it is. As I just mentioned, your (apparently uncritical) acceptance
of the previous poster's assessment of my work places you in the position of
viewing my work as he did. At issue is the actual character of the work
itself. Is it a rationalization of "my faith"? No argument on your part,
simply a contradiction of what I would claim it to be. If your view is
unsubstantiated versus mine, then you are open to the charge of having
equated the two.
You have been so charged.
>
> > I do not grant that assertion, therefore I am not equating the two. My
> > statement encourages (I hope) those who would discuss my alleged
handicap to
> > provide evidence that their presentation of my posting history is
accurate.
>
> Fine. As also noted, _I_ was not the one to do so.
Then, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>
>
> >>>> Wouldn't you describe 'rationalised faith' as self-contradictory?
> >>>
> >>> No, for I do not accept the straw man version of faith that you are
> >>> apparently (in true "Knee Jerk" style) referring to.
> >>
> >> Care to share the version of faith that succumbs to rationalisation
> >> then?
> >
> > See dictionary.com, the Merriam-Webster online collegiate dictionary, or
the
> > Webster hypertext dictionary. Granted, a definition of faith as belief
sans
> > or despite evidence *exists*, but it is not the biblical view of faith.
>
> Isn't it? Please, present this biblical version.
>
> Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin one's
> ~ on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly)
<snip>
You beat me to it, you dirty dog.
Doesn't that version have the definition favored by atheists in it (belief
without or despite evidence)?
> >>> [if
> >>>> it was rational, it wouldn't be faith] Wouldn't someone who spent
their
> >>>> time attempting that be spending their time foolishly?
> >>>
> >>> If they recognized that version of faith as a straw man, certainly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> IMHO, Mike provided a reason for _him_ thinking you a fool, just
after
> >>>> asking why chib thought you a fool. Hence my response.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, so you allowed your straw man/personal (influenced by your own
> >>> world-view?) notion of "faith" to entirely color your response.
> >>>
> >>> That adequately explains it.
> >>
> >> I have liitle choice but to have my world-view filter all I input and
> >> output. I'm not an automaton.
> >
> > If you weren't an automaton, I might presume that you have the ability
to
> > amend your own worldview as you deem it necessary.
>
> I would have thought that was implicit in noting that I accept input.
If so, you have a peculiar instance where your input is filtered apparently
both after you accept it and prior to its acceptance. Your statement ends
up in ambiguity. What is it you are trying to say?
>
>
> >> "It tickled my funny bone" explains it even better.
> >
> > Simply symptomatic of the effect your worldview blinders had on you,
> > apparently. Not necessarily a different explanation at all.
>
> ROFL! No, as I said, Mike, in my opinion, seemed to provide a reason
> for him to think you a fool. When someone asks a question that they
> then answer themselves, all while not realising they answered it, I get
> a giggle.
Heh. And, as previous noted, your impression of hilarity was simply caused
by your worldview, which causes you to interpret "faith" as belief without
evidence.
I have little doubt that you genuinely found it funny, but you found it so
because your worldview predisposed you to a straw man version of faith, as
it would be used of Christian theism.
Mike Smith
--snip--
=Heh. And, as previous noted, your impression of hilarity
=was simply caused by your worldview, which causes you
=to interpret "faith" as belief without evidence.
=I have little doubt that you genuinely found it funny, but
=you found it so because your worldview predisposed you
=to a straw man version of faith, as it would be used of
=Christian theism.
Martin asked you for the Christian version. What is it?
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man coming in his kingdom." - Mt.16:28
Tichy
<Mike Smith mike...@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ii5go$kh5$1...@news.chorus.net...
> "Tichy" <@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> --snip--
> =Heh. And, as previous noted, your impression of hilarity
> =was simply caused by your worldview, which causes you
> =to interpret "faith" as belief without evidence.
> =I have little doubt that you genuinely found it funny, but
> =you found it so because your worldview predisposed you
> =to a straw man version of faith, as it would be used of
> =Christian theism.
>
> Martin asked you for the Christian version. What is it?
Read more carefully, Mike.
====================================
> Isn't it? Please, present this biblical version.
>
> Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin one's
> ~ on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly)
<snip>
You beat me to it, you dirty dog.
====================================
-from the post Mike is responding to
I removed the inapplicable definition prior to confirming the above
definition as the biblical conception of faith, and followed up (if you will
recall) by wondering aloud over the apparent absence of the favored a.aLand
definition of faith in the dictionary used by Mr. Crisp.
It is instructive, imo, that so many in a.a *assume* that faith is "belief
without evidence" without giving any apparent consideration to other regions
of the pool of meaning for the word "faith".
Maybe it's simply the fault of stupid Christians.
Then again, maybe not.
;-)
Martin Crisp
message <qTZ27.153583$_T2.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
My apologies, context did not make it clear, and your 'delayed'
response suggested you had only just seen my reply.
> Wow! There's *more*!
>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
>> Please, quote the date that Google received it in any reply.
>
> Heh.
>
>>
>> Seems to me your vision is occluded by a sequioa, Tichy.
>
> Heh. Yeah, whatever.
>
>>
>>>>>> Does "Rationalizing His Faith"="trying [his] worldview alongside
>>>>>> others in the biased court of public opinion"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor do I, but the comparison has been made and you appear to support
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> It looks to me as though you were the one equating them.
>>>
>>> In doing so, you grant the assertion that I serve as an example of one
>>> burdened by a need to rationalize my "faith".
>>
>> No. You were the one who introduced the terms which you equated to
>> previously used terms. i.e. you equated your terms to those used
>> previously, this is hardly my problem.
>
> Uh, yes it is. As I just mentioned, your (apparently uncritical) acceptance
> of the previous poster's assessment of my work places you in the position of
> viewing my work as he did. At issue is the actual character of the work
and I maintain that no such acceptance of his view was necessary, my
remark was no more nor less than I have indicated previously, I
understand that you find it mildly (at least) insulting, and I
apologise for that insult, it was not the purpose of my comment.
You are right that my assessment was uncritical, the reason for that is
simple, my remark was addressed to Mike, not at the person he was
describing.
If I strip Mike's remarks down to:
Why do you think <person x> is a fool?
I think <person x> is a good mind lumbered with the anvil of
Rationalizing His Faith.
If I think that "rationalising his faith" is a foolish activity (and I
do, regardless which of the usual definitions of faith you use). Is a
comment "You answered your own question" necessarily an attack on
<person x>? Do I need to know whether <person x> does actually do this?
I don't think I do.
Perhaps if I had put my comment another way: "If you think that, why
don't you think him a fool?", my intent would have been clearer?
[If I was allowing my worldview to interfere with the interpretation of
another's it would be Mike's]
> itself. Is it a rationalization of "my faith"? No argument on your part,
> simply a contradiction of what I would claim it to be. If your view is
> unsubstantiated versus mine, then you are open to the charge of having
> equated the two.
> You have been so charged.
I have not done so.
You asked if it was a bad thing to try your worldview in the biased
court of public opinion.
I don't think that is 'a bad thing' per se. Nor do I think it is the
same as 'rationalising your faith'. Exploring your faith, perhaps, and
that is a _good_ thing.
>>> I do not grant that assertion, therefore I am not equating the
>>> two. My statement encourages (I hope) those who would discuss my
>>> alleged handicap to provide evidence that their presentation of my
>>> posting history is accurate.
>>
>> Fine. As also noted, _I_ was not the one to do so.
>
> Then, why are you wasting bandwidth?
Because you took my comment in a manner I did not intend, and I was
trying (poorly, it seems) to explicate that.
>>>>>> Wouldn't you describe 'rationalised faith' as self-contradictory?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, for I do not accept the straw man version of faith that you are
>>>>> apparently (in true "Knee Jerk" style) referring to.
>>>>
>>>> Care to share the version of faith that succumbs to rationalisation
>>>> then?
>>>
>>> See dictionary.com, the Merriam-Webster online collegiate
>>> dictionary, or the Webster hypertext dictionary. Granted, a
>>> definition of faith as belief sans or despite evidence *exists*,
>>> but it is not the biblical view of faith.
>>
>> Isn't it? Please, present this biblical version.
>>
>> Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin one's
>>> on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly)
>
> <snip>
> You beat me to it, you dirty dog.
I still don't see how faith, of any stripe, succumbs to
rationalisation. All of the versions I included from my dictionary seem
immune to rationalisation to me. I can see how the ability to
rationalise something, or not, might be used to determine what parts of
a worldview are held 'on faith' and which are not.
I used to have faith that the transubstantiation happened during the
consecration in catholic mass, but while doing so I was aware that I
could not rationalise this view, because it was faith in something that
was beyond rational explanation. [it looks no different, it smells no
different, it tastes no different, but my faith told me it was
different] If I had spent time rationalising this faith-held belief,
then I think I would have been spending my time foolishly.
> Doesn't that version have the definition favored by atheists in it (belief
> without or despite evidence)?
No, it does not have such a definition.
def #3 is promise, engagement... #4 is ~healer, ~cure...
There is no #5.
I haven't taken a poll of atheists to know whether this is 'the
definition favoured by atheists'...
>>>>> [if
>>>>>> it was rational, it wouldn't be faith] Wouldn't someone who spent
> their
>>>>>> time attempting that be spending their time foolishly?
>>>>>
>>>>> If they recognized that version of faith as a straw man, certainly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, Mike provided a reason for _him_ thinking you a fool, just
>>>>>> after asking why chib thought you a fool. Hence my response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so you allowed your straw man/personal (influenced by your own
>>>>> world-view?) notion of "faith" to entirely color your response.
>>>>>
>>>>> That adequately explains it.
>>>>
>>>> I have liitle choice but to have my world-view filter all I input and
>>>> output. I'm not an automaton.
>>>
>>> If you weren't an automaton, I might presume that you have the
>>> ability to amend your own worldview as you deem it necessary.
>>
>> I would have thought that was implicit in noting that I accept input.
>
> If so, you have a peculiar instance where your input is filtered apparently
> both after you accept it and prior to its acceptance. Your statement ends
> up in ambiguity. What is it you are trying to say?
<sigh> I must have had my head on backwards. I think I originally
intended automaton in terms of 'mindless' or 'thing without a
worldview'. It appears to be a furphy, and I can't recall why I tacked
it onto the comment of a week ago.
In my zeal earlier today (well, yesterday now, my time), I obviously
still had my head up my arse at this point of the reply.
>>>> "It tickled my funny bone" explains it even better.
>>>
>>> Simply symptomatic of the effect your worldview blinders had on you,
>>> apparently. Not necessarily a different explanation at all.
>>
>> ROFL! No, as I said, Mike, in my opinion, seemed to provide a reason
>> for him to think you a fool. When someone asks a question that they
>> then answer themselves, all while not realising they answered it, I get
>> a giggle.
>
> Heh. And, as previous noted, your impression of hilarity was simply caused
> by your worldview, which causes you to interpret "faith" as belief without
> evidence.
I don't think it was. And I don't think I had such a simplistic view of
faith in mind when I made the comment.
> I have little doubt that you genuinely found it funny, but you found it so
> because your worldview predisposed you to a straw man version of faith, as
> it would be used of Christian theism.
Perhaps we each misinterpreted the other, based on little evidence?
Regardless, as I said above, I apologise both for my misinterpretation
of your "took you long enough" and the insult you feel you have been
the victim of. As I said, whether you accept my word or not, that was
not my intent.
Yes, my comment was probably childish, and shows me to be foolish as
well (and some comments since have not exactly helped that impression),
we've spent more than enough bytes on it. Other than the question of
whether it makes sense to attempt to rationalise something held 'on
faith' I can't see any useful discussion coming from further
exploration of remarks made. Shall we drop it?
Maybe one of these days I'll learn to keep my big yap shut? :-/
Tichy
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 1:01:42 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
> message <qTZ27.153583$_T2.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
>
> >
> > "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:01HW.B77223F10...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:26:10 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
> >> message <Ctv27.211265$WB1.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
> >>
> >>> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> >>> news:<01HW.B76382CC0...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> >>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 5:15:05 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote
(in
> >>>> message <Zs4%6.69032$_T2.17...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:01HW.B762D1330...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> >>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:39:55 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote
> > (in
> >>>>>> message <%Nw_6.54841$WB1.15...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:<01HW.B76073A60...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 2:08:41 +1000 the muse struck Mike Smith
> >>>>>>>> mike...@apexmail.com, who wrote (in message
> >>>>>>>> <9gt659$iij$2...@news.chorus.net>):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> chibiabos <chib...@SPAMBLOCK.earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip graceful & gracious apology & surrounding stuff>
> >>>>>> Does "Rationalizing His Faith"="trying [his] worldview alongside
> >>>>>> others in the biased court of public opinion"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think they do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nor do I, but the comparison has been made and you appear to support
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks to me as though you were the one equating them.
> >>>
> >>> In doing so, you grant the assertion that I serve as an example of one
> >>> burdened by a need to rationalize my "faith".
> >>
> >> No. You were the one who introduced the terms which you equated to
> >> previously used terms. i.e. you equated your terms to those used
> >> previously, this is hardly my problem.
> >
> > Uh, yes it is. As I just mentioned, your (apparently uncritical)
acceptance
> > of the previous poster's assessment of my work places you in the
position of
> > viewing my work as he did. At issue is the actual character of the work
>
> and I maintain that no such acceptance of his view was necessary, my
> remark was no more nor less than I have indicated previously, I
> understand that you find it mildly (at least) insulting, and I
> apologise for that insult, it was not the purpose of my comment.
Thanks. I, in turn, apologize for connecting you too solidly with the
assessment of others.
>
> You are right that my assessment was uncritical, the reason for that is
> simple, my remark was addressed to Mike, not at the person he was
> describing.
>
> If I strip Mike's remarks down to:
>
> Why do you think <person x> is a fool?
> I think <person x> is a good mind lumbered with the anvil of
> Rationalizing His Faith.
>
> If I think that "rationalising his faith" is a foolish activity (and I
> do, regardless which of the usual definitions of faith you use). Is a
> comment "You answered your own question" necessarily an attack on
> <person x>?
Necessarily? Not at all. It suggests (as already discussed) a version of
faith that is foreign to theologically aware Christians, and possibly
agreement that my posts are rationalizations of my faith (and, in turn,
foolish).
Do I need to know whether <person x> does actually do this?
> I don't think I do.
> Perhaps if I had put my comment another way: "If you think that, why
> don't you think him a fool?", my intent would have been clearer?
It would have indicated a probable understanding of "faith" similar to that
referred to above, and made clearer that you found Mike's phrasing
paradoxical.
>
> [If I was allowing my worldview to interfere with the interpretation of
> another's it would be Mike's]
Mike probably meant "faith" as a set of doctrines, which was one of the
definitions thus far unmentioned. Rationalizing faith as trust or a set of
doctrines is not necessarily paradoxical in the least.
>
> > itself. Is it a rationalization of "my faith"? No argument on your
part,
> > simply a contradiction of what I would claim it to be. If your view is
> > unsubstantiated versus mine, then you are open to the charge of having
> > equated the two.
> > You have been so charged.
>
> I have not done so.
I'll take your word for it.
> You asked if it was a bad thing to try your worldview in the biased
> court of public opinion.
>
> I don't think that is 'a bad thing' per se. Nor do I think it is the
> same as 'rationalising your faith'. Exploring your faith, perhaps, and
> that is a _good_ thing.
I agree, and I would add that I do not restrict myself to issues directly
related to religious doctrines that I happen to hold. I'm interested in
truth & communication. That's why I focus on locating & correcting certain
errors (as I'm able), and comment on books (especially Lem), music, law,
politics, etc. I also enjoy putting others in the position of explaining
their own worldviews. Some atheists have done a pretty good job at it, imo
(and some have sucked at it). And many simply avoid it.
>
>
>
> >>> I do not grant that assertion, therefore I am not equating the
> >>> two. My statement encourages (I hope) those who would discuss my
> >>> alleged handicap to provide evidence that their presentation of my
> >>> posting history is accurate.
> >>
> >> Fine. As also noted, _I_ was not the one to do so.
> >
> > Then, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>
> Because you took my comment in a manner I did not intend, and I was
> trying (poorly, it seems) to explicate that.
I think that I understand you now.
:-)
>
> >>>>>> Wouldn't you describe 'rationalised faith' as self-contradictory?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, for I do not accept the straw man version of faith that you are
> >>>>> apparently (in true "Knee Jerk" style) referring to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Care to share the version of faith that succumbs to rationalisation
> >>>> then?
> >>>
> >>> See dictionary.com, the Merriam-Webster online collegiate
> >>> dictionary, or the Webster hypertext dictionary. Granted, a
> >>> definition of faith as belief sans or despite evidence *exists*,
> >>> but it is not the biblical view of faith.
> >>
> >> Isn't it? Please, present this biblical version.
> >>
> >> Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin one's
> >>> on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly)
> >
> > <snip>
> > You beat me to it, you dirty dog.
>
> I still don't see how faith, of any stripe, succumbs to
> rationalisation.
Do you trust (have faith in) the scientific method?
Your senses?
Your spouse?
Why?
Does that help?
I'd ask similar questions regarding doctrines that you adhere to, but I'd be
guessing. Hey, why not?
Do you believe that the physical (matter & energy) is all that is?
Why?
All of the versions I included from my dictionary seem
> immune to rationalisation to me. I can see how the ability to
> rationalise something, or not, might be used to determine what parts of
> a worldview are held 'on faith' and which are not.
You seem to be stuck on the evidenceless view of faith, afaics.
>
> I used to have faith that the transubstantiation happened during the
> consecration in catholic mass, but while doing so I was aware that I
> could not rationalise this view, because it was faith in something that
> was beyond rational explanation. [it looks no different, it smells no
> different, it tastes no different, but my faith told me it was
> different] If I had spent time rationalising this faith-held belief,
> then I think I would have been spending my time foolishly.
>
> > Doesn't that version have the definition favored by atheists in it
(belief
> > without or despite evidence)?
>
> No, it does not have such a definition.
> def #3 is promise, engagement... #4 is ~healer, ~cure...
>
> There is no #5.
>
> I haven't taken a poll of atheists to know whether this is 'the
> definition favoured by atheists'...
That's from my *personal* polling data.
;-)
Watch the spelling in the quotation, btw. While I favor English English
spellings from time to time (yes, they're more sensible! I admit it!), I
stuck with my native (corrupt American English) version that time.
Take a gander at number two:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=faith
<snip>
(What's a "furphy"?)
>
> >>>> "It tickled my funny bone" explains it even better.
> >>>
> >>> Simply symptomatic of the effect your worldview blinders had on you,
> >>> apparently. Not necessarily a different explanation at all.
> >>
> >> ROFL! No, as I said, Mike, in my opinion, seemed to provide a reason
> >> for him to think you a fool. When someone asks a question that they
> >> then answer themselves, all while not realising they answered it, I get
> >> a giggle.
> >
> > Heh. And, as previous noted, your impression of hilarity was simply
caused
> > by your worldview, which causes you to interpret "faith" as belief
without
> > evidence.
>
> I don't think it was. And I don't think I had such a simplistic view of
> faith in mind when I made the comment.
I don't understand why any other view of faith would be funny in the context
of Mike's statement. Am I Mister Stodgy Old Guy or something?
>
> > I have little doubt that you genuinely found it funny, but you found it
so
> > because your worldview predisposed you to a straw man version of faith,
as
> > it would be used of Christian theism.
>
> Perhaps we each misinterpreted the other, based on little evidence?
It's a definite maybe.
>
> Regardless, as I said above, I apologise both for my misinterpretation
> of your "took you long enough" and the insult you feel you have been
> the victim of. As I said, whether you accept my word or not, that was
> not my intent.
I accept it fully. I'm sorry for taking you to severe task over what ended
up as a minor thing.
<snip>
Shall we drop it?
>
Makes sense to me.
> Maybe one of these days I'll learn to keep my big yap shut? :-/
>
Where's the fun in that?
;-)
Look at the bright side. We both got some practice in difficult
communication. Live & learn.
> Have Fun
You, too.
Kamian
Hey Martin, save yourself the bother... arguing with Tichy is like arguing
like wrestling with a pig in mud- you both get dirty, but you find out too
late that only one of you enjoys it.
He's eminently twittable.
Enjoy and Beware,
Kam'
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Tichy
"Kamian" <kam...@jadeinc.com> wrote in message
news:3b4d8eb1$1...@Usenet.com...
>
> Hey Martin, save yourself the bother... arguing with Tichy is like arguing
> like wrestling with a pig in mud- you both get dirty, but you find out too
> late that only one of you enjoys it.
>
> He's eminently twittable.
<snip>
"It is simply a statement of fact, though- cereal is real, Gods are not. By
every definition of "fact" "real" "cereal" and "gods", that statement is
accurate and reverifiable by everyone able to distinguish between reality
and unreality."
-Kamian
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=so+childishly+goads+tichy+group:alt.atheis
m+author:kamian&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=2df50ad8.0106140221.75104ef8
%40posting.google.com
<snip>
What did you mean when you said "by every definition"?
Heh.
Martin Crisp
message <y8b37.156778$_T2.31...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
>
> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B772EE830...@news.ozemail.com.au...
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 1:01:42 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
>> message <qTZ27.153583$_T2.30...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
[snip for space, please see references headers...]
>> and I maintain that no such acceptance of his view was necessary, my
>> remark was no more nor less than I have indicated previously, I
>> understand that you find it mildly (at least) insulting, and I
>> apologise for that insult, it was not the purpose of my comment.
>
> Thanks. I, in turn, apologize for connecting you too solidly with the
> assessment of others.
No probs, and likewise, thank you.
>> You are right that my assessment was uncritical, the reason for that is
>> simple, my remark was addressed to Mike, not at the person he was
>> describing.
>>
>> If I strip Mike's remarks down to:
>>
>> Why do you think <person x> is a fool?
>> I think <person x> is a good mind lumbered with the anvil of
>> Rationalizing His Faith.
>>
>> If I think that "rationalising his faith" is a foolish activity (and I
>> do, regardless which of the usual definitions of faith you use). Is a
>> comment "You answered your own question" necessarily an attack on
>> <person x>?
>
> Necessarily? Not at all. It suggests (as already discussed) a version of
> faith that is foreign to theologically aware Christians, and possibly
> agreement that my posts are rationalizations of my faith (and, in turn,
> foolish).
OK.
[Still quibble room there - did Mike mean your posts, or was it just a
'swipe' at Persons of Faith?]
>> Do I need to know whether <person x> does actually do this?
>> I don't think I do.
>> Perhaps if I had put my comment another way: "If you think that, why
>> don't you think him a fool?", my intent would have been clearer?
>
> It would have indicated a probable understanding of "faith" similar to that
> referred to above, and made clearer that you found Mike's phrasing
> paradoxical.
Ahh, but it would have lost so much else (from the perspective of one
who likes to act the fool).
>> [If I was allowing my worldview to interfere with the interpretation of
>> another's it would be Mike's]
>
> Mike probably meant "faith" as a set of doctrines, which was one of the
> definitions thus far unmentioned. Rationalizing faith as trust or a set of
> doctrines is not necessarily paradoxical in the least.
I agree, he may have (even 'probably') meant faith in that context.
[...]
>> I don't think that is 'a bad thing' per se. Nor do I think it is the
>> same as 'rationalising your faith'. Exploring your faith, perhaps, and
>> that is a _good_ thing.
>
> I agree, and I would add that I do not restrict myself to issues directly
> related to religious doctrines that I happen to hold. I'm interested in
> truth & communication. That's why I focus on locating & correcting certain
> errors (as I'm able), and comment on books (especially Lem), music, law,
> politics, etc.
[break inserted by me]
Whereas these are my weakest areas :-)
[Let's just say I feel my scholarship was stunted by teachers who held
grudges against students whose facts contradicted their's... <recalls
correcting comments on land use in Western Australia, with respect to
distribution and numbers of sheep, in particular. Calling into question
the reliability of the rest of the text being used in that area...>]
> I also enjoy putting others in the position of explaining
> their own worldviews. Some atheists have done a pretty good job at it, imo
> (and some have sucked at it). And many simply avoid it.
I feel unable to describe mine fully, some aspects I have no trouble
with, others I don't hold from a 'justified' position, and so am
unlikely to argue them in a place such as this.
[snip]
>>>> Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin
>>>> one's on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly)
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> You beat me to it, you dirty dog.
>>
>> I still don't see how faith, of any stripe, succumbs to
>> rationalisation.
>
> Do you trust (have faith in) the scientific method?
Sort of. I have faith that the underlying assumption of science
[reality exists and is amenable to measurement] is true. I have faith
(of a sort, hardly evidenceless) that processes such as peer review, in
the long term, will ensure the eradication of errors (caused by bias,
mismeasurement, lack of 'the full picture', or whatever).
The very process of peer review discounts 'trust'. [I don't regard
trust as being a close synonym of faith either, although it would be
closest to the version of faith your personal poll would suggest I hold
to...]
> Your senses?
No. Or at least, not entirely [sitting in the back seat of a car,
looking out the windscreen, seeing 2 versions of the road ahead coming
towards me = I do not drive. I don't often get double vision, usually
when I'm working on a precise diagram...]. I've also (sometimes:
secondary school, army reserves medical; not others: last couple of
times I've been checked by an optometrist) been assessed as red/green
colourblind.
It seems I never tire of pointing to my spouse as an example of why our
senses are unreliable. Although she paints reasonably* well for someone
legally blind, she has been twice refused entry to the School of Fine
Art at Tas Uni, on the basis of not having 3D/stereoscopic vision - as
evidenced by her portfolio at those times, and also by measurement by
opthalmic specialists. [She refuses to apply for dispensation due to
disability.]
*this is an attempt to correct for bias.
> Your spouse?
In some respects, and not in others. I don't trust her to be honest
about her current level of pain, she likes to put on a happy face. I
implicitly trust her not to jump in the sack with a friend who is also
an ex-lover when he visits and I'm elsewhere. [His track record would
indicate I shouldn't trust him, entirely, however.]
I have faith that she means what she says when she says she loves me.
Even though I cannot define, and nor can she, what love 'is', let alone
'know' what the other's conception of it is.
> Why?
Differing degrees, types, and amounts of evidence, and in one case some
desire for it to be true.
> Does that help?
Not a lot.
All of them rest, ultimately, on some untestable assumption(s), that is
the place where faith 'lives'.
> I'd ask similar questions regarding doctrines that you adhere to,
> but I'd be guessing. Hey, why not?
>
> Do you believe that the physical (matter & energy) is all that is?
> Why?
Yes. I have no evidence to suggest anything else _is_.
[Yeah, yeah, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But I have no
_reason_ to believe otherwise.]
As above, under 'scientific method', I also acknowledge that underlying
all that is an (ultimately) untestable pair of assumptions: I exist,
reality exists. They sure as heck feel true though, so I'll do as
descartes apparently did, and assume I exist as a first principle.
> All of the versions I included from my dictionary seem
>> immune to rationalisation to me. I can see how the ability to
>> rationalise something, or not, might be used to determine what parts of
>> a worldview are held 'on faith' and which are not.
>
> You seem to be stuck on the evidenceless view of faith, afaics.
I don't think I am.
"Evidence-poor" feels closer to the view I have.
[snip, trailing comments from my previous, above]
>>> Doesn't that version have the definition favored by atheists in it
>>> (belief without or despite evidence)?
>>
>> No, it does not have such a definition.
>> def #3 is promise, engagement... #4 is ~healer, ~cure...
>>
>> There is no #5.
>>
>> I haven't taken a poll of atheists to know whether this is 'the
>> definition favoured by atheists'...
>
> That's from my *personal* polling data.
> ;-)
> Watch the spelling in the quotation, btw. While I favor English English
> spellings from time to time (yes, they're more sensible! I admit it!), I
> stuck with my native (corrupt American English) version that time.
Ooops. [considers calling it a translation...]
I'm sure we could argue all day over the sense in spelling diarrhoea as
it 'should' be. [and generate much of same in the process]
:-)
> Take a gander at number two:
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=faith
<paste>
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
</paste>
I took you as meaning a stronger statement than this, as this doesn't
imply (to me) a total lack of evidence, merely insufficient to form
'knowledge' [if such 'thing' exists!].
> <snip>
> (What's a "furphy"?)
furphy n. (Austrl. sl.) false report or rumour; absurd story. [f. water
and sanitary F~carts of 1914-18 war, made at foundry set up by F~
family; for sense transfer cf SCUTTLE/butt/]
Australian Concise Oxford
I hadn't realised it was dialect-specific until I looked just now.
[...]
>> I don't think it was. And I don't think I had such a simplistic view of
>> faith in mind when I made the comment.
>
> I don't understand why any other view of faith would be funny in the context
> of Mike's statement. Am I Mister Stodgy Old Guy or something?
But it wasn't the view of faith that was funny to me:
Image: Person carrying anvil everywhere with them ("Faith" hammered
into side of same). "I'm carrying this wherever I go because
<rationalisation>"
All that person needs is a jester's outfit, IMO. Reminds me of
initiation at [St. John Fisher] college: I, and some others, 'had to'
carry a housebrick with me/us at all times for a week, in plain view.
Did I feel like a fool? Of course! [But I felt I had 'reason', in
hindsight it appears more like rationalisation.] My calculus lecturer
seemed to find it particularly amusing :-(
At least I wasn't sent in my academic gown to the centre of the city to
go fishing (rod reel etc) in the drains outside department stores, like
some freshmen at Christ College (the Anglican residential college next
door...).
[...]
>> Perhaps we each misinterpreted the other, based on little evidence?
>
> It's a definite maybe.
:-)
[...]
>> Maybe one of these days I'll learn to keep my big yap shut? :-/
>>
>
> Where's the fun in that?
> ;-)
True, but it doesn't seem likely in any case, I've been told since
about age 6 that my mouth was too smart for the rest of me. [This is my
excuse for letting it (my mouth) go, it might manage to educate the bit
that's meant to engage before putting it in gear... even if doing so
means looking like a fool periodically]
> Look at the bright side. We both got some practice in difficult
> communication. Live & learn.
Indeed.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
If only you knew how entrancing, how stirringly beautiful the images in
my head are, the ones I am unable to express.
- MC Escher
Mike Smith
--snip--
=It is instructive, imo, that so many in a.a *assume* that
=faith is "belief without evidence" without giving any
=apparent consideration to other regions of the pool of
=meaning for the word "faith".
=Maybe it's simply the fault of stupid Christians.
=Then again, maybe not. ;-)
The way Christians use the word "faith," it seems to
mean belief without evidence. Christians *brag* about
how strong their Faith is, and it's never connected to
any evidence. Just belief.
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction shall drive it far
from him." - Pr:22:15
Mike Smith
--snip--
=[Still quibble room there - did Mike mean your posts,
=or was it just a 'swipe' at Persons of Faith?]
Hello, Martin.
What I meant was that Tichy is a smart guy defending
an irrational belief. I call god-belief irrational because
there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reasoning/
verifiable evidence that leads one to such a belief.
In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
by a long shot.
If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
Tichy
> "Tichy" <@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> --snip--
> =It is instructive, imo, that so many in a.a *assume* that
> =faith is "belief without evidence" without giving any
> =apparent consideration to other regions of the pool of
> =meaning for the word "faith".
> =Maybe it's simply the fault of stupid Christians.
> =Then again, maybe not. ;-)
>
> The way Christians use the word "faith," it seems to
> mean belief without evidence. Christians *brag* about
> how strong their Faith is, and it's never connected to
> any evidence. Just belief.
In general, I'm inclined to take your word for it, but "never"?
Tichy
> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>
> --snip--
> =[Still quibble room there - did Mike mean your posts,
> =or was it just a 'swipe' at Persons of Faith?]
>
> Hello, Martin.
> What I meant was that Tichy is a smart guy defending
> an irrational belief. I call god-belief irrational because
> there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reasoning/
> verifiable evidence that leads one to such a belief.
Reasoning:
Why wouldn't the Kalam argument qualify as reasoning which supports such a
belief?
Verifiable evidence:
What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that physicalism
is true?
Mike has done the unthinkable: He has betrayed evidence of some of his own
assumptions.
;-)
> In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
OTOH, there may be no valid evidence of sociopathy, sadism, larceny (etc.),
but that doesn't stop folks from making such charges.
> An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> by a long shot.
You may have provided some evidence of one of your own blind spots
(assumptions in your own noetic system that correspond to your [critical]
assessment of me).
I'll allow that I may have some, but I reserve the right to resist those
that are presented to the forum without evidence in support.
> If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
It *does* appear to be a positive claim of sorts, doesn't it?
I'll accept your claim if you will apply the same standards to your own
belief system. What do we do once we're both irrational?
8^)
Shawn
> Verifiable evidence:
> What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that physicalism
> is true?
>
> Mike has done the unthinkable: He has betrayed evidence of some of his
own
> assumptions.
> ;-)
>
We all make certain assumptions about reality down any other path lay
madness. The difference between theists and atheist is that the Atheist
makes only one assumption and that is that we exist and we can for the most
part trust our senses. The theist makes this same assumption plus the
assumption that there must be something beyond what we can sense. The first
is a nescessity to sentience the second an unbased assumption that can not
be supported through any amount of logic and has absolutely no evidence to
back it up.
> > In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> > the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> > the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> > etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
>
> OTOH, there may be no valid evidence of sociopathy, sadism, larceny
(etc.),
> but that doesn't stop folks from making such charges.
>
There is plenty of evidence of all three so you've only proven that you are
delusional
> > An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> > by a long shot.
>
> You may have provided some evidence of one of your own blind spots
> (assumptions in your own noetic system that correspond to your [critical]
> assessment of me).
> I'll allow that I may have some, but I reserve the right to resist those
> that are presented to the forum without evidence in support.
>
As I pointed out above you make the same base assumption that we do however
you also make a baseless assumption that there is something else for which
there is no reason to believe exists. We have reason to believe that
existence exists the evidence is all around us including this argument.
> > If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> > know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> > me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
>
> It *does* appear to be a positive claim of sorts, doesn't it?
> I'll accept your claim if you will apply the same standards to your own
> belief system. What do we do once we're both irrational?
> 8^)
Ok total lack of supporting evidence for the existence of anything that
could remotely be defined as a diety.
Man that was easy.
Next.
Tichy
"Shawn" <skex_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LUi57.207133$lq1.51...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> > Verifiable evidence:
> > What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that
physicalism
> > is true?
> >
> The existence of the universe seems to be plenty big evidence to me.
That a physical (matter + energy) universe apparently exists is evidence
that the physical (matter + energy) is all that exists?
Explain.
>
> > Mike has done the unthinkable: He has betrayed evidence of some of his
> own
> > assumptions.
> > ;-)
> >
> We all make certain assumptions about reality down any other path lay
> madness.
Agreed.
The difference between theists and atheist is that the Atheist
> makes only one assumption and that is that we exist and we can for the
most
> part trust our senses.
That's actually two assumptions and you appear to have made a third above
(by apparently adhering to physicalism despite dubious evidence).
Wanna go for more?
;-)
The theist makes this same assumption plus the
> assumption that there must be something beyond what we can sense. The
first
> is a nescessity to sentience
(The second may be necessary to sentience, as well)
the second an unbased assumption that can not
> be supported through any amount of logic and has absolutely no evidence to
> back it up.
That simply isn't true.
For starters, if the existence of a physical universe is evidence of the
truth of physicalism, then you open the door to all manner of evidences for
god.
>
>
> > > In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> > > the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> > > the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> > > etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
> >
> > OTOH, there may be no valid evidence of sociopathy, sadism, larceny
> (etc.),
> > but that doesn't stop folks from making such charges.
> >
> There is plenty of evidence of all three so you've only proven that you
are
> delusional
On the basis that you assert that there is plenty of evidence for all three?
>
> > > An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> > > by a long shot.
> >
> > You may have provided some evidence of one of your own blind spots
> > (assumptions in your own noetic system that correspond to your
[critical]
> > assessment of me).
> > I'll allow that I may have some, but I reserve the right to resist those
> > that are presented to the forum without evidence in support.
> >
> As I pointed out above you make the same base assumption that we do
however
> you also make a baseless assumption that there is something else for which
> there is no reason to believe exists.
(such as your claim that there is plenty of evidence for certain alleged
facts about the god who allegedly does not exist?)
We have reason to believe that
> existence exists the evidence is all around us including this argument.
An argument against physicalism should not be confused with advocacy of
solipsism. Your statement above makes sense to me if you're engaged in that
confusion, not otherwise.
>
> > > If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> > > know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> > > me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
> >
> > It *does* appear to be a positive claim of sorts, doesn't it?
> > I'll accept your claim if you will apply the same standards to your own
> > belief system. What do we do once we're both irrational?
> > 8^)
>
> Ok total lack of supporting evidence for the existence of anything that
> could remotely be defined as a diety.
> Man that was easy.
Man, that was fallacious (argument from ignorance (AaI): Shawn is unaware
of evidence for belief in god, therefore none exists).
<snip>
Next?
Shawn
"Tichy" <@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Cjk57.28255$rt.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Shawn" <skex_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LUi57.207133$lq1.51...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > > Verifiable evidence:
> > > What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that
> physicalism
> > > is true?
> > >
> > The existence of the universe seems to be plenty big evidence to me.
>
> That a physical (matter + energy) universe apparently exists is evidence
> that the physical (matter + energy) is all that exists?
> Explain.
>
existence is every physical object in existence. It is an objective standard
as well since all of us can detect the evidence.
> >
> > > Mike has done the unthinkable: He has betrayed evidence of some of
his
> > own
> > > assumptions.
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > We all make certain assumptions about reality down any other path lay
> > madness.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The difference between theists and atheist is that the Atheist
> > makes only one assumption and that is that we exist and we can for the
> most
> > part trust our senses.
>
> That's actually two assumptions and you appear to have made a third above
> (by apparently adhering to physicalism despite dubious evidence).
>
If you want to call that two assumption fine its still one less assumption
than the theist makes. And no the point above is not an assumption is is a
conclusion based on evidence. There is a significant difference between that
and a groundless assumption.
> Wanna go for more?
> ;-)
>
There aren't any because every other conclusion beyond existence and
validity of our sensory data is a conclusion not an assumption.
> The theist makes this same assumption plus the
> > assumption that there must be something beyond what we can sense. The
> first
> > is a nescessity to sentience
>
> (The second may be necessary to sentience, as well)
>
There is no evidence to sugest that that is the case.
> the second an unbased assumption that can not
> > be supported through any amount of logic and has absolutely no evidence
to
> > back it up.
>
> That simply isn't true.
> For starters, if the existence of a physical universe is evidence of the
> truth of physicalism, then you open the door to all manner of evidences
for
> god.
>
Please provide them? in fact please provide on peice of objective verifiable
evidence that can only lead to the conclusion that this being you propose
actually exists.
> >
> >
> > > > In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> > > > the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> > > > the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> > > > etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
> > >
> > > OTOH, there may be no valid evidence of sociopathy, sadism, larceny
> > (etc.),
> > > but that doesn't stop folks from making such charges.
> > >
> > There is plenty of evidence of all three so you've only proven that you
> are
> > delusional
>
> On the basis that you assert that there is plenty of evidence for all
three?
>
Lets see I've had things stolen so that proves larceny, Ted Bundy is plenty
of evidence for the other two you wanna try again?
> >
> > > > An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> > > > by a long shot.
> > >
> > > You may have provided some evidence of one of your own blind spots
> > > (assumptions in your own noetic system that correspond to your
> [critical]
> > > assessment of me).
> > > I'll allow that I may have some, but I reserve the right to resist
those
> > > that are presented to the forum without evidence in support.
> > >
> > As I pointed out above you make the same base assumption that we do
> however
> > you also make a baseless assumption that there is something else for
which
> > there is no reason to believe exists.
>
> (such as your claim that there is plenty of evidence for certain alleged
> facts about the god who allegedly does not exist?)
>
I make no claims about any "god(s)" your the one making claims about this
extra componnent of existence for which there is no supporting evidence.
> We have reason to believe that
> > existence exists the evidence is all around us including this argument.
>
> An argument against physicalism should not be confused with advocacy of
> solipsism. Your statement above makes sense to me if you're engaged in
that
> confusion, not otherwise.
>
I think your getting your terms confused. For the most part atheists are
materialists (at least I am) meaning that we believe in that which can be
measured quantified detected and observed.
The point is that this conversation is also another peice of observable
verifiable evidence that the material world exists.
However there is no such evidence to support the proposition of this being
you propose.
> >
> > > > If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> > > > know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> > > > me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
> > >
> > > It *does* appear to be a positive claim of sorts, doesn't it?
> > > I'll accept your claim if you will apply the same standards to your
own
> > > belief system. What do we do once we're both irrational?
> > > 8^)
> >
> > Ok total lack of supporting evidence for the existence of anything that
> > could remotely be defined as a diety.
> > Man that was easy.
>
> Man, that was fallacious (argument from ignorance (AaI): Shawn is unaware
> of evidence for belief in god, therefore none exists).
>
Then please show me your evidence so that I might evaluate it. I'll be more
than willing to change my mind if anyone ever answers that request. So far
I've not seen one bit one iota. I'd far rather be wrong for the right
reasons than be right for the wrong ones.
My meathod of descision making leads me to consistent choices and in
addition it has been shown to be more accurate in prediction than any other
to date.
The atheists request from the theist is simple provide a compelling argument
for and supporting evidence wrt the diety you believe exists and we will
cease to be atheists.
Until that time just accept the fact that you can not readily seperate
fantasy from reality and go away.
Tichy
>
> "Tichy" <@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Cjk57.28255$rt.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Shawn" <skex_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:LUi57.207133$lq1.51...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > >
> > > > Verifiable evidence:
> > > > What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that
> > physicalism
> > > > is true?
> > > >
> > > The existence of the universe seems to be plenty big evidence to me.
> >
> > That a physical (matter + energy) universe apparently exists is evidence
> > that the physical (matter + energy) is all that exists?
> > Explain.
> >
> Not my point the fact that there is a universe The evidence for it's
> existence is every physical object in existence. It is an objective
standard
> as well since all of us can detect the evidence.
Existence is not at issue. As you note, we would not be arguing if we did
not exist.
Again:
What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that physicalism
is true?
>
> > >
> > > > Mike has done the unthinkable: He has betrayed evidence of some of
> his
> > > own
> > > > assumptions.
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > We all make certain assumptions about reality down any other path lay
> > > madness.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > The difference between theists and atheist is that the Atheist
> > > makes only one assumption and that is that we exist and we can for the
> > most
> > > part trust our senses.
> >
> > That's actually two assumptions and you appear to have made a third
above
> > (by apparently adhering to physicalism despite dubious evidence).
> >
> If you want to call that two assumption fine its still one less assumption
> than the theist makes.
Are you assuming that the assumption inventory is completed?
And no the point above is not an assumption is is a
> conclusion based on evidence.
All verification of sense information requires sense information. That's
circular. Keith Johnson has pointed this out a million times (perhaps
literally!).
It remains an assumption.
There is a significant difference between that
> and a groundless assumption.
What might that difference be?
>
> > Wanna go for more?
> > ;-)
> >
> There aren't any because every other conclusion beyond existence and
> validity of our sensory data is a conclusion not an assumption.
So, if I believe in god it is a conclusion & not an assumption? How did
belief in god originate if there is no evidence for the existence of god, as
you have alleged?
>
> > The theist makes this same assumption plus the
> > > assumption that there must be something beyond what we can sense. The
> > first
> > > is a nescessity to sentience
> >
> > (The second may be necessary to sentience, as well)
> >
> There is no evidence to sugest that that is the case.
What is the evidence that your reasoning processes are not the deterministic
result of the interactions of the lawful behavior of particles &
unpredictable quantum effects?
If you cannot support reason within your noetic framework, then you are
either acting upon another assumption (perhaps you'll want to call it a
conclusion based upon the fact that you think you are thinking) or simply
being inconsistent (the latter is a logical fallacy).
>
> > the second an unbased assumption that can not
> > > be supported through any amount of logic and has absolutely no
evidence
> to
> > > back it up.
> >
> > That simply isn't true.
> > For starters, if the existence of a physical universe is evidence of the
> > truth of physicalism, then you open the door to all manner of evidences
> for
> > god.
> >
> Please provide them?
You have backed off from the claim that the existence of the universe is an
evidence in favor of physicalism, afaics. If you will make that claim
plainly & unequivocally, then I shall proceed.
in fact please provide on peice of objective verifiable
> evidence that can only lead to the conclusion that this being you propose
> actually exists.
You will soon notice that I will not accept a burden of proof that you are
unwilling to accept on behalf of your views.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> > > > > the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> > > > > the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> > > > > etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, there may be no valid evidence of sociopathy, sadism, larceny
> > > (etc.),
> > > > but that doesn't stop folks from making such charges.
> > > >
> > > There is plenty of evidence of all three so you've only proven that
you
> > are
> > > delusional
> >
> > On the basis that you assert that there is plenty of evidence for all
> three?
> >
> Lets see I've had things stolen so that proves larceny, Ted Bundy is
plenty
> of evidence for the other two you wanna try again?
You appear to be ignoring the context that preceded your contribution to the
thread. Mike alleged via analogy that god is larcenous, sociopathic &
sadistic, and my reply was in keeping with his context.
>
>
> > >
> > > > > An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> > > > > by a long shot.
> > > >
> > > > You may have provided some evidence of one of your own blind spots
> > > > (assumptions in your own noetic system that correspond to your
> > [critical]
> > > > assessment of me).
> > > > I'll allow that I may have some, but I reserve the right to resist
> those
> > > > that are presented to the forum without evidence in support.
> > > >
> > > As I pointed out above you make the same base assumption that we do
> > however
> > > you also make a baseless assumption that there is something else for
> which
> > > there is no reason to believe exists.
> >
> > (such as your claim that there is plenty of evidence for certain alleged
> > facts about the god who allegedly does not exist?)
> >
> I make no claims about any "god(s)" your the one making claims about this
> extra componnent of existence for which there is no supporting evidence.
I had reason for thinking that you were making such claims prior to my
realization that you were ignoring the context of portions of this post.
Now, then. What claims about "this extra component of existence" am *I*
making?
>
> > We have reason to believe that
> > > existence exists the evidence is all around us including this
argument.
> >
> > An argument against physicalism should not be confused with advocacy of
> > solipsism. Your statement above makes sense to me if you're engaged in
> that
> > confusion, not otherwise.
> >
> I think your getting your terms confused. For the most part atheists are
> materialists (at least I am) meaning that we believe in that which can be
> measured quantified detected and observed.
Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that
everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in
terms of matter and physical phenomena.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=materialism
I take it you want no part of the customary materialist claim that those
things which may be so measured are the only things which exist?
Your definition would appear to allow you to disbelieve in god even if god
existed (via logical proof, for instance).
Most sophisticated atheists prefer "physicalism" since materialism is so
difficult to defend.
I'll still allow you to adhere to physicalism, rather than materialism.
:-)
> The point is that this conversation is also another peice of observable
> verifiable evidence that the material world exists.
And what reason do you have for trusting that sense-data?
> However there is no such evidence to support the proposition of this being
> you propose.
How do you know that I don't have sense data of a supreme being?
Omniscient, are you?
>
> > >
> > > > > If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> > > > > know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> > > > > me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
> > > >
> > > > It *does* appear to be a positive claim of sorts, doesn't it?
> > > > I'll accept your claim if you will apply the same standards to your
> own
> > > > belief system. What do we do once we're both irrational?
> > > > 8^)
> > >
> > > Ok total lack of supporting evidence for the existence of anything
that
> > > could remotely be defined as a diety.
> > > Man that was easy.
> >
> > Man, that was fallacious (argument from ignorance (AaI): Shawn is
unaware
> > of evidence for belief in god, therefore none exists).
> >
>
> Then please show me your evidence so that I might evaluate it.
It will suffice that you cease making a claim based upon a logical fallacy,
thanks.
I'll be more
> than willing to change my mind if anyone ever answers that request.
You will stop utilizing the argument from ignorance to support your beliefs
if I will correct your ignorance (specific to the exercise of the fallacy)?
That's mighty nice of you!
;-)
So far
> I've not seen one bit one iota. I'd far rather be wrong for the right
> reasons than be right for the wrong ones.
Since when is utilization of a logical fallacy either right or a right
reason?
> My meathod of descision making leads me to consistent choices and in
> addition it has been shown to be more accurate in prediction than any
other
> to date.
You have a "method" of decision-making that isn't determined by empirically
measurable causative factors? Do tell.
Afaics, you're just doing what impersonal chemicals tell you to do, as
impersonal energies influence them.
>
> The atheists request from the theist is simple provide a compelling
argument
> for and supporting evidence wrt the diety you believe exists and we will
> cease to be atheists.
My request to you is that you own up to the cowardice inherent in a
default-position atheism & defend your adherence to materialism/physicalism
*then* compare your noetics with that of theism.
> Until that time just accept the fact that you can not readily seperate
> fantasy from reality and go away.
IOW, until that time ignore that fact that you cannot separate fantasy &
reality yourself.
Like I said, it's cowardice.
Wouldn't you just *love* the opportunity to justify your noble & internally
consistent noetic system?
;-)
Mike Smith
=<Mike Smith mike...@apexmail.com> wrote...
--snip--
=> The way Christians use the word "faith," it seems to
=> mean belief without evidence. Christians *brag* about
=> how strong their Faith is, and it's never connected to
=> any evidence. Just belief.
=
=In general, I'm inclined to take your word for it, but "never"?
Sorry. Make that "never connected to any evidence
that's worth a hoot to a non-believer."
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheist with a Sense of Humor)
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"He that believeth not is condemned already, because
he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God." - John 3:18
Shawn
>
> "Shawn" <skex_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jIk57.207506$lq1.51...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > "Tichy" <@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Cjk57.28255$rt.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Shawn" <skex_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:LUi57.207133$lq1.51...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Verifiable evidence:
> > > > > What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that
> > > physicalism
> > > > > is true?
> > > > >
> > > > The existence of the universe seems to be plenty big evidence to me.
> > >
> > > That a physical (matter + energy) universe apparently exists is
evidence
> > > that the physical (matter + energy) is all that exists?
> > > Explain.
> > >
> > Not my point the fact that there is a universe The evidence for it's
> > existence is every physical object in existence. It is an objective
> standard
> > as well since all of us can detect the evidence.
>
> Existence is not at issue. As you note, we would not be arguing if we did
> not exist.
>
> Again:
> What sort of verifiable evidence would support the belief that physicalism
> is true?
>
observed this is the evidence supporting the existence of the physical are
you proposing that the physical doesn't exist?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Mike has done the unthinkable: He has betrayed evidence of some
of
> > his
> > > > own
> > > > > assumptions.
> > > > > ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > We all make certain assumptions about reality down any other path
lay
> > > > madness.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > The difference between theists and atheist is that the Atheist
> > > > makes only one assumption and that is that we exist and we can for
the
> > > most
> > > > part trust our senses.
> > >
> > > That's actually two assumptions and you appear to have made a third
> above
> > > (by apparently adhering to physicalism despite dubious evidence).
> > >
> > If you want to call that two assumption fine its still one less
assumption
> > than the theist makes.
>
> Are you assuming that the assumption inventory is completed?
>
Assumption one we exist
Assumption two we can trust our sences.
Everything beyond that is based on those two factors.
> And no the point above is not an assumption is is a
> > conclusion based on evidence.
>
> All verification of sense information requires sense information. That's
> circular. Keith Johnson has pointed this out a million times (perhaps
> literally!).
> It remains an assumption.
>
I did not argue that trust in our sences was not an assumption I contend
that it is a nescessary assumption to interact with the universe as a whole
and that any discussion of the more esoteric questions of existence are
impracticle and pointless.
What I did argue (apparently not well) was that any further conclusions we
make are based on the data that our sences provide us. for example the
existence of gravity is supported by the fact that we can feel and see its
effects.
> There is a significant difference between that
> > and a groundless assumption.
>
> What might that difference be?
>
I think we're arguing two different points. Your arguing against the second
part of my base assumption and I've moved beyond that.
> >
> > > Wanna go for more?
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > There aren't any because every other conclusion beyond existence and
> > validity of our sensory data is a conclusion not an assumption.
>
> So, if I believe in god it is a conclusion & not an assumption? How did
> belief in god originate if there is no evidence for the existence of god,
as
> you have alleged?
>
Belief in something that is not verifiable by sensory data would be an
additional assumption. For example if I were to determine that there is the
existence and I can trust my sensory data and beyond the observable sensory
world there is another realm called Nspace. Nspace is not a conclusion it is
an additional assumption because it is not built upon the base assumptions
but actually requires a leap beyond those two. That's not to say that such a
place could not possibly exist it is just saying that it is an ungrounded
assumption.
> >
> > > The theist makes this same assumption plus the
> > > > assumption that there must be something beyond what we can sense.
The
> > > first
> > > > is a nescessity to sentience
> > >
> > > (The second may be necessary to sentience, as well)
> > >
> > There is no evidence to sugest that that is the case.
>
> What is the evidence that your reasoning processes are not the
deterministic
> result of the interactions of the lawful behavior of particles &
> unpredictable quantum effects?
>
That is not my contention. These laws of particle behaviour and quantum
effects are verifiable and can be observed.
> If you cannot support reason within your noetic framework, then you are
> either acting upon another assumption (perhaps you'll want to call it a
> conclusion based upon the fact that you think you are thinking) or simply
> being inconsistent (the latter is a logical fallacy).
>
I fail to see how you have established that either of these need apply.
Indirrect observation is a perfectly valid meathod of observation.
If I see a tree laying on the ground next to its stump I can reasonably
conclude the tree at one time was standing.
> >
> > > the second an unbased assumption that can not
> > > > be supported through any amount of logic and has absolutely no
> evidence
> > to
> > > > back it up.
> > >
> > > That simply isn't true.
> > > For starters, if the existence of a physical universe is evidence of
the
> > > truth of physicalism, then you open the door to all manner of
evidences
> > for
> > > god.
> > >
> > Please provide them?
>
> You have backed off from the claim that the existence of the universe is
an
> evidence in favor of physicalism, afaics. If you will make that claim
> plainly & unequivocally, then I shall proceed.
>
My cliam is that the sum total of data available lets us know that the
physical reality does exist. However if you do not except the existence of
the physical universe the what do you accept?
> in fact please provide on peice of objective verifiable
> > evidence that can only lead to the conclusion that this being you
propose
> > actually exists.
>
> You will soon notice that I will not accept a burden of proof that you are
> unwilling to accept on behalf of your views.
>
You are proposing that something exists for which there is not evidence for
you might not accept the burden of proof however if you do not provide some
evidence the as far as I'm concerned you are spinning fantasies.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> > > > > > the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> > > > > > the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> > > > > > etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH, there may be no valid evidence of sociopathy, sadism,
larceny
> > > > (etc.),
> > > > > but that doesn't stop folks from making such charges.
> > > > >
> > > > There is plenty of evidence of all three so you've only proven that
> you
> > > are
> > > > delusional
> > >
> > > On the basis that you assert that there is plenty of evidence for all
> > three?
> > >
> > Lets see I've had things stolen so that proves larceny, Ted Bundy is
> plenty
> > of evidence for the other two you wanna try again?
>
> You appear to be ignoring the context that preceded your contribution to
the
> thread. Mike alleged via analogy that god is larcenous, sociopathic &
> sadistic, and my reply was in keeping with his context.
>
No Mike Alleged via analogy that you are in an untenable intellectual
possition. The implication is that you are attempting to defend the
undefendable. It was not an indictment of your imaginary freind.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> > > > > > by a long shot.
> > > > >
> > > > > You may have provided some evidence of one of your own blind spots
> > > > > (assumptions in your own noetic system that correspond to your
> > > [critical]
> > > > > assessment of me).
> > > > > I'll allow that I may have some, but I reserve the right to resist
> > those
> > > > > that are presented to the forum without evidence in support.
> > > > >
> > > > As I pointed out above you make the same base assumption that we do
> > > however
> > > > you also make a baseless assumption that there is something else for
> > which
> > > > there is no reason to believe exists.
> > >
> > > (such as your claim that there is plenty of evidence for certain
alleged
> > > facts about the god who allegedly does not exist?)
> > >
> > I make no claims about any "god(s)" your the one making claims about
this
> > extra componnent of existence for which there is no supporting evidence.
>
> I had reason for thinking that you were making such claims prior to my
> realization that you were ignoring the context of portions of this post.
> Now, then. What claims about "this extra component of existence" am *I*
> making?
>
That there is anything beyond the physical universe is a ungrounded claim,
That is unless you can provide evidence supporting it?
No after relooking at them I'd say that Materialism is definitely closer to
the way I look at things.
I also think you misunderstand the idea here. It's not that only things that
can be measured exist its that unless you can detect something then there is
no reason to believe that something exists.
It would have been just as unreasonable for a hunter gatherer to believe in
an electron as it is for someone in our age to believe in a deity. Now
electrons do exist and they existed when we were a hunter gatherer species
however it has only been relatively recently in our history that we have
been able to verify the existence of electrons through observation.
> > The point is that this conversation is also another peice of observable
> > verifiable evidence that the material world exists.
>
> And what reason do you have for trusting that sense-data?
>
Because my other choice is madness and confusion. Additionally since there
are other people to compare with we can verify through other sources that we
are at least detecting things consistently. That's not to say that I have
absolute trust in my sense-data we know that there are ways to affect them
for instance LSD and other halucinagens. But for hte most part we can trust
in those things that we all sense. Thats why science requires repeatable
results so that any person following the same proceedures can get the same
results, If they do not them the theory in question is considered invalid.
> > However there is no such evidence to support the proposition of this
being
> > you propose.
>
> How do you know that I don't have sense data of a supreme being?
> Omniscient, are you?
>
I don't however we do have plenty of objective data to suggest less
supernatural causes for such things and in this case simpler explanation is
probably most correct.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> > > > > > know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> > > > > > me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > It *does* appear to be a positive claim of sorts, doesn't it?
> > > > > I'll accept your claim if you will apply the same standards to
your
> > own
> > > > > belief system. What do we do once we're both irrational?
> > > > > 8^)
> > > >
> > > > Ok total lack of supporting evidence for the existence of anything
> that
> > > > could remotely be defined as a diety.
> > > > Man that was easy.
> > >
> > > Man, that was fallacious (argument from ignorance (AaI): Shawn is
> unaware
> > > of evidence for belief in god, therefore none exists).
> > >
> >
> > Then please show me your evidence so that I might evaluate it.
>
> It will suffice that you cease making a claim based upon a logical
fallacy,
> thanks.
>
I make no claim, I mearly state that at this time baring compelling evidence
I find no reason to believe in this god thingy.
> I'll be more
> > than willing to change my mind if anyone ever answers that request.
>
> You will stop utilizing the argument from ignorance to support your
beliefs
> if I will correct your ignorance (specific to the exercise of the
fallacy)?
> That's mighty nice of you!
> ;-)
>
I'm not talking about logic here I'm talking about evidence. If you can not
provide evidence to support your assumption I'm going to continue to lack a
belief in dieties. Call it what ever you want but I will not believe in non
sense on just rhetoric.
> So far
> > I've not seen one bit one iota. I'd far rather be wrong for the right
> > reasons than be right for the wrong ones.
>
> Since when is utilization of a logical fallacy either right or a right
> reason?
>
As I said this isn't an argument about logic. This is an argument about
evidence. There is plenty of evidence for mater and energy and no evidence
for god(s) all of the logical arguments you try to muster will not change
this fact. Only actual objective verifiable evidence will do so.
Based on your reasoning people should believe in everything that is
imaginable no matter what observable reality suggests.
> > My meathod of descision making leads me to consistent choices and in
> > addition it has been shown to be more accurate in prediction than any
> other
> > to date.
>
> You have a "method" of decision-making that isn't determined by
empirically
> measurable causative factors? Do tell.
> Afaics, you're just doing what impersonal chemicals tell you to do, as
> impersonal energies influence them.
>
My method of decision making is determined by empirical measurable causative
factors. Yours is as well the problem is that your subrutines are faulty
GIGO.
You start with a faulty assumption so you reach a faulty conclusion.
> >
> > The atheists request from the theist is simple provide a compelling
> argument
> > for and supporting evidence wrt the diety you believe exists and we will
> > cease to be atheists.
>
> My request to you is that you own up to the cowardice inherent in a
> default-position atheism & defend your adherence to
materialism/physicalism
> *then* compare your noetics with that of theism.
>
I have done so (if you want to see more see Is Angosticism/Atheism a
religion? thead I'm not rehashing all those arguments here)
Materialism is simply the view that only those things that are observable
can be known to exist. I consider it unreasonable and irrational to believe
in things for which there is no evidence.
I make an exception for the assumption of existence out of nescesity. If I
could figure out a way around making that assumption I would. However as we
have already agreed that assumption has to be made. Trust in my senses is a
matter of convinience. And is not as absolute sense I know that there are
things that can cause them to be unreliable which is why I require
independent verification of observable phenomena. If I started sensing
things that other people didn't then I would not have full trust in my
sensory data.
> > Until that time just accept the fact that you can not readily seperate
> > fantasy from reality and go away.
>
> IOW, until that time ignore that fact that you cannot separate fantasy &
> reality yourself.
>
I do a perfectly adequate job of seperating fantasy from reality. You are
the one proposing that something beyond our common experience exists. So
once again as the person making the claim you have the requirement of
supporting said claim.
I can accept that something beyond our current experience might exist.
However I'm not going to believe it until some supporting evidence is
provided.
Your continued Ad Hom attacks are not going to change the fact that you
still have the burden of proof when making a positive claim. Calling me a
coward does not distract me from the fact that you are dancing around the
request to support your proposition.
Belief in the existence of something beyond the physical is either supported
by observable evidence or it is a groundless assumption.
I have admitted my groundless assumption that reality exists and even the
weakly grounded assumption that I can trust my sensory data.
What are your axioms?
I've provided you with the framework that I use to judge reality but you
have not done the same for your own.
I personally can give a shit what you believe and what your axioms are as
long as you keep them to yourself. But if you are going to argue your case
and try to convince me that your reality is reality you will have to provide
evidence to support it.
If your belief in deities is an unfounded assumption like my assumption of
existence that's your bussiness but don't expect anyone else to believe it.
Tichy
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:07:26 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
> message <y8b37.156778$_T2.31...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
> > I also enjoy putting others in the position of explaining
> > their own worldviews. Some atheists have done a pretty good job at it,
imo
> > (and some have sucked at it). And many simply avoid it.
>
> I feel unable to describe mine fully, some aspects I have no trouble
> with, others I don't hold from a 'justified' position, and so am
> unlikely to argue them in a place such as this.
Makes sense.
My tendency is to target those who are finding fault with one noetic system
without (afaics) examining the logical extensions of their own system
(whatever it might be).
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>> Faith n. 1 Reliance or trust in; belief founded on authority (pin
> >>>> one's on, put one's ~ in, believe implicitly)
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>> You beat me to it, you dirty dog.
> >>
> >> I still don't see how faith, of any stripe, succumbs to
> >> rationalisation.
> >
> > Do you trust (have faith in) the scientific method?
>
> Sort of. I have faith that the underlying assumption of science
> [reality exists and is amenable to measurement] is true. I have faith
> (of a sort, hardly evidenceless) that processes such as peer review, in
> the long term, will ensure the eradication of errors (caused by bias,
> mismeasurement, lack of 'the full picture', or whatever).
Note that "blind faith" is only a redundancy with respect to the recent
Modern definition of faith (as belief in something without [or despite]
evidence).
>
> The very process of peer review discounts 'trust'.
No, it *tests* trust. The trust has already been displayed in that a paper
was published that will subsequently be treated to peer review. True, an
editor or editorial board might decide what papers are published, but trust
is likely to be a factor even there.
[I don't regard
> trust as being a close synonym of faith either, although it would be
> closest to the version of faith your personal poll would suggest I hold
> to...]
Have you misunderstood me? Trust is the normal synonym for faith, and trust
ordinarily founded upon evidence. "Blind faith" and "blind trust" were
terms developed to describe belief without evidence & trust without
foundation. The modern definition of faith (an addition to the pool of
meaning, as it were) as belief without evidence is a semantic misfortune,
imo (leaving aside the obvious propaganda value).
>
> > Your senses?
>
> No. Or at least, not entirely [sitting in the back seat of a car,
> looking out the windscreen, seeing 2 versions of the road ahead coming
> towards me = I do not drive. I don't often get double vision, usually
> when I'm working on a precise diagram...]. I've also (sometimes:
> secondary school, army reserves medical; not others: last couple of
> times I've been checked by an optometrist) been assessed as red/green
> colourblind.
>
> It seems I never tire of pointing to my spouse as an example of why our
> senses are unreliable. Although she paints reasonably* well for someone
> legally blind, she has been twice refused entry to the School of Fine
> Art at Tas Uni, on the basis of not having 3D/stereoscopic vision - as
> evidenced by her portfolio at those times, and also by measurement by
> opthalmic specialists. [She refuses to apply for dispensation due to
> disability.]
This starts me wondering whether a painter with compound eyes would be
judged incompetent . . .
I'd suggest that she stick with the Impressionist school.
;-)
It's arguable that she's a natural Impressionist, after all.
>
> *this is an attempt to correct for bias.
>
> > Your spouse?
>
> In some respects, and not in others. I don't trust her to be honest
> about her current level of pain, she likes to put on a happy face. I
> implicitly trust her not to jump in the sack with a friend who is also
> an ex-lover when he visits and I'm elsewhere. [His track record would
> indicate I shouldn't trust him, entirely, however.]
>
> I have faith that she means what she says when she says she loves me.
> Even though I cannot define, and nor can she, what love 'is', let alone
> 'know' what the other's conception of it is.
>
> > Why?
>
> Differing degrees, types, and amounts of evidence, and in one case some
> desire for it to be true.
>
That's a good summary for the support of biblical faith, imo. I'd have a
tendency to exclude the last one, since I don't see it represented in the
Bible as a reason for faith, but it is undoubtedly a factor in the faith
practice of many.
>
> > Does that help?
>
> Not a lot.
> All of them rest, ultimately, on some untestable assumption(s), that is
> the place where faith 'lives'.
Rational thought begins by trusting (having faith in) some untestable
assumptions (axioms). There is no unbridgeable gap between this type of
faith & reason. They go hand in hand, inseparably.
>
> > I'd ask similar questions regarding doctrines that you adhere to,
> > but I'd be guessing. Hey, why not?
> >
> > Do you believe that the physical (matter & energy) is all that is?
> > Why?
>
> Yes. I have no evidence to suggest anything else _is_.
>
> [Yeah, yeah, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But I have no
> _reason_ to believe otherwise.]
Hence, your belief in physicalism is an article of faith. I don't say this
to deride your adherence to it, but merely as a valid comparison (imo) to
the epistemology behind ordinary religious faith.
>
> As above, under 'scientific method', I also acknowledge that underlying
> all that is an (ultimately) untestable pair of assumptions: I exist,
> reality exists. They sure as heck feel true though, so I'll do as
> descartes apparently did, and assume I exist as a first principle.
An illusion this believable is worth playing out, yes?
>
> > All of the versions I included from my dictionary seem
> >> immune to rationalisation to me. I can see how the ability to
> >> rationalise something, or not, might be used to determine what parts of
> >> a worldview are held 'on faith' and which are not.
> >
> > You seem to be stuck on the evidenceless view of faith, afaics.
>
> I don't think I am.
I don't see how you can say that, given that you just said above that the
ability to rationalize a proposition would reveal whether or not it had to
be held "on faith" or not. Faith & trust do not disappear simply because
you're sure of something on the basis of "hard evidence".
>
> "Evidence-poor" feels closer to the view I have.
Well, that's a step, anyway.
;-)
>
>
>
> [snip, trailing comments from my previous, above]
>
> >>> Doesn't that version have the definition favored by atheists in it
> >>> (belief without or despite evidence)?
> >>
> >> No, it does not have such a definition.
> >> def #3 is promise, engagement... #4 is ~healer, ~cure...
> >>
> >> There is no #5.
> >>
> >> I haven't taken a poll of atheists to know whether this is 'the
> >> definition favoured by atheists'...
> >
> > That's from my *personal* polling data.
> > ;-)
> > Watch the spelling in the quotation, btw. While I favor English English
> > spellings from time to time (yes, they're more sensible! I admit it!),
I
> > stuck with my native (corrupt American English) version that time.
>
> Ooops. [considers calling it a translation...]
Done.
:-)
>
> I'm sure we could argue all day over the sense in spelling diarrhoea as
> it 'should' be. [and generate much of same in the process]
> :-)
Heh!
>
> > Take a gander at number two:
> > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=faith
>
> <paste>
> 2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
> Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
> </paste>
>
> I took you as meaning a stronger statement than this, as this doesn't
> imply (to me) a total lack of evidence, merely insufficient to form
> 'knowledge' [if such 'thing' exists!].
Granted, I have encountered definitions of faith in alt.atheism that go far
beyond that one. I'd agree with you that the definition that I offered
needn't be construed that way.
On the other hand, there is little denying the popularity of the definition
that I related to you:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22belief%20without%20evidence%22%20fai
th&as_ugroup=alt.atheism
>
>
> > <snip>
> > (What's a "furphy"?)
>
> furphy n. (Austrl. sl.) false report or rumour; absurd story. [f. water
> and sanitary F~carts of 1914-18 war, made at foundry set up by F~
> family; for sense transfer cf SCUTTLE/butt/]
>
> Australian Concise Oxford
>
> I hadn't realised it was dialect-specific until I looked just now.
Thanks for the info. I wonder about the etymology.
>
> [...]
>
> >> I don't think it was. And I don't think I had such a simplistic view of
> >> faith in mind when I made the comment.
> >
> > I don't understand why any other view of faith would be funny in the
context
> > of Mike's statement. Am I Mister Stodgy Old Guy or something?
>
> But it wasn't the view of faith that was funny to me:
>
> Image: Person carrying anvil everywhere with them ("Faith" hammered
> into side of same). "I'm carrying this wherever I go because
> <rationalisation>"
>
> All that person needs is a jester's outfit, IMO.
Perhaps the understanding of "rationalisation" is the problem. Some of the
definitions have a negative connotation, others don't.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=rationalize
Reminds me of
> initiation at [St. John Fisher] college: I, and some others, 'had to'
> carry a housebrick with me/us at all times for a week, in plain view.
> Did I feel like a fool? Of course! [But I felt I had 'reason', in
> hindsight it appears more like rationalisation.] My calculus lecturer
> seemed to find it particularly amusing :-(
Fine example. If your experience at the institution of higher learning was
enhanced by the brick-carrying, then your rationalization was reasonable &
true, therefore carrying the more positive meaning. If, in retrospect, you
were being foolish for nothing, "rationalization" would have the negative
connotation.
>
> At least I wasn't sent in my academic gown to the centre of the city to
> go fishing (rod reel etc) in the drains outside department stores, like
> some freshmen at Christ College (the Anglican residential college next
> door...).
And they call themselves Christians.
Tsk.
;-)
<snip>
Martin Crisp
> Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>
> --snip--
> =[Still quibble room there - did Mike mean your posts,
> =or was it just a 'swipe' at Persons of Faith?]
>
> Hello, Martin.
G'day Mike,
> What I meant was that Tichy is a smart guy defending
> an irrational belief. I call god-belief irrational because
> there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reasoning/
> verifiable evidence that leads one to such a belief.
That's sort of what I was trying to get across, that your comment
wasn't directed at Tichy specifically (with respect to the 'burden
of...'). Unfortunately in a rather hamfisted manner. ahhh well.
> In trying to rationally defend his faith/belief, he's put in
> the position of a parent defending a pampered child --
> the child may be a total sociopath, sadistic, larcenous,
> etc., but in the parent's eyes he can do no wrong.
> An intellectual blind spot. This is not peculiar to Tichy
> by a long shot.
> If Tichy reads this, he will no doubt say that I don't
> know what I'm talking about, and that the BOP is on
> me to show that god-belief is irrational. :-)
I'm already in one of those 'discussions', so this is where I'll leave
it I think :-)
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
Martin Crisp
message <r1Z57.36891$rt.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
>
> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B77713380...@news.ozemail.com.au...
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:07:26 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
>> message <y8b37.156778$_T2.31...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
> <snip interesting (to me) stuff which doesn't appear to require comment>
>>> I also enjoy putting others in the position of explaining
>>> their own worldviews. Some atheists have done a pretty good job at it,
> imo
>>> (and some have sucked at it). And many simply avoid it.
>>
>> I feel unable to describe mine fully, some aspects I have no trouble
>> with, others I don't hold from a 'justified' position, and so am
>> unlikely to argue them in a place such as this.
>
> Makes sense.
> My tendency is to target those who are finding fault with one noetic system
> without (afaics) examining the logical extensions of their own system
> (whatever it might be).
Well that isn't why I'm here, though I seem to spend some time in
similar circumstances.
>> [snip]
[snip]
>> The very process of peer review discounts 'trust'.
>
> No, it *tests* trust. The trust has already been displayed in that a paper
> was published that will subsequently be treated to peer review. True, an
> editor or editorial board might decide what papers are published, but trust
> is likely to be a factor even there.
But often (usually?) such papers are subjected to some sort of
mini-review before being accepted, to me this appears to be more like
"We don't trust anything, we've looked at this and not found any
glaring errors, can anyone else? Or can anyone confirm these findings?"
I agree that trust is a factor in the decision to publish or not -
being 'known in the field' would be one factor which would contribute
to (or detract from) that level of trust - but publication in a journal
is not 'peer review'.
> [I don't regard
>> trust as being a close synonym of faith either, although it would be
>> closest to the version of faith your personal poll would suggest I hold
>> to...]
>
> Have you misunderstood me? Trust is the normal synonym for faith, and trust
> ordinarily founded upon evidence. "Blind faith" and "blind trust" were
No, I realised that was your position, but my 'either' in the above is
ambiguous, 'in addition to the above' rather than 'as well as you'.
I agree that they are often-used synonyms for each other, what I was
trying to get across is that 'trust' (to me) implies a greater lack of
evidence (in general) than 'faith.'
[And I note my copy of Roget's has 'belief' as the primary synonym of
both faith and trust]
> terms developed to describe belief without evidence & trust without
> foundation. The modern definition of faith (an addition to the pool of
> meaning, as it were) as belief without evidence is a semantic misfortune,
> imo (leaving aside the obvious propaganda value).
In that it makes things less clear; yes, I agree, it is unfortunate.
[...]
>> It seems I never tire of pointing to my spouse as an example of why our
>> senses are unreliable. Although she paints reasonably* well for someone
>> legally blind, she has been twice refused entry to the School of Fine
>> Art at Tas Uni, on the basis of not having 3D/stereoscopic vision - as
>> evidenced by her portfolio at those times, and also by measurement by
>> opthalmic specialists. [She refuses to apply for dispensation due to
>> disability.]
>
> This starts me wondering whether a painter with compound eyes would be
> judged incompetent . . .
Dunno, would depend on how the eyes were 'wired' to the 'processor'
behind them [there's no reason why the compound-eye couldn't result in
a 3D image much like what we 'see'; or, if the coverage of the eyes was
near-360deg a 'true' 3D view with the viewer in the middle of the scene
- as per a VR scene].
I'm inclined to suggest one of my personal favourite artists as a datum
in favour of such being warmly received: MC Escher.
> I'd suggest that she stick with the Impressionist school.
> ;-)
> It's arguable that she's a natural Impressionist, after all.
Aren't we all?
>> *this is an attempt to correct for bias.
>>
>>> Your spouse?
>>
>> In some respects, and not in others. I don't trust her to be honest
>> about her current level of pain, she likes to put on a happy face. I
>> implicitly trust her not to jump in the sack with a friend who is also
>> an ex-lover when he visits and I'm elsewhere. [His track record would
>> indicate I shouldn't trust him, entirely, however.]
>>
>> I have faith that she means what she says when she says she loves me.
>> Even though I cannot define, and nor can she, what love 'is', let alone
>> 'know' what the other's conception of it is.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Differing degrees, types, and amounts of evidence, and in one case some
>> desire for it to be true.
>>
>
> That's a good summary for the support of biblical faith, imo. I'd have a
> tendency to exclude the last one, since I don't see it represented in the
> Bible as a reason for faith, but it is undoubtedly a factor in the faith
> practice of many.
Whereas, for me, the evidence that the bible (and the 'truth' it
offers) is worth as much as the paper required to print it is thin
indeed. From my perspective the bible is viewed by some as literal
truth (whatever _that_ is), and by others as a document that must be
interpreted with great care after much study, and by others as some mix
of the two extremes. It is odd indeed that The Word has so many
interpretations when it is meant to be a guide to Truth.
Many passages are contradicted by evidence (the literal truth of the
flood, the literal 6 day creation...); many conceptions of god include
the feature 'love' and yet many parts of the bible show god as a
bigotted tyrant, to me these are irreconcilable - either God changes
(which disagrees with my conception of 'eternal') or the bible is
unreliable. Simply being unreliable isn't sufficient to discount all
the contents of the book, and some parts of it have evidence,
unfortunately none of the _essential_ parts have evidence that I find
convincing (even 'plausible' is a stretch).
Personally, I'm a little incredulous that it is possible to believe the
'truth' of the bible unless some part of you wants (desires) to
believe.
>>> Does that help?
>>
>> Not a lot.
>> All of them rest, ultimately, on some untestable assumption(s), that is
>> the place where faith 'lives'.
>
> Rational thought begins by trusting (having faith in) some untestable
> assumptions (axioms). There is no unbridgeable gap between this type of
> faith & reason. They go hand in hand, inseparably.
True, until (and if) an observation or several contradict that faith,
sending the bridge into the Kwai. [How do you stop a bridge ending up
in the river? Lots of support (evidence), which can never be
sufficient; or a large investment in keeping the bridge protected from
outside forces. It seems to me that the bridge of christianity is being
held up by the latter, having had its largest supports blown out from
under it in centuries past. I suppose another method would be to
rebuild the damaged bits of the bridge, preferably of more durable
material, an example of which would be the 2nd Vatican Council, or
perhaps the 2nd covenant, or maybe the proliferation of denominations?]
>>> I'd ask similar questions regarding doctrines that you adhere to,
>>> but I'd be guessing. Hey, why not?
>>>
>>> Do you believe that the physical (matter & energy) is all that is?
>>> Why?
>>
>> Yes. I have no evidence to suggest anything else _is_.
>>
>> [Yeah, yeah, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But I have no
>> _reason_ to believe otherwise.]
>
> Hence, your belief in physicalism is an article of faith. I don't say this
> to deride your adherence to it, but merely as a valid comparison (imo) to
> the epistemology behind ordinary religious faith.
It's as much an avoidance of the madhouse as an article of faith. Why
would I believe something for which I have no evidence? If I believe
one thing for which I have no evidence, what lunacies could I not
believe? Some I might be able to discount due to contradictory
evidence, but others [shall I trot out she of the Holy Hooves?] are
beyond contradiction and can only be discounted because they are
unevidenced.
>> As above, under 'scientific method', I also acknowledge that underlying
>> all that is an (ultimately) untestable pair of assumptions: I exist,
>> reality exists. They sure as heck feel true though, so I'll do as
>> descartes apparently did, and assume I exist as a first principle.
>
> An illusion this believable is worth playing out, yes?
More: Do I have a choice?
[_Red Dwarf_ fans should #include _Better Than Life_; Star Trek fans
can #include a holodeck-based episode or 7. Music fans might prefer
some _Madness_. And, of course, Keanu fans should #include _The
Matrix_]
I suppose I do, I could get hold of some LSD, but even that (in my
limited experience) only distorts (and only temporarily), rather than
banishes, reality. [Putting on my SO's specs is sufficient to distort
reality far more]
>>> All of the versions I included from my dictionary seem
>>>> immune to rationalisation to me. I can see how the ability to
>>>> rationalise something, or not, might be used to determine what parts of
>>>> a worldview are held 'on faith' and which are not.
>>>
>>> You seem to be stuck on the evidenceless view of faith, afaics.
>>
>> I don't think I am.
>
> I don't see how you can say that, given that you just said above that the
> ability to rationalize a proposition would reveal whether or not it had to
> be held "on faith" or not. Faith & trust do not disappear simply because
> you're sure of something on the basis of "hard evidence".
I agree, but what I was trying to say is that parts of the worldview
can be examined to see if they are 'evidence-rich', 'evidence-poor' or
'evidence-less'. From my standpoint reality is evidence-rich, although
ultimately untestable: it has some small amount of faith involved. That
the earth is an oblate spheroid has this same small amount of faith
included in it, but is otherwise an observable fact. That other
intelligent life exists in the universe requires much greater faith,
and there is no evidence to speak of either way; similarly that other
intelligent life does _not_ exist elesewhere in the universe requires a
large amount of faith and there is a general lack of evidence.
Personally I hold that it seems very unlikely that only this planet has
had intelligent life develop on it, that it is likely that intelligent
life exists elsewhere [or at the very least elsewhen] in our universe,
but the strength with which I hold to the view is about as strong as
the evidence that supports it - I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
If I turn this same outlook towards the plethora of religious beliefs
(and that's just the xtian ones, as I'm considerably less informed of
non-xtian religions), then I'm afraid what evidence is available is at
best unreliable. The call for evidence from those touting their
religion in alt.atheism reaches near-deafening levels at times,
handwaving, or silence, seems to be the usual response. It seems
reasonable that someone who has asked many theists for evidence, and
been shown none, would describe that faith as 'without evidence'.
>> "Evidence-poor" feels closer to the view I have.
>
> Well, that's a step, anyway.
> ;-)
Sort of, there's never sufficient evidence for anything, so everything
is evidence-poor [What we call 'knowledge' is belief backed by large
quantities of evidence, in my view: 'evidence-rich'].
[chomp]
>> I took you as meaning a stronger statement than this, as this doesn't
>> imply (to me) a total lack of evidence, merely insufficient to form
>> 'knowledge' [if such 'thing' exists!].
>
> Granted, I have encountered definitions of faith in alt.atheism that go far
> beyond that one. I'd agree with you that the definition that I offered
> needn't be construed that way.
>
> On the other hand, there is little denying the popularity of the definition
> that I related to you:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22belief%20without%20evidence%22%20fai
> th&as_ugroup=alt.atheism
I don't doubt it (I haven't followed your link), I've seen it used. In
some contexts I think it is overstating the case, in others it's fairly
accurate: describing the bible as evidenceless is incorrect [certain
historically known figures are mentioned, for example], describing the
resurrection as evidenceless is stretching the definition a little
[what (little, imo) evidence there is is suspect], describing the
literal 6 day creation as evidenceless is pretty-much dead-on-the-money
[all proffered evidence is contradicted - oh, except snakes don't have
legs, that bit is correct, essentially].
>>> <snip>
>>> (What's a "furphy"?)
>>
>> furphy n. (Austrl. sl.) false report or rumour; absurd story. [f. water
>> and sanitary F~carts of 1914-18 war, made at foundry set up by F~
>> family; for sense transfer cf SCUTTLE/butt/]
>>
>> Australian Concise Oxford
>>
>> I hadn't realised it was dialect-specific until I looked just now.
>
> Thanks for the info. I wonder about the etymology.
It rings true to me.
For a couple of reasons:
1) Young nation striving for 'personal' identity, language is an
obvious means to this end (I've heard a similar explanation given for
the 'corruption' that is US English)
2) Word association (football) is an Old Australian Tradition stemming
from the British 'rhyming slang'.
It would not at all surprise me that a load of shit in a Furphy's cart
was the cause of 'furphy' coming to mean 'load of shit'. [The fact it
that was a scuttle for butt-products is another matter again]
Capt Briggs to Sgt Smith:
What do you think of the plan so far Sgt?
Sgt Smith in reply:
I think it's a lo... a complete Furphy, sah!
Of course, plausibility don't make it so... but the development mirrors
that of other terms, I'm sure about 90% of adults in my neck of the
woods would understand "Lucky I was wearing my blunnies" to mean "It
was fortunate my footwear was a pair of sturdy workboots" or something
equivalent. Blundstone's Boots -> blundstone's -> blunnies. The term is
still most-used (in my experience) for that particular brand of boots,
but is widening to cover the more general sense.
<fx: connects after drafting all this, searches at altavista for Aust
sites containing 'furphy' and 'cart' and the first hit is:>
http://www.furphys.com.au/index.html
established 1866... I think we have a winner :-)
However:
http://www.furphys.com.au/history.html
Makes no mention of WWI period :-(
Although this page suggests that it was the drivers of the cart, rather
than the contents, that tie the name with the concept:
http://www.oldmogotown.com.au/furphy.html
I'm inclined towards the more colourful explanation, but that is most
assuredly bias :-)
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I don't think it was. And I don't think I had such a simplistic
>>>> view of faith in mind when I made the comment.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why any other view of faith would be funny in
>>> the context of Mike's statement. Am I Mister Stodgy Old Guy or
>>> something?
>>
>> But it wasn't the view of faith that was funny to me:
>>
>> Image: Person carrying anvil everywhere with them ("Faith" hammered
>> into side of same). "I'm carrying this wherever I go because
>> <rationalisation>"
>>
>> All that person needs is a jester's outfit, IMO.
>
> Perhaps the understanding of "rationalisation" is the problem. Some of the
> definitions have a negative connotation, others don't.
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=rationalize
I don't think there's much doubt about whether Mike's use of
rationalisation [transl.! :-)] was with positive or negative
connotation, that's given by the rest. [it was offered in contrast to a
'good mind', and was associated with 'handicapped' and 'burden'.]
But yes, that ambiguity was in the back of my mind when I wrote:
>> Reminds me of initiation at [St. John Fisher] college: I, and some
>> others, 'had to' carry a housebrick with me/us at all times for a
>> week, in plain view. Did I feel like a fool? Of course! [But I felt
>> I had 'reason', in hindsight it appears more like rationalisation.]
>> My calculus lecturer seemed to find it particularly amusing :-(
>
> Fine example. If your experience at the institution of higher learning was
Minor clarification: St John Fisher was a residential college 'attached
to' Uni of Tas, so the institute of higher learning wasn't the source
of my burden. [At the time there were 3 such 'colleges'; Fisher,
Christ, and Jane Franklin Hall]
> enhanced by the brick-carrying, then your rationalization was reasonable &
> true, therefore carrying the more positive meaning. If, in retrospect, you
> were being foolish for nothing, "rationalization" would have the negative
> connotation.
Well... it may have been enhanced, but I don't have the opportunity to
rewind the events and not carry the brick, so I have no basis for
comparison. In addition I'm no longer 'the same person' I was at the
time, so my perspective now gives different weight to factors than I
gave at the time, and my memory isn't perfect so I can't perfectly
recall the decisionmaking and emotions that went into my
load-acceptance.
It was, I gather, akin to joining a frat house in the States, except
that non-compliance would simply make later 'rites of passage' less
pleasant than compliance _might_ make them, rather than preventing
membership. [e.g. in the 'pidgeon race' I was simply taken somewhere (5
or so miles away) by least-direct route and left to find my own way
back, whereas some others were taken out, 'encouraged' to drink way too
much alcohol, divested of any money they had, dressed inappropriately
[dresses and makeup for the guys], and dropped off 50 miles from their
destination. Still others were taken out for pancakes & ice-cream and
then dropped 100 yards from their destination.]
So some of my reasoning was probably 'I want to be more-accepted, doing
this will help'. Some of that was simply peer-group pressure which I
would put under the debit column for rationalisation, but some was 'and
then I'm more likely to be able to study without being disturbed' and
so would count in the credit column.
>> At least I wasn't sent in my academic gown to the centre of the city to
>> go fishing (rod reel etc) in the drains outside department stores, like
>> some freshmen at Christ College (the Anglican residential college next
>> door...).
>
> And they call themselves Christians.
> Tsk.
> ;-)
Of course, although they were Fishers of Christ, rather than Fishers of
Men; whereas we were the Men* of Fisher.
*'boys' according to one of the chants I learnt in cold showers. I'm no
longer sure what the "girls'" chants covered.
I've been interrupted on numerous occasions writing this, hopefully it
still makes sense...
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
Tichy
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 2:31:19 +1000 the muse struck Tichy, who wrote (in
> message <r1Z57.36891$rt.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
>
> >
> > "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:01HW.B77713380...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> >> The very process of peer review discounts 'trust'.
> >
> > No, it *tests* trust. The trust has already been displayed in that a
paper
> > was published that will subsequently be treated to peer review. True,
an
> > editor or editorial board might decide what papers are published, but
trust
> > is likely to be a factor even there.
>
> But often (usually?) such papers are subjected to some sort of
> mini-review before being accepted, to me this appears to be more like
> "We don't trust anything, we've looked at this and not found any
> glaring errors, can anyone else? Or can anyone confirm these findings?"
I doubt that most journal standards are even that high, so far as content.
As I understand it, getting published gets easier each time it happens,
generally. The first would probably be based upon qualifications & content
(perhaps recommendations would be important--I don't know for sure--and this
would be trust, as well).
>
> I agree that trust is a factor in the decision to publish or not -
> being 'known in the field' would be one factor which would contribute
> to (or detract from) that level of trust - but publication in a journal
> is not 'peer review'.
I think that it's clear from the above that I understand that.
>
> > [I don't regard
> >> trust as being a close synonym of faith either, although it would be
> >> closest to the version of faith your personal poll would suggest I hold
> >> to...]
> >
> > Have you misunderstood me? Trust is the normal synonym for faith, and
trust
> > ordinarily founded upon evidence. "Blind faith" and "blind trust" were
>
> No, I realised that was your position, but my 'either' in the above is
> ambiguous, 'in addition to the above' rather than 'as well as you'.
>
> I agree that they are often-used synonyms for each other, what I was
> trying to get across is that 'trust' (to me) implies a greater lack of
> evidence (in general) than 'faith.'
I suspect that you intended to express the reverse sentiment.
Got an Esher poster on the wall nearby--beside the Godzilla film poster.
:-)
>
> > I'd suggest that she stick with the Impressionist school.
> > ;-)
> > It's arguable that she's a natural Impressionist, after all.
>
> Aren't we all?
Of course, in a sense, but some far more than others while painting.
In both cases it is a popular *interpretation* of the passages that is
challenged. The popular interpretations are quite probably wrong,
considering that one of the great themes of the Pentateuch--a promise of
"land"--really ought to be considered when one interprets either the
creation or flood narratives in Genesis.
many conceptions of god include
> the feature 'love' and yet many parts of the bible show god as a
> bigotted tyrant, to me these are irreconcilable - either God changes
> (which disagrees with my conception of 'eternal') or the bible is
> unreliable.
If God had merely the attribute of love, your criticism would be spot-on.
Your observation is theologically naive, however.
Simply being unreliable isn't sufficient to discount all
> the contents of the book, and some parts of it have evidence,
> unfortunately none of the _essential_ parts have evidence that I find
> convincing (even 'plausible' is a stretch).
Such as the resurrection? Would that be one of the parts that you rate as
essential?
>
> Personally, I'm a little incredulous that it is possible to believe the
> 'truth' of the bible unless some part of you wants (desires) to
> believe.
Might it be enough to want to believe it merely if it were true?
>
> >>> Does that help?
> >>
> >> Not a lot.
> >> All of them rest, ultimately, on some untestable assumption(s), that is
> >> the place where faith 'lives'.
> >
> > Rational thought begins by trusting (having faith in) some untestable
> > assumptions (axioms). There is no unbridgeable gap between this type of
> > faith & reason. They go hand in hand, inseparably.
>
> True, until (and if) an observation or several contradict that faith,
> sending the bridge into the Kwai.
IOW, going from faith to blind faith. The latter is bridgeless by
definition.
[How do you stop a bridge ending up
> in the river? Lots of support (evidence), which can never be
> sufficient; or a large investment in keeping the bridge protected from
> outside forces. It seems to me that the bridge of christianity is being
> held up by the latter, having had its largest supports blown out from
> under it in centuries past.
Opinion noted. The largest support (for Christianity particularly), imo, is
the documentary evidence. Claims that this support has been demolished are
wildly exaggerated, imo. To carry on the analogy, a few of the decorations
attached to the support subsequent to its construction have been taken down.
I suppose another method would be to
> rebuild the damaged bits of the bridge, preferably of more durable
> material, an example of which would be the 2nd Vatican Council, or
> perhaps the 2nd covenant, or maybe the proliferation of denominations?]
>
I'd recommend examination of the bridge of evidence. "You say it's
destroyed? Let's have a look."
>
>
> >>> I'd ask similar questions regarding doctrines that you adhere to,
> >>> but I'd be guessing. Hey, why not?
> >>>
> >>> Do you believe that the physical (matter & energy) is all that is?
> >>> Why?
> >>
> >> Yes. I have no evidence to suggest anything else _is_.
> >>
> >> [Yeah, yeah, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But I have no
> >> _reason_ to believe otherwise.]
> >
> > Hence, your belief in physicalism is an article of faith. I don't say
this
> > to deride your adherence to it, but merely as a valid comparison (imo)
to
> > the epistemology behind ordinary religious faith.
>
> It's as much an avoidance of the madhouse as an article of faith.
Interesting. Perhaps you should visit the "Help: To prove the watchmaker
without using probability thread" since that issue has been under
discussion. See posts by Ichimusai.
Why
> would I believe something for which I have no evidence? If I believe
> one thing for which I have no evidence, what lunacies could I not
> believe?
Pardon me, but aren't you already there? Didn't you just claim that you
accept sense-data pragmatically rather than because of verifiable evidence?
Some I might be able to discount due to contradictory
> evidence, but others [shall I trot out she of the Holy Hooves?] are
> beyond contradiction and can only be discounted because they are
> unevidenced.
>
Sorry to break it to you, but I just had a revelation that the IPU is
actually tope.
;-)
>
> >> As above, under 'scientific method', I also acknowledge that underlying
> >> all that is an (ultimately) untestable pair of assumptions: I exist,
> >> reality exists. They sure as heck feel true though, so I'll do as
> >> descartes apparently did, and assume I exist as a first principle.
> >
> > An illusion this believable is worth playing out, yes?
>
> More: Do I have a choice?
> [_Red Dwarf_ fans should #include _Better Than Life_; Star Trek fans
> can #include a holodeck-based episode or 7. Music fans might prefer
> some _Madness_. And, of course, Keanu fans should #include _The
> Matrix_]
> I suppose I do, I could get hold of some LSD, but even that (in my
> limited experience) only distorts (and only temporarily), rather than
> banishes, reality. [Putting on my SO's specs is sufficient to distort
> reality far more]
lol
I can't stand new Star Trek stuff, generally, but Red Dwarf is cool. If
only BBC America scheduled consistently . . .
I'd call it understandable (barely). In terms of reason it's an argument
from ignorance.
>
> >> "Evidence-poor" feels closer to the view I have.
> >
> > Well, that's a step, anyway.
> > ;-)
>
> Sort of, there's never sufficient evidence for anything, so everything
> is evidence-poor [What we call 'knowledge' is belief backed by large
> quantities of evidence, in my view: 'evidence-rich'].
D'oh! Don't let Septic hear you say that!
>
>
> [chomp]
>
> >> I took you as meaning a stronger statement than this, as this doesn't
> >> imply (to me) a total lack of evidence, merely insufficient to form
> >> 'knowledge' [if such 'thing' exists!].
> >
> > Granted, I have encountered definitions of faith in alt.atheism that go
far
> > beyond that one. I'd agree with you that the definition that I offered
> > needn't be construed that way.
> >
> > On the other hand, there is little denying the popularity of the
definition
> > that I related to you:
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22belief%20without%20evidence%22%20fai
> > th&as_ugroup=alt.atheism
>
> I don't doubt it (I haven't followed your link), I've seen it used. In
> some contexts I think it is overstating the case, in others it's fairly
> accurate:
<snip opinion & "furphy" etymology>
lol, btw, and thanks.
Aye, it can be difficult to discern the difference, at times.
In addition I'm no longer 'the same person' I was at the
> time, so my perspective now gives different weight to factors than I
> gave at the time, and my memory isn't perfect so I can't perfectly
> recall the decisionmaking and emotions that went into my
> load-acceptance.
>
<snip US frat-house comparison simply for the sake of bandwidth>
>
> So some of my reasoning was probably 'I want to be more-accepted, doing
> this will help'. Some of that was simply peer-group pressure which I
> would put under the debit column for rationalisation, but some was 'and
> then I'm more likely to be able to study without being disturbed' and
> so would count in the credit column.
>
>
> >> At least I wasn't sent in my academic gown to the centre of the city to
> >> go fishing (rod reel etc) in the drains outside department stores, like
> >> some freshmen at Christ College (the Anglican residential college next
> >> door...).
> >
> > And they call themselves Christians.
> > Tsk.
> > ;-)
>
> Of course, although they were Fishers of Christ, rather than Fishers of
> Men; whereas we were the Men* of Fisher.
>
> *'boys' according to one of the chants I learnt in cold showers. I'm no
> longer sure what the "girls'" chants covered.
>
> I've been interrupted on numerous occasions writing this, hopefully it
> still makes sense...
Wildly off-topic & quite amusing.
Excellent work.
Martin Crisp
message <QYZ67.49401$uo3.8...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>):
sort of. You replied to my comment, about peer review discounting
trust, by commenting on publication in journals, which isn't peer
review (it facilitates peer review). If trust were the order of the day
then there would be no need for peer review, and if testing trust was
the aim, then after a person's material had been tested a couple (or
more) of times they would no longer need to have their peers review
their work. [Hey, if Ge0rge Hamm0nd - the man with the spherical brain,
from my skimming of some threads - can get published, would you _trust_
the process or other published material?]
[...]
>> No, I realised that was your position, but my 'either' in the above is
>> ambiguous, 'in addition to the above' rather than 'as well as you'.
>>
>> I agree that they are often-used synonyms for each other, what I was
>> trying to get across is that 'trust' (to me) implies a greater lack of
>> evidence (in general) than 'faith.'
>
> I suspect that you intended to express the reverse sentiment.
I suspect I didn't, but may have done if I'd been thinking clearly, on
further reflection I think either position is questionable...
I suspect my thought process was along the lines of 'placing faith in
someone is a larger commitment than placing trust, both imply
insufficient evidence, therefore trust is more likely to be given on
thin evidence than faith.' And then made the leap:
thin->thinner=greater lack.
I failed to consider the general level of commitment (implied) in
having trust compared to faith, less in the former than the latter.
[I trust a friend to drive me from point A to point B in safety, but I
wouldn't say I have faith that the journey would be in safety. I still
have faith in his driving ability even knowing he has had accidents in
the past - based on evidence of his generally good driving now.]
[...]
>> I'm inclined to suggest one of my personal favourite artists as a datum
>> in favour of such being warmly received: MC Escher.
>
> Got an Esher poster on the wall nearby--beside the Godzilla film poster.
> :-)
I've got a couple of books, and a block-mounted jigsaw of _Convex and
Concave_ [And another of _Belvedere_ that I must get around to at some
stage - amazing what marriage and kids does to 'spare' time.]
>>> I'd suggest that she stick with the Impressionist school.
>>> ;-)
>>> It's arguable that she's a natural Impressionist, after all.
>>
>> Aren't we all?
>
> Of course, in a sense, but some far more than others while painting.
:-)
What we need is some third party that knows everything and can tell us
what EMR 'really' 'looks' like. Until then 'far more' really is a
guess...
[...]
>>> That's a good summary for the support of biblical faith, imo. I'd
>>> have a tendency to exclude the last one, since I don't see it
>>> represented in the Bible as a reason for faith, but it is
>>> undoubtedly a factor in the faith practice of many.
>>
>> Whereas, for me, the evidence that the bible (and the 'truth' it
>> offers) is worth as much as the paper required to print it is thin
>> indeed. From my perspective the bible is viewed by some as literal
>> truth (whatever _that_ is), and by others as a document that must be
>> interpreted with great care after much study, and by others as some mix
>> of the two extremes. It is odd indeed that The Word has so many
>> interpretations when it is meant to be a guide to Truth.
>>
>> Many passages are contradicted by evidence (the literal truth of the
>> flood, the literal 6 day creation...);
>
> In both cases it is a popular *interpretation* of the passages that is
> challenged. The popular interpretations are quite probably wrong,
> considering that one of the great themes of the Pentateuch--a promise of
> "land"--really ought to be considered when one interprets either the
> creation or flood narratives in Genesis.
So God didn't really wipe out all of mankind bar 8? That seems to be
the purpose of ye arke story to me (demonstrating the might of God and
inspiring awe).
>> many conceptions of god include
>> the feature 'love' and yet many parts of the bible show god as a
>> bigotted tyrant, to me these are irreconcilable - either God changes
>> (which disagrees with my conception of 'eternal') or the bible is
>> unreliable.
>
> If God had merely the attribute of love, your criticism would be spot-on.
> Your observation is theologically naive, however.
I disagree, if it only had the attribute of love it would be less of a
problem, it is when it is combined with omnipotence and omniscience
that it becomes a major stumbling block (for me at any rate).
>> Simply being unreliable isn't sufficient to discount all
>> the contents of the book, and some parts of it have evidence,
>> unfortunately none of the _essential_ parts have evidence that I find
>> convincing (even 'plausible' is a stretch).
>
> Such as the resurrection? Would that be one of the parts that you rate as
> essential?
It would, but that's a fair way through the story. 'A god or gods
exist(s)' is a far more essential item and required before the rest is
worth consideration.
>> Personally, I'm a little incredulous that it is possible to believe
>> the 'truth' of the bible unless some part of you wants (desires) to
>> believe.
>
> Might it be enough to want to believe it merely if it were true?
Well it wasn't for me.
>>>>> Does that help?
>>>>
>>>> Not a lot.
>>>> All of them rest, ultimately, on some untestable assumption(s),
>>>> that is the place where faith 'lives'.
>>>
>>> Rational thought begins by trusting (having faith in) some
>>> untestable assumptions (axioms). There is no unbridgeable gap
>>> between this type of faith & reason. They go hand in hand,
>>> inseparably.
>>
>> True, until (and if) an observation or several contradict that
>> faith, sending the bridge into the Kwai.
>
> IOW, going from faith to blind faith. The latter is bridgeless by
> definition.
agreed.
> [How do you stop a bridge ending up
>> in the river? Lots of support (evidence), which can never be
>> sufficient; or a large investment in keeping the bridge protected
>> from outside forces. It seems to me that the bridge of christianity
>> is being held up by the latter, having had its largest supports
>> blown out from under it in centuries past.
>
> Opinion noted. The largest support (for Christianity particularly),
> imo, is the documentary evidence. Claims that this support has been
> demolished are wildly exaggerated, imo. To carry on the analogy, a
> few of the decorations attached to the support subsequent to its
> construction have been taken down.
Such as an identified/identifiable first man and woman who caused sin &
death to enter the world? [Is that still a belief of Christianity?
Well, depends who you ask, it seems] Such as the need for salvation
from this sin and death? Such as the order of creation and the age of
the earth/creation? Such as humanity's special place in the universe?
> I suppose another method would be to
>> rebuild the damaged bits of the bridge, preferably of more durable
>> material, an example of which would be the 2nd Vatican Council, or
>> perhaps the 2nd covenant, or maybe the proliferation of denominations?]
>>
>
> I'd recommend examination of the bridge of evidence. "You say it's
> destroyed? Let's have a look."
Fire away. What evidence that a god (or gods) exists?
[...]
>>> Hence, your belief in physicalism is an article of faith. I don't
>>> say this to deride your adherence to it, but merely as a valid
>>> comparison (imo) to the epistemology behind ordinary religious
>>> faith.
>>
>> It's as much an avoidance of the madhouse as an article of faith.
>
> Interesting. Perhaps you should visit the "Help: To prove the
> watchmaker without using probability thread" since that issue has
> been under discussion. See posts by Ichimusai.
I've had a brief look. Real life has been keeping me busy (hence the
delay in replying). Ichimusai is essentially saying what I'd try to say
:-)
>> Why would I believe something for which I have no evidence? If I
>> believe one thing for which I have no evidence, what lunacies could
>> I not believe?
>
> Pardon me, but aren't you already there? Didn't you just claim that
> you accept sense-data pragmatically rather than because of
> verifiable evidence?
There's a minor difference between no evidence and no (ultimately)
verifiable evidence. [The constancy/consistency of reality between
individuals counts as some support - if I hit my thumb with a hammer,
it hurts, most people whose thumbs aren't prosthetic would concur (some
lepers may not) to conclude that this is not evidence, or is illusory,
invites madness..., the lack of same in religious experience counts
against those experiences.]
>> Some I might be able to discount due to contradictory
>> evidence, but others [shall I trot out she of the Holy Hooves?] are
>> beyond contradiction and can only be discounted because they are
>> unevidenced.
>>
>
> Sorry to break it to you, but I just had a revelation that the IPU is
> actually tope.
> ;-)
?
Tope=
1) drink intoxicating liquor
2) grove, esp. of mangoes
3) stupa (shrine)
4) small shark of genus Galeorhinus
[...]
> lol
> I can't stand new Star Trek stuff, generally, but Red Dwarf is cool. If
> only BBC America scheduled consistently . . .
I only see Star Trek if I happen to be bored senseless (and therefore
watching the idiot box) and it comes on, but I'm not particularly keen
on more recent Star Trek offerings. I've seen about 15 minutes of the
comedy channel and less than 5 minutes of consecutive TV otherwise
since April. I'm not often so bored I partake of purely passive
entertainment [though perhaps computer (strategy, usually) games are
not such a large step away].
[...]
>> Personally I hold that it seems very unlikely that only this planet has
>> had intelligent life develop on it, that it is likely that intelligent
>> life exists elsewhere [or at the very least elsewhen] in our universe,
>> but the strength with which I hold to the view is about as strong as
>> the evidence that supports it - I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
>>
>> If I turn this same outlook towards the plethora of religious beliefs
>> (and that's just the xtian ones, as I'm considerably less informed of
>> non-xtian religions), then I'm afraid what evidence is available is at
>> best unreliable. The call for evidence from those touting their
>> religion in alt.atheism reaches near-deafening levels at times,
>> handwaving, or silence, seems to be the usual response. It seems
>> reasonable that someone who has asked many theists for evidence, and
>> been shown none, would describe that faith as 'without evidence'.
>
> I'd call it understandable (barely). In terms of reason it's an argument
> from ignorance.
And the alternative is?
[...]
>>>> [...]
[snip: rationalisation - pro v con]
>> Of course, although they were Fishers of Christ, rather than Fishers of
>> Men; whereas we were the Men* of Fisher.
>>
>> *'boys' according to one of the chants I learnt in cold showers. I'm no
>> longer sure what the "girls'" chants covered.
>>
>> I've been interrupted on numerous occasions writing this, hopefully it
>> still makes sense...
>
> Wildly off-topic & quite amusing.
> Excellent work.
Was trying to lighten my own mood as much as anything else, one of the
interruptions was <name ommitted>, a member of the 'our eye(s) are
lensless' club, letting my SO know that she'd been diagnosed with
uterine cancer and that her remaining eye had tried to explode (like
the other did a year or 3 ago) during the week and was seriously
infected [whether cause or effect is unclear from relayed detail]. Who
needs soap operas?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
I have absolutely no reason to complain about "success" with my work;
[...] And yet, from time to time a boundless sense of inferiority
plagues me, a desperate feeling of general failure; how does a person
acquire such bits of lunacy?
- MC Escher