Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Who would have guessed?
7 views
Skip to first unread message
tony cooper
Apr 27, 2012, 7:15:44 PM4/27/12
to
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
Apr 27, 2012, 8:54:10 PM4/27/12
to
tony cooper wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>
By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
It's a little hard to get clear conclusions on such questions, though.
I've just finished reading a book by Richard Dawkins in which he devotes
an appendix to surveys on people's views on creationism and evolution.
Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking. But do the
surveys really show that? The points that struck me were (a) the results
seemed to jump about enormously depending on how the questions were
phrased, and (b) all of the survey questions appeared, to me, to have a
strong built-in bias of some sort. The conclusion I reached was that the
people who run such surveys aren't very good at designing survey questions.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>
By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
It's a little hard to get clear conclusions on such questions, though.
I've just finished reading a book by Richard Dawkins in which he devotes
an appendix to surveys on people's views on creationism and evolution.
Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking. But do the
surveys really show that? The points that struck me were (a) the results
seemed to jump about enormously depending on how the questions were
phrased, and (b) all of the survey questions appeared, to me, to have a
strong built-in bias of some sort. The conclusion I reached was that the
people who run such surveys aren't very good at designing survey questions.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Nick Spalding
Apr 28, 2012, 5:41:01 AM4/28/12
to
Peter Moylan wrote, in <8O2dnYqLPIUoogbS...@westnet.com.au>
on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000:
Or they are designing them to get the answers they want.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000:
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 7:44:37 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:15:44 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
And in other news, the sun rose this morning.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 7:45:57 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
nonsense?
Lars Enderin
Apr 28, 2012, 9:10:56 AM4/28/12
to
2012-04-28 13:45, Stan Brown skrev:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
>
> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
> nonsense?
>
20% is way too high in an enlightened country!
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
>
> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
> nonsense?
>
--
Lars Enderin
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 28, 2012, 9:14:20 AM4/28/12
to
On 2012-04-28 00:54:10 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> tony cooper wrote:
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>
>>
> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
I'm interested in your implicit equation "engineer = atheist", because
> tony cooper wrote:
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>
>>
> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do,
and in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
accepted by biologists is mathematically iimpossible, … and therefore
god.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 28, 2012, 9:18:33 AM4/28/12
to
shocking" than the 40% ignorance in the USA. (I'm a bit sceptical of
the 40% figure for Turkey, because the evidence of The Atlas of
Creation suggests that Turkish creationists don't have a problem with
an old earth; they just think that every species remained unchanged
once the creator had created it.)
--
athel
tony cooper
Apr 28, 2012, 9:40:58 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:15:44 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>
>And in other news, the sun rose this morning.
>
>But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:15:44 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>
>And in other news, the sun rose this morning.
>
>But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
or the boiling point of water.
If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
regular's positions on the subject matter of that article than you do
about what English reference books and dictionaries those people have
to hand. Except for Eric Walker, of course.
Snidely
Apr 28, 2012, 12:59:05 PM4/28/12
to
After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
Also, Tony's cite doesn't quite show that religious beliefs decrease
with rational thinking ... the report would have to indicate what the
respondents responded with *before* the tasks.
BTW, I consider myself fairly analytical, though perhaps agnostic
rather than atheist. But my first reaction on reading the ball-and-bat
scenario was, "Huh ... why is that wrong?" I had to spend a moment
_backtracking_ and consciously analyzing it to get the right answer.
(Another passing thought: people are very good at holding
contradictory beliefs and not seeing the contradiction; we seem to
spend a lot of energy on not seeing.)
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
with rational thinking ... the report would have to indicate what the
respondents responded with *before* the tasks.
BTW, I consider myself fairly analytical, though perhaps agnostic
rather than atheist. But my first reaction on reading the ball-and-bat
scenario was, "Huh ... why is that wrong?" I had to spend a moment
_backtracking_ and consciously analyzing it to get the right answer.
(Another passing thought: people are very good at holding
contradictory beliefs and not seeing the contradiction; we seem to
spend a lot of energy on not seeing.)
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 1:12:48 PM4/28/12
to
that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
David Hatunen
Apr 28, 2012, 1:42:39 PM4/28/12
to
"truths" since there first was religion. I suspet that today even the
most religious people would reject 99% of the "truths" once postulated.
> The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a matter of *creed*
> not demonstration.
> Atheism is also a creed.
--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 1:48:45 PM4/28/12
to
tony cooper escribió:
> If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
> regular's positions on the subject matter...
Who would that be then?
--
Pablo
> If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
Who would that be then?
--
Pablo
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 1:48:59 PM4/28/12
to
> Religion has been announcing
> "truths" since there first was religion. I suspet that today even the
> most religious people would reject 99% of the "truths" once postulated.
>
would be the revelation of such a being but about the belief in
transcendence.
>> The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a matter of *creed*
>> not demonstration.
>
> so is a belief that fairies and elves control out environment.
>
>> Atheism is also a creed.
>
> Only if you twist the meaning of "creed" out of all reasonable meaning.
BTW I am very serene about all that, I have noticed a tendancy
from US people to get very touchy when it comes to religion.
>
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 1:53:54 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam escribió:
fairies. It is not a condition any more than "sane" is. It just means that
you are not bonkers. Interpret that as you will :-)
--
Pablo
> Atheism is also a creed.
How can atheism be anything? Atheism means that one does not believe in sky
fairies. It is not a condition any more than "sane" is. It just means that
you are not bonkers. Interpret that as you will :-)
--
Pablo
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 2:00:51 PM4/28/12
to
neevr said in what I wrote. Atheism is a system of belief(is
that better?) that assumes that only the material world exists
and is self explanatory. I am simply saying that no scientifical
theorie will prove or disprove that, nothing more, nothing less,
and that IMO is a definition of belief, not demonstration.
the Omrud
Apr 28, 2012, 2:11:04 PM4/28/12
to
asserted by atheists?
--
David
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 2:16:19 PM4/28/12
to
Wikipedia:
"In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
and power which is wholly independent of (and removed from) the
material universe. This is contrasted with immanence where God is
fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures
in various ways."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 2:17:17 PM4/28/12
to
not exist.
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 2:35:53 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam escribió:
> Le 28/04/2012 19:53, Pablo a écrit :
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>> How can atheism be anything? Atheism means that one does not believe in
>> sky fairies. It is not a condition any more than "sane" is. It just means
>> that you are not bonkers. Interpret that as you will :-)
>>
>>
> Who said it was a condition? You are assuming things that were
> neevr said in what I wrote. Atheism is a system of belief
Ok. In that case, I'm not atheist.
What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
--
Pablo
> Le 28/04/2012 19:53, Pablo a écrit :
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>> How can atheism be anything? Atheism means that one does not believe in
>> sky fairies. It is not a condition any more than "sane" is. It just means
>> that you are not bonkers. Interpret that as you will :-)
>>
>>
> Who said it was a condition? You are assuming things that were
> neevr said in what I wrote. Atheism is a system of belief
What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
--
Pablo
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 2:38:47 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam escribió:
> Wikipedia:
>
> "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
Wy doesn't it say "a god"? Is wiki a religious nutter? I think we must be
told.
--
Pablo
> Wikipedia:
>
> "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
told.
--
Pablo
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 2:42:21 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam escribió:
> Or better (!) that atheism claims that transcendance does
> not exist.
I'll have to repeat here that I can't be an atheist, as I'd never heard of
transwotsit so could hardly believe in it or not.
What am I? I think...
I'm going to start worshiping the "Noddy and Big Ears" god combo. At least
they're real.
--
Pablo
> Or better (!) that atheism claims that transcendance does
> not exist.
transwotsit so could hardly believe in it or not.
What am I? I think...
I'm going to start worshiping the "Noddy and Big Ears" god combo. At least
they're real.
--
Pablo
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 2:42:20 PM4/28/12
to
Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 2:45:56 PM4/28/12
to
Le 28/04/2012 20:42, Pablo a écrit :
> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>> Or better (!) that atheism claims that transcendance does
>> not exist.
>
> I'll have to repeat here that I can't be an atheist, as I'd never heard of
> transwotsit so could hardly believe in it or not.
But you had presumably heard about a supernatural being, innit?
> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>> Or better (!) that atheism claims that transcendance does
>> not exist.
>
> I'll have to repeat here that I can't be an atheist, as I'd never heard of
> transwotsit so could hardly believe in it or not.
>
> What am I? I think...
therefore you are...
> What am I? I think...
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 2:49:44 PM4/28/12
to
Are you really honest about that discussion?
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 3:30:48 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam escribió:
> Le 28/04/2012 20:35, Pablo a écrit :
>> Lanarcam escribió:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
Oh, French:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
--
Pablo
> Le 28/04/2012 20:35, Pablo a écrit :
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>
> A delusional person.
>
> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>
> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
Is that the German spelling?
>>
> A delusional person.
>
> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>
> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
Oh, French:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
--
Pablo
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 3:34:38 PM4/28/12
to
Le 28/04/2012 21:30, Pablo a écrit :
> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>> Le 28/04/2012 20:35, Pablo a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>>
>> A delusional person.
>>
>> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>>
>> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
>
> Is that the German spelling?
>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
>
> Oh, French:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>
French.
> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>> Le 28/04/2012 20:35, Pablo a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>>
>> A delusional person.
>>
>> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>>
>> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
>
> Is that the German spelling?
>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
>
> Oh, French:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>
Don Quichotte de Cervantès
http://donquijotedelamancha.free.fr/
Pablo
Apr 28, 2012, 3:39:24 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam escribió:
> Le 28/04/2012 20:38, Pablo a écrit :
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
>>
>> Wy doesn't it say "a god"? Is wiki a religious nutter? I think we must be
>> told.
>>
> Because in their mind, God is not a thing but a being.
Who are they? And why do they share one mind?
>
> Are you really honest about that discussion?
I don't know what you mean. I'm pretty sure that there's no beardy geezer
sat on a cloud though. Just seems odd that the writers of wiki seem to be
publicly anouncing their insanity.
Don't bother being serious with me, as I will always continue to mock
religion and religious nutters.
There was an earthquake in Spain last year. I thought it quite funny that
the almighty chose to smite his own house more than any other.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13368599
My catholic friends were at a loss to understand.
--
Pablo
> Le 28/04/2012 20:38, Pablo a écrit :
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
>>
>> Wy doesn't it say "a god"? Is wiki a religious nutter? I think we must be
>> told.
>>
> Because in their mind, God is not a thing but a being.
>
> Are you really honest about that discussion?
sat on a cloud though. Just seems odd that the writers of wiki seem to be
publicly anouncing their insanity.
Don't bother being serious with me, as I will always continue to mock
religion and religious nutters.
There was an earthquake in Spain last year. I thought it quite funny that
the almighty chose to smite his own house more than any other.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13368599
My catholic friends were at a loss to understand.
--
Pablo
Lanarcam
Apr 28, 2012, 3:45:50 PM4/28/12
to
Le 28/04/2012 21:39, Pablo a écrit :
> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>> Le 28/04/2012 20:38, Pablo a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>>
>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
>>>
>>> Wy doesn't it say "a god"? Is wiki a religious nutter? I think we must be
>>> told.
>>>
>> Because in their mind, God is not a thing but a being.
>
> Who are they? And why do they share one mind?
>
The writer(s).
> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>> Le 28/04/2012 20:38, Pablo a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>>
>>>> Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature
>>>
>>> Wy doesn't it say "a god"? Is wiki a religious nutter? I think we must be
>>> told.
>>>
>> Because in their mind, God is not a thing but a being.
>
> Who are they? And why do they share one mind?
>
What's a mind?
Is it made out of atoms?
Is it an intellectual construct?
Are there layers in reality like the OSI layers?
"Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model is a reference model
developed by ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
in 1984, as a conceptual framework of standards for communication
in the network across different equipment and applications by
different vendors."
http://www.javvin.com/osimodel.html
Mind: conceptual.
Peter Brooks
Apr 28, 2012, 4:16:40 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 7:12 pm, Lanarcam <lanarc...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le 28/04/2012 18:59, Snidely a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
> >> tony cooper wrote:
> >>>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinki...
> Le 28/04/2012 18:59, Snidely a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
> >> tony cooper wrote:
natural consequence of our ability to match patterns. Shamanism was a
successful method whereby the clever turned superstition into a good
living - religion is simply shamanism turned into a proper business.
The problem with shamanism is that, when the rain dance fails to bring
rain, people tend to want their money back. The great thing about gods
is that you can avoid the angry crowd demanding their money back by
blaming the gods. Monotheism is simply a way of establishing a
monopoly to exclude other religions from getting their slice of the
earnings from the superstitios.
>
>. I also think that
> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>
No, it isn't.
>. I also think that
> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>
Skitt
Apr 28, 2012, 4:35:18 PM4/28/12
to
Pablo wrote:
> Lanarcam escribió:
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> Lanarcam escribió:
>> Pablo a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>
>> A delusional person.
>>
>> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>>
>> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
>
> Is that the German spelling?
>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
>
> Oh, French:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>
What happened to Don Quixote de la Mancha?
>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>
>> A delusional person.
>>
>> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>>
>> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
>
> Is that the German spelling?
>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
>
> Oh, French:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Apr 28, 2012, 5:39:34 PM4/28/12
to
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
tony cooper
Apr 28, 2012, 5:52:43 PM4/28/12
to
Stan wonders how this topic relates to a.u.e., but the number of
responses indicates that it is of interest to a.u.e. readers.
Robert Bannister
Apr 28, 2012, 8:19:44 PM4/28/12
to
think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Apr 28, 2012, 8:23:26 PM4/28/12
to
God is transcendence;
Transcendence refers to an aspect of God.
Atheists don't go round claiming things, but they refuse to believe in
things for which there is not evidence.
--
Robert Bannister
Percival P. Cassidy
Apr 28, 2012, 8:34:29 PM4/28/12
to
On 04/28/12 08:19 pm, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains and
>> that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
>> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
>> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
>> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
>> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>
> I believe that many centuries ago, it made a great deal of sense to
> think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
> either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
> thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
> beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
I recently attended the official pre-retirement lecture given by a
professor at a moderately conservative theological seminary. His
original PhD was in astro-geophysics, after which he did a PhD in Theology.
Then there is John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, who resigned his
Cambridge University professorship to become an Anglican priest.
I could name others.
Perce
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains and
>> that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
>> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
>> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
>> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
>> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>
> I believe that many centuries ago, it made a great deal of sense to
> think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
> either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
> thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
> beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
professor at a moderately conservative theological seminary. His
original PhD was in astro-geophysics, after which he did a PhD in Theology.
Then there is John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, who resigned his
Cambridge University professorship to become an Anglican priest.
I could name others.
Perce
R H Draney
Apr 28, 2012, 8:51:07 PM4/28/12
to
Lanarcam filted:
believe there is a God"?...
(For those following along at home, many if not all atheists have no problem
distinguishing between these two assertions; many if not all religious people
see the two statements as identical)....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>Atheism is also a creed.
Which one?...the creed "I believe there is no God" or the creed "I do not
>Atheism is also a creed.
believe there is a God"?...
(For those following along at home, many if not all atheists have no problem
distinguishing between these two assertions; many if not all religious people
see the two statements as identical)....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Snidely
Apr 28, 2012, 9:15:53 PM4/28/12
to
tony cooper submitted this idea :
>>
>> Who would that be then?
>
> Well, you've just revealed yours in posts up the chain a bit.
>
> Stan wonders how this topic relates to a.u.e., but the number of
> responses indicates that it is of interest to a.u.e. readers.
But WHICH regular?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:48:45 +0200, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper escribió:
>>
>>> If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
>>> regular's positions on the subject matter...
^^ start counting ^^
>
>> tony cooper escribió:
>>
>>> If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
>>> regular's positions on the subject matter...
>>
>> Who would that be then?
>
> Well, you've just revealed yours in posts up the chain a bit.
>
> Stan wonders how this topic relates to a.u.e., but the number of
> responses indicates that it is of interest to a.u.e. readers.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 9:17:52 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:18:33 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2012-04-28 13:10:56 +0000, Lars Enderin said:
>
> > 2012-04-28 13:45, Stan Brown skrev:
> >> nonsense?
> >
> > 20% is way too high in an enlightened country!
>
> Well that was also my interepretaion, but why is it "even more
> shocking" than the 40% ignorance in the USA.
Well, playing devil's advocate here, maybe it's that the rest of the
world has grown accustomed to expect ignorance from my unhappy
country.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
>
> On 2012-04-28 13:10:56 +0000, Lars Enderin said:
>
> > 2012-04-28 13:45, Stan Brown skrev:
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
> >>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
> >>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
> >>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
> >>
> >> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
> >>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
> >>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
> >>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
> >>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
> >>
> >> nonsense?
> >
> > 20% is way too high in an enlightened country!
>
> Well that was also my interepretaion, but why is it "even more
> shocking" than the 40% ignorance in the USA.
Well, playing devil's advocate here, maybe it's that the rest of the
world has grown accustomed to expect ignorance from my unhappy
country.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 9:20:33 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:14:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> I'm interested in your implicit equation "engineer = atheist", because
> one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
> alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
> understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do,
> and in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
> accepted by biologists is mathematically iimpossible,
Evolution is about as mathematically impossible as powered heavier-
than-air flight.
Not only has it been observed within our lifetime, both in the lab
and in the wild (moths in England, for example), but the fossil
record is pretty conclusive. And Richard Dawkins reported running a
mathematical simulation that was quite consistent with the fossil
record. If I am not mistaken, that was in /Climbing Mount
Improbable/.
> I'm interested in your implicit equation "engineer = atheist", because
> one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
> alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
> understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do,
> and in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
> accepted by biologists is mathematically iimpossible,
Evolution is about as mathematically impossible as powered heavier-
than-air flight.
Not only has it been observed within our lifetime, both in the lab
and in the wild (moths in England, for example), but the fossil
record is pretty conclusive. And Richard Dawkins reported running a
mathematical simulation that was quite consistent with the fossil
record. If I am not mistaken, that was in /Climbing Mount
Improbable/.
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 9:22:24 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:40:58 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
>
> Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
> of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
> general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
> or the boiling point of water.
But a.u.e. is not for "what people talk about", it is for English
usage: hence the name of the newsgroup.
> If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
> regular's positions
There is only one regular in the newsgroup, apart from yourself?
That is news to me.
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
>
> Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
> of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
> general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
> or the boiling point of water.
But a.u.e. is not for "what people talk about", it is for English
usage: hence the name of the newsgroup.
> If you follow a.u.e. regularly, you probably know more about the other
> regular's positions
That is news to me.
Stan Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 9:23:44 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:12:48 +0200, Lanarcam wrote:
> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains
Of course it is. Who among us would not like to control the
operation of supernatural forces by an act of will? But calling it
"prayer" doesn't make it any less an act of superstition, with no
slightest shred of empirical support.
Peter Moylan
Apr 28, 2012, 9:26:03 PM4/28/12
to
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
>
> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
> nonsense?
We've known for a long time that creationism has a strong hold in the
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
>
> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
> nonsense?
USA, especially in the more religious regions. That's regrettable, but
we have to accept the fact. The so-called "creation scientists" are
especially active in that country.
The thing that makes the other figure shocking is that we used to think
that other countries, or at least those with a good education system,
didn't suffer from that particular superstition. Now we're discovering
that it's making inroads.
I remember being horrified when I saw the claim that Australia was the
second-biggest stronghold of creationism in the western world. The
figure I saw at the time referred, IIRC, to about 10% of the population.
Until then I would have guessed about 1%.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
Apr 28, 2012, 9:35:44 PM4/28/12
to
Snidely wrote:
> BTW, I consider myself fairly analytical, though perhaps agnostic rather
> than atheist. But my first reaction on reading the ball-and-bat
> scenario was, "Huh ... why is that wrong?" I had to spend a moment
> _backtracking_ and consciously analyzing it to get the right answer.
My first reaction, on being given that question, was to come up with the
> BTW, I consider myself fairly analytical, though perhaps agnostic rather
> than atheist. But my first reaction on reading the ball-and-bat
> scenario was, "Huh ... why is that wrong?" I had to spend a moment
> _backtracking_ and consciously analyzing it to get the right answer.
wrong answer, but only for a second or so. My whole background and
education encourages me to check my answers for errors, and to re-think
when I've detected an error.
That particular puzzle has an "obvious" answer that just happens to be
wrong, and I think that most people would think of the wrong answer
first. The thing that distinguishes the so-called analytical thinkers is
not that they would come up with a different answer on the first
attempt, but that they have the habit of checking their conclusions for
errors. The people that the article calls intuitive thinkers, on the
other hand, jump at the first answer they see and don't look for other
possibilities.
In other words, some of us are capable of backtracking, and some aren't.
Or, more to the point, some of us are able to question what we've been
told, while others just accept what they were told.
Peter Moylan
Apr 28, 2012, 9:58:37 PM4/28/12
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
From my brief looks at alt.origins I have the impression that the group
attracts crackpots. Thus, it's plausible that you're seeing a highly
skewed sample. The arrogance and illogic displayed in the above argument
would seem to disqualify them as good engineers.
It's possibly relevant to add that, as an engineering academic, I saw
plenty of examples of people getting engineering degrees who really
shouldn't have been given a qualification of any kind. Unfortunately our
system permitted people to qualify who consistently scored about 50% in
every subject. Would you employ someone who has a record of getting
everything half-right? I have to admit, though, that I can't think of
any mechanism to exclude dimwits without mistreating legitimate students
who just happen to be weak in some areas.
A high incidence of atheism among engineers is merely something that
have noticed among the engineers I've known. Of course it's possible
that I too have seen a biased sample.
Elsewhere in this thread I mentioned that engineers (among others) have
the habit by both inclination and training of double-checking their
conclusions. We don't accept the result of a calculation until we've
calculated it two different ways[1]. The article that started this
thread suggested that analytical thinkers are less religious than
intuitive thinkers, and on the whole I would expect engineers to be
analytical thinkers. To me that implies, or at least suggests, that they
would be the people most likely to start asking whether something they
had been taught in a school or church was really true.
As we know, different people will come up with different answers to that
question, but I still think that engineers would at least ask the question.
[1] In my present job I've recently written three different computer
programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers. The third
program was written in an attempt to discover which of the first two
programs was correct. Now I'm wondering whether I can safely take the
risk of finding a fourth answer.
> On 2012-04-28 00:54:10 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>
>>>
>> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
>> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
>> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
>> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
>> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
>> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
>
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>
>>>
>> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
>> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
>> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
>> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
>> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
>> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
>
> I'm interested in your implicit equation "engineer = atheist", because
> one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
> alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
> understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do, and
> in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
> accepted by biologists is mathematically iimpossible, … and therefore god.
> one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
> alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
> understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do, and
> in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
From my brief looks at alt.origins I have the impression that the group
attracts crackpots. Thus, it's plausible that you're seeing a highly
skewed sample. The arrogance and illogic displayed in the above argument
would seem to disqualify them as good engineers.
It's possibly relevant to add that, as an engineering academic, I saw
plenty of examples of people getting engineering degrees who really
shouldn't have been given a qualification of any kind. Unfortunately our
system permitted people to qualify who consistently scored about 50% in
every subject. Would you employ someone who has a record of getting
everything half-right? I have to admit, though, that I can't think of
any mechanism to exclude dimwits without mistreating legitimate students
who just happen to be weak in some areas.
A high incidence of atheism among engineers is merely something that
have noticed among the engineers I've known. Of course it's possible
that I too have seen a biased sample.
Elsewhere in this thread I mentioned that engineers (among others) have
the habit by both inclination and training of double-checking their
conclusions. We don't accept the result of a calculation until we've
calculated it two different ways[1]. The article that started this
thread suggested that analytical thinkers are less religious than
intuitive thinkers, and on the whole I would expect engineers to be
analytical thinkers. To me that implies, or at least suggests, that they
would be the people most likely to start asking whether something they
had been taught in a school or church was really true.
As we know, different people will come up with different answers to that
question, but I still think that engineers would at least ask the question.
[1] In my present job I've recently written three different computer
programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers. The third
program was written in an attempt to discover which of the first two
programs was correct. Now I'm wondering whether I can safely take the
risk of finding a fourth answer.
Peter Moylan
Apr 28, 2012, 10:07:00 PM4/28/12
to
Pablo wrote:
> There was an earthquake in Spain last year. I thought it quite funny that
> the almighty chose to smite his own house more than any other.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13368599
>
> My catholic friends were at a loss to understand.
>
Where's the difficulty? There is indeed a simple explanation that's
> There was an earthquake in Spain last year. I thought it quite funny that
> the almighty chose to smite his own house more than any other.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13368599
>
> My catholic friends were at a loss to understand.
>
compatible with religion.
There is a god, and he strongly disapproves of Christianity.
Peter Moylan
Apr 28, 2012, 10:29:54 PM4/28/12
to
Peter Brooks wrote:
> Not quite. Superstition is, indeed, part of human nature - it's a
> natural consequence of our ability to match patterns. Shamanism was a
> successful method whereby the clever turned superstition into a good
> living - religion is simply shamanism turned into a proper business.
You say that as if the shamans were frauds. I don't believe that. I
> Not quite. Superstition is, indeed, part of human nature - it's a
> natural consequence of our ability to match patterns. Shamanism was a
> successful method whereby the clever turned superstition into a good
> living - religion is simply shamanism turned into a proper business.
believe, rather, that the priests, medicine men, shamans, or whatever
were simply the intellectuals of their time and place. They worked at
understanding how the world works. By now we know that most of what they
believed was wrong, but that's because it takes a long time to work out
the causes of natural phenomena. If we were thrown back into a primitive
society, with our learning erased, we too would come up with a lot of
faulty "explanations".
It seems to have been mostly the priestly class that preserved
knowledge, that gave us writing, that investigated the hard questions,
that eventually gave us things like universities. Even by about 1000 AD,
anyone with scholarly leanings who would rather study than herd sheep
would probably want to become a monk or a priest. Non-religious research
and education is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively recent
development.
Somebody, possibly Dawkins, coined the interesting term "God of the
gaps". As we have discovered more about the universe, we have found more
and more things that used to have a supernatural explanation and now can
be explained more simply. As the gaps in our knowledge shrink, we are
left with less and less for gods to look after. It's only been in the
last couple of centuries, though, that that shrinking has been so
obvious that the notion of gods has been widely questioned.
We've now reached the point where it's the intellectuals, more than
anyone else, who are deciding that "supernatural" is an outmoded
concept. That's a fairly modern development, though. When we knew a lot
less about how things worked, gods and spirits seemed like a very
sensible explanation.
Peter Moylan
Apr 28, 2012, 10:49:21 PM4/28/12
to
tony cooper
Apr 28, 2012, 10:54:55 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:22:24 -0400, Stan Brown
to participate.
You are free to bring up any subject you want. And, that includes the
subject or subjects of what you don't want to see brought up.
It is a bit funny to see you whinging away about an off-topic
discussion when you've posted in the thread, and that post had nothing
to do with English usage.
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:40:58 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
>>
>> Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
>> of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
>> general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
>> or the boiling point of water.
>
>But a.u.e. is not for "what people talk about", it is for English
>usage: hence the name of the newsgroup.
No, it's for what we want to talk about. We don't agree to a T.O.S.
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:40:58 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
>>
>> Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
>> of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
>> general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
>> or the boiling point of water.
>
>But a.u.e. is not for "what people talk about", it is for English
>usage: hence the name of the newsgroup.
to participate.
You are free to bring up any subject you want. And, that includes the
subject or subjects of what you don't want to see brought up.
It is a bit funny to see you whinging away about an off-topic
discussion when you've posted in the thread, and that post had nothing
to do with English usage.
R H Draney
Apr 29, 2012, 12:09:56 AM4/29/12
to
Peter Moylan filted:
>
>There is a god, and he strongly disapproves of Christianity.
He's getting fed up with them calling Him every week on His day off....r
>There is a god, and he strongly disapproves of Christianity.
Peter Brooks
Apr 29, 2012, 1:35:19 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 4:29 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
a living out of the superstitious.
is to make sure that you have part of your organisation devoted to
repelling other options to your dogma (the Society of Jesus being a
good example of such a body). You have to keep such people employed in
doing something, otherwise they get bored and bugger off, so research
was a good option. It is, of course, good news for all of us that this
was so - just as some things that were invented only to kill people
had beneficent side effects.
sure.Yes, my suspicion is right - from the OED '1894 H. Drummond
Ascent of Man x. 426 There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the
fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps—gaps which
they will fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps?'.
It is, though, fortunately so. It used to be, a very long time ago
(before Epicurus, certainly) intellectually reasonable to believe in
gods, it no longer is.
avoid. Going on from making mistakes in your understanding of reality
because of your inbuilt pattern-matching engine being prone to error
to believing in gods is very silly, though.
I agree with you, as I say above, that ghoulies, gods (why not ghods,
I wonder..) and ghosties were less silly as a belief before.
You can argue that genetic engineering (cows rather than aurochs, for
example) is supernatural, or, at least, unnatural, but I think that
anything people do is natural as we are natural.
wrote:
> Peter Brooks wrote:
> > Not quite. Superstition is, indeed, part of human nature - it's a
> > natural consequence of our ability to match patterns. Shamanism was a
> > successful method whereby the clever turned superstition into a good
> > living - religion is simply shamanism turned into a proper business.
>
> You say that as if the shamans were frauds. I don't believe that. I
> believe, rather, that the priests, medicine men, shamans, or whatever
> were simply the intellectuals of their time and place. They worked at
> understanding how the world works. By now we know that most of what they
> believed was wrong, but that's because it takes a long time to work out
> the causes of natural phenomena. If we were thrown back into a primitive
> society, with our learning erased, we too would come up with a lot of
> faulty "explanations".
>
No, not really frauds, they didn't know any better - but they did make
> > Not quite. Superstition is, indeed, part of human nature - it's a
> > natural consequence of our ability to match patterns. Shamanism was a
> > successful method whereby the clever turned superstition into a good
> > living - religion is simply shamanism turned into a proper business.
>
> You say that as if the shamans were frauds. I don't believe that. I
> believe, rather, that the priests, medicine men, shamans, or whatever
> were simply the intellectuals of their time and place. They worked at
> understanding how the world works. By now we know that most of what they
> believed was wrong, but that's because it takes a long time to work out
> the causes of natural phenomena. If we were thrown back into a primitive
> society, with our learning erased, we too would come up with a lot of
> faulty "explanations".
>
a living out of the superstitious.
>
> It seems to have been mostly the priestly class that preserved
> knowledge, that gave us writing, that investigated the hard questions,
> that eventually gave us things like universities. Even by about 1000 AD,
> anyone with scholarly leanings who would rather study than herd sheep
> would probably want to become a monk or a priest. Non-religious research
> and education is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively recent
> development.
>
That's also true - one means of keeping control of the flow of funds
> It seems to have been mostly the priestly class that preserved
> knowledge, that gave us writing, that investigated the hard questions,
> that eventually gave us things like universities. Even by about 1000 AD,
> anyone with scholarly leanings who would rather study than herd sheep
> would probably want to become a monk or a priest. Non-religious research
> and education is, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively recent
> development.
>
is to make sure that you have part of your organisation devoted to
repelling other options to your dogma (the Society of Jesus being a
good example of such a body). You have to keep such people employed in
doing something, otherwise they get bored and bugger off, so research
was a good option. It is, of course, good news for all of us that this
was so - just as some things that were invented only to kill people
had beneficent side effects.
>
> Somebody, possibly Dawkins, coined the interesting term "God of the
> gaps". As we have discovered more about the universe, we have found more
> and more things that used to have a supernatural explanation and now can
> be explained more simply. As the gaps in our knowledge shrink, we are
> left with less and less for gods to look after. It's only been in the
> last couple of centuries, though, that that shrinking has been so
> obvious that the notion of gods has been widely questioned.
>
I think it pre-dates Dawkins by quite a bit, but I'm not quite
> Somebody, possibly Dawkins, coined the interesting term "God of the
> gaps". As we have discovered more about the universe, we have found more
> and more things that used to have a supernatural explanation and now can
> be explained more simply. As the gaps in our knowledge shrink, we are
> left with less and less for gods to look after. It's only been in the
> last couple of centuries, though, that that shrinking has been so
> obvious that the notion of gods has been widely questioned.
>
sure.Yes, my suspicion is right - from the OED '1894 H. Drummond
Ascent of Man x. 426 There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the
fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps—gaps which
they will fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps?'.
It is, though, fortunately so. It used to be, a very long time ago
(before Epicurus, certainly) intellectually reasonable to believe in
gods, it no longer is.
>
> We've now reached the point where it's the intellectuals, more than
> anyone else, who are deciding that "supernatural" is an outmoded
> concept. That's a fairly modern development, though. When we knew a lot
> less about how things worked, gods and spirits seemed like a very
> sensible explanation.
>
People will always be superstitious - I am myself. It's difficult to
> We've now reached the point where it's the intellectuals, more than
> anyone else, who are deciding that "supernatural" is an outmoded
> concept. That's a fairly modern development, though. When we knew a lot
> less about how things worked, gods and spirits seemed like a very
> sensible explanation.
>
avoid. Going on from making mistakes in your understanding of reality
because of your inbuilt pattern-matching engine being prone to error
to believing in gods is very silly, though.
I agree with you, as I say above, that ghoulies, gods (why not ghods,
I wonder..) and ghosties were less silly as a belief before.
You can argue that genetic engineering (cows rather than aurochs, for
example) is supernatural, or, at least, unnatural, but I think that
anything people do is natural as we are natural.
Peter Brooks
Apr 29, 2012, 1:37:10 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 6:09 am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter Moylan filted:
>
>
>
> >There is a god, and he strongly disapproves of Christianity.
>
> He's getting fed up with them calling Him every week on His day off....r
>
One of the less exercised arguments against gods is the cruelty
> Peter Moylan filted:
>
>
>
> >There is a god, and he strongly disapproves of Christianity.
>
> He's getting fed up with them calling Him every week on His day off....r
>
involved in inventing them. The life of a god would be intolerably
dull, unless, as seems the case from some stories, they have, at best,
a bovine intelligence.
Bob Martin
Apr 29, 2012, 1:58:26 AM4/29/12
to
Lanarcam
Apr 29, 2012, 3:33:48 AM4/29/12
to
Notice that I have nothing for or against it, if that still needs to
be made clear.
Lanarcam
Apr 29, 2012, 3:39:55 AM4/29/12
to
declaration of principles. It *can't* be a proof no matter how advanced
you are in biology or quantum physics. I liked Richard Dawkins
book about biology, the selfish gene, but the god delusion
didn't impress me at all. In my mind futile arguments that
don't address the fundamental questions but deal with naive
thinking about religion.
Dr Nick
Apr 29, 2012, 4:22:39 AM4/29/12
to
As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
of creeds[2].
[1] - ObEU: I still think that this sentence is better with "myself" here.
[2] - Here's a vanishingly small subset of just about everybody's
creeds:
"I don't believe that there is a
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] foot
[black,brown,red,orange,yellow,green,blue,violet,grey,white]
[car,house,banana,ostrich,vacuum cleaner, midge, DVD, concrete statue of
Lord Snowdon in his underwear, bullfinch, mug] in orbit around
[the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
Neptune, Nick's head] and there has been for
[ever, 17 days, twenty five years, since the last but 7 times the Prime
Minister of the UK sneezed, 22 weeks, since 4 BC, 12 years three months
and 3 days, not quite ever but very close, three fortnights, 65535
weeks]."
Pick one term from each of the sets in brackets. That's 100,000 creeds
for you that I believe in in exactly the same way as "there are no
gods". The /only/ way atheism differs from those is that you can find a
significant group of people who happen to feel differently about it.
But that's a matter of their faith and creed and cannot affect mine (if
I'm a white crow my whiteness doesn't change just because you can find
thousands of black ones).
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
of creeds[2].
[1] - ObEU: I still think that this sentence is better with "myself" here.
[2] - Here's a vanishingly small subset of just about everybody's
creeds:
"I don't believe that there is a
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] foot
[black,brown,red,orange,yellow,green,blue,violet,grey,white]
[car,house,banana,ostrich,vacuum cleaner, midge, DVD, concrete statue of
Lord Snowdon in his underwear, bullfinch, mug] in orbit around
[the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
Neptune, Nick's head] and there has been for
[ever, 17 days, twenty five years, since the last but 7 times the Prime
Minister of the UK sneezed, 22 weeks, since 4 BC, 12 years three months
and 3 days, not quite ever but very close, three fortnights, 65535
weeks]."
Pick one term from each of the sets in brackets. That's 100,000 creeds
for you that I believe in in exactly the same way as "there are no
gods". The /only/ way atheism differs from those is that you can find a
significant group of people who happen to feel differently about it.
But that's a matter of their faith and creed and cannot affect mine (if
I'm a white crow my whiteness doesn't change just because you can find
thousands of black ones).
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Lanarcam
Apr 29, 2012, 4:29:33 AM4/29/12
to
Le 29/04/2012 10:22, Dr Nick a écrit :
> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
>> Atheism is also a creed.
>
> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
> of creeds[2].
>
My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
>> Atheism is also a creed.
>
> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
> of creeds[2].
>
that "atheism is a system of belief".
From a dictionary:
"creed
noun
1.
any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2.
any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3.
an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of
Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the
Athanasian Creed.
4.
the creed. Apostles' Creed. "
I meant it in the sense [2].
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 29, 2012, 4:33:15 AM4/29/12
to
On 2012-04-28 20:35:18 +0000, Skitt said:
> Pablo wrote:
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>> Pablo a écrit :
>>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>>>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>>
>>> A delusional person.
>>>
>>> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>>>
>>> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
>>
>> Is that the German spelling?
>>
>> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
>>
>> Oh, French:
>>
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>>
>
> What happened to Don Quixote de la Mancha?
Cervantes spelled Quixote with an x, an ordinary use of x at the time,
> Pablo wrote:
>> Lanarcam escribió:
>>> Pablo a écrit :
>>>> Lanarcam escribió:
>
>>>> What do you call somone who doesn't believe that Don Quijote was made up?
>>>
>>> A delusional person.
>>>
>>> Or someone who doesn't give a damn about positive truth.
>>>
>>> It is rather easy to *prove* that Don Quichotte was made up.
>>
>> Is that the German spelling?
>>
>> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha
>>
>> Oh, French:
>>
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>>
>
> What happened to Don Quixote de la Mancha?
but it's little used for such words now (except in Mexico (I mean the
place, not its name, though the comment does apply to the name México,
spelled that way in Mexico and usually elsewhere in Latin America, but
often Méjico in Spain (much to the annoyance of the Mexicans)) and in
names like Ximena), and modern Spanish has regularized it to Quijote.
--
athel
Dr Nick
Apr 29, 2012, 4:39:32 AM4/29/12
to
Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
> Le 29/04/2012 10:22, Dr Nick a écrit :
>> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
>> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
>> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
>> of creeds[2].
>>
> My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
> that "atheism is a system of belief".
OK.
> Le 29/04/2012 10:22, Dr Nick a écrit :
>> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
>> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
>> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
>> of creeds[2].
>>
> My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
> that "atheism is a system of belief".
>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here
>> a million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange
>> to have hundreds of billions of systems of belief[2].
The footnote from the original post still applies.
Atheism isn't a system of belief either. It's just a very small
consequence of a system of belief based on evidence and Occam's razor
and a pretty inconsequential one most of the time at that.
Lanarcam
Apr 29, 2012, 5:04:32 AM4/29/12
to
Le 29/04/2012 10:39, Dr Nick a écrit :
> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
>> Le 29/04/2012 10:22, Dr Nick a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>>
>>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
>>> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
>>> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
>>> of creeds[2].
>>>
>> My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
>> that "atheism is a system of belief".
>
> OK.
>
>>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here
>>> a million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange
>>> definition of a system of belief. One that allows for every person
>>> to have hundreds of billions of systems of belief[2].
>
> The footnote from the original post still applies.
>
> Atheism isn't a system of belief either. It's just a very small
> consequence of a system of belief based on evidence and Occam's razor
> and a pretty inconsequential one most of the time at that.
I mainly agree with that. The point I try to make is that
> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
>> Le 29/04/2012 10:22, Dr Nick a écrit :
>>> Lanarcam<lana...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>>
>>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
>>> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
>>> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
>>> of creeds[2].
>>>
>> My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
>> that "atheism is a system of belief".
>
> OK.
>
>>> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here
>>> a million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange
>>> definition of a system of belief. One that allows for every person
>>> to have hundreds of billions of systems of belief[2].
>
> The footnote from the original post still applies.
>
> Atheism isn't a system of belief either. It's just a very small
> consequence of a system of belief based on evidence and Occam's razor
> and a pretty inconsequential one most of the time at that.
science has nothing to do with it, and will never,
by definition.
You say "a system of belief based on evidence". I agree
that scientific explanations of natural phenomena have
dispelled superstitious misconceptions about them but
evidence of the absence of transcendence doesn't exist.
Occam's razor is also a principle or an axiom.
"William used the principle to justify many conclusions,
including the statement that "God's existence cannot be
deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very
popular with the Pope."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
I think the whole problem stems from the fact that people
want to *prove* things, perhaps because they are afraid
of the unknown and unkowable.
For my part, my thinking (serene again) about it is that
I don't worry about proofs, it's all a matter of personal
belief, perhaps the result of a natural disposition of
some people.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 29, 2012, 5:19:00 AM4/29/12
to
On 2012-04-29 01:58:37 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2012-04-28 00:54:10 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
>>> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
>>> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
>>> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
>>> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
>>> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
>>
>> I'm interested in your implicit equation "engineer = atheist", because
>> one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
>> alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
>> understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do, and
>> in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
>> accepted by biologists is mathematically iimpossible, … and therefore god.
>
> From my brief looks at alt.origins I have the impression that the group
> attracts crackpots.
I meant talk.origins of course, as you and Stan realized, but I make
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2012-04-28 00:54:10 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
>>> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
>>> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
>>> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
>>> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
>>> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
>>
>> I'm interested in your implicit equation "engineer = atheist", because
>> one gets a different impression from some engineers who frequent
>> alt.origins, who are inclined to argue that being engineers they
>> understand mathematics far better than any biologist can hope to do, and
>> in consequence can say with confidence that natural selection as
>> accepted by biologists is mathematically iimpossible, … and therefore god.
>
> From my brief looks at alt.origins I have the impression that the group
> attracts crackpots.
the correction in case there is anyone unfamiliar with that great
fountain of crackpottery. Plenty of young-earth creationism, of course,
but also geocentrism and other craziness.
> Thus, it's plausible that you're seeing a highly
> skewed sample. The arrogance and illogic displayed in the above argument
> would seem to disqualify them as good engineers.
of Evolution is a mathematically irrational belief-part 5" (part 5
because parts 1 to 4 have already filled out to the maximum that google
groups allow), in which one Dr Dr Alan Kleinman MD PhD expounds at
enormous length on the subject. I think the PhD was in engineering, but
I'm not going to search through more than 4000 posts to check. I long
ago gave up reading what Dr Dr Kleinman has to say, but I still
sometimes read some of the replies.
Stan Brown
Apr 29, 2012, 7:17:59 AM4/29/12
to
"regular's".
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Apr 29, 2012, 8:19:43 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:34:29 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>On 04/28/12 08:19 pm, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>
>>> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains and
>>> that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
>>> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
>>> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
>>> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
>>> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that many centuries ago, it made a great deal of sense to
>> think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
>> either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
>> thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
>> beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
>
>I recently attended the official pre-retirement lecture given by a
>professor at a moderately conservative theological seminary. His
>original PhD was in astro-geophysics, after which he did a PhD in Theology.
>
>Then there is John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, who resigned his
>Cambridge University professorship to become an Anglican priest.
>
>I could name others.
>
I think they would say that there are two aspects to the Universe, the
physical and the spiritual.
Physical phenomena are the realm of science. Many scientists who are
also Christians accept that God does not intervene in the physical world
in the way that people used to think he does, and some still do.
Therefore God does not need to be considered in the exploration and
understanding of physical phenomena.
My late father was a physicist and Christian. He rejected the idea of a
God who intervenes in physical matters. The closest he would accept to
an interventionist God was one who communicates with human minds in an
informative rather than a controlling way.
The point about the physical world and the spiritual world in
Christianity, and I believe Islam, is that humans are immortal spiritual
beings, souls, who temporarily have physical bodies. The physical world
is a brief preparatory stage, a womb or nursery for souls.
A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring. Their decisions
are very likely to affect what happens to them when "real life"
commences when they leave their physical bodies.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>On 04/28/12 08:19 pm, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>
>>> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains and
>>> that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
>>> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
>>> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
>>> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
>>> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that many centuries ago, it made a great deal of sense to
>> think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
>> either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
>> thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
>> beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
>
>I recently attended the official pre-retirement lecture given by a
>professor at a moderately conservative theological seminary. His
>original PhD was in astro-geophysics, after which he did a PhD in Theology.
>
>Then there is John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, who resigned his
>Cambridge University professorship to become an Anglican priest.
>
>I could name others.
>
I think they would say that there are two aspects to the Universe, the
physical and the spiritual.
Physical phenomena are the realm of science. Many scientists who are
also Christians accept that God does not intervene in the physical world
in the way that people used to think he does, and some still do.
Therefore God does not need to be considered in the exploration and
understanding of physical phenomena.
My late father was a physicist and Christian. He rejected the idea of a
God who intervenes in physical matters. The closest he would accept to
an interventionist God was one who communicates with human minds in an
informative rather than a controlling way.
The point about the physical world and the spiritual world in
Christianity, and I believe Islam, is that humans are immortal spiritual
beings, souls, who temporarily have physical bodies. The physical world
is a brief preparatory stage, a womb or nursery for souls.
A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring. Their decisions
are very likely to affect what happens to them when "real life"
commences when they leave their physical bodies.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 8:32:54 AM4/29/12
to
Stan Brown escribió:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:54:55 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>
> Perhaps you missed my correction of your incorrect possessive
> "regular's".
Everyone seems to have missed mine.
--
Pablo
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:54:55 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>
> Perhaps you missed my correction of your incorrect possessive
> "regular's".
--
Pablo
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 8:42:10 AM4/29/12
to
Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió:
> A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
> physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
> life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
> Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring.
Bastard's not said a word to me.
What does this say about me? Or about your sky fairy? Bit selective, is he?
Does this mean I don't get a "real life"? I just get eaten by worms and
that's the end of it? I can't accept that. I'm going to form my own
religion.
--
Pablo
> A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
> physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
> life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
> Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring.
What does this say about me? Or about your sky fairy? Bit selective, is he?
Does this mean I don't get a "real life"? I just get eaten by worms and
that's the end of it? I can't accept that. I'm going to form my own
religion.
--
Pablo
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 8:44:22 AM4/29/12
to
Peter Moylan escribió:
> You say that as if the shamans were frauds. I don't believe that. I
> believe, rather, that the priests, medicine men, shamans, or whatever
> were simply the intellectuals of their time and place. They worked at
> understanding how the world works.
...and how to control the stupid masses. Fear of the unknown.
--
Pablo
> You say that as if the shamans were frauds. I don't believe that. I
> believe, rather, that the priests, medicine men, shamans, or whatever
> were simply the intellectuals of their time and place. They worked at
> understanding how the world works.
--
Pablo
Dr Nick
Apr 29, 2012, 8:52:46 AM4/29/12
to
rather than promoting it.
tony cooper
Apr 29, 2012, 9:43:00 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:17:59 -0400, Stan Brown
There's no point in me discussing it. It's not the first, nor will it
be the last, error for me. What would you have me say about it?
I responded to what there was to discuss.
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:54:55 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:22:24 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:40:58 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
>> >> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
>> >> of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
>> >> general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
>> >> or the boiling point of water.
>> >
>> >But a.u.e. is not for "what people talk about", it is for English
>> >usage: hence the name of the newsgroup.
>>
>> No, it's for what we want to talk about. We don't agree to a T.O.S.
>> to participate.
>>
>> You are free to bring up any subject you want. And, that includes the
>> subject or subjects of what you don't want to see brought up.
>>
>> It is a bit funny to see you whinging away about an off-topic
>> discussion when you've posted in the thread, and that post had nothing
>> to do with English usage.
>
>Perhaps you missed my correction of your incorrect possessive
>"regular's".
No, I didn't miss it. Pablo brought it up first. The error was made.
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:54:55 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:22:24 -0400, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:40:58 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:44:37 -0400, Stan Brown
>> >> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >But perhaps there was some relevance to a.u.e that I missed?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there is. The subject of religion and the belief or non-belief
>> >> of contributors to a.u.e. and all of the people in the world in
>> >> general is as common as a subject of discussion as words, food, sheep,
>> >> or the boiling point of water.
>> >
>> >But a.u.e. is not for "what people talk about", it is for English
>> >usage: hence the name of the newsgroup.
>>
>> No, it's for what we want to talk about. We don't agree to a T.O.S.
>> to participate.
>>
>> You are free to bring up any subject you want. And, that includes the
>> subject or subjects of what you don't want to see brought up.
>>
>> It is a bit funny to see you whinging away about an off-topic
>> discussion when you've posted in the thread, and that post had nothing
>> to do with English usage.
>
>Perhaps you missed my correction of your incorrect possessive
>"regular's".
There's no point in me discussing it. It's not the first, nor will it
be the last, error for me. What would you have me say about it?
I responded to what there was to discuss.
tony cooper
Apr 29, 2012, 9:47:36 AM4/29/12
to
it? Do you feel that I need to apologize, explain, or express great
regret or embarrassment?
It's not like you caught Eric making an error. It's more of a fish in
a barrel thing.
Peter Moylan
Apr 29, 2012, 9:48:09 AM4/29/12
to
>>>>>>>> Atheism is also a creed.
Sorry about the deep nesting there. I pulled out a posting in this
thread almost at random as a hook to hang my story on.
This evening, while driving home, I was listening to a radio programme
in which a panel was discussing what the churches ought to be doing in
response to the growth in atheism. One panelist, a Catholic
psychologist, said something like "If someone says they don't believe in
God, ask them who or what they don't believe in. You might find that
their image of God is different from what the church is teaching today."
Now, it sounded as if the panel was made up of intelligent people, but
not a single person laughed! They all acted as if that statement made sense.
I know somebody who, by choice, doesn't wear shoes. I was left with a
mental image of this psychologist saying "Now tell me, which brand of
shoes don't you wear?" If there was a prize for missing the point, this
person would surely be a major contender; yet it seems that nobody on
the show noticed the weirdness of what she had just said.
I'm offering this story in the hope that it might help some of us
understand the mindset of those many people who keep trying to tell us
that atheism is a religion.
Jerry Friedman
Apr 29, 2012, 9:53:08 AM4/29/12
to
something "Who is that" (singular) instead of "Who would that
be" (could be singular or plural). At the time, I didn't feel that
either agreement or criticism was called for.
--
Jerry Friedman
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 10:04:37 AM4/29/12
to
tony cooper escribió:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:32:54 +0200, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Stan Brown escribió:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:54:55 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you missed my correction of your incorrect possessive
>>> "regular's".
>>
>>Everyone seems to have missed mine.
>>
>
> I saw it. As mentioned to Stan, what would you want me to say about
> it? Do you feel that I need to apologize, explain, or express great
> regret or embarrassment?
Of course. Actually, there's no need for my pedantry. It's an annoying
habit. My excuse is that I write for a living. These things jump off the
page at me.
A friend of mine, who is a bit of a linguist (which bit?, you may ask),
tells me I have no right to be pedantic, as my English drops far short of
perfect.
> It's not like you caught Eric making an error. It's more of a fish in
> a barrel thing.
>
Heh.
--
Pablo
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:32:54 +0200, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Stan Brown escribió:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:54:55 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you missed my correction of your incorrect possessive
>>> "regular's".
>>
>>Everyone seems to have missed mine.
>>
>
> I saw it. As mentioned to Stan, what would you want me to say about
> it? Do you feel that I need to apologize, explain, or express great
> regret or embarrassment?
habit. My excuse is that I write for a living. These things jump off the
page at me.
A friend of mine, who is a bit of a linguist (which bit?, you may ask),
tells me I have no right to be pedantic, as my English drops far short of
perfect.
> It's not like you caught Eric making an error. It's more of a fish in
> a barrel thing.
>
--
Pablo
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Apr 29, 2012, 10:09:17 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:52:46 +0100, Dr Nick
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> writes:
>
>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió:
>>
>>> A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
>>> physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
>>> life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
>>> Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring.
>>
>> Bastard's not said a word to me.
>>
>> What does this say about me? Or about your sky fairy? Bit selective, is he?
>> Does this mean I don't get a "real life"? I just get eaten by worms and
>> that's the end of it? I can't accept that. I'm going to form my own
>> religion.
>
>To be fair, I think Peter was expressing how it understands the idea,
>rather than promoting it.
Correct.
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> writes:
>
>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió:
>>
>>> A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
>>> physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
>>> life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
>>> Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring.
>>
>> Bastard's not said a word to me.
>>
>> What does this say about me? Or about your sky fairy? Bit selective, is he?
>> Does this mean I don't get a "real life"? I just get eaten by worms and
>> that's the end of it? I can't accept that. I'm going to form my own
>> religion.
>
>To be fair, I think Peter was expressing how it understands the idea,
>rather than promoting it.
Thank you.
Jerry Friedman
Apr 29, 2012, 10:23:16 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 2:22 am, Dr Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
the present, who say they have experienced contact with God. There
are many reports of supernatural events related to a belief in God,
some of them witnessed by large numbers of people, such as the
"Miracle of the Sun" in Portugal in 1917. You may find all of this
unconvincing, as I do, but I'd say it takes a belief in God out of the
same category as a belief that there a 1-foot brown banana in orbit
around Venus and it has been there for 22 weeks.
--
Jerry Friedman
> Lanarcam <lanarc...@yahoo.fr> writes:
> > Atheism is also a creed.
>
> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
> of creeds[2].
>
> [1] - ObEU: I still think that this sentence is better with "myself" here.
> [2] - Here's a vanishingly small subset of just about everybody's
> creeds:
> "I don't believe that there is a
> [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] foot
> [black,brown,red,orange,yellow,green,blue,violet,grey,white]
> [car,house,banana,ostrich,vacuum cleaner, midge, DVD, concrete statue of
> Lord Snowdon in his underwear, bullfinch, mug] in orbit around
> [the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
> Neptune, Nick's head] and there has been for
> [ever, 17 days, twenty five years, since the last but 7 times the Prime
> Minister of the UK sneezed, 22 weeks, since 4 BC, 12 years three months
> and 3 days, not quite ever but very close, three fortnights, 65535
> weeks]."
>
> Pick one term from each of the sets in brackets. That's 100,000 creeds
> for you that I believe in in exactly the same way as "there are no
> gods". The /only/ way atheism differs from those is that you can find a
> significant group of people who happen to feel differently about it.
I don't agree. There are many people, throughout history including
> > Atheism is also a creed.
>
> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
> of creeds[2].
>
> [1] - ObEU: I still think that this sentence is better with "myself" here.
> [2] - Here's a vanishingly small subset of just about everybody's
> creeds:
> "I don't believe that there is a
> [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] foot
> [black,brown,red,orange,yellow,green,blue,violet,grey,white]
> [car,house,banana,ostrich,vacuum cleaner, midge, DVD, concrete statue of
> Lord Snowdon in his underwear, bullfinch, mug] in orbit around
> [the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
> Neptune, Nick's head] and there has been for
> [ever, 17 days, twenty five years, since the last but 7 times the Prime
> Minister of the UK sneezed, 22 weeks, since 4 BC, 12 years three months
> and 3 days, not quite ever but very close, three fortnights, 65535
> weeks]."
>
> Pick one term from each of the sets in brackets. That's 100,000 creeds
> for you that I believe in in exactly the same way as "there are no
> gods". The /only/ way atheism differs from those is that you can find a
> significant group of people who happen to feel differently about it.
the present, who say they have experienced contact with God. There
are many reports of supernatural events related to a belief in God,
some of them witnessed by large numbers of people, such as the
"Miracle of the Sun" in Portugal in 1917. You may find all of this
unconvincing, as I do, but I'd say it takes a belief in God out of the
same category as a belief that there a 1-foot brown banana in orbit
around Venus and it has been there for 22 weeks.
--
Jerry Friedman
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 10:34:11 AM4/29/12
to
Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió:
Doesn't really matter. I'm just having a pop at religion, as I often do.
--
Pablo
--
Pablo
Jerry Friedman
Apr 29, 2012, 10:53:55 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 2:39 am, Dr Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Lanarcam<lanarc...@yahoo.fr> writes:
"gap", the system of belief you're talking about requires more than
one entity to explain things--unknown physical processes at the
beginning of the universe, unknown chemical processes during the
origin of life, unknown mind-body connections to explain miraculous
cures as the result of the placebo effect (to the extent that it
exists) or cures of psychosomatic illnesses, etc. Theism explains all
of those with one entity.
The one we want is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."
--
Jerry Friedman
> >> Lanarcam<lanarc...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
> >>> Atheism is also a creed.
>
> >> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
> >> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
> >> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
> >> of creeds[2].
>
> > My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
> > that "atheism is a system of belief".
>
> OK.
>
> >> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here
> >> a million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange
> >> definition of a system of belief. One that allows for every person
> >> to have hundreds of billions of systems of belief[2].
>
> The footnote from the original post still applies.
>
> Atheism isn't a system of belief either. It's just a very small
> consequence of a system of belief based on evidence and Occam's razor
> and a pretty inconsequential one most of the time at that.
Occam's razor isn't the one we want. As long as there's more than one
> >>> Atheism is also a creed.
>
> >> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here a
> >> million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange definition of
> >> a creed. One that allows for every person to have hundreds of billions
> >> of creeds[2].
>
> > My English is probably not up to that discussion, what I meant is
> > that "atheism is a system of belief".
>
> OK.
>
> >> As many greater thinkers than me[1] have said, and as I've said here
> >> a million times myself, only if you have a flippin' strange
> >> definition of a system of belief. One that allows for every person
> >> to have hundreds of billions of systems of belief[2].
>
> The footnote from the original post still applies.
>
> Atheism isn't a system of belief either. It's just a very small
> consequence of a system of belief based on evidence and Occam's razor
> and a pretty inconsequential one most of the time at that.
"gap", the system of belief you're talking about requires more than
one entity to explain things--unknown physical processes at the
beginning of the universe, unknown chemical processes during the
origin of life, unknown mind-body connections to explain miraculous
cures as the result of the placebo effect (to the extent that it
exists) or cures of psychosomatic illnesses, etc. Theism explains all
of those with one entity.
The one we want is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 29, 2012, 11:51:10 AM4/29/12
to
existence that many people simply don't see the existence of gods as an
extraordinary claim.
--
athel
Snidely
Apr 29, 2012, 2:55:46 PM4/29/12
to
Pablo was thinking very hard :
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió:
>
>> A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
>> physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
>> life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
>> Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring.
>
> Bastard's not said a word to me.
>
Are you sure? Or are you just not listening?
>
>> A non-interventionist God communicates with people in this preparatory
>> physical stage to, as it were, mentor them in preparation for the "real
>> life" which will commence at the end of their physical life phase.
>> Individuals are free to accept or reject this mentoring.
>
> Bastard's not said a word to me.
>
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Snidely
Apr 29, 2012, 2:58:52 PM4/29/12
to
because they don't see evidence of him in their observations of the
world, but that they haven't thought through other possible gods and
rejected them as well.
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 3:11:36 PM4/29/12
to
Snidely escribió:
Maybe sky fairies speak using a frequency out of my audible range.
--
Pablo
--
Pablo
Pablo
Apr 29, 2012, 3:15:15 PM4/29/12
to
Snidely escribió:
> There is some evidence that some people are rejecting a *specific* god
> because they don't see evidence of him in their observations of the
> world, but that they haven't thought through other possible gods and
> rejected them as well.
Or they just find the whole concept of sky fairies completely hat stand.
--
Pablo
> There is some evidence that some people are rejecting a *specific* god
> because they don't see evidence of him in their observations of the
> world, but that they haven't thought through other possible gods and
> rejected them as well.
--
Pablo
Snidely
Apr 29, 2012, 3:19:44 PM4/29/12
to
Pablo speculated:
Could be.
Snidely
Apr 29, 2012, 3:26:29 PM4/29/12
to
Pablo formulated the question :
But you see, the "concept of sky fairies" is tying you to a particular
form of god, a form that has been characteristic of religions of Europe
and the Middle East.
form of god, a form that has been characteristic of religions of Europe
and the Middle East.
Mike L
Apr 29, 2012, 4:38:04 PM4/29/12
to
witch doctors because they were usually the most intelligent and
open-minded of a community.
Meanwhile, back at home, I know a perfectly sane Englishperson, a
graduate of a good university, whose information on the damage being
done to the upper atmosphere (by "Them") comes from a shaman. You
know, to create earthquakes and things like that.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
Apr 29, 2012, 8:37:19 PM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/12 9:26 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
>>
>> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
>> nonsense?
>
> We've known for a long time that creationism has a strong hold in the
> USA, especially in the more religious regions. That's regrettable, but
> we have to accept the fact. The so-called "creation scientists" are
> especially active in that country.
>
> The thing that makes the other figure shocking is that we used to think
> that other countries, or at least those with a good education system,
> didn't suffer from that particular superstition. Now we're discovering
> that it's making inroads.
>
> I remember being horrified when I saw the claim that Australia was the
> second-biggest stronghold of creationism in the western world. The
> figure I saw at the time referred, IIRC, to about 10% of the population.
> Until then I would have guessed about 1%.
>
Australia, like America, attracted a number of oddball Christian sects.
You tend not to notice them in the city, but they're around.
--
Robert Bannister
> Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:54:10 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking.
>>
>> Why is it more shocking that fewer people believe superstitious
>> nonsense?
>
> We've known for a long time that creationism has a strong hold in the
> USA, especially in the more religious regions. That's regrettable, but
> we have to accept the fact. The so-called "creation scientists" are
> especially active in that country.
>
> The thing that makes the other figure shocking is that we used to think
> that other countries, or at least those with a good education system,
> didn't suffer from that particular superstition. Now we're discovering
> that it's making inroads.
>
> I remember being horrified when I saw the claim that Australia was the
> second-biggest stronghold of creationism in the western world. The
> figure I saw at the time referred, IIRC, to about 10% of the population.
> Until then I would have guessed about 1%.
>
Australia, like America, attracted a number of oddball Christian sects.
You tend not to notice them in the city, but they're around.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Apr 29, 2012, 8:42:36 PM4/29/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Apr 29, 2012, 8:48:53 PM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/12 8:34 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> On 04/28/12 08:19 pm, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>>>>
>
>>> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains and
>>> that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
>>> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
>>> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
>>> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
>>> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that many centuries ago, it made a great deal of sense to
>> think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
>> either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
>> thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
>> beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
>
> I recently attended the official pre-retirement lecture given by a
> professor at a moderately conservative theological seminary. His
> original PhD was in astro-geophysics, after which he did a PhD in Theology.
>
> Then there is John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, who resigned his
> Cambridge University professorship to become an Anglican priest.
>
> I could name others.
Unfortunately, a number of people suffer mental breakdowns, and some of
> On 04/28/12 08:19 pm, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>>>>
>
>>> I "believe" that religious thinking is ingrained in human brains and
>>> that atheism is the result of analytical thinking. I also think that
>>> aside from naive arguments for religion there is the fact that the
>>> ultimate truth can never be proven or disproven by scientifical
>>> means. The assumption of an all powerful uncreated being is a
>>> matter of *creed* not demonstration. Atheism is also a creed.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that many centuries ago, it made a great deal of sense to
>> think that lightning, storms, the pure streams, the sun, etc. were
>> either gods or were inhabited by gods. I do not believe that any
>> thinking person today can be deluded into thinking that supernatural
>> beings exist when all the evidence points to the contrary.
>
> I recently attended the official pre-retirement lecture given by a
> professor at a moderately conservative theological seminary. His
> original PhD was in astro-geophysics, after which he did a PhD in Theology.
>
> Then there is John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, who resigned his
> Cambridge University professorship to become an Anglican priest.
>
> I could name others.
the brightest people are particularly prone to it.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Apr 29, 2012, 8:51:35 PM4/29/12
to
lives creating Hell on Earth because they believe this will ensure them
of better seats in Heaven.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Apr 29, 2012, 9:00:17 PM4/29/12
to
who have seen or been abducted by aliens. Even closer are the beliefs,
based on scientific evidence, that it will rain on Thursday because the
shama^H^H^H^H^H meteorologists say so or that meat, wine, eggs, prawns
or potatoes even in small amounts will kill you.
--
Robert Bannister
Skitt
Apr 29, 2012, 9:00:46 PM4/29/12
to
prayed to many gods. It seems those supposed gods had separate distinct
duties and supposed capabilities, but none of them provided any evidence
of any accomplishments. The people gave them up. Well, some of them
kept praying to one, but other than that, nothing changed.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
(Follower of FOTIPU)
Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them. -- Steve Eley
John Varela
Apr 30, 2012, 11:48:31 AM4/30/12
to
On 04/28/2012 09:58 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> In my present job I've recently written three different computer
> programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
> trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers.
Round-off error? I had a similar problem with my first FORTRAN
programming (Fortran was all caps in 1958) and I'm morally certain the
problem was round-off, though I was called to active duty in the Air
Force before I could determine for sure.
> In my present job I've recently written three different computer
> programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
> trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers.
Round-off error? I had a similar problem with my first FORTRAN
programming (Fortran was all caps in 1958) and I'm morally certain the
problem was round-off, though I was called to active duty in the Air
Force before I could determine for sure.
John Varela
Apr 30, 2012, 12:11:12 PM4/30/12
to
On 04/29/2012 04:33 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2012-04-28 20:35:18 +0000, Skitt said:
>
>> Pablo wrote:
>>> Oh, French:
>>>
>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>>>
>>
>> What happened to Don Quixote de la Mancha?
>
> Cervantes spelled Quixote with an x, an ordinary use of x at the time,
> but it's little used for such words now (except in Mexico (I mean the
> place, not its name, though the comment does apply to the name México,
> spelled that way in Mexico and usually elsewhere in Latin America, but
> often Méjico in Spain (much to the annoyance of the Mexicans)) and in
> names like Ximena), and modern Spanish has regularized it to Quijote.
Cervantes spelled Quixote with an X because in his day the letter X was
used to represent the "sh" sound. The Castillian language lost the sh
sound and it became the same as the J in most words. The other Iberian
languages -- Portuguese, Gallego, Basque, Catalan -- retain the sh sound
and continue to represent it with X. The original name from which Mexico
is derived was pronounced Meshica. Some ancient place names in Mexico
are still pronounced with sh; for example, the ruins of Uxmal are
pronounced oosh-MAL.
So in regard to the X in Quixote, the French is closer to the original
pronunciation than the Castillian.
--
John Varela
> On 2012-04-28 20:35:18 +0000, Skitt said:
>
>> Pablo wrote:
>>> Oh, French:
>>>
>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quichotte
>>>
>>
>> What happened to Don Quixote de la Mancha?
>
> Cervantes spelled Quixote with an x, an ordinary use of x at the time,
> but it's little used for such words now (except in Mexico (I mean the
> place, not its name, though the comment does apply to the name México,
> spelled that way in Mexico and usually elsewhere in Latin America, but
> often Méjico in Spain (much to the annoyance of the Mexicans)) and in
> names like Ximena), and modern Spanish has regularized it to Quijote.
Cervantes spelled Quixote with an X because in his day the letter X was
used to represent the "sh" sound. The Castillian language lost the sh
sound and it became the same as the J in most words. The other Iberian
languages -- Portuguese, Gallego, Basque, Catalan -- retain the sh sound
and continue to represent it with X. The original name from which Mexico
is derived was pronounced Meshica. Some ancient place names in Mexico
are still pronounced with sh; for example, the ruins of Uxmal are
pronounced oosh-MAL.
So in regard to the X in Quixote, the French is closer to the original
pronunciation than the Castillian.
--
John Varela
John Varela
Apr 30, 2012, 12:17:03 PM4/30/12
to
On 04/28/2012 04:16 PM, Peter Brooks wrote:
> The problem with shamanism is that, when the rain dance fails to bring
> rain, people tend to want their money back.
Shamanism and rain dancing aren't related except perhaps by evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism
--
John Varela
> The problem with shamanism is that, when the rain dance fails to bring
> rain, people tend to want their money back.
Shamanism and rain dancing aren't related except perhaps by evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism
--
John Varela
Mike L
Apr 30, 2012, 4:45:30 PM4/30/12
to
you always get a couple at least of people who sound as though they'd
digress to tell us about Joshua or Noah's Ark if they were given a
chance. Round here I notice quite a few places of worship bearing
Christian-type names I'm not familiar with, and I suspect most of the
devotees are crudely Bibliolatrous.
--
Mike.
Mark Brader
Apr 30, 2012, 4:59:42 PM4/30/12
to
Peter Moylan:
> [1] In my present job I've recently written three different computer
> program was written in an attempt to discover which of the first two
> programs was correct. Now I'm wondering whether I can safely take the
> risk of finding a fourth answer.
That's the spirit!
This reminds me of the Hubble Space Telescope. Before it was
launched into orbit, They tested it with two devices called an
inverse null corrector and a refractive null corrector, and both
of them showed that something was wrong with the shape of the mirror.
However, it had been ground to spendidly high precision using the
guidance of a reflective null corrector, which was a considerably
more sensitive instrument than the other two. So if that instrument
showed that the mirror was correct, it had to be right, didn't it?
Didn't it?
I guess they didn't have Peter to ask.
The trouble was that the reflective null corrector had been *wrongly
assembled*. Result: the mirror was ground with that splendid accuracy
to the wrong shape.
(At least, once this was understood, it was possible to design,
construct, and install a corrective lens, and then the telescope
began producing the high-quality images that had been expected
all along.)
--
Mark Brader "Relax -- I know the procedures backwards."
Toronto "Yeah, well, that's a quick way to get killed."
m...@vex.net -- Chris Boucher, STAR COPS
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> [1] In my present job I've recently written three different computer
> programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
> trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers. The third
> program was written in an attempt to discover which of the first two
> programs was correct. Now I'm wondering whether I can safely take the
> risk of finding a fourth answer.
That's the spirit!
This reminds me of the Hubble Space Telescope. Before it was
launched into orbit, They tested it with two devices called an
inverse null corrector and a refractive null corrector, and both
of them showed that something was wrong with the shape of the mirror.
However, it had been ground to spendidly high precision using the
guidance of a reflective null corrector, which was a considerably
more sensitive instrument than the other two. So if that instrument
showed that the mirror was correct, it had to be right, didn't it?
Didn't it?
I guess they didn't have Peter to ask.
The trouble was that the reflective null corrector had been *wrongly
assembled*. Result: the mirror was ground with that splendid accuracy
to the wrong shape.
(At least, once this was understood, it was possible to design,
construct, and install a corrective lens, and then the telescope
began producing the high-quality images that had been expected
all along.)
--
Mark Brader "Relax -- I know the procedures backwards."
Toronto "Yeah, well, that's a quick way to get killed."
m...@vex.net -- Chris Boucher, STAR COPS
My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Dyer-Bennet
Apr 30, 2012, 5:37:43 PM4/30/12
to
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
> [1] In my present job I've recently written three different computer
> programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
> trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers. The third
> program was written in an attempt to discover which of the first two
> programs was correct. Now I'm wondering whether I can safely take the
> risk of finding a fourth answer.
Yeah, you have to be careful with that approach! It doesn't necessarily
> [1] In my present job I've recently written three different computer
> programs to do a rather complicated analysis. I'm now in the middle of
> trying to track down why I'm getting three different answers. The third
> program was written in an attempt to discover which of the first two
> programs was correct. Now I'm wondering whether I can safely take the
> risk of finding a fourth answer.
converge.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Katy Jennison
Apr 30, 2012, 5:45:19 PM4/30/12
to
overriding imperative to dish up for the viewers'/listeners' delectation
those small minorities of people who are diametrically opposed to each
other's viewpoints, because it makes "better television". They take
particular care not to invite people (probably the majority) who might
say "Well, on the one hand ... but, on the other hand ... "
You and I have never graced these programmes.
--
Katy Jennison
Tom P
Apr 30, 2012, 6:09:23 PM4/30/12
to
On 04/28/2012 06:59 PM, Snidely wrote:
> After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>
>>>
>> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
>> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
>> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
>> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
>> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
>> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
>>
>> It's a little hard to get clear conclusions on such questions, though.
>> I've just finished reading a book by Richard Dawkins in which he devotes
>> an appendix to surveys on people's views on creationism and evolution.
>> surveys really show that? The points that struck me were (a) the results
>> seemed to jump about enormously depending on how the questions were
>> phrased, and (b) all of the survey questions appeared, to me, to have a
>> strong built-in bias of some sort. The conclusion I reached was that the
>> people who run such surveys aren't very good at designing survey
>> questions.
>
> Also, Tony's cite doesn't quite show that religious beliefs decrease
> with rational thinking ... the report would have to indicate what the
> respondents responded with *before* the tasks.
>
> BTW, I consider myself fairly analytical, though perhaps agnostic rather
> than atheist. But my first reaction on reading the ball-and-bat scenario
> was, "Huh ... why is that wrong?" I had to spend a moment _backtracking_
> and consciously analyzing it to get the right answer.
>
>
> (Another passing thought: people are very good at holding contradictory
> beliefs and not seeing the contradiction; we seem to spend a lot of
> energy on not seeing.)
>
> /dps
>
The research article has now also shown up at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief
The SciAm editor quotes the authors with "[the research] does not take
sides in the debate between religion and atheism, but aims instead to
illuminate one of the origins of belief and disbelief. "To understand
religion in humans," Gervais says, "you need to accommodate for the fact
that there are many millions of believers and nonbelievers.""
> After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story
>>>
>>>
>> By coincidence, someone (a religious person) asked something similar to
>> that bat-and-ball question at work yesterday. The answers reflected what
>> was in the article: the atheists gave the mathematically correct answer,
>> and the religious people gave the "intuitively obvious" (but wrong)
>> answer. This was with a small sample, though. We're all engineers in
>> that office, so only two people weren't atheists.
>>
>> It's a little hard to get clear conclusions on such questions, though.
>> I've just finished reading a book by Richard Dawkins in which he devotes
>> an appendix to surveys on people's views on creationism and evolution.
>> Initially it would appear that about 40% of people in the USA and Turkey
>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>> hover around 20%, which in some ways is even more shocking. But do the
>> believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. For a
>> variety of Western European countries the corresponding figure seems to
>> surveys really show that? The points that struck me were (a) the results
>> seemed to jump about enormously depending on how the questions were
>> phrased, and (b) all of the survey questions appeared, to me, to have a
>> strong built-in bias of some sort. The conclusion I reached was that the
>> people who run such surveys aren't very good at designing survey
>> questions.
>
> Also, Tony's cite doesn't quite show that religious beliefs decrease
> with rational thinking ... the report would have to indicate what the
> respondents responded with *before* the tasks.
>
> BTW, I consider myself fairly analytical, though perhaps agnostic rather
> than atheist. But my first reaction on reading the ball-and-bat scenario
> was, "Huh ... why is that wrong?" I had to spend a moment _backtracking_
> and consciously analyzing it to get the right answer.
>
>
> (Another passing thought: people are very good at holding contradictory
> beliefs and not seeing the contradiction; we seem to spend a lot of
> energy on not seeing.)
>
> /dps
>
The research article has now also shown up at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief
The SciAm editor quotes the authors with "[the research] does not take
sides in the debate between religion and atheism, but aims instead to
illuminate one of the origins of belief and disbelief. "To understand
religion in humans," Gervais says, "you need to accommodate for the fact
that there are many millions of believers and nonbelievers.""
Cora Fuchs
Apr 30, 2012, 6:47:58 PM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:39:55 +0200, Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
>Le 29/04/2012 02:51, R H Draney a écrit :
>> Lanarcam filted:
>> believe there is a God"?...
>>
>> (For those following along at home, many if not all atheists have no problem
>> distinguishing between these two assertions; many if not all religious people
>> see the two statements as identical)....r
>>
>For me, the "I do not believe" statement is no proof, it is a
>declaration of principles. It *can't* be a proof no matter how advanced
>you are in biology or quantum physics. I liked Richard Dawkins
>book about biology, the selfish gene, but the god delusion
>didn't impress me at all. In my mind futile arguments that
>don't address the fundamental questions but deal with naive
>thinking about religion.
I don't think anyone claimed that "I do not believe" is proof of
anything. Rather, the claim is that absence of belief is the default
condition, and for belief to occur there must be some convincing
evidence of the existence of the thing to be believed in.
Atheists remain thoroughly unconvinced (as distinct from agnostics,
who are apparently only mostly unconvinced).
.
wrote:
>Le 29/04/2012 02:51, R H Draney a écrit :
>> Lanarcam filted:
>>>
>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>> Which one?...the creed "I believe there is no God" or the creed "I do not
>>> Atheism is also a creed.
>>
>> believe there is a God"?...
>>
>> (For those following along at home, many if not all atheists have no problem
>> distinguishing between these two assertions; many if not all religious people
>> see the two statements as identical)....r
>>
>For me, the "I do not believe" statement is no proof, it is a
>declaration of principles. It *can't* be a proof no matter how advanced
>you are in biology or quantum physics. I liked Richard Dawkins
>book about biology, the selfish gene, but the god delusion
>didn't impress me at all. In my mind futile arguments that
>don't address the fundamental questions but deal with naive
>thinking about religion.
I don't think anyone claimed that "I do not believe" is proof of
anything. Rather, the claim is that absence of belief is the default
condition, and for belief to occur there must be some convincing
evidence of the existence of the thing to be believed in.
Atheists remain thoroughly unconvinced (as distinct from agnostics,
who are apparently only mostly unconvinced).
.
Mike L
Apr 30, 2012, 7:15:16 PM4/30/12
to
bound and smack somebody in da mout'; which would destroy my already
shaky standing among my Quaker friends. But the buildings do seem to
be well used.
--
Mike.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages