Hume: "notorious atheist"

[Ray Martinez]

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html

"....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."

Ray

[Bill]

Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> > "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> > Ray
>
> Basically true, but hardly news.

Deniers exist.

> Have read anything he wrote?

Sure, what's your point?

Ray

[Bill]

On Nov 29, 8:12 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> > > "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Basically true, but hardly news.
>
> Deniers exist.

You mean people who deny that Hume was an atheist? What's the point of
denying that?

>
> > Have read anything he wrote?
>
> Sure, what's your point?

I just wondered what you thought about any of his arguments. Or were
you just interested in classifying him as an atheist. You may be
surprised to know that many people don't consider "atheist" a dirty
word. I'm happy to be one. Hume may have had to be a little more
careful because of the religious tenor of his times, but he didn't try
all that hard to gloss over his atheism.

>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people
read Hume through modern commentators.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 28, 6:04 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:12 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> > > > "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > Basically true, but hardly news.
>
> > Deniers exist.
>
> You mean people who deny that Hume was an atheist? What's the point of
> denying that?
>

Dana Tweedy denies, ask him.

>
>
> > > Have read anything he wrote?
>
> > Sure, what's your point?
>
> I just wondered what you thought about any of his arguments.

Based on the fact that many big time 20th and 21st century scholars
use and defend his arguments (including Stephen Hawking), he is a
force to contend with.

> Or were
> you just interested in classifying him as an atheist. You may be
> surprised to know that many people don't consider "atheist" a dirty
> word. I'm happy to be one. Hume may have had to be a little more
> careful because of the religious tenor of his times, but he didn't try
> all that hard to gloss over his atheism.
>

I have never seen any respectable author deny Hume's Atheism. And he
had to be careful, but he was quite bold at the same time.

Ray

[Bill]

Ray, you've got to be kidding. Hume wrote maybe the clearest, most
straightforward prose of any philosopher who wrote in English. It's a
pleasure to read the original.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Old English? Are we talking Beowulf or Bede here? They have translated
Hume into Middle English by now I hope. His vernacular was different
though &c.

I'm not most people. Hume's Dialogues weren't that hard to follow,
though I agree commentators help. I thought you were a scholar. Scholars
go to the original source, not second, third or fourth hand commentary.

I guess that's why most people worship Adam Smith's economic theory
without ever reading him directly.

And most people take spoon-fed sermons from preachers because reading
the KJV Bible would be too difficult (and shocking).

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/28/11 7:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:04 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:12 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>> Basically true, but hardly news.
>>
>>> Deniers exist.
>>
>> You mean people who deny that Hume was an atheist? What's the point of
>> denying that?
>>
>
> Dana Tweedy denies, ask him.

I've never denied that Hume was an atheist. Where do you get the idea
that I ever did?

>
>>
>>
>>>> Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>>> Sure, what's your point?
>>
>> I just wondered what you thought about any of his arguments.
>
> Based on the fact that many big time 20th and 21st century scholars
> use and defend his arguments (including Stephen Hawking), he is a
> force to contend with.

Your buddy Tony likes invoking Hume. Have you spoken to him about it?

>
>> Or were
>> you just interested in classifying him as an atheist. You may be
>> surprised to know that many people don't consider "atheist" a dirty
>> word. I'm happy to be one. Hume may have had to be a little more
>> careful because of the religious tenor of his times, but he didn't try
>> all that hard to gloss over his atheism.
>>
>
> I have never seen any respectable author deny Hume's Atheism. And he
> had to be careful, but he was quite bold at the same time.

Since when have you ever cared what respectable authors say, especially
when you disagree with them?



DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/28/11 6:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>>>> Ray
>>
>>> Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>> Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>
> The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand.

Ray, "Old English" was used between the 5th and 12th centuries. Hume
lived and wrote in the 18th century. He was roughly contemporary with
Benjamin Franklin. By that time, Hume spoke, and wrote in modern English.

> Most people
> read Hume through modern commentators.

Most people who wish to understand Hume read him in the original.


DJT

[*Hemidactylus*]

I wonder if Ray has read the King James Bible. Hume's writing style is
definitely clearer than that.

And Old English predates Hume by many, many years.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/28/2011 09:35 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 11/28/11 7:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 6:04 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 8:12 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>>
>>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>>> Basically true, but hardly news.
>>>
>>>> Deniers exist.
>>>
>>> You mean people who deny that Hume was an atheist? What's the point of
>>> denying that?
>>>
>>
>> Dana Tweedy denies, ask him.
>
> I've never denied that Hume was an atheist. Where do you get the idea
> that I ever did?
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Have read anything he wrote?
>>>
>>>> Sure, what's your point?
>>>
>>> I just wondered what you thought about any of his arguments.
>>
>> Based on the fact that many big time 20th and 21st century scholars
>> use and defend his arguments (including Stephen Hawking), he is a
>> force to contend with.
>
>
> Your buddy Tony likes invoking Hume. Have you spoken to him about it?

Oooh that was evil Dana. just evil. Driving another wedge between Ray
and Tony. I think I would say Tony has forgotten more about Hume than
Ray will ever know. Tony at least, if memory serves, knows how Hume and
Kant connect to Popper.

[Alan]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_6dnXPGb4Ft20nT...@giganews.com...

That's expecting Ray to concentrate. So many of Hume's sentences are
soooooo long.

Alan
>
> DJT
>

[Ray Martinez]

Well, if you're writing a paper or book using your real name you might
see things differently. Getting one's facts straight is hard work.
Spelling was quite different back then and word meanings change. You
have to be careful. I prefer to consult the writings of modern
commentators in order to make sure I have understood. And I still
can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?
Here's a hint, Bill: You need to remember when Hume was writing and
his motive. Back then the only science in any town was Creationism,
arguments from design.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/28/11 8:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:20 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>>> Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>>>> Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>>
>>> The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people
>>> read Hume through modern commentators.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Ray, you've got to be kidding. Hume wrote maybe the clearest, most
>> straightforward prose of any philosopher who wrote in English. It's a
>> pleasure to read the original.
>
> Well, if you're writing a paper or book using your real name you might
> see things differently. Getting one's facts straight is hard work.

Maybe, but you've never been interested in getting your facts straight.
What you call "facts" are better called "bizarre fantasies".

> Spelling was quite different back then and word meanings change.

Which is why dictionaries exist....

> You
> have to be careful.

Again, what is that to you? You simply assume what you want to be
true, and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

> I prefer to consult the writings of modern
> commentators in order to make sure I have understood.

i.e. you expect others to tell you what to believe.....

> And I still
> can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?

Tony doesn't have anyone over a barrel, Ray.

> Here's a hint, Bill: You need to remember when Hume was writing and
> his motive. Back then the only science in any town was Creationism,
> arguments from design.

Back then arguments from design, and creationism were religious beliefs,
Ray, not science. The same is true today.

You also have massive problems in ascribing 'motives' to people.
Your paranoia regarding atheists tends to skew your ability to
rationally discern motives.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

http://books.google.com/books?id=FvRqtnpVotwC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=darwins+dangerous+idea+%22onslaughts%22&source=bl&ots=c9htoWqV6d&sig=MTJWCi8-Q4_OXPoghy2VjhTtJ38&hl=en&ei=a1DUTqiXPKiIiAKV16CFDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Review the page from Dennett's text above. Find the Hume quote "...the
legitimate conclusion is that..." Read the entire quote. THEN read
Dennett's interpretation. I contend that an uninitiated reader of
Hume, concerning the quote at issue, cannot ascertain Hume's intent
without Dennett's interpretation.

Since you are known to disagree with everything I say, your reply is
predetermined.

But my point is obvious. Hume could not write in the English we are
accustomed with because he lived in the 18th century. To say our
English and his English is the same, which is your point, is
ridiculous.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Hardly. I've always said major disagreements exist between us. But I
am quite disappointed with the particular accusations that he has hit
me with. When I attempt to engage he refuses, runs, evades,
misrepresents.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/28/11 8:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:44 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/11 6:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>>> Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>>>> Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>>
>>> The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand.
>>
>> Ray, "Old English" was used between the 5th and 12th centuries. Hume
>> lived and wrote in the 18th century. He was roughly contemporary with
>> Benjamin Franklin. By that time, Hume spoke, and wrote in modern English.
>>
>>> Most people
>>> read Hume through modern commentators.
>>
>> Most people who wish to understand Hume read him in the original.
>>
>> DJT
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=FvRqtnpVotwC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=darwins+dangerous+idea+%22onslaughts%22&source=bl&ots=c9htoWqV6d&sig=MTJWCi8-Q4_OXPoghy2VjhTtJ38&hl=en&ei=a1DUTqiXPKiIiAKV16CFDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> Review the page from Dennett's text above. Find the Hume quote "...the
> legitimate conclusion is that..." Read the entire quote. THEN read
> Dennett's interpretation. I contend that an uninitiated reader of
> Hume, concerning the quote at issue, cannot ascertain Hume's intent
> without Dennett's interpretation.

How do you know that Dennett's interpretation is correct, if you don't
bother to try to understand what Hume himself was saying? While the
language Hume uses is somewhat archaic to modern readers, it's not
unintelligible.

Hume is using the literary device of a dialog. His character Cleanthes
is saying that if we don't wish to call the "first cause" a deity, then
one can call it "mind" or "thought" instead, as it would appear to
resemble such.

I don't see how that's hard to understand.

>
> Since you are known to disagree with everything I say, your reply is
> predetermined.

Ray, you still haven't figured out that the reason I disagree with you
so often is because what you say is almost invariably mistaken, twisted,
or outright false.

I don't oppose you just for the sake of opposition, I'm trying to show
you that your claims are unfounded, and wrongheaded.

>
> But my point is obvious.

Your "point" is lazy. If you presume to be a "scholar" you can't allow
others to interpret for your, especially when the original is written in
your OWN LANGUAGE!

> Hume could not write in the English we are
> accustomed with because he lived in the 18th century. To say our
> English and his English is the same, which is your point, is
> ridiculous.

Ray, his English, and the English we use to day is similar enough that
one shouldn't need any interpretation.

Old English, as the Anglo Saxon poem Beowulf is different enough to
be nearly unintelligible to modern readers.

Middle English, as in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is quite different
from modern English, but a careful reader can still make out what
Chaucer is saying.

The early modern English of Shakespeare's time is a bit difficult to
follow to someone used to only modern day usage, but it's still largely
understandable. The King James Version of the Bible is written in this
form, and you don't seem to claim to have trouble understanding it.

The English used a mere 250 years ago is perfectly understandable to
anyone with a standard education. If you don't get a word, or phrase,
you can always consult a dictionary.

There's really no excuse for someone to claim that Hume's writing is
too different from modern day usage to require translation.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Which only means he and you have much in common. You also run, evade
and misrepresent your opponents. Then, you accuse your opponents of
doing exactly what you have done.

But getting back to the point, have you spoken to Tony about making use
of Hume, the "notorious atheist"?

Plus will you admit you were wrong about me "denying" that Hume was an
atheist?

DJT

[raven1]

Any High School student should be able to do so.

>Since you are known to disagree with everything I say, your reply is
>predetermined.
>
>But my point is obvious. Hume could not write in the English we are
>accustomed with because he lived in the 18th century. To say our
>English and his English is the same, which is your point, is
>ridiculous.

To say that they are different enough to require a commentary to
understand Hume is even more so.

[Bill]

On Nov 29, 10:07 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:20 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:37 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> > > > >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> > > > >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> > > > >> Ray
>
> > > > > Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>
> > > > Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>
> > > The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people
> > > read Hume through modern commentators.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Ray, you've got to be kidding. Hume wrote maybe the clearest, most
> > straightforward prose of any philosopher who wrote in English. It's a
> > pleasure to read the original.
.
>
> Well, if you're writing a paper or book using your real name you might
> see things differently. Getting one's facts straight is hard work.
> Spelling was quite different back then and word meanings change. You
> have to be careful. I prefer to consult the writings of modern
> commentators in order to make sure I have understood.

Modern commentators on Hume often are more difficult to understand
than Hume himself. You really should try to read "The Natural History
of Religion" or "An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals." You
won't agree with them, but they're written very clearly.

>And I still
> can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?

Tony has me over a barrel concerning induction in the same we he has
you over a barrel concerning geocentrism. In other words, not in the
least.

> Here's a hint, Bill:  You need to remember when Hume was writing and
> his motive. Back then the only science in any town was Creationism,
> arguments from design.

His motive was to show that arguments from design (natural theology)
were a lot of nonsense and that the Bible was unreliable. It's not as
though he wasn't clear.

>
> Ray

[Harry K]

> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And fortunately science proved that creationism was the utmost bunk.
Until they got rid of that, science stagnated.

Harry K

[Harry K]

It is safe to assume that you are not amongst the "most people" since
you haven't read _anything_ of his.

Harry K

[Earle Jones]

In article
<7635e30c-2e5e-4db8...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

*
I thought you said that the thinkers before Darwin were all Creationists.
Then Darwin came along and fucked everything up.

Was David Hume an exception?

earle
*
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

--David Hume (1711-1776)

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<f166dddd-2c60-421f...@u1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,

"Old English"???? WTF? Hume wrote in the 18th century. Some moronic
Americans _might_ have difficulty with his (exemplary, easy, modern)
English; that would only speak to their own incompetence, or failures
in their elementary or secondary education.

Ray: you have exposed yourself as a moron. This is, perhaps, not a
surprise. But I should have thought you cunning enough to not be so
totally, publicly, hilariously stupid.

[RAM]

In other words he like Pags has not read any Hume. Both fail to see
the "truthlikeness" of Hume's inductive observations. These willfully
ignorant espousers of dubious religious beliefs obviously have no
inductive Hume-ility. They clearly wouldn't be able to see themselves
in Hume's writings (multiple meanings intended).

[Bill]

On Nov 29, 1:31 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:

>
> "Old English"???? WTF? Hume wrote in the 18th century.

>Some moronic
> Americans _might_ have difficulty with his (exemplary, easy, modern)
> English; that would only speak to their own incompetence, or failures
> in their elementary or secondary education.

As might some moronic Brits, Aussies, or Kiwis. We've not cornered the
market in morons in the U.S.

[David Hare-Scott]

So you haven't read Hume yourself. Who told you that he wrote in Old
English? Old English had been gone for hundreds of years before Hume and he
wrote pretty clearly in linguistically Modern English. I see no reason why
you couldn't read him yourself if you were actually interested in
understanding those who you enjoy criticising. It's all there for free on
Project Guttenberg.

D

[Ernest Major]

In message <y_6dnXPGb4Ft20nT...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com> writes

>On 11/28/11 6:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray
>>>Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>>
>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>> Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>>
>>> Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>>
>> The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand.
>
>Ray, "Old English" was used between the 5th and 12th centuries. Hume
>lived and wrote in the 18th century. He was roughly contemporary with
>Benjamin Franklin. By that time, Hume spoke, and wrote in modern
>English.

To be fair, Ray wrote "old English", not "Old English".

>
>
>> Most people
>> read Hume through modern commentators.
>
>Most people who wish to understand Hume read him in the original.
>
>
>DJT
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[alextangent]

Hume was a Scot, and was born, lived and died in Edinburgh. The
English he wrote has great clarity and precision even for a modern
reader. Certainly, it may appear to be archaic to you, but then I
thought your intellectual development had frozen sometime prior to
1859.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <H-idnWSkHq-XzEnT...@giganews.com>,

A naturalist philosophy can have no people or motives aside from a dodge
as computational simplification as both are to be reduced to physics.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[*Hemidactylus*]

Maybe as far as cognitive philosophy has edged out naturist philosophy
and itself become over-run by compsci geeks. There are neuroscientists
who study the emotional life, like Joseph LeDoux.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Why do you assume that? Antitrust litigation is surely around the corner.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/29/2011 01:31 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> In article
> <7635e30c-2e5e-4db8...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> Ray
>
> *
> I thought you said that the thinkers before Darwin were all Creationists.
> Then Darwin came along and fucked everything up.
>
> Was David Hume an exception?

I wonder if Darwin's English is too old for Ray.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I wonder between David Hume and Thomas Paine who would win the Evil
Enemy of Christianity prize.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 29, 1:31 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <f166dddd-2c60-421f-b8bb-a0f3b16b5...@u1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,

Approach this as a postmodern. If a deconstructionist views
evolutionary science as a subset of Victorian literary studies, then
you may see creationists, like the Republican presidential race, as
slapstick comedy devoid of intellectual content, reflecting the need
of postconsumer society to view all commodities and cultural artifacts
through a lens of pseudo-irony, thus allowing them to continue to buy
into consumerism despite being unable, due to the omnipresence of mass
information, to avoid knowledge of consumerism's essential
fraudulence. This is arguably true, even, to look at it this way, and
much less upsetting.

In any case, recall Tony's repeated reference to Hume as "The greatest
living philosopher writing in English." Choose then to view T.O. as a
stage, with Ray and Tony as vaudville performers, foolishly dressed,
in a Summarize Hume Competition, much like Monte Python's Summarize
Proust Competition.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

No, but it's a matter of exchange rates I suppose; we cannot fullfill
the home market on our own productive base, though indeed vast, and do
import enmass from those nations.

Mitchell

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 28, 10:38 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:44 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/28/11 6:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:>  On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
> > >>>>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> > >>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> > >>>> Ray
>
> > >>> Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>
> > >> Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>
> > > The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand.
>
> > Ray, "Old English" was used between the 5th and 12th centuries.   Hume
> > lived and wrote in the 18th century.  He was roughly contemporary with
> > Benjamin Franklin.  By that time, Hume spoke, and wrote in modern English.
>
> > > Most people
> > > read Hume through modern commentators.
>
> > Most people who wish to understand Hume read him in the original.
>
> > DJT
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=FvRqtnpVotwC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=dar...

>
> Review the page from Dennett's text above. Find the Hume quote "...the
> legitimate conclusion is that..." Read the entire quote. THEN read
> Dennett's interpretation. I contend that an uninitiated reader of
> Hume, concerning the quote at issue, cannot ascertain Hume's intent
> without Dennett's interpretation.
>
> Since you are known to disagree with everything I say, your reply is
> predetermined.
>
> But my point is obvious. Hume could not write in the English we are
> accustomed with because he lived in the 18th century. To say our
> English and his English is the same, which is your point, is
> ridiculous.

I think you have a point but it was a mistake to call Hume's language
"Old English." OE is a technical term for a language that was quite
different from Modern English. Hume wrote in modern english but there
were certainly spelling and vocabulary differences that make his work
hard going for most moderns.

When someone I was tutoring said that "Othello" was written in Old
English I handed him an untranslated Beowulf. He denied that it was
English at all.

--
Will in New Haven

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 29, 10:15 am, Will in New Haven

I said old English (not "Old English") meaning "not our English." I
did not refer to the "Old English" period itself.

The howlers are out upthread (like Mikey Siemon) doing what they do
best.

Why?

Because they perceive my anti-evolutionism poses a serious health risk
to their theory. This is the only way to explain the mountain of
misrepresentation.

> When someone I was tutoring said that "Othello" was written in Old
> English I handed him an untranslated Beowulf. He denied that it was
> English at all.
>
> --

> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Imagine that; I am being ridiculed for saying an 18th century
philosopher is hard to understand but no one ridicules Bill for saying
modern commentators are harder to understand!

The hypocrisy of Bill and his fellow Atheists is as bad as it gets.

> You really should try to read "The Natural History
> of Religion"  or "An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals." You
> won't agree with them, but they're written very clearly.
>

The spelling, vocabulary, sentence structure and style (of Hume) is a
far cry from the spelling, vocabulary, sentence structure and style of
modern commentators. This point is true whether you admit or not.

> >And I still
> > can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?
>
> Tony has me over a barrel concerning induction in the same we he has
> you over a barrel concerning geocentrism. In other words, not in the
> least.
>

That's the first time I ever heard you defend yourself. Could you tell
me as to why Tony thinks otherwise, what exactly is he on about?

> > Here's a hint, Bill:  You need to remember when Hume was writing and
> > his motive. Back then the only science in any town was Creationism,
> > arguments from design.
>
> His motive was to show that arguments from design (natural theology)
> were a lot of nonsense and that the Bible was unreliable. It's not as
> though he wasn't clear.
>
>

Exactly what I said, wasn't it clear?

Perhaps I should write in Humean English?

LOL

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 28, 10:31 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <7635e30c-2e5e-4db8-8a01-3eb31cf1b...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

>  Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> > "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> > Ray
>
> *
> I thought you said that the thinkers before Darwin were all Creationists.
> Then Darwin came along and fucked everything up.
>
> Was David Hume an exception?
>

I said naturalists before Darwin were all Creationists, not
philosophers. Now I suppose some ignorant Evolutionist will attempt to
make the point that "philosopher" back then could also mean
"naturalist." True; but I am talking about persons who were not
naturalists----SHEESH. The things one must say in order to account for
the ignorance of Evolutionists!

Ray

[raven1]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:53:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Tony has me over a barrel concerning induction in the same we he has
>> you over a barrel concerning geocentrism. In other words, not in the
>> least.
>>
>
>That's the first time I ever heard you defend yourself. Could you tell
>me as to why Tony thinks otherwise, what exactly is he on about?

Tony rejects induction because he misunderstands Hume's remarks about
it, failing to understand that we couldn't even cross the street
safely without it. He lives in a magical world where apples might
start to rise at any time.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/29/11 2:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:31 pm, Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <7635e30c-2e5e-4db8-8a01-3eb31cf1b...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> *
>> I thought you said that the thinkers before Darwin were all Creationists.
>> Then Darwin came along and fucked everything up.
>>
>> Was David Hume an exception?
>>
>
> I said naturalists before Darwin were all Creationists, not
> philosophers.

That is incorrect. Not all naturalists before Darwin were
"creationists" and none were your version of creationist.

> Now I suppose some ignorant Evolutionist will attempt to
> make the point that "philosopher" back then could also mean
> "naturalist."

Why accuse "evolutionists" of being ignorant, when it's your own
ignorance that's being demonstrated?

> True; but I am talking about persons who were not
> naturalists----SHEESH. The things one must say in order to account for
> the ignorance of Evolutionists!

So, you mean the "philosophers" who weren't naturalists, which you claim
is another word for "naturalists".

Why do you complain about the "ignorance" of "evolutionists" when you
constantly display your own ignorance?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, Ray, others are pointing out your many errors is merely to
correct you. There's no perception at all of your ignorance being a
"serious health risk" to anyone, except perhaps by laughing at you too
hard.

What is the "mountain of misrepresentation"? Where has anyone
misrepresented you?

DJT

[Rolf]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:48 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 09:35 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/28/11 7:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Nov 28, 6:04 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 29, 8:12 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>>>>> On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>>>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized
>>>>>>>> Christianity."
>>
>>>>>>>> Ray
>>
>>>>>>> Basically true, but hardly news.
>>

>>>>>> Deniers exist.
>>
>>>>> You mean people who deny that Hume was an atheist? What's the
>>>>> point of denying that?
>>
>>>> Dana Tweedy denies, ask him.
>>
>>> I've never denied that Hume was an atheist. Where do you get the
>>> idea that I ever did?

>>
>>>>>>> Have read anything he wrote?
>>

>>>>>> Sure, what's your point?
>>
>>>>> I just wondered what you thought about any of his arguments.
>>
>>>> Based on the fact that many big time 20th and 21st century scholars
>>>> use and defend his arguments (including Stephen Hawking), he is a
>>>> force to contend with.
>>
>>> Your buddy Tony likes invoking Hume. Have you spoken to him about
>>> it?
>>
>> Oooh that was evil Dana. just evil. Driving another wedge between Ray
>> and Tony.
>
> Hardly. I've always said major disagreements exist between us. But I
> am quite disappointed with the particular accusations that he has hit
> me with. When I attempt to engage he refuses, runs, evades,
> misrepresents.
>

You mean he's exactly like you? I agree.


> Ray
>
>> I think I would say Tony has forgotten more about Hume than
>> Ray will ever know. Tony at least, if memory serves, knows how Hume
>> and Kant connect to Popper.

[Rolf]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray

>> Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized
>>>> Christianity."
>>
>>>> Ray
>>

>>> Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>> Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>

> The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people

> read Hume through modern commentators.
>

Why bother with Hume, any argument for your theory there?

> Ray

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:53:50 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."

Just like many of America's founders. Golly.

> Ray


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Bill]

On Nov 30, 3:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
> > You really should try to read "The Natural History
> > of Religion"  or "An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals." You
> > won't agree with them, but they're written very clearly.

.
>
> The spelling, vocabulary, sentence structure and style (of Hume) is a
> far cry from the spelling, vocabulary, sentence structure and style of
> modern commentators. This point is true whether you admit or not.

Well, here's the introduction from Hume's "Natural History of
Religion."

"As every enquiry, which regards religion, is of the utmost
importance, there are two questions in particular, which challenge
our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and
that concerning its origin in human nature. Happily, the first
question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious,
at least, the clearest solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks
an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious
reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary
principles of genuine Theism and Religion. But the other question,
concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is exposed to
some more difficulty. The belief of invisible, intelligent power has
been very generally diffused over the human race, in all places and
in all ages; but it has neither perhaps been so universal as to
admit of no exception, nor has it been, in any degree, uniform in
the ideas, which it has suggested. Some nations have been
discovered, who entertained no sentiments of Religion, if travellers
and historians may be credited; and no two nations, and scarce any
two men, have ever agreed precisely in the same sentiments. It would
appear, therefore, that this preconception springs not from an
original instinct or primary impression of nature, such as gives
rise to self-love, affection between the sexes, love of progeny,
gratitude, resentment; since every instinct of this kind has been
found absolutely universal in all nations and ages, and has always a
precise determinate object, which it inflexibly pursues. The first
religious principles must be secondary; such as may easily be
perverted by various accidents and causes, and whose operation too,
in some cases, may, by an extraordinary concurrence of
circumstances, be altogether prevented. What those principles are,
which give rise to the original belief, and what those accidents and
causes are, which direct its operation, is the subject of our
present enquiry."

It doesn't read like something you'd see on MTV, but it's not terribly
hard to understand, is it?

Now, here is a section from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
containing modern commentary on Hume:

"Now as concerns the argument, its conclusion is that in induction
(causal inference) experience does not produce the idea of an effect
from an impression of its cause by means of the understanding or
reason, but by the imagination, by “a certain association and relation
of perceptions.” The center of the argument is a dilemma: If inductive
conclusions were produced by the understanding, inductive reasoning
would be based upon the premise that nature is uniform; “that
instances of which we have had no experience, must resemble those of
which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues
always uniformly the same.” (Hume THN, 89) And were this premise to be
established by reasoning, that reasoning would be either deductive or
probabilistic (i.e. causal). The principle can't be proved
deductively, for whatever can be proved deductively is a necessary
truth, and the principle is not necessary; its antecedent is
consistent with the denial of its consequent. Nor can the principle be
proved by causal reasoning, for it is presupposed by all such
reasoning and any such proof would be a petitio principii.

The normative component of Hume's project is striking here: That the
principle of uniformity of nature cannot be proved deductively or
inductively shows that it is not the principle that drives our causal
reasoning only if our causal reasoning is sound and leads to true
conclusions as a “natural effect” of belief in true premises. This is
what licenses the capsule description of the argument as showing that
induction cannot be justified or licensed either deductively or
inductively; not deductively because (non-trivial) inductions do not
express logically necessary connections, not inductively because that
would be circular. If, however, causal reasoning were fallacious, the
principle of the uniformity of nature might well be among its
principles."

I don't think it's much of a stretch to claim that the text Hume wrote
himself is somewhat clearer than the commentary. Hume is certainly no
harder to read than the modern commentary.

.
>
> > >And I still
> > > can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?
>
> > Tony has me over a barrel concerning induction in the same we he has
> > you over a barrel concerning geocentrism. In other words, not in the
> > least.
>
> That's the first time I ever heard you defend yourself. Could you tell
> me as to why Tony thinks otherwise, what exactly is he on about?

I went many rounds with Tony over induction. He misunderstands Hume.
You can find his arguments and mine through Google Groups, if you
like. Your time would be better spent reading Hume.

[Burkhard]

Yes? Quite a number of them are. Lots of people have written about Hume,
some of them simply not very good at writing. People can be perfectly
incomprehensible in whatever language they use.

Here a bit of modern Hume commentary, which I consider much less clear
than the original. With others, it is their philosophical approach, Try
to read Deleuze on Hume and tell us if you think he is any clearer than
the original - and then follow up with Foucault on Deleuze on Hume.

I don't have an e-copy of Deleuze, but here is a comparatively clear
analysis of his commentary of Hume:

"With these general comments in mind, we can turn now to examine how a
Deleuzian historical ontology could be used to understand intellectual
and cultural change. To do this, we return again to Hume, for this was
equally a concern of Hume’s. We saw earlier the double process whereby a
multiplicity of ideas is transformed into beliefs that are irreducible
to what is actually given. This same process is at work within
socialization, or what we might call acculturation, though this time the
multiplicity that comes to be transformed into a system or unity is the
multiplicity of partialities, passions, and
interests, or what Deleuze will call a social multiplicity in Difference
and Repetition. Deleuze is quite clear on this point: ‘Partialities or
particular interests cannot be naturally
totalized, because they are mutually exclusive. One can only invent a
whole, since the only invention possible is that of the whole.’ Hume is
thus led, for Deleuze, to understand society as not being founded upon a
law that allows us to escape our nature (à la Hobbes), but rather as a
series of invented institutions, inventions that are themselves
indistinguishable from human nature in that they follow from the
principles of human nature: ("Instituting Culture: Hume, Deleuze, and
the Problems of the Scottish Enlightenment)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <odOdnfhAEfsveEnT...@giganews.com>,

Emotions are supernatural? The actions of cells are determined by
physical chemistry, if we stick with philosophical naturalism.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/29/2011 08:04 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<odOdnfhAEfsveEnT...@giganews.com>,

So you're telling me computer Nerd could build an emotionally responsive
person with motives. That would help them be less lonely I suppose. The
*naturists* would help with the synthetic skin feel.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:03:54 -0800 (PST), Bill
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> Ray
>
>Basically true, but hardly news.

Although Wilkins denied such a fact when the issue of Hume's atheism
arose several months ago. Many jumped in with Wilkins. As I recall
Wilkins never recanted even though I offered the opinion of others.


Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:46:31 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 28, 6:48 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 09:35 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 11/28/11 7:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> On Nov 28, 6:04 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 29, 8:12 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> >>>> On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, Bill<brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> >>>>>> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> >>>>>> Ray
>>
>> >>>>> Basically true, but hardly news.
>>

>> >>>> Deniers exist.
>>
>> >>> You mean people who deny that Hume was an atheist? What's the point of
>> >>> denying that?
>>
>> >> Dana Tweedy denies, ask him.
>>
>> > I've never denied that Hume was an atheist. Where do you get the idea
>> > that I ever did?
>>

>> >>>>> Have read anything he wrote?
>>

>> >>>> Sure, what's your point?
>>
>> >>> I just wondered what you thought about any of his arguments.
>>
>> >> Based on the fact that many big time 20th and 21st century scholars
>> >> use and defend his arguments (including Stephen Hawking), he is a
>> >> force to contend with.
>>
>> > Your buddy Tony likes invoking Hume. Have you spoken to him about it?

I invoke Hume only to show that he rendered useless the primary
methodology of secular science----verificationism.

>>
>> Oooh that was evil Dana. just evil. Driving another wedge between Ray
>> and Tony.
>
>Hardly. I've always said major disagreements exist between us. But I
>am quite disappointed with the particular accusations that he has hit
>me with. When I attempt to engage he refuses, runs, evades,
>misrepresents.

Ray started the bad blood by jumping in with Harshman over cosmogony.
For years Ray left this subject alone since he showed little interest
in it. Yet recently he went out of his way to jump in with Harshman.
That is an affirmative move against me. By accepted Big Bangism and
using it as a measure with which he judges Scripture puts one of his
legs in with the TEists.

If Ray can argue to the contrary let him start a new thread. Ray
should know as well as most regulars I never engage in endless
replies. If I can't make my position clear by the first or second
round I never will.

>Ray
>
>> I think I would say Tony has forgotten more about Hume than
>> Ray will ever know. Tony at least, if memory serves, knows how Hume and
>> Kant connect to Popper.

It's not clear why Ray attacks Hume. While his anti-christian
writings are biting he is rarely cited in that regard except as a
matter of biographical/historical interest.

Regards,
T Pagano
>

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:20:53 -0800 (PST), Bill
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 8:37 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> > On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> > >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> > >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> > >> Ray
>>

>> > > Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>> > Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>>
>> The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people
>> read Hume through modern commentators.
>>
>> Ray
>
>Ray, you've got to be kidding. Hume wrote maybe the clearest, most
>straightforward prose of any philosopher who wrote in English. It's a
>pleasure to read the original.

I agree with Bill. Hume did not write with the difficult prose of
Shakespeare who wrote about 100 years before Hume. Hume's writing is
reasonably clear.

Regards,
T Pagano

[Bill]

On Nov 30, 10:13�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:03:54 -0800 (PST), Bill
>

> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 29, 7:53�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> >> Ray
>
> >Basically true, but hardly news.
.
>
> Although Wilkins denied such a fact when the issue of Hume's atheism
> arose several months ago. �Many jumped in with Wilkins. �As I recall
> Wilkins never recanted even though I offered the opinion of others.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

Ray started this thread, and there is not the slightest doubt that
Hume qualifies as an atheist under Ray's definition. There's little
doubt that he thought organized religion was nonsense. He may have
been a Deist. But whatever he really believed, there's no way he'd
have escaped Ray's definition of an atheist.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:07:08 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 28, 6:20 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> > > >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> > > >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> > > >> Ray
>>

>> > > > Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>>
>> > > Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>>
>> > The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people
>> > read Hume through modern commentators.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> Ray, you've got to be kidding. Hume wrote maybe the clearest, most
>> straightforward prose of any philosopher who wrote in English. It's a
>> pleasure to read the original.
>

>Well, if you're writing a paper or book using your real name you might
>see things differently. Getting one's facts straight is hard work.

>Spelling was quite different back then and word meanings change. You
>have to be careful. I prefer to consult the writings of modern

>commentators in order to make sure I have understood.

One always runs a risk of accepting secondary sources.

>And I still
>can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?

If this isn't declaring war on me I don't know what is. If you wanted
yet another opponent to show your ignorance you got one.

Apparently Ray failed to pay much attention to the several week battle
between Bill and I over induction and Hume. The battle ended when
Bill challenged me to produce quotes from Hume showing that

1. corroborative evidence could not be used to demonstrate the truth
of an universal theory and
2. corroborative evidence could not even be used to show that a
theory was probably true.

The battle ended when I produced the quotes and Bill was forced to
relent.

The Problem of Induction is a long standing problem which secular
theorists, great and small, have tried to solve without success. For
example, Bertrand Russell, who was another great thinker (and
atheist) who tried to solve this problem and ended in failure and
frustration. The Problem of Induction is unsolved.

>Here's a hint, Bill: You need to remember when Hume was writing and
>his motive. Back then the only science in any town was Creationism,
>arguments from design.

This is nonsense Erasmus Darwin (Charles's grandfather), for example,
was a transmutationist (evolutionist) whose prominence was in the last
half of the 1700s. Erasmus and other like minded people existed
during that period. In 1748 Hume wrote his, "An Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding" which included his description of what later
philosophers labeled as the "Problem of Induction.". I don't know
what the consensus was during the period, but creationist ideas were
hardly the only game in town.

While his anti christian leanings undoubtedly influenced all of his
writings Hume's insights about the Problem of Induction had little to
do with Chrisitian Theology.

Regards,
T Pagano

.. . . .as Ray continues to shovel dirt over himself.


>
>Ray

[jillery]

As they would if the Earth was stationary in the center of the
Universe.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 29, 10:13 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:03:54 -0800 (PST), Bill
>

> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> >> Ray
>
> >Basically true, but hardly news.
>
> Although Wilkins denied such a fact when the issue of Hume's atheism
> arose several months ago.  Many jumped in with Wilkins.  As I recall
> Wilkins never recanted even though I offered the opinion of others.

Your assumption that there has to be only one arguable side to this
position is possible; you have never to my knowledge actually argued
this issue, relying wholly on arguments from authority. Nevertheless,
despite your evident inability to argue the point, you have belittled
Wilkins repeatedly on it. I'm not aware of Wilkins’ reasons for his
opinion, if that is indeed his opinion; it is my impression though
that Hume never in fact denied the existence of God. If you can
produce an accurate, in context quote from Hume in which he does deny
God's existence, please do so. If you do, I'll stand corrected;
otherwise we can assume you are unable to argue your point, and your
attacks on Wilkins are unfounded.

Mitchell Coffey

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:31:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Nov 30, 10:13 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:03:54 -0800 (PST), Bill
>>
>> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> >> Ray
>>
>> >Basically true, but hardly news.
>.
>>
>> Although Wilkins denied such a fact when the issue of Hume's atheism
>> arose several months ago.  Many jumped in with Wilkins.  As I recall
>> Wilkins never recanted even though I offered the opinion of others.

>Ray started this thread, and there is not the slightest doubt that
>Hume qualifies as an atheist under Ray's definition. There's little
>doubt that he thought organized religion was nonsense. He may have
>been a Deist. But whatever he really believed, there's no way he'd
>have escaped Ray's definition of an atheist.

Since Ray has stated that Hindus are atheists I can't argue
with your assessment; apparently in Ray's opinion *anyone*
who doesn't believe in the Christian God as envisioned by
the fundamentalists (in fact, anyone who doesn't publicly
embrace such a belief) is an atheist.

I suspect Ray considers Tomas de Torquemada a liberal.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Walter Bushell]

In article <cOOdnWwlUrH3DEjT...@giganews.com>,

I'm saying using the concepts of emotions and motivation is multiplying
entities unnecessarily. They are unnecessary to explain reality and
indeed cause confusion. Our explanations using these concepts are
misleading because a resort to the physics of the situation gives more
knowledge and in particular how the ideas above are likely to break down.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 29, 8:03 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:07:08 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

In my previous reply I said your view is inaccurate.

Here is what you are saying: Based on one person (Erasmus Dawin (a non-
scientist)) and the fact that he advanced the **concept** of
transmutation and "other like minded people" who are not mentioned,
these persons constitute another "game in town." And then you imply
that **this game** became the target of Hume and the Problem of
Induction. Then you admit not knowing what the consensus was during
the period in question. I assume you meant scientific consensus?
Again, the only scientific game in town was Design. When Hume and his
empiricist successors wrote the only **scientific** game in town was
Lockean "Mind First" design and other arguments from design. If you
disagree then tell me the names of 3 practicing publishing naturalists
who accepted the concept of evolution to exist in nature. Then explain
why anyone should consider 3 naturalists to represent "another game in
town" while ignoring the hundreds of practicing publishing Creationist
naturalists. Hume was addressing and attacking arguments from design,
not transmutation. To think Atheist Hume was attacking transmutation
(his view) is absurd since just about everyone in his day was an
IDist.

Paley wrote "Natural Theology" (1802) as a response to Erasmus Darwin
and other **intellectuals** because evolution was not accepted by
science. He was attempting to make sure the poison of transmutation
did not creep into the minds of naturalists (like it did in the minds
of a handful of influential intellectuals).

Nothing written above is in any way controversial.

> While his anti christian leanings undoubtedly influenced all of his
> writings Hume's insights about the Problem of Induction had little to
> do with Chrisitian Theology.
>

By implication, it had everything to do with Biblical Theology. That
was Hume's ultimate goal: to show the Bible unreliable, false. But he
was attacking ID (like I said) and thus Biblical Theology indirectly.

> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> .. . . .as Ray continues to shovel dirt over himself.
>

Again, nothing said above is controversial. Your claim that Hume &
others were attacking transmutation, and not ID (and thus the Bible)
is egregious error.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

As I type my previous replies have not posted yet, so beware as to not
misunderstand.

Ray

[....]

[raven1]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:57:08 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> In my previous reply I said your view is inaccurate.
>>
>
>As I type my previous replies have not posted yet, so beware as to not
>misunderstand.

Tony will no doubt say that you can't logically induce that they will
ever appear. Which, with Google Groups, may be true.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 29, 7:27 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:46:31 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

Take note: your reply was in response to a comment that I did not
write.

>
>
> >> Oooh that was evil Dana. just evil. Driving another wedge between Ray
> >> and Tony.
>
> >Hardly. I've always said major disagreements exist between us. But I
> >am quite disappointed with the particular accusations that he has hit
> >me with. When I attempt to engage he refuses, runs, evades,
> >misrepresents.
>
> Ray started the bad blood by jumping in with Harshman over cosmogony.

False.

It was over the age of the Earth. And why you view the same to be "bad
blood" and not legitimate debate, is quite disappointing. I never
dreamed that you would be this insecure. If I had I probably would
have remained silent. I actually thought that you would see the same
as legitimate debate, disagreement. Instead, to my surprise, you have
taken everything personally.

> For years Ray left this subject alone since he showed little interest
> in it.  Yet recently he went out of his way to jump in with Harshman.
> That is an affirmative move against me.

Ridiculous.

You are saying the promotion and defense of an old Earth (my view) is
a personal attack on you! I felt no personal attack when you started
promoting geocentrism!

And your characterization that I am on Harshman's bandwagon was shown
to be false. The Atheists are on my bandwagon since I have shown that
pre-1859 Creationist science accepted an old Earth.

> By accepted Big Bangism and
> using it as a measure with which he judges Scripture puts one of his
> legs in with the TEists.
>

Once again Tony conveniently omits the key facts and arguments, which
are:

1. I do not accept the existence of natural causation (as understood
since the rise of Darwinism), unlike TEists.

2. The Biblical claim that God spoke the universe into sudden
existence out of nothing (supernatural causation) has its scientific
support in the Big Bang minus natural causation (and other non-
essential elements). The Atheists have inadvertently proven a major
Biblical claim scientifically true.

3. Tony has shown ***no understanding whatsoever*** concerning the
above points.

> If Ray can argue to the contrary let him start a new thread.

Why?

What's wrong with right here?

Why is it that you need to sound a trumpet?

> Ray
> should know as well as most regulars I never engage in endless
> replies.  If I can't make my position clear by the first or second
> round I never will.
>

Either that or you can't refute second rebuttals. See how that works?

> >Ray
>
> >> I think I would say Tony has forgotten more about Hume than
> >> Ray will ever know. Tony at least, if memory serves, knows how Hume and
> >> Kant connect to Popper.
>
> It's not clear why Ray attacks Hume.

I simply posted a reference that says he was an Atheist. I did so
because certain TOites deny.

> While his anti-christian
> writings are biting he is rarely cited in that regard except as a
> matter of biographical/historical interest.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
>
>

You have completely misunderstood the target of Hume's thought. It was
ID and the Bible. He was savagely anti-Christian (like all Atheists).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 29, 8:03 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:07:08 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 28, 6:20 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 28, 5:20 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On 11/28/2011 08:03 PM, Bill wrote:> On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> > > >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> >> > > >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> >> > > >> Ray
>
> >> > > > Basically true, but hardly news. Have read anything he wrote?
>
> >> > > Ray must be taking the shortcut of reading the Spark Notes.
>
> >> > The old English Hume wrote in is difficult to understand. Most people
> >> > read Hume through modern commentators.
>
> >> > Ray
>
> >> Ray, you've got to be kidding. Hume wrote maybe the clearest, most
> >> straightforward prose of any philosopher who wrote in English. It's a
> >> pleasure to read the original.
>
> >Well, if you're writing a paper or book using your real name you might
> >see things differently. Getting one's facts straight is hard work.
> >Spelling was quite different back then and word meanings change. You
> >have to be careful. I prefer to consult the writings of modern
> >commentators in order to make sure I have understood.
>
> One always runs a risk of accepting secondary sources.
>

Like I said: I use them to see if I have understood or misunderstood.
And yes, ALL secondary sources COULD be wrong.

> >And I still
> >can't figure out why Tony has you over a barrel concerning induction?
>
> If this isn't declaring war on me I don't know what is.

How is the above compliment just the opposite?

You definitively have a problem reading with comprehension.

> If you wanted
> yet another opponent to show your ignorance you got one.
>
> Apparently Ray failed to pay much attention to the several week battle
> between Bill and I over induction and Hume.

I think it is quite clear that I missed these exchanges. Again,
missing a debate should not ignite anger.

> The battle ended when
> Bill challenged me to produce quotes from Hume showing that
>
> 1.  corroborative evidence could not be used to demonstrate the truth
> of an universal theory and
> 2.  corroborative evidence could not even be used to show that a
> theory was probably true.
>
> The battle ended when I produced the quotes and Bill was forced to
> relent.
>

Again, I missed these exchanges. You have no reason to be upset.

> The Problem of Induction is a long standing problem which secular
> theorists, great and small, have tried to solve without success.  For
> example, Bertrand Russell, who  was another great thinker (and
> atheist) who tried to solve this problem and ended in failure and
> frustration.  The Problem of Induction is unsolved.
>

Russell specificially said modern science was exempt from the Problem
of Induction. The implication is that Hume was directing his arguments
against the science of his time: arguments from design.

> >Here's a hint, Bill:  You need to remember when Hume was writing and
> >his motive. Back then the only science in any town was Creationism,
> >arguments from design.
>
> This is nonsense Erasmus Darwin (Charles's grandfather), for example,
> was a transmutationist (evolutionist) whose prominence was in the last
> half of the 1700s.

Most modern scholars (including Charles Darwin) describe ED's science
as speculation. He was an amateur, not a practicing naturalist. He is
best described as a leading intellectual.

> Erasmus and other like minded people existed
> during that period.  In 1748 Hume wrote his, "An Enquiry Concerning
> Human Understanding" which included his description of what later
> philosophers labeled as the "Problem of Induction.".   I don't know
> what the consensus was during the period, but creationist ideas were
> hardly the only game in town.
>

I challenge your view.

It is inaccurate.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 29, 8:03 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:07:08 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>

Russell said modern science (post 1859) is exempt from the Problem of
Induction. This implies that Hume and others had ID in mind and
nothing else.

(Perhaps a re-post since my initial post has yet to appear.)

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

No, Torquemada was a Catholic, so to Ray he's an atheist/devil worshiper.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

You have pasted from a modern re-print. Probably from here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NS9NRK7MllYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hume's+natural+history+of+religion&hl=en&ei=FrjWTs6fC8ObiAKT5bDYCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hume's%20natural%20history%20of%20religion&f=false

The original was the point (as if you didn't know).

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/30/2011 01:59 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<cOOdnWwlUrH3DEjT...@giganews.com>,

The present disposition of my neuromolecules disagrees with that of your
neuromolecules.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Induction *is* problematic. Ray assumes a lot based on his cumulative
experience and extrapolates this memory collection (mneme-state) to
cover future circumstances. He has made radical generalizations about
newsreaders based upon his very limited experience with google groups.
He chugs along with google groups exclusively regardless.

How can he (or we) know there will be a google groups tomorrow? We can
reasonably assume so, but as google has pulled the plug on other
products (based upon my cumulative mneme-state) they may well do so with
google groups (my bold conjecture requiring refutation).

And just because Tony often winds up changing thread titles and bailing
on a thread, we cannot assume this will always hold in the future based
on our experience. He could surprise us and require us to adjust our
mneme-states.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I agree with Tony and wonder why a self-proclaimed Scholar writing a
book that will ruin the lives of Darwinists would resort to Spark Notes
for his views on Hume. My limited knowledge of you though, a cumulative
induction over the years (=fallible experience) leads me to believe that
you would wipe the floor with Ray when it comes to Hume. At least it
might blow the cobwebs from my head on Dialogues and the rest of Hume's
work.

Reading Popper's Unended Quest on my Nook Tablet.

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, Even if the quoted material was from an online source, the writing
and syntax is still the same.

You can't excuse your laziness this way.


DJT

[*Hemidactylus*]

He will make a laughing stock of himself if "The Book"'s bibliography is
populated by reference to Spark Notes, "Introduction to..." or "Idiots"
and "Dummies" books.

[T Pagano]

I've begun looking at Ray without rose colored glasses and he is, more
or less, what the forum as a whole classifies him to be. For a great
while I tried to put a positive spin on his work, but when I took a
hard look at some of his recent arguments they are both short on fact
and poorly reasoned.

My guess is that Ray attacks Hume simply because he was an
anti-christian. This hardly invalidates his works. Even Hume's anti
christian work forces the christian to think very clearly about his
own world view. I doubt Ray even used Spark Notes; he's winging it.

>
>Reading Popper's Unended Quest on my Nook Tablet.

It's a quick read and a good synopsis of his philosophy. It's worth
reading the whole thing but chapters can be skipped if they are not of
interest.


Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

While an anti christian is not necessarily an atheist those classes
are also not mutually exclusive. Hume was foremost an anti-christian,
however, his relevent works demonstrate a dislike, distrust and in my
opinion a rejection of God.


Regards,
T Pagano

[chris thompson]

On Nov 30, 8:46 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:40:00 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/29/2011 10:31 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:20:53 -0800 (PST), Bill

> >> <brogers31...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Don't pretend you've read it, Tony.

Chris

[Bill]

> http://books.google.com/books?id=NS9NRK7MllYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=...

>
> The original was the point (as if you didn't know).

The text I pasted is from a commonly available edition. What's the
problem?

>
> Ray
>
<snip>

[Mitchell Coffey]

He thinks it was in some archaic English.

Mitchell Coffey

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 30, 3:40 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 10:31 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:20:53 -0800 (PST), Bill

> > <brogers31...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Concerning Hume: I have several outstanding messages in this topic
directed at Tony. Yet he has made only one indirect wholesale
dismissal in a message to you. While he could still choose to reply,
it appears that he won't. He seems to have used the occasion to
comfort himself, that these messages are not worth his time. Either
that is indeed true or he is unable to refute. My position, of course,
is that he is unable to refute.

In addition: the fact that you----a fanatical moronic evolutionist----
has sided with and are rooting for Tony (a fellow mutabilist), and the
fact that he has accepted your press, provides me with great comfort.
I recognize your support of Tony simply means that you perceive my
abilities to be a greater threat to your own views (as opposed to
Tony's).

In the meantime your heavyweight champ sits on the sidelines
(basically hiding behind your skirt).

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 30, 9:32 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:31:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill

> <brogers31...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 30, 10:13 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:03:54 -0800 (PST), Bill
>
> >> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>
> >> >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>
> >> >> Ray
>
> >> >Basically true, but hardly news.
> >.
>
> >> Although Wilkins denied such a fact when the issue of Hume's atheism
> >> arose several months ago.  Many jumped in with Wilkins.  As I recall
> >> Wilkins never recanted even though I offered the opinion of others.
> >Ray started this thread, and there is not the slightest doubt that
> >Hume qualifies as an atheist under Ray's definition. There's little
> >doubt that he thought organized religion was nonsense. He may have
> >been a Deist. But whatever he really believed, there's no way he'd
> >have escaped Ray's definition of an atheist.
>

> Since Ray has stated that Hindus are atheists....

What I said was that anyone who rejects the God of [insert any
religion here] is considered an Atheist by that religion.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Tony is apparently familiar with Popper and knows the problems of
induction. I might disagree severely with him on how he proceeds from
that, but he's not getting spoonfed Hume from an intro crib note summary
either. It's not a matter of me cheerleading Tony, but recognizing that
you are very far behind both of us in intellectual development. That's
not necessarily a comparative compliment to Tony, in case you're having
problems keeping score.

I come at Hume vs. Kant from a very biased evolutionarily
epistemological and objectivist view. Yes Ray I said objectivist. If you
have problems deciphering that I feel sorry for you. Rand has nothing
whatsoever to do with it. Popper's World 3 trumps Rand's "man-made". Can
you come to terms with that distinction?

But since Rand is sitting alongside God and Jesus in heaven, she could
ask the Big Guy and convey the answer to you, her chosen disciple.

[Karel]

On 1 dec, 04:21, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]

> What I said was that anyone who rejects the God of [insert any
> religion here] is considered an Atheist by that religion.

[snip]

That is a qualified statement: "considered ... by that
religion". Wilkins probably would agree that this is
true, but he would probably not accept such a definition
of atheism. AFAIK, he uses atheist in the sense of
"denying (on rational grounds) the existence of (any)
God". There is a difference between this position and
"rejecting the claim that there exists a God", which,
again AFAIK, is the position Wilkins ascribes to Hume.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

On 1 dec, 02:55, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
[snip]

> While an anti christian is not necessarily an atheist those classes
> are also not mutually exclusive.  Hume was foremost an anti-christian,
> however, his relevent works demonstrate a dislike, distrust and in my
> opinion a rejection of God.

[snip]

That could be, but did Hume actually deny the existence
of God? There is a difference between rejecting claims
that God exists and denying the existence of God. And
it is my opinion that "rejecting God" only makes sense
in the context of a (particular) religion, not when
someone, like Hume, considers all claims that God exists
irrational. If you want to claim that from a (your)
religious viewpoint Hume was an atheist, go ahead, but
other people might want to be heard too on the definition
of 'atheist', not in the least the atheists themselves.

If Hume did not assert expressly that God (or gods) does
(or do) not exist, one could suggest that he did not do
so because he feared the consequences. But in the absence
of clearer statements that can only remain conjecture, and
that conjecture has to face the fact that Hume was not
mealy-mouthed otherwise. And there is an alternative
conjecture: that he considered *all* claims about the
existence of God unwarranted, not only positive ones, but
also negative ones.

Regards,

Karel

[T Pagano]

Chris, when will you learn that I rarely bluff. I've certainly read
it and have it: I have the lastest hard cover edition published in
1982 by Open Court. Hume I've only read bits and pieces of. Most of
his works are available on the web.

While I was unable to keep this year's resolution of being kinder and
gentler one of my New Year's resolutions will be to stop bashing you
over the head with them bat cheek teeth. From here on (unless Chris
brings them up again) I shall forever cease bringing them up.

Regards,
T Pagano

[Walter Bushell]

In article <CrudnRFIUYHQJ0vT...@giganews.com>,

And you are required to be in disagreement by the laws of physics.

But refer to my sig.

And, of course, read scare quotes around the use of "I", "me", "you",
personal references and proper names in my writing. Due to my
intellectual shortcomings and the limitations of the English language I
am forced to use such concepts, even though they seem to imply the
existence of entities, which are, of course, strictly speaking non
existent.

[Bill]

On 1 Des, 19:46, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

> Hume I've only read bits and pieces of.

It shows.

[Burkhard]

I don't think John Wilkin's would have disagreed had you formulated it
like this. In fact, he always argued that "atheist" is a relational
term: You can be atheistic towards Gods A, B or C, but not to Gods D
and E.

As for Hume, If I remember correctly his position was (in line with
the mainstream as far as I can see) that he was atheistic towards
"substantive", interventionist conceptions of god, but agnostic
towards "thin", more deistic conceptions of god.

One could go further I'd say and argue that for certain very thin
conceptions of god, which make in Hume's own words god
indistinguishable form a purely abstract "world mind", he had some
sympathy.
Either way, to simply call him atheist would therefore be misleading,
which is what John's point was.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:28:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

Aha! Of course. And since Jesus was a Jew...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:21:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Nov 30, 9:32 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:31:47 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill
>> <brogers31...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 30, 10:13 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:03:54 -0800 (PST), Bill
>>
>> >> <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 29, 7:53 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/summary.html
>>
>> >> >> "....he was a notorious atheist and enemy of organized Christianity."
>>
>> >> >> Ray
>>
>> >> >Basically true, but hardly news.
>> >.
>>
>> >> Although Wilkins denied such a fact when the issue of Hume's atheism
>> >> arose several months ago.  Many jumped in with Wilkins.  As I recall
>> >> Wilkins never recanted even though I offered the opinion of others.
>> >Ray started this thread, and there is not the slightest doubt that
>> >Hume qualifies as an atheist under Ray's definition. There's little
>> >doubt that he thought organized religion was nonsense. He may have
>> >been a Deist. But whatever he really believed, there's no way he'd
>> >have escaped Ray's definition of an atheist.
>>
>> Since Ray has stated that Hindus are atheists....
>
>What I said was that anyone who rejects the God of [insert any
>religion here] is considered an Atheist by that religion.

No, Ray, you didn't. I specifically asked you if you
considered Hindus to be atheists, and after 2 or 3 repeats
of the question (all in relation to your repeated
characterization of various people as atheists, even when
you had no knowledge of their religious beliefs) you finally
answered "Yes" with the explanation that they don't believe
in the God of the Bible. Nothing about whether they believed
in their own deities.

Stop trying to lie your way out.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:21:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

[Followup to post elsethread]

>On Nov 30, 9:32 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

<snip>

>> Since Ray has stated that Hindus are atheists....

>What I said was that anyone who rejects the God of [insert any
>religion here] is considered an Atheist by that religion.

I already posted that this is a lie; since I expect you to
deny that fact I took the time to find the actual exchange:

[begin]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Aug 28, 10:30 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:26:15 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>> Still awaiting your response to this very simple question,
>> Ray.

>> >>>So, Ray, is a Hindu who rejects the Bible [what Hindo doesn't?] and accepts the
>> >>>evidence for evolution an atheist?

>Yes, because Hindus believe their Deity is the Creator.

Thank you for once again demonstrating that your idea of the
meaning of "atheist" is incorrect. In fact, since you admit
they have a deity it's self-contradictory, atheists do *not*
believe in any deity.

>> How about a Wiccan?

>Wiccan means "wicked" blasphemer, which is synonymous with ordinary
>Atheism.

Do you ever tire of posting incorrect opinions and personal
definitions? As is the case with "atheism" and "atheist",
your personal definition of "Wicca" is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
http://www.wicca.org/

[end]

So you see you *did* say that Hindus (and Wiccans) are
atheists; neither claim is true.

Stop trying to lie your way out of the boxes your bigotry
gets you stuck in.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 30, 5:46 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:40:00 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>
>
>
>
>
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/29/2011 10:31 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:20:53 -0800 (PST), Bill

> >> <brogers31...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Imagine that; Tony agrees with the Atheists, that is, the same people
who have called him a liar and a plagiarizer!

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Karel]

On 1 dec, 22:18, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:21:18 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

[snip]

> >> Since Ray has stated that Hindus are atheists....
> >What I said was that anyone who rejects the God of [insert any
> >religion here] is considered an Atheist by that religion.
>
> I already posted that this is a lie; since I expect you to
> deny that fact I took the time to find the actual exchange:
>
> [begin]
>
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >On Aug 28, 10:30 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:26:15 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >> Still awaiting your response to this very simple question,
> >> Ray.
> >> >>>So, Ray, is a Hindu who rejects the Bible [what Hindo doesn't?] and accepts the
> >> >>>evidence for evolution an atheist?
> >Yes, because Hindus believe their Deity is the Creator.
>
> Thank you for once again demonstrating that your idea of the
> meaning of "atheist" is incorrect. In fact, since you admit
> they have a deity it's self-contradictory, atheists do *not*
> believe in any deity.

[snip]

I think you might be wrong. Ray's answer could be interpreted
as: when a Hindu accepts the evidence for evolution he is an
atheist because he does not believe that the creation is the
work of a Hindu deity. This unbelief qualifies him as an
atheist, not the fact that he is a Hindu (and as such rejects
the Bible). Hindus who do not accept the evidence for evolution
could qualify as theists.

Regards,

Karel

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/30/11 5:55 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>
> While an anti christian is not necessarily an atheist those classes
> are also not mutually exclusive. Hume was foremost an anti-christian,
> however, his relevent works demonstrate a dislike, distrust and in my
> opinion a rejection of God.

Suppose a master of ikebana (Japanese flower arranging) sees an
arrangement by one of his students, yells, "It's horrible! What a mess!
You must start over again," and he tears the arrangement to shreds.
Suppose, further, that he does much the same fairly regularly to other
arrangements. Would you call that master "anti-ikebana" for his attacks
on flower arrangements?

Can you see any parallels between the master in the story above and
various people who attack Christianity?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:12:47 -0800 (PST), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1 Des, 19:46, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> Hume I've only read bits and pieces of.
>
>It shows.

Since Bill demonstrated during our battle over Induction that he knew
"considerably" less than I did how would he be in a position, now, to
make such an evaluation? He doesn't say.

Bill was off balance during the whole battle and was body slammed when
I produced the two Hume quotes which formed the bed rock of the
"Problem of Induction." Quotes which Bill opined did not exist.

Give it up Bill and move on.

Regards,
T Pagano

[RAM]

On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:12:47 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Des, 19:46, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> Hume I've only read bits and pieces of.
>
> >It shows.
>
> Since Bill demonstrated during our battle over Induction that he knew
> "considerably" less than I did

You are an ass. You know almost next to nothing about induction.
Bill clearly does.

I have been laughing at you ever since you made the stupid remark
about induction and its relationship to technology. Remember this
statement that revealed you to be a pompous ignorant fool about
science and technology: Pagano, you wrote: "I said that technology
does not rely on induction which is a foundation of sand."

This boneheaded ignorant statement is revealing in more ways than you
can understand.

The most important feature of your misunderstanding is that induction
is a critical foundation to both technology and science. The
foundation of sand is all in your head.

> how would he be in a position, now, to
> make such an evaluation?  He doesn't say.

He doesn't have to all he has to do is read the tripe you write that
reveals a very broad and deep misunderstanding of science qua science.

>
> Bill was off balance during the whole battle and was body slammed when
> I produced the two Hume quotes which formed the bed rock of the
> "Problem of Induction."  Quotes which Bill opined did not exist.

Hume was a skeptic and sometimes he pushed his skepticism to
extremes.

But induction (with all its drawbacks which are far better understood
by scientists than nincompoops like you) still remains central to
science and its advancement.

>
> Give it up Bill and move on.

This advice is something you really need to consider but your arrogant
ignorance prevents you from taking it.

>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[Bill]

On Dec 2, 8:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:12:47 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Des, 19:46, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> Hume I've only read bits and pieces of.
>
> >It shows.
>
> Since Bill demonstrated during our battle over Induction that he knew
> "considerably" less than I did how would he be in a position, now, to
> make such an evaluation?  He doesn't say.
>
> Bill was off balance during the whole battle and was body slammed when
> I produced the two Hume quotes which formed the bed rock of the
> "Problem of Induction."  Quotes which Bill opined did not exist.
>
> Give it up Bill and move on.

Tony, you thrashed me so utterly that I'm quivering in fear of getting
thrashed again. Here's a link to a prior thread with lots of our old
arguments on this. Anyone who wants to can review the quality of the
body slamming you applied to me back then.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ee3d68d94d37c9bf/0f2f997a702506ba?hl


>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 23:48:01 -0800 (PST), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 2, 8:28 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 06:12:47 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Des, 19:46, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Hume I've only read bits and pieces of.
>>
>> >It shows.
>>
>> Since Bill demonstrated during our battle over Induction that he knew
>> "considerably" less than I did how would he be in a position, now, to
>> make such an evaluation?  He doesn't say.
>>
>> Bill was off balance during the whole battle and was body slammed when
>> I produced the two Hume quotes which formed the bed rock of the
>> "Problem of Induction."  Quotes which Bill opined did not exist.
>>
>> Give it up Bill and move on.
>
>Tony, you thrashed me so utterly that I'm quivering in fear of getting
>thrashed again.

<snippage>

Apparently Bill is not fearful but a glutton for punishment. So be
it.


Regards,
T Pagano

[Kleuskes & Moos]

The irony escapes the pompous...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ There is no TRUTH. There is no REALITY. \
| There is no CONSISTENCY. There are no |
| ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS. I'm very probably |
\ wrong. /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:24:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Karel
<GCPAXS...@spammotel.com>:

You could be correct regarding the intended meaning of Ray's
post. However, that doesn't change the fact that Ray's
definition of "atheist" is a personal one, and doesn't agree
with the actual definition; a Hindu (or Christian, or Jew,
or...) who accepts evolution may still believe in a deity,
and if such belief exists the individual *by definition*
cannot be considered an atheist. Except, of course, by Ray,
who considers acceptance of science, regardless of religious
belief, to be atheism by definition. But then, Ray is a
bigoted idiot.