On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/7/2013 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/6/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2013/12/5 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a >>> religion. >>> >>> >>> >> Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however. >> > > Could you give an example of a religion without dogma ? > > > Platonism, buddhism branches, taoism, neoplatonism, the individual > religion of all mystics, and ... the theology of numbers. > > > In other words, what all the rest of the world calls "philosophy". > > > It can be done with the scientific modest attitude and respect for the > plausible facts, but then the world call it science. "philosophy" has > different meaning from university to university. > > > So does theology - and none of them agree with your meaning. > I don't have much experience with theologians from the US, I'll admit. In Europe I find even many catholic theology PhDs recognize the problems these meanings entail concerning belief, even if they don't write papers or the department head won't be caught off guard making such statements. It's like in education: everybody knows how silly the state-of-affairs is, but the institutionalized reductive machine and useless research continues to sustain itself and grow for performative reason of keeping jobs, being able to account for "definite results" of publication, funding for "research" etc. Again, an effect of prohibition and the docility it entails, independent of domain of inquiry. In fact, I just met a catholic school teacher of religion (PhD, since this seems important to you; don't really know why) who recognizes the problem. He even seemed to intuit some of comp features just on basis of Platonism and computers...Will he put his name next to it in public? No, because he wants to keep his jobs. And with opinions and bigotry floating around even on this list so often, I cannot blame him. > How many people do you think there are on this list with a PhD in theology > or a Doctor of Divinity degree? How many with a PhD in physics? > > > I use it for those who defend the truth of some theories, which is > something we don't do in science, be it in theology or botanic. > > > Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of > building, > > > That's agnosticism. With atheism, the lot is not vacant. (confusion > between ~[]p and []~p). > > > What do you think is on the lot? > On the atheism lot, you mean? Negation of p (god) is beweisbar and true, without a shadow of a doubt, so John Clark and Quentin are in same boat on this, justified in defending their interpretations of relationships between beliefs and science on the list with profanities, when their belief system encounters objects, code, or language that are not found within in their homemade bible-belt lot of proper science; the address problem (world discovery has colonial connotation with possession complexities and reputation vanities; open search as implied by negative theologies mentioned here seem more immune to that stuff) on which they are otherwise mute. "Because it's true! It's Bs"... yes, yes, I get it. You guys miss how by swinging to the opposite spectrum of Christianity, you just end up reinforcing it, like some prohibition action fuels the drug trade. Citing current usage is linguistically a poor argument for some semantic interpretation of terms, as semantics is always slippery in language, and changes with the weather on the popular usage level. No linguist would ignore history for current usage. Therefore not really convincing, especially given how taboo and prone to manipulation the belief subject is. > > Brent > "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color; like OFF is a television > channel." > --- George Carlin > Even the best comedians can make the above confusion concerning vacancy of the lot, which is understandable given all the Irish catholic nonsense Carlin apparently grew up with. If you don't want to read original texts with an open mind towards comp and theology, it is clear that you want to miss the connection. So why even argue? PGC > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
