Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Robert J. Chassell wrote: As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were told. On 6 May 2005, Julia Thompson asked How often did things change significantly over the course of a generation? In the paleolithic? Sometimes frequently, sometimes not. That is the problem. As far as I know, during glacial periods things were often predictable. It was warm in the tropics, cold by the edge of the glaciers. Weather was predictable, since storm systems tended to move along paths between the hot and the cold, and the space between the two was not so wide as now. So you would have two bad storms every seven days. (Incidentally, along with the convenient phasing of the moon and of women's menses, this suggests to me that a `week' become seven days. Besides, seven is prime and seven objects but not fourteen can be perceived by most adults ... ) On the other hand, during interglacial periods, the area over which storm systems move becomes less constrained. Weather becomes less predictable. How many iterations would there have to be for listening *critically* to authorities to be selected for to the point where over half the population had the traits for the tendency to do so? I don't know whether `half the population' needs to gain these traits or whether a small portion (say one in 12 or one in 100) is all that is necessary. The key is that people not kill such minorities when nothing happens for 50 or 100 generations. Otherwise their traits will be lost. Of course, during predictable eras, people can laugh at the critical thinkers: as in, `There he goes again, suggesting that this next storm might be light. Hah! As grandma said, it will be as bad as the last one.' In any event, listening critically is a complex behavior. Consequently, it is likely to require a bunch of genes to make it possible. Perhaps the behavior is only expressed within an appropriate culture and people in other cultures die. This would mean that those with the capability would be invisible much of the time, so the others do not need to avoid killing them. This is a `one the one hand, on the other hand' response ... Put another way, perhaps a more useful question is Which contemporary societies provide enough support to those who listen critically to authorities and which adapt well because of their critical comments? Did the US government adapt well enough -- that is to say, learn and act differently -- to changing conditions during the latter 1930s and early 1940s? Did it adapt well enough during the latter 1980s and early 1990s? Which societies are adapting well enough to the period since 2001? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. This suggests infallibility. I think you've missed what I was driving at, which is that *all* people are susceptible to flawed thinking; a good self-correcting process for thinking is certainly helpful, but using atheism as a litmus test to determine whether any given individual is less prone to believe other fanciful notions is itself, to me, flawed thinking, or a belief in nonsense. As an oblique corollary, Newton was one hell of a fine rational thinker. His treatises on physics and optics are very good examples of that. However, he also attempted to use that fine rational mind of his to try to prove Biblical claims. Erik might suggest that Newton was addled, and maybe he was in the religious arena. Gregor Mendel, even tough he was a monk, did some seriously groundbreaking work in genetics. His pea-plant charts are virtually cliche in science classrooms in the US, a little like the eye charts in optician's offices that read E FP TOZ LPED... This suggests that even though he might have been addled in some ways, he was an incisive thinker in others. The corollary is this. While one could argue that atheists are being fine rational thinkers in the arena of religion, there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that they (we) can also be addled in ways not apparent to them (us). -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 6:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. Yes; deductive thinking is important. It's very valuable. And it's not being inculcated properly, I think; students accepting the fact of evolution by rote are no more capable of thinking clearly (a priori) than other students accepting that the six-day creation was the way it really happened. (I know my phrasing here shows my bias. While I can argue for the contrary regarding matters of faith, I cannot in seriousness present evolution as anything but fact or creation as anything but fantasy.) I'm not personally trying to question your decision about nonexistence of deity. I'm just suggesting that not believing is not necessarily any different -- or any better, at its core -- than believing. There has to be something behind the declaration, something that approximates self-correcting ideation. [me re acceptance of authority] I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. No, they aren't actually. There is no God is a rational claim based on evidence. There is a God is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not a valid statement without a lot of qualifiers; for instance you don't describe here what sort of god you're talking about. If a believer is a Deist, he might assert that the only role his god had was in the initial creation of the universe, perhaps twiddling the laws a bit in such a way that life could exist (a kind of anthropic principled god). If that Deist than went on to say that, after getting things going, that god has been totally hands-off, the results we see today would not in any way be affected; that is, that entity's presence would not be reflected in anything e see around us now. No fingerprints, no shadows, no hairs left behind at the crime scene. Therefore denial of that god's existence might be as much a statement of faith as asserting that such a god exists. Now Occam would probably disagree, but we have to start balancing elegances here a little. The universe's physics do seem to be slanted pro-life, as it were (contrarily, that's not surprising, because if they weren't slanted that way we couldn't be here); and of course we can't meaningfully speak of anything that happened before the universe we inhabit now came into existence. What we have, really, is something that is not testable or falsifiable, which precisely places a Deist's claim in the realm of faith. Thus it's meaningless to assert there's evidence either way, ultimately. What I see when I look around is a cosmos that suggests there is no deific entity currently pulling any strings anywhere. Thus the idea of an involved, omnipresent, -scient and -potent god is not one I can accept. But if we put on the table the suggestion that a hands-off entity got everything started and has since been watching things play out -- well, while I find the idea unlikely, ultimately I can't disprove it. It was this uncertainty that kept me an agnostic for quite some time, FWIW. So, depending on how you define your gods, denial of their existence can reasonably (I think) be seen as an expression of faith. A Pauline's involved god or a six-day clay shaper doesn't strike me as being remotely possible, and I don't think that statement is one of faith; however, the Deist idea is not one I can simply dismiss as readily. There, I'll freely concede, I am expressing a faith rather than a proximate certainty. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. That's a fair premise, I think. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. Not the least because I didn't see anyone putting forth that claim in this thread; you're arguing against an idea no one's actually proposed in this discussion. Your straw god is easy to knock down but is not the focus of this flurry of electrons, I think. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. For the personally involved god idea, sure. Unless, of course, that god was something more like a universal scientist, possibly something akin to Sawyer's entity in _Calculating God_ -- one who got involved only in the most extreme moments, and even then indirectly, acting as a force of nature a la Job's whirlwind. That, you could argue, is a sophistry, and I'd likely agree. I'm presenting it here partly to be the Devil's advocate and partly to point out that not all conundrums necessarily have binary resolutions. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Dave Land wrote: Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. You know, atheists getting pissed off about others' faith seems classically sysiphian. There are about 220 million of us opposed to the rest of the world. Like it or not we live in a world of faith; the best approach is probably not to get angry about that. It's a little like being furious at gravity for existing. And it really is insupportably arrogant to presume that the simple fact of atheism is sufficient to suggest a given individual is clear-minded, thinking rationally or proof against crackpottery. Unfortunately another hallmark of arrogance is being unable to concede being wrong, so I don't expect anyone who disagrees with that statement to suddenly change tune. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
From William T Goodall On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote: WTG: No, they aren't actually. There is no God is a rational claim based on evidence. There is a God is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. Isn't it part of the God design specs that you can't prove its existence? It has to be a faith thing, not a proof thing. You may call that a slight of hand, but if I was on the design team, I would call it intelligent design. So, God is outside the normal bounds of proof, I guess that's part of the point of being/having a God. Those of a scientific bent may claim that's not fair, equally, those who have faith (And I am not amongst that number) would say that it is in fact crucial and very germane to the whole God caper. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind anger, I tend to think that fear is always there. That could well be true. I was thinking more, however, of the emotional range to which many men seem socially constrained -- anger or horniness, possibly exuberance. That is, when a man says he's angry, he could really be feeling fear, but expressing that fear in the only way he knows how. That's what I meant by masking emotion -- he's afraid but can't admit it, basically. As to fear being present with anger in all cases ... that's a very interesting idea, and my inclination is to agree with your assessment. If anger is (in essence) a response to perceived threat -- any perceived threat -- it could be easy to support the suggestion that there's at least *some* fear there as well. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: One more time: it is foolish religious people that are the concern, not the existence or non-existence of some god. Do you accuse psychiatrists who want their patients to stop talking to invisible pink unicorns of being worried about the existence of said unicorns? If so, you are in worse shape than I thought... For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay, straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more. All human behavior can become very complex when the factor of consciousness comes into play. When we're hungry we eat -- that's biology -- but *what* we eat is a product, to a significant extent, of culture. A Chinese person might find jellyfish a delicacy. I don't. And within a given culture, there are subcultures; vegetarianism very probably is no more healthy than an omnivorous or carnivorous diet (there's essentially no objective evidence to show that one diet preference, within reason, is meaningfully healthy as opposed to another. (That is, an all-Twinkie diet is not healthy, but a diet that includes no meat at all is not necessarily any healthier than one that is virtually Atkinsesque). I've found through my own experience that my orientation is malleable. I used to identify as gay but for the last decade or so that's really been more a label of political convenience I use from time to time. In truth I'm comfortable with intimacy with any gender. I think I more or less talked myself to that point. This is pertinent because I sense here an impression that religious people just don't get it -- but then, why should they? If I'm right that sexual orientation is psychological rather than physiological -- no gay gene, mindset rather than hard-wired body response -- some might latch onto that and say, well, why don't gay people stop being gay? Probably for the same reasons religious people don't stop being religious. It's a comfort issue, a personal issue, and to the extent that it doesn't harm others, it's no one's business. If Person A has an outlook and set of behaviors that cause no harm to others, what right has Person B to suggest that Person A should change? Even if it's true that Person A could change any time he wants to, it's not really Person B's business to be demanding that change, at least to my mind. A few years back I was amused at the response I got from a colleague who was shocked to learn I was an atheist. She said she'd never met anyone who admitted to it before, as though it was something shameful; well, how is that idea any different from someone confessing to being gay? Minorities can get defensive, particularly when they feel embattled. Surely part of many atheists' frustration comes from that. But when atheists start behaving as though they're eminently right while everyone else is too restricted to see what's so obviously clear, I start wondering what the difference is between their views and that of gays and bisexuals who think avowed heterosexuals are afraid of themselves, or lack the insight necessary to appreciate sex outside their conformist views. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Awww, poor Dave. Can't think. Likes to whine. Aw. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 12:29 AM Friday 5/6/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Though after the first few times they generally become ad nauseum . . . -- Ronn! :) IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humo(u)r or irrational religious beliefs (including atheism). If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although that ugly little yapping dog next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 01:28 AM 06/05/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote: snip For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay, straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more. Given the scientific evidence piled up in the last 30 years that's an amazing statement. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 6, 2005, at 6:23 AM, Keith Henson wrote: At 01:28 AM 06/05/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote: snip For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay, straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more. Given the scientific evidence piled up in the last 30 years that's an amazing statement. Not when you've lived it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5 May 2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. Yes. There is no way to avoid having to accept most things. People lack the time and the resources to do otherwise. Since belief in the religion of one's culture is so important, people do devote the time and the resources to it. One consequence is that many have numinous religious experiences. As Roy Rappaport (1) said A numinous experience compounds the emotions of love, fear, dependence, fascination, unworthiness, majesty and connection. It does not have any particular references, but 'is powerful, indescribable, and utterly convincing.' Traditionally, numinous religious experiences were interpreted in terms of a culture's religion. However, communications about numinous religious experiences often fails to cross cultures. In contrast communications about science often succeed in crossing cultures. This is because a scientific communication can also (but does not always) provide a numinous experience. In other words, a scientific communication can be `utterly convincing'. There are three ways that a person gains an undeniable, internal, numinous experience from a scientific communication: * From replicated internal experience This is to say, the listener *replicates the reasoning*. Mathematical beliefs come from this, because people reason. At the same time, internal experience includes dreams, visions, and personal revelation. Many religious beliefs are confirmed by revelation. Mathematics is transcultural because people from different cultures follow the same process of reasoning and come to the same conclusions. But people from different cultures who each have revelations often interpret them differently. * From replicated observation This is to say, the listener *replicates the observations* Astronomical observations and old-fashioned biology are examples. The key is that the person himself or herself makes the observations, and understands how they are made. Otherwise, the `observation' is simply a report by another: another case of _replicated hearing_. In addition, the person must also reason that there are no better alternative interpretations of the observations. * From replicated action This is to say, the listener *replicates the experiment*. Again, a key is that the person do the experiment and not let another do it. These three methods are successful because the person's own experience is undeniable. By the way, two other ways for gaining belief are: * From replicated culture For many people, this is the background of all their beliefs. Actually, this is a subset of _replicated hearing_, but people do not remember when they heard. It is `knowledge that they have'. * From replicated hearing This is the dominant mode for establishing a new belief, since it means going by authority. (It includes hearsay.) These two ways do not cross cultures. Dave Land is surely correct when he says that I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored ... After all, the children who didn't, died. But I am not so sure that ... listening *critically* to authorities even more so. As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were told. As for definitive statements: any human decision regarding evidence involves a judgement. Is the evidence weak, suggestive, or strongly suggestive? Your judgement may be strong enough to bet your life on, but it is not an absolute. When the word `evidence' is used, should others presume that the writer means `suggestive' even if he or she uses absolute language? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc (1) `Ecology, Meaning and Religion', Roy Rappaport, 1979, North Atlantic Books, p. 217 ISBN 0-913028-54-1 paperback ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Dave Land is surely correct when he says that I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored ... After all, the children who didn't, died. But I am not so sure that ... listening *critically* to authorities even more so. As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were told. How often did things change significantly over the course of a generation? How many iterations would there have to be for listening *critically* to authorities to be selected for to the point where over half the population had the traits for the tendency to do so? Have we reached that point yet? If not, will we ever? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Fri, 6 May 2005 00:01:30 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote As to fear being present with anger in all cases ... that's a very interesting idea, and my inclination is to agree with your assessment. If anger is (in essence) a response to perceived threat - - any perceived threat -- it could be easy to support the suggestion that there's at least *some* fear there as well. Behind anger, I think there's always a should. That guy shouldn't have cut me off on the freeway... Wes shouldn't have been killed in Iraq... I shouldn't have wasted time arguing about politics. And so, the opposite of anger is acceptance, in my view. I'm not saying that fear and anger don't are wrong... it is appropriate to be afraid of the lion and to be angry when he eats our friend. Fear and anger themselves call for acceptance. In another thread, I said I wanted to get out of the kill the other guy's argument mode of talking about things here. Another way to say that is that I want to figure out how to talk about difficult issues -- politics, religion, etc. -- while accepting others where they are. Hard to do, which pisses me off. Okay, that was a joke, that last thing. Mostly. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Awww, poor Dave. Can't think. Likes to whine. Aw. Eating more bran might help with that attitude, dude! xponent Peniscephalic Entropy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . . Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700 As I see it the problem is not religion; it's undisciplined, irrational thought -- and that is as prevalent *outside* of any church as it is inside. If you want to have a productive discussion with a religious person, attack the faulty thought process rather than its results. That's a mouthful right there, let me tell ya. A little on the idyllic side of the fence considering the set human precedent, but such sublimity usually is. Besides, it bespeaks the will to carry forward through our own fallibility, which, in and of itself is a precedent that we try and set, again, through the veil of our own fallibility, to ultimately persevere in the struggle to ensure that the institutions we leave behind are better than those willed to us by our forefathers. Or something like that... Warren, you are a noble beast! -Travis _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question why is very pertinent. I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people trying to spread religious ideas because they are nonsense and nonsense annoys me. People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense and that makes them potentially dangerous to me. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. I do like to sit with my back against a wall and a good view of what's going on when I'm in public places in case some religious nutcase is going about with a knife or gun. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote: The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question why is very pertinent. I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people trying to spread religious ideas because they are nonsense and nonsense annoys me. People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense and that makes them potentially dangerous to me. On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric and Earth is roughly spherical, but how many of them can actually explain *why* that is true? More to the point, what is the difference between accepting -- without question -- the statement Sol lies at the center of our solar system versus accepting -- again without question -- the statement God lies at the center of our lives? When you comment that People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense, you overlook a significant point, I think, and that is that it is *human nature* to believe something we've been told, particularly if it seems to descend from authority. This is probably innate; as children we'd damn well better believe what the adults tell us, or else we might get eaten by a predator. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. I do like to sit with my back against a wall and a good view of what's going on when I'm in public places in case some religious nutcase is going about with a knife or gun. And how often has this actually happened in your life? How many times have you actually been victimized by some religious nutcase with a weapon? Is this attitude significantly different from that held, for instance, by apocalyptics, who are certain the world will end any moment and they will be raptured? That is, if you sincerely think you're going to be injured or killed by a religious fanatic, how is that different from a religious person believing in any crazy nonsense? I will agree that religious fervor has been a significant cause of a lot of misery in the world. Only a fool unaware of history, I think, would attempt to argue to the contrary. (Or current events, of course.) However, being utterly dismissive of religion on the basis of its negative history is sort of like being utterly dismissive of the US today because at one time the nation condoned slave ownership. History is a tool from which to learn, I think, not one with which to indict those of whom we disapprove. As I see it the problem is not religion; it's undisciplined, irrational thought -- and that is as prevalent *outside* of any church as it is inside. If you want to have a productive discussion with a religious person, attack the faulty thought process rather than its results. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind anger, I tend to think that fear is always there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5 May 2005, at 10:01 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric and Earth is roughly spherical, but how many of them can actually explain *why* that is true? More to the point, what is the difference between accepting -- without question -- the statement Sol lies at the center of our solar system versus accepting -- again without question -- the statement God lies at the center of our lives? When you comment that People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense, you overlook a significant point, I think, and that is that it is *human nature* to believe something we've been told, particularly if it seems to descend from authority. This is probably innate; as children we'd damn well better believe what the adults tell us, or else we might get eaten by a predator. I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. And there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns and there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns are equally statements of faith. But there are babelfish and there are no babelfish are not equally statements of faith. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. And there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns and there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns are equally statements of faith. But there are babelfish and there are no babelfish are not equally statements of faith. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ WIthout any further data or probablities about 'babelfish', those paired statements are all equivalent. ~Maru But you didn't say they weren't undetectable! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. And there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns and there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns are equally statements of faith. My God, Erik: we agree! Well, mostly. Actually, maybe not. Damn. The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that they feel that they are betting their lives on their choice, or at least so much so that they feel it necessary to burden Brin-L with their [pro/anti]-religious proclamations. One who was arguing from his conclusion might assert that the pair of statements you posed above are statements of faith simply because he had concluded that there is no difference between God and fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns (IUPUs). With our extensive Brin-L training, we would not fall victim to that logical fallacy. We would not begin by asserting the unprovable claim that there is no difference between God and IUPUs, so we could not conclude that there is no difference between your pair of statements and mine. Damn those Greeks. Incidentally, one of my favorite resources for reminding myself about the nature of logical fallacies is at the Atheism Web: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html But there are babelfish and there are no babelfish are not equally statements of faith. Because http://babelfish.altavista.com/ certainly exists. May your own personal IUPUs bless you, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. No, they aren't actually. There is no God is a rational claim based on evidence. There is a God is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. True. And? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 04:58 PM 05/05/05 -0700, Dave wrote: snip And, naturally, anti-religious belief. There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. Of course, There is no God but we regret this fact and are working to correct it. is the project statement for the friendly AI project. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 07:05 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. And there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns and there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns are equally statements of faith. But there are babelfish and there are no babelfish are not equally statements of faith. Ah, stick it in your ear . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 08:38 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. People do silly things. People under the influence of mood- or mind-altering substances such as EtOH do many silly things. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
William, WTG: The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! DML: Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. WTG: I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. Also, you were making a statement about yourself, which I took as a general statement. I sit corrected. DML: It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. WTG: That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. It was intended to be, but putting one's hand in a fire is a pretty silly way of testing the real badness of hot, as well. Sure, you were only two, but suppose your two-year-old epistemologist was exposed to firearms, and not merely fire? WTG: It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. DML: And, naturally, anti-religious belief. There is a God and there is no God are equally statements of faith. WTG: No, they aren't actually. There is no God is a rational claim based on evidence. There is a God is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. WTG: I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. DML: Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. WTG: True. And? Your statement lacks the force it might have had. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote: WTG: No, they aren't actually. There is no God is a rational claim based on evidence. There is a God is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up. - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. One more time: it is foolish religious people that are the concern, not the existence or non-existence of some god. Do you accuse psychiatrists who want their patients to stop talking to invisible pink unicorns of being worried about the existence of said unicorns? If so, you are in worse shape than I thought... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Psalm 14:1 (53:1), was Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 09:44 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Repetition does not establish veracity. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Psalm 14:1 (53:1), was Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Repetition does not establish veracity. You have repeatedly established what your thoughts are worth, Ronn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements There is [a/no] God matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 1, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect to God has real validity. It makes sense to me anyway. I suppose it's an extension of my sense that people who feel threatened by homosexuals have their own unresolved issues to address. As for the pass given to Erik and Will, I've tussled with them a number of times over the past few years on that subject, and now tend to pick my spots instead of reacting to every statement. Well, it's not just them that get away with it though. I've seen much oversloppage of bombast in the last week or so, only a relatively small amount of which came from either Erik or William. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Behalf Of Dan Minette Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect to God has real validity. People who are very comfortable with their own beliefs can be very passionate about them, but are usually not hateful or angry towards people who happen to disagree with them. Often, I think it is a reaction to the negative and hateful things directed at the atheists by the religious in general. Or perceived to be directed at them. It could be viewed as justified payback. Not necessarily from the people being attacked but by society and religion in general. Now, I don't agree with that, necessarily, and don't think it is proper but have seen that behavior in some of those close to me who happen to be atheists. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 10:31 AM Friday 4/29/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that comments such as religion-addled brain are really marks of prejudice, or at least arrogance; in my experience arrogance is usually little more than vastly undeserved pride. I would like to think that those who align with atheism would be *more* inclined toward openness and understanding of others. Nick, for instance, is not what I would call religion-addled; however, being addled by one's *lack* of religion is clearly possible. It took me more than a decade of very deep personal inquiry to arrive at my atheism, and during that time I struggled with my own philosophical issues; with attempting to integrate various religious views into my own life and with one another; and ultimately with that first aching sense of isolation that I felt when I realized I could not believe in any kind of deity any longer. Looking back it was pretty damn painful sometimes. One could argue that I am the addled one for following that path. It's grossly unfair, I think, to start from the assumption that something as (ideally) deeply personal and personally intense as a quest for understanding of one's faith and one's position vis-a-vis a deity is somehow a manifestation of mental unbalance. Dawkins, as brilliant as the man is, can be too harsh, I believe; his is probably not the best model to follow in terms of framing a discussion, because there's not much discussion to be found in phrases such as God is a delusion. That's as hubristic as God said it, I believe it and that settles it. (I know this might read as pot-and-kettle, but Dawkins is after all a trained scientist purportedly skilled in rational discourse, while I'm the one who likes to toss the words around in an attempt to create emotional effect.) I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question why is very pertinent. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 02:31 AM Sunday 5/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that comments such as religion-addled brain are really marks of prejudice, or at least arrogance; in my experience arrogance is usually little more than vastly undeserved pride. You realize, I trust, that the above was just another smart-aleck one-liner . . . I would like to think that those who align with atheism would be *more* inclined toward openness and understanding of others. Nick, for instance, is not what I would call religion-addled; however, being addled by one's *lack* of religion is clearly possible. It took me more than a decade of very deep personal inquiry to arrive at my atheism, and during that time I struggled with my own philosophical issues; with attempting to integrate various religious views into my own life and with one another; and ultimately with that first aching sense of isolation that I felt when I realized I could not believe in any kind of deity any longer. Looking back it was pretty damn painful sometimes. One could argue that I am the addled one for following that path. It's grossly unfair, I think, to start from the assumption that something as (ideally) deeply personal and personally intense as a quest for understanding of one's faith and one's position vis-a-vis a deity is somehow a manifestation of mental unbalance. Dawkins, as brilliant as the man is, can be too harsh, I believe; his is probably not the best model to follow in terms of framing a discussion, because there's not much discussion to be found in phrases such as God is a delusion. That's as hubristic as God said it, I believe it and that settles it. (I know this might read as pot-and-kettle, but Dawkins is after all a trained scientist purportedly skilled in rational discourse, while I'm the one who likes to toss the words around in an attempt to create emotional effect.) I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question why is very pertinent. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. -- Ronn! :) While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 1, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:31 AM Sunday 5/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that comments such as religion-addled brain are really marks of prejudice, or at least arrogance; in my experience arrogance is usually little more than vastly undeserved pride. You realize, I trust, that the above was just another smart-aleck one-liner . . . Yes, but it was far too good an opportunity for soapboxery to let go by. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Yeah, I call that Lucasian Zen. By Yoda's argument, I was *afraid* of SWII. A better formulation is that attachment leads to fear and/or anger. Attachment also leads to suffering. As for the fear - anger thing, I don't think so -- in our lovely modern American society, for instance, men are supposed to show two or possibly three really strong emotions: Anger, horniness and (possibly) jocularity. Nothing else. No sadness, and certainly no fear. Men aren't taught how to probe their emotions, are not encouraged to introspect and name their feelings, and when ambivalent or complex or subtle emotions arise, particularly if they're unpleasant, the typical male response is just anger. (Which might be partly rooted in frustration.) So anger is often a masking emotion for something else, and often that something else is fear. At least in my experience that's the case. While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003 Ah, screw 'em. ;) But this does lead to another question: How does one reconcile this injunction with Orin Hatch (example) and his push for certain amendments? The bludgeon of law is hardly soft-spoken, and prejudice is *never* understanding. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question why is very pertinent. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect to God has real validity. People who are very comfortable with their own beliefs can be very passionate about them, but are usually not hateful or angry towards people who happen to disagree with them. As for the pass given to Erik and Will, I've tussled with them a number of times over the past few years on that subject, and now tend to pick my spots instead of reacting to every statement. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
