Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On Sep 6, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could it be? Is your computer screen red? No. I'll freely admit there is no emperical proof that God exists, just as there is no emperical proof that free will, human rights, your self-awareness exists as something independant. That's interesting; I think it might be fair to say that for all practical purposes everything you just listed exists only in the mind of a given individual that believes any of it to exist. That is, the idea of deity is that. Free will seems to exist, but is less provable/testable than is gravity (example). Human rights exist only insofar as we define them; they have no objective reality whatsoever. And self-awareness is something we all seem to think we have, but there are definitely times when I wonder about it in others. ;) The point is that you've listed a stack of things that are testable to varying degrees (even the idea of a god -- after all, I haven't yet been struck by lightning...) but none of which are really provable or falsifiable. As long as we're all in agreement that these things exist or not largely a matters of points of view, well, hey, we've solved all the world's problems! :D -- WthmO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:10:41PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc. But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own. I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. Not to me. What if you had hosted three such women, had disasters with all three, causing successively greater difficulties for you, your family, and each woman, despite your having taken increasing precautions with each succeeding woman due to past experience? Would you host a fourth? If so, would you take the same approach you took before? Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to emperical testing are undaunted in the face of contradictory evidence. Is there no empirical evidence that could cause you to reconsider the existence of a god? You mean on the order of the Lapalcian illusion actually having been true, thus showing an inconsistancy with free will? I don't think such evidence exists; but if you would like to propose a test, I'll listen. You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against religion? I don't think so. That would be a point in its favor. So, you seem to admit that religion is subject to empirical investigation? Otherwise, how do we grow in understanding? Mental masturbation? OK, I spoke loosely. The development of religeous ideas is historical. The interpretation of this development does not lend itself to testing. So, if I were speaking correctly, the grown in understanding is just one reasonable way to interpret the results. If you do admit that religion is subject to empirical investigation, then what empirical evidence could cause you to reconsider the existence of a god? Look at the atheistic (or a-religeous) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of humans. You almost seem to assume that one must adopt an ideology. Most everyone who has done much thinking at all has a worldview. If someone presents that in good faith; its usually easy to see the roots of that worldview. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:48:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: And your neat little insistence that no data is necessary or possible about the existence of this figment. Uh-huh, just like no data is necessary or possible concerning your self-awareness. But, talking about that is diverting, because you believe in it. :-) You appear to have me confused with someone else. No. I'll freely admit there is no emperical proof that God exists, Then why pretend that it exists? Forgive me if I don't consider myself deluded for not agreeing with your belief system. Just keep telling yourself that. Apparently your brainwashing comes with a defense mechanism against rationality. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:48:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: And your neat little insistence that no data is necessary or possible about the existence of this figment. Uh-huh, just like no data is necessary or possible concerning your self-awareness. But, talking about that is diverting, because you believe in it. :-) You appear to have me confused with someone else. No. I'll freely admit there is no emperical proof that God exists, Then why pretend that it exists? OK, lets walk through this slowly. Is your position that it is irrational to believe in anything that is not subjected to empirical verification? If so, how do you define rationality. Its clearly not the use of reason...which is the common definition. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:15:34PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:48:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: And your neat little insistence that no data is necessary or possible about the existence of this figment. Uh-huh, just like no data is necessary or possible concerning your self-awareness. But, talking about that is diverting, because you believe in it. :-) You appear to have me confused with someone else. No. I'll freely admit there is no emperical proof that God exists, Then why pretend that it exists? OK, lets walk through this slowly. Is your position that it is irrational to believe in anything that is not subjected to empirical verification? No. And you are avoiding the question. Brainwashing strikes again. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments No. And you are avoiding the question. Brainwashing strikes again. OK, I don't pretend that God exists any more than you pretend that other things that are not subjected to verification exists. We both believe they exist, independent of verification. Erik, could you answer my question? Its not a loaded one. What is rationality for you? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:35:19PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: OK, I don't pretend that God exists any more than you pretend that other things that are not subjected to verification exists. Any more? Most assuredly you do. We both believe they exist, independent of verification. No, I don't. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:37 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:35:19PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: OK, I don't pretend that God exists any more than you pretend that other things that are not subjected to verification exists. Any more? Most assuredly you do. We both believe they exist, independent of verification. No, I don't. OK, trying to go through your posts like a puzzle to obtain information you delight in not providing clearly, it appears you don't believe things exist without empirical proof, but its not irrational to do so. But, you still haven't provided your definition or rationality. Out of curiosity; why do you enjoy making it difficult to communicate with you? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:48:27PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: OK, trying to go through your posts like a puzzle to obtain information you delight in not providing clearly, it appears you don't believe things exist without empirical proof, but its not irrational to do so. I realize it is difficult for a brainwashed person to follow -- I am truly sorry that you have been victimized by religion. Is there any empirical evidence that could cause you to reconsider the existence of a god? Can there be no change, no improvement? Rationality is defined in a number of dictionaries. But you knew that. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 03:48:27PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: OK, trying to go through your posts like a puzzle to obtain information you delight in not providing clearly, it appears you don't believe things exist without empirical proof, but its not irrational to do so. I realize it is difficult for a brainwashed person to follow -- I am truly sorry that you have been victimized by religion. Is there any empirical evidence that could cause you to reconsider the existence of a god? Can there be no change, no improvement? Rationality is defined in a number of dictionaries. But you knew that. Uh-huh. The one that I thought relevant to this discussion was: The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence. Proof by insult usually does not constitution rational, if one uses this definition. Rather, one looks to precisely explain one's axioms; one uses logic to deduce theorems from the axioms; one checks those theorems to see if A and ~A can both be proven from the same set of axioms, etc. I've tried hard to be clear. You've tried hard to be insulting. I guess it just shows the different priorities we have for discussions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments Dan wrote: Uh-huh, just like no data is necessary or possible concerning your self-awareness. But, talking about that is diverting, because you believe in it. :-) Don't we see instances of what _appears_ to be free will and self awareness almost continuously throughout our lives? But, that is totally dependant on mindset; not data. For example, the compexity of nature was long thought to be a compelling arguement for a designer. We now realize that there is another explainition that works as well. The complex actions of human beings was long thought to be evidence of free will and self awareness; more recently we have seen why this is not necessary to explain human behavior. The difference in the two is the difference in the feeling of internal justification; which is certainly not emperical evidence. What I find facinating is the claim of things that can be tested emperically, and that the evidence of data varies from strongly against to very strongly against as the rational explaination. For example, the idea that self-sacrificing for others is really enlightened self interest. That someone who risks his life to warn others of a fire in a building really does so out of the calculation that the potential for his life later being saved by one of them is high enough compared to the probability of his losing his life so that it was simply a matter of looking after himself. Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc. But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own. I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. But, I don't think that caring for other people is inherently irrational. Another example was that the present supremacy of the US was an automatic; that its supremacy proves that a system with freedoms will always win over totalitarian governments, thus validating the principals enumerated in the Declaration of Independance. But, Gautam and I have shown; without any significant counter-arguement, that there were many times when small factors being just slightly different could have made a world of difference. Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to emperical testing are undaunted in the face of contradictory evidence. Doesn't the existence of a deity require almost total fabrication since we see nothing that induces us to believe that there is a god that can not be explained in more logical terms? Not really. If you don't see love; instead of just evolutionarly favored instictive responses...then we just see things differently. Doesn't it follow that religion was invented in order to explain things that we could not otherwise understand, and doesn't the evidence show that religion has evolved from primitive ways to explain things to more sophisticated artifices? You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against religion? The true point of religion is not to explain observation...that has been argued for roughly 2000 years, if not longer. It is about relationships, meaning, love, the inherent worth of people. None of these have lended themselves to scientific examination. Look at the atheistic (or a-religeous) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of humans. There is Marxism; which sneers at individual rights as a bueswa construct. There is strong racial nationalism, which gave us the Nazis. Its true they had a place for religion, as one of the tools of the nation, but the true focus of the movement was the supremicy of the race/nation over the individual. More benign, there was existentialism, which declared the absurdity of life. Having studied Sartre for a semester, I can certainly see where his was coming from. Then, of course, there's the modern favorite, PoMo. It declares there is no truth, no human rights, no good, no evil, just politics. There is objectivism which tries to claim that altruism is evil. Finally, there is secular humanism. It is unique among these because it actually has a good track record. It grew out of Christian humanism, with an easily traciable path through people such as Erasmus and various Enlightenment philosophers. It claims it does not need God; and I think it is right
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:10:41PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc. But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own. I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. Not to me. What if you had hosted three such women, had disasters with all three, causing successively greater difficulties for you, your family, and each woman, despite your having taken increasing precautions with each succeeding woman due to past experience? Would you host a fourth? If so, would you take the same approach you took before? Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to emperical testing are undaunted in the face of contradictory evidence. Is there no empirical evidence that could cause you to reconsider the existence of a god? You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against religion? I don't think so. That would be a point in its favor. So, you seem to admit that religion is subject to empirical investigation? Otherwise, how do we grow in understanding? Mental masturbation? If you do admit that religion is subject to empirical investigation, then what empirical evidence could cause you to reconsider the existence of a god? Look at the atheistic (or a-religeous) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of humans. You almost seem to assume that one must adopt an ideology. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
On 6 Sep 2004, at 11:10 pm, Dan Minette wrote: Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc. My little sister (infested with religious nonsense) has taken people into her home who have stolen and pawned her wedding ring for drink. But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own. Real caring means getting someone sectioned into a locked ward where they can't harm themselves or anyone else :) I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. But, I don't think that caring for other people is inherently irrational. Your padded cell awaits :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
Dan wrote: But, that is totally dependant on mindset; not data. For example, the complexity of nature was long thought to be a compelling argument for a designer. We now realize that there is another explanation that works as well. The complex actions of human beings was long thought to be evidence of free will and self awareness; more recently we have seen why this is not necessary to explain human behavior. Really. So given any particular situation, you can explain why a particular person did what they did? The difference in the two is the difference in the feeling of internal justification; which is certainly not empirical evidence. No, the difference is that I can give you de facto examples of people exercising their free will (or virtual free will, IMO). You can't prove me wrong. What I find fascinating is the claim of things that can be tested empirically, and that the evidence of data varies from strongly against to very strongly against as the rational explanation. For example, the idea that self-sacrificing for others is really enlightened self interest. That someone who risks his life to warn others of a fire in a building really does so out of the calculation that the potential for his life later being saved by one of them is high enough compared to the probability of his losing his life so that it was simply a matter of looking after himself. If the rescuer has a personal bond with the people in the building, enlightened self interest is a plausible explanation, especially if they are kin. However a further explanation is that the rescuer has been conditioned to act in an unselfish manner. From the time we can comprehend language we are taught that heroism and selflessness are laudable behaviors. Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc. But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk. It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own. I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. But, I don't think that caring for other people is inherently irrational. It goes back to something I posted several days ago. Humans have learned to use their intelligence to protect themselves from brute physical power. It is a successful survival mechanism. Part of this strategy was the invention of ethical guidelines. A prohibition on murder helps keep people less able to protect themselves alive. A natural extension of these ethics is selflessness. Another example was that the present supremacy of the US was an automatic; that its supremacy proves that a system with freedoms will always win over totalitarian governments, thus validating the principals enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. But, Gautam and I have shown; without any significant counter-argument, that there were many times when small factors being just slightly different could have made a world of difference. You haven't shown anything, you've speculated. The fact that there wasn't any significant counter argument doesn't prove anything at all. Maybe no one cared enough to do the research necessary to provide a viable counter argument. Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to empirical testing are undaunted in the face of contradictory evidence. The requires rephrasing. Beliefs in ideas that have been proven untenable when tested continue to be believed? Doesn't the existence of a deity require almost total fabrication since we see nothing that induces us to believe that there is a god that can not be explained in more logical terms? Not really. If you don't see love; instead of just evolutionarily favored instinctive responses...then we just see things differently. No. One can observe in a mothers protection of her offspring why love is favored. Do you doubt that I can find a study that proves this? Doesn't it follow that religion was invented in order to explain things that we could not otherwise understand, and doesn't the evidence show that religion has evolved from primitive ways to explain things to more sophisticated artifices? You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against religion? The true point of religion is not to explain observation...that has been argued for roughly 2000 years, if not longer. It is about relationships, meaning, love, the inherent worth of people. None of these have lended themselves to scientific examination. Bologna.I provided an example above. Prove me wrong. Look at the atheistic (or a-religious) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry
Re: Which beliefs are labled real; which are labled figments
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:10:41PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Look at the atheistic (or a-religeous) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of humans. You almost seem to assume that one must adopt an ideology. It seems to me that the implication of Dan's argument is that *most* of the ground in philosophy is covered. For myself, I'd like to see the lay of the land that has not been covered. xponent Robculese Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
