On 5/10/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick said:
Eh? Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma. Any
insistence on
the non-existence of something is dogma. It has to be, since it
cannot be
logically proved.
So if I insist that there exists nowhere in the universe a
Nick said:
You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist. Not with logic.
So you're saying that things that are logically impossible can exist?
Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 5/11/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick said:
You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist. Not with logic.
So you're saying that things that are logically impossible can exist?
Nope. I'm talking about the limits of logic. One cannot prove absolute
non-existence
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/11/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick said:
You cannot prove that such a thing does not exist. Not with logic.
So you're saying that things that are logically impossible can exist?
Fallacy alert! You cannot prove it (or disprove it)
Nick said:
Nope. I'm talking about the limits of logic. One cannot prove
absolute non-existence with logic. You may infer it all day long,
but you can't prove it with logic.
I don't see what's wrong with my argument:
- 7 is not an integer multiple of 2.
- Therefore a machine that proves
On 5/11/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick said:
Nope. I'm talking about the limits of logic. One cannot prove
absolute non-existence with logic. You may infer it all day long,
but you can't prove it with logic.
I don't see what's wrong with my argument:
- 7 is not an
Nick said:
Not until you prove that in every part of the universe, mathematics
operations exactly as it does here.
But mathematics isn't a property of the state or laws of the universe.
It isn't physics, but is more akin to logic itself. You might as well
say that I haven't demonstrated that
On 5/11/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick said:
Not until you prove that in every part of the universe, mathematics
operations exactly as it does here.
But mathematics isn't a property of the state or laws of the universe.
It isn't physics, but is more akin to logic itself.
Nick said:
There is nothing controversial or questionable about the fact that one
cannot universally disprove the existence of something. In other
words,
there are a whole bunch of logicians behind me on this.
To paraphrase Einstein: if I were wrong, all it would take was one.
Rich
Dan Minette wrote:
As recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought
predominated in European, South American, and South Asian
universities (in things like econ, liberal arts, sociology) and was
common in the US. It is now considered fairly well discredited.
But not in South America :-(
On 10 May 2006, at 4:09AM, Dan Minette wrote:
As
recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought predominated in European,
South
American, and South Asian universities (in things like econ,
liberal arts,
sociology) and was common in the US. It is now considered fairly well
discredited.
From: Alberto Monteiro
Dan Minette wrote:
As recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought
predominated in European, South American, and South Asian
universities (in things like econ, liberal arts, sociology) and was
common in the US. It is now considered fairly well discredited.
But
Andrew Paul wrote:
Marxist (...) is now considered fairly well discredited.
But not in South America :-(
No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity.
In Australia too? That's surprising.
Who discredited Marxism?
Communism :-)
It's out of favour for sure, but when was the
Guys - change the subject line?
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: RE: Myers-Briggs
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:29:37 -0200
Andrew Paul wrote
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrew Paul
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:21 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Myers-Briggs
No, in fact it seems to be growing in popularity. Who discredited
Marxism? It's out of favour
On 10/05/2006, at 5:34 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
In the long term, governments will fade away. In the short term,
there is
the dictatorship of the proletariat. Democracy, human rights, etc.
are
considered a bourgeoisie invention that does not take into account
that
societies are
Charlie said:
LOL Atheists (at least in the West) tend to be far more liberal
and laissez-faire than the population at large. Welfare state yes,
police state no.
If you don't want to be in charge of the Atheist Dominion, maybe I
could be?
Rich
VFP Just Asking
Nick said:
Eh? Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma. Any
insistence on
the non-existence of something is dogma. It has to be, since it
cannot be
logically proved.
So if I insist that there exists nowhere in the universe a
calculating machine that can prove that 7 is an
On 10/05/2006, at 9:15 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
LOL Atheists (at least in the West) tend to be far more liberal
and laissez-faire than the population at large. Welfare state yes,
police state no.
If you don't want to be in charge of the Atheist Dominion, maybe I
could
On 09/05/2006, at 6:46 AM, Andrew Paul wrote:
From: Charlie Bell
Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew
anything.
It must have been a weird, weird world.
The scientific method boils down to trial and error, repeat what
works. Without that, and the ability to
On 5/9/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly what I'm saying. Humans have always had that - it's precisely
what makes us human. :) So when Nick says prior to the invention of
scientific methods... ...it must have been a weird, weird world he's
right. It was weird 'cause there
On 09/05/2006, at 5:07 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/9/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly what I'm saying. Humans have always had that - it's precisely
what makes us human. :) So when Nick says prior to the invention of
scientific methods... ...it must have been a weird, weird
Charlie wrote
Certainly is possible. Huxley coined the term, and while it has come
to mean not really sure or believe there's sort of something,
it's originally the position that the true nature and existence of
the deity is unknowable and unprovable. It's separating what we can
know from
On 9 May 2006, at 8:53PM, Dan Minette wrote:
In short, we all make untestable metaphysical assumptions. I'd
consider
some of them reasonable, and others not so reasonable. My
basis for
this, will be included in a post I'll make on fundamentalism and
atheism.
Even if we all make
Charlie Bell wrote:
Yet here we are. I post. Replies appear, thanks to the efforts of
various other human (I assume, given that the ones I've met IRL were
fairly human) participants. That's all. It's just a mailing list.
It's not a metaphor for metaphysics, unless Zeus is on MSN these
days.
On 10/05/2006, at 12:36 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Yet here we are. I post. Replies appear, thanks to the efforts
of various other human (I assume, given that the ones I've met IRL
were
fairly human) participants. That's all. It's just a mailing list.
It's not a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Julia Thompson
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:14 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So? Non-belief
Doug Pensinger wrote:
No, it's not, and this belief [fundamentalist atheism]
may have killed more people
than all religions put together - you missed this same
discussion we had here about 6 months ago.
Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though? Atheism
!= Communism.
On 8 May 2006, at 12:10PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
No, it's not, and this belief [fundamentalist atheism]
may have killed more people
than all religions put together - you missed this same
discussion we had here about 6 months ago.
Wern't those people killed in the
On 08/05/2006, at 2:10 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
No, it's not, and this belief [fundamentalist atheism]
may have killed more people
than all religions put together - you missed this same
discussion we had here about 6 months ago.
Wern't those people killed in the
On 08/05/2006, at 2:19 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Where do you put the atheist religions (such as Confucianism) in
this scheme?
...or several types of Buddhism. Many atheists follow Buddhist
philosophy.
And communism is a quasi-religion anyway...
Not sure if you being on my side
On 08/05/2006, at 2:43 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Not sure if you being on my side will help here, but that's the
point I was just making, yes.
As atheists, you both want to establish a police state, with
_you_ as Supreme Guide, with the other as a lieutant :-P
LOL
On 5/6/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
You're just arguing religion again.
Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew anything.
It must have been a weird, weird world.
And all the people in the
On 5/6/06, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick wrote:
I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can
minimize
self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified.
I don't get it, couldn't you falsify the idea by comming up with some
other method
On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's
no scripture or dogma. I
Eh? Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma. Any insistence on
the non-existence of something is dogma. It has to be, since it cannot
Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist,
there's no scripture or dogma. I
Eh? Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma. Any
insistence on the non-existence of something is dogma. It has to
On 08/05/2006, at 9:40 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/6/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process.
You're just arguing religion again.
Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew
anything.
It must have been
On 08/05/2006, at 9:44 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's
no scripture or dogma. I
Eh? Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma.
Read what I said. That isn't what I
On 5/8/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-belief and belief-in-not are *different*.
Of course -- I realized the distinction when I wrote that. I wrote it
because what the Fool is expressing is not non-belief, it is clearly
belief-in-not.
Nick
--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 08/05/2006, at 11:39 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 5/8/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-belief and belief-in-not are *different*.
Of course -- I realized the distinction when I wrote that. I wrote it
because what the Fool is expressing is not non-belief, it is clearly
On Behalf Of Julia Thompson
There's no scripture, though, which I think is an important
part of the definition of fundamentalism.
I think militant is a more useful adjective when describing
some atheists. See my previous post on the subject.
I always used the description devout atheist
From: Charlie Bell
Thus, prior to the invention of scientific methods, nobody knew
anything.
It must have been a weird, weird world.
The scientific method boils down to trial and error, repeat what
works. Without that, and the ability to remember the errors, nobody
*did* know
At 05:10 PM Saturday 5/6/2006, The Fool wrote:
[snipped]
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
like the truth or rational thinking
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_?
On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
Charlie Bell escreveu:
I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism.
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists.
Alberto Monteiro
On 07/05/2006, at 10:05 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell escreveu:
I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism.
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any
Charlie Bell wrote:
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]
exists.
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's
no scripture or dogma.
Yes, there are. Das Kapital and the
Alberto wrote:
It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief.
No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all
religions
put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6
months ago.
Wern't
On 07/05/2006, at 10:40 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]
exists.
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist,
Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs
tests to dozen people I knew.
And anecdotal evidince has what value in science?
Well, you need not pay any attention to my report. My experience was
that when I gave a test to a dozen people, I found that a bit
On 07/05/2006, at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Alberto wrote:
It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of
belief.
No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all
religions
put together - you missed this
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something
On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I think militant atheism is a better description of the
philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool.
Certainly is.
There is no text from which to be fundamentalist for atheism, as
far as I know. Militant is a reasonably accurate
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I think militant atheism is a better
On 08/05/2006, at 12:28 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Well, then it's clearly possible to be an agnostic Christian by that
definition. A significant fraction of Christians would be
agnostics, by your
definition...including me. Even our pastor, who is fairly
Evangelical,
agrees that there is no
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 5, 2006, at 1:27 PM, The Fool wrote:
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
And for the skeptical (I have only
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
On 5/5/06, The Fool wrote:
On 5/5/06, A person not named The Fool wrote:
I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can
minimize
self-deception and identify non-existent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of The Fool
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 9:20 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Fool On
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/5/06, The Fool wrote:
On 5/5/06, A person not named The Fool wrote:
I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science
can
minimize
self-deception
If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science.
Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to a
dozen people I knew. I felt the results were accurate in about 7 of
those 12 cases. So I decided it was pretty good for this kind of
topic (and no good at all
From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it's science at all, it's a very fluffy kind of science.
Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to
a
dozen people I knew. I felt the results were accurate in about 7 of
those 12 cases. So I decided it was
Nick wrote:
I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can minimize
self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified.
I don't get it, couldn't you falsify the idea by comming up with some
other method that minimizes
self-deception and identifies
At any rate, you still test out Idealist, and in many ways that's the most
important part because it's the central theme of your life.
Pat, INTP but unwilling to make up my mind oh, look, a bird! BAD
kitties!
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.
___
On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
MBTI is psuedo-science at its finest.
OK. You're
On May 5, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
OTOH, I'm split between the J and P, which makes me
feel a little better, not desiring to be known as
judgemental...even though in many ways, I am.
Some are confused by the language of MBTI, and find one or the other
terms for each of the
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
MBTI
On May 5, 2006, at 1:27 PM, The Fool wrote:
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 5, 2006, at 11:52 AM, The Fool wrote:
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, here are a few sites for those curious:
And for the skeptical (I have only skimmed this, as
it's time to head out):
Dave Land wrote:
And, of course, each is a spectrum:
Because they are spectra there are a number of encoding schemes out
there to try to disambiguate those that move or are near the lines, and
some psychologists will tell you the categorizations are meaningless
without the full test and
On May 5, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Max Battcher wrote:
Dave Land wrote:
And, of course, each is a spectrum:
Because they are spectra there are a number of encoding schemes out
there to try to disambiguate those that move or are near the lines,
and some psychologists will tell you the
On 5/5/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's no different than ennenagrams and other bullsh!t that sounds good
to the ignorant and uninformed.
So what do you think of this bit of logic from the skeptics' site:
However, his typology seems to imply that science is just a point of view
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nick Arnett
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 4:21 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
On 5/5/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only
On 06/05/2006, at 1:53 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
stuff
Given that I so often disagree with Dan on many things, I think it
only fair to chip in that I was lurking on this one too, and he has
basically said what I would've...
:)
So, where are we wrong this time?
Charlie
74 matches
Mail list logo
