Thrown out of an FBO...

Judah,

It is a scientific principle that has
no basis in the scientific method


Then I guess we don't need to discuss it more.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:21:38 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jose wrote:
"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

Snarf.

To snarf means to take, (usually surrepticiously) an item (usually a
small one). I've just snarfed this into my quotes file. (How) would
you like to be credited when I use it?

The quote did not originate from me. I don't recall where I first saw it -
a net search may locate the originator.

Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."

What does "valid" and "invalid" mean in this context? A religion can be
valid and false, for some reasonable definitions of "valid".

Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

If cognative dissonance invalidated a religion, we could all stop
right there.

Don

Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

Then...

(1) The person is now in a religion R whose only precept, Y, is true,
making the religion R valid.

.... the definition of religion implied above is extremely weak. To wit:
"A religion is a set of true statements" is a poor definition of
religion. I suppose that's your point (and I agree with it). However,
R being invalid does not prevent R from being a religion, any more than
X being invalid does.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

Pragmatism.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

They're both athiesm. The first is the type of athiest I was when I saw
religion as mostly harmless stupidity.

I posted three words.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."


Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp collecting.

Is it possible to not have a hobby? (can you say "chartered accountant"?)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You are welcome to whatever dogma you would like. But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

That "some scientists" believe something doesn't make it true.
Scientists have been wrong. Sometimes ridiculously wrong. However, an
error in science can be discovered (because by definition, a scientific
theory is "falisifiable"). And that one cannot explain something does
not mean that it is beyond explanation.

Things that seem improbable occur
quite often, merely by chance. (this can be shown to
be true with pure numbers - no actual events are necessary)

What is key here is that the class of "remarkable things" is bigger than
the single remakable thing that occurs. For example, it could be
remarkable that my brother and I show up at my cousin's wedding with
exactly the same pattern tie. The chances of that are 1 out of 50
(assuming we each have 50 ties, choose randomly, and always wear a tie)
If it happens, it will surely be noted.

However, it would be equally remarkable if we showed up with the same
pattern shirt, or the same pattern pants, or the same pattern of socks.
It would also be equally remarkable if it happened at my other
cousin's funeral, or the opening night of my sister's play. Using the
same numbers (yes, I know that 50 pairs of patterned pants =is=
remarkable), the chance of A REMARKABLE EVENT occuring is now much
higher, even though the chance of THIS PARTICULAR remarkable event
remains the same.

That's what people fail to fully percieve.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Scientists theories are beliefs until they are proven using the scientific
method.

That's another misconception about science. Scientific thories are
=always= beliefs, until DISPROVEN. Nothing can be "proven" in science.
However, the failure to dispove something, when sufficiently strong
tests are applied, tend to increase ones faith in those beliefs.

The difference between a scientific theory and a religious idea is the
essence of "falsifiability". If a scientific theory incorrectly
describes reality, then it can be disproven. A theory which cannot be
disproven (even if it is false) is not a scientific theory, but a
religious dogma.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
(1) The person is now in a religion R whose only precept, Y, is true,
making the religion R valid.

... the definition of religion implied above is extremely weak. To wit:
"A religion is a set of true statements" is a poor definition of
religion. I suppose that's your point (and I agree with it). However,
R being invalid does not prevent R from being a religion, any more than
X being invalid does.

The "deductive" argument I posted was not the product of long considered
thought and in retrospect I see several problems with it. I'd rather not
spend the time needed to clean it up or defend it - or see others waste
their valuable time on debating it. You will get no arguments from me! :-)

You guys should just plonk this troll and move on. This discussion is like
eating lettuce; it lacks taste and has no nutritional value. -c

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
I don't care.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


I believe top posting is poor form for Usenet posts.