If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#611
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL 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) |
#612
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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 |
#613
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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. |
#614
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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. |
#615
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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. |
#616
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
"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. |
#617
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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. |
#618
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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. |
#619
|
|||
|
|||
PHIL Thrown out of an FBO...
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! :-) |
#620
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I think old planes should be thrown away !!! | Tristan Beeline | Restoration | 6 | January 20th 06 04:05 AM |
Rocks Thrown at Border Patrol Chopper | [email protected] | Piloting | 101 | September 1st 05 12:10 PM |