Anyone else think all this discussion of Christianity is ridiculous?? [Archive]

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just say God (even though that is also semi-ridiculous)? Religion is religion, right? If a few events in history play out differently Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc become the dominant world religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

the struggle has to do with the power to control the definition of god.

if you can control the definition of god and
if the masses are willing to move according to that definition then
it is no small insignificant matter to gain control of said definition.

it would be kind of like controlling the constitution of a nation.

atheists would like a world where the masses were able to stop governing their lives and actions according to a definition of god and instead use science and logic and reason etc. - this is a noble request but it seems impossible given that the set of unknowns is so much larger than the set of knowns - the mind will insist on creating a framework within the set of unknowns - it's not possible to prevent that from happening unless you want to consider the possibility of being able to find and isolate the genetics responsible for that propensity and systematically eradicate that part of the gene pool over serveral centuries.

another idea is to consider the possibility of illegal religions much the same way that the civilized part of the world has decided that certain types of governments are unacceptable. the main problem with this strategy is in deciding who gets to decide what constitutes an illegal religion.

the abrahamic faiths, by definition, demand that there be a single definition of god and that competing definitions are inherently wrong and blasphemous and must be eradicated.

if the world ever gets together and composes a list of things that constitute an illegal religion, i'd want the first item on the list to be:

1) it shall be illegal to construct a definition of religion or god, regarding unprovable unknowns, that does not provide a peaceful means of modifying the definition.

the abrahamic faiths are fine examples of what happens when you build a religion and a god that will put you to death if you even think about modifying the definition.

judaism and christianity have already dealt with this issue (and it wasn't pretty). islam is doing this very thing right now - some say islam is finally undergoing a long overdue reformation (this is very disturbing because reformations are known to be very bloody).

ray

Semtex

12-14-2006, 12:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just say God (even though that is also semi-ridiculous)? Religion is religion, right? If a few events in history play out differently Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc become the dominant world religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

the struggle has to do with the power to control the definition of god.

if you can control the definition of god and
if the masses are willing to move according to that definition then
it is no small insignificant matter to gain control of said definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?? Don't 80% of world religions have the same definition of God (Christianity, Islam, Catholicism etc), but still bicker about pointless details?

Smasharoo

12-14-2006, 12:57 PM

Really?? Don't 80% of world religions have the same definition of God (Christianity, Islam, Catholicism etc), but still bicker about pointless details?

Really.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just say God (even though that is also semi-ridiculous)? Religion is religion, right? If a few events in history play out differently Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc become the dominant world religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

the struggle has to do with the power to control the definition of god.

if you can control the definition of god and
if the masses are willing to move according to that definition then
it is no small insignificant matter to gain control of said definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?? Don't 80% of world religions have the same definition of God (Christianity, Islam, Catholicism etc), but still bicker about pointless details?

[/ QUOTE ]

the deeper issue has to to with how each view deals with others that do not have that exact view - i.e. infidels, unbelievers, blasphemers, heretics, etc.

ray

revots33

12-14-2006, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Really?? Don't 80% of world religions have the same definition of God (Christianity, Islam, Catholicism etc), but still bicker about pointless details?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians don't see Jesus being the son of god as a pointless detail.

Most of the theists on SMP are Christians (or so it seems anyway), so that's the religion most discussed.

the_scalp

12-14-2006, 01:51 PM

Since I'm here,

~2 billion Christians (1/2 Catholics and Orthodox)
~1 billion Muslims

You might still argue that Islam is still 'more practiced' becuase the average Muslim seems to be a more fervant devotee of her religion than does the average Christian.

Something like 98% of all humans in history have believed in a higher, supernatural power. Many of those beliefs could be labled as belief in a God or in gods. Islam, Judaism and Christianity (the Abrahamic faiths) still account for more than half of the world's beliefs -- all this stemming from a bunch of goat-herders 8000 years ago in an unremarkable corner of the desert. Sure, you can aruge that without Constantine, or without the attractiveness of Chrsitianity to slaves and women, or without the Roman Empire's bowing down to the Vatican, or without frutuitious geography in the case of ancient Israel another religion would be dominant today -- but I'm not so sure that it's necessary there should be one dominant religion. Maybe the coincidences point to a larger narrative . . .

Skidoo

12-14-2006, 04:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
atheists would like a world where the masses were able to stop governing their lives and actions according to a definition of god and instead be controlled by "god-like" men.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Humanity has been, done that. It's called the 20th century.

samsonite2100

12-14-2006, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
frutuitious

[/ QUOTE ]

off topic, but this is a great new word.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheists would like a world where the masses were able to stop governing their lives and actions according to a definition of god and instead be controlled by "god-like" men.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Humanity has been, done that. It's called the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont mind being a "god-like" man as long as that definition is acceptable to me.

i dont want to be controlled by anything or anyone - not even my god.

ray

ARTYFISHALL

12-14-2006, 05:32 PM

There is no God, it's a load of [censored]. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Religion is a total sack of [censored].

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no God, it's a load of [censored]. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Religion is a total sack of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

when people form ideas about unknowns,
what is that called?

are you indicting the human tendancy to do this or are you indicting the ideas that have been formed thus far?

ray

luckyme

12-14-2006, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no God, it's a load of [censored]. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Religion is a total sack of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they're deluded, but on a philosophy forum it still leaves the issue of whether the delusion serves a greater good, etc.

luckyme

arahant

12-14-2006, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no God, it's a load of [censored]. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Religion is a total sack of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

when people form ideas about unknowns,
what is that called?

[/ QUOTE ]
His response was visceral, and i think pretty clear. When people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, then claim that there is any rational basis for these ideas, we call them idiots. Unless said ideas are religious in nature, in which case we call them faithful or something.

When people form ideas that have no basis in reality about things that are known, then claim that there is any rational basis for these ideas, we call them delusional. Again, excepting religion.
[ QUOTE ]

are you indicting the human tendancy to do this or are you indicting the ideas that have been formed thus far?

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he doesn't mention the former at all, I think it's clear that he is talking about the latter.

madnak

12-14-2006, 06:37 PM

No, we call those people crazy. And it's typically unjustified.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 07:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no God, it's a load of [censored]. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. Religion is a total sack of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

when people form ideas about unknowns,
what is that called?

[/ QUOTE ]
His response was visceral, and i think pretty clear. When people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, then claim that there is any rational basis for these ideas, we call them idiots. Unless said ideas are religious in nature, in which case we call them faithful or something.

When people form ideas that have no basis in reality about things that are known, then claim that there is any rational basis for these ideas, we call them delusional. Again, excepting religion.
[ QUOTE ]

are you indicting the human tendancy to do this or are you indicting the ideas that have been formed thus far?

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he doesn't mention the former at all, I think it's clear that he is talking about the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's clear that he is talking about the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

if he is referring to the latter - (the current set of accumulated ideas about unknowns) - then is it fair to indict this entire set of ideas?

ray

Skidoo

12-14-2006, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i dont mind being a "god-like" man as long as that definition is acceptable to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

madnak

12-14-2006, 07:47 PM

Hey, I'll go for a dictator that doesn't, say, drop vials of the bubonic plague in the middle of populated areas? Pit children against bears for his personal enjoyment? Ruthlessly annihilate anyone within proximity who happens to be of a different race or creed?

<font color="white">Someone remind me why I'm responding to Skidoo.</font>

luckyme

12-14-2006, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables,

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you after Rumsfeld job ..

" There are known knowns.There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things
We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know. "

Are you referring to the known unknowns or the unknown unknowns?

luckyme

Skidoo

12-14-2006, 07:56 PM

The typical atheist refers to unknown "knowns" often enough to qualify as a theist.

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 08:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I'll go for a dictator that doesn't, say, drop vials of the bubonic plague in the middle of populated areas? Pit children against bears for his personal enjoyment? Ruthlessly annihilate anyone within proximity who happens to be of a different race or creed?

<font color="white">Someone remind me why I'm responding to Skidoo.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

chances might be real good that we might get to see how evolution deals with the population control issue in our lifetimes.

the black plague was maybe an instance of natural law correcting a situation where european civilization was failing to address the issue of dealing with human waste.

you dont necessarily need god to police a failure of that magnitude if the means to correct the situation is already engineered into the planet.

the global warming industrial pollution situation might actually be a similar repeat of human failure to deal with waste - it was interesting to observe the rising ocean water scenario in gore's film as something that apparently would threaten all coastlines everywhere in the world and that a significant portion of the pollution problem is located on the coasts.

in any case it's safe to say that our body of scientific knowledge has not yet observed evolution in action when it comes to the issue of planetary over population.

overpopulation strategy, is quite interestingly enough, a subject not discussed in the bible - the book is strangely silent on the subject.

ray

Prodigy54321

12-14-2006, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The typical atheist refers to unknown "knowns" often enough to qualify as a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

what exactly is an "unknown known?"...if we're following the patter...it would mean something that we do not know we know. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Prodigy54321

12-14-2006, 08:09 PM

jogsxyz

12-14-2006, 08:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

overpopulation strategy, is quite interestingly enough, a subject not discussed in the bible - the book is strangely silent on the subject.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

The world was underpopulated when the bible was written. Didn't the bible deal with it by saying be fruitful and multiply?

madnak

12-14-2006, 09:31 PM

I was actually referring to the plagues that God visited on the peoples. The post was a bit botched for a couple reasons - for one my references were designed to be analogous, not identical. God had a habit of dropping horrible diseases on entire populations for all kinds of reasons that, if used to justify a dictator, would seem capricious and tyrannical.

RJT

12-14-2006, 10:31 PM

Much of the discussion does get a bit trite, yes. But, once is a while we get a post that pops up and some good thought provoking discussion gets rolling.

Posts here are not unlike hold ‘em. For the most part boring, but when you get those monster hands it all becomes worth the wait.

arahant

12-14-2006, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)
[ QUOTE ]

if he is referring to the latter - (the current set of accumulated ideas about unknowns) - then is it fair to indict this entire set of ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is very clear precisely what he was indicting.

not all unknowns fall into the same category. Unknowns that are related to a known reality, and unknowns that in no way intersect with reality are two very different things.
It is unknown why kaons occasionaly decay in a manner which violates cpt symmetry. It is also unknown who exactly gets into heaven.

Ideas about the former are useful because we have observed kaons, decay, cpt symmetry, etc., and the ideas may have practical implications.
Ideas about the latter are useless, because we have never observed a single thing, ever, that would indicate that heaven exists.

arahant

12-14-2006, 10:54 PM

:snicker:

Skidoo

12-14-2006, 11:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what exactly is an "unknown known?"...if we're following the patter...it would mean something that we do not know we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unknown "known" is actually a type of unknown that is falsely labeled and sold to those who only think they know.

Concepts like atheism and materialism are classic examples which claim, without embarrassment, a comprehensiveness of knowledge the usual consumers of these empty calories like to ridicule as an aspect of theism or metaphysics.

[ QUOTE ]
why would atheists like this? and what do you mean by "god-like?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again, there is a huge difference between what is advertised and what is actually delivered. The conversion of the masses from God to "reason" has always, in reality, ended up with an all-too-human earthly counterfeit playing a very unreasonable god.

madnak

12-14-2006, 11:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again we call them crazy and have little rational justification for doing so. Do you have anything to justify your assertion here? If I believe that an invisible pink elephant follows me wherever I go, am I called stupid or crazy? And if I'm called crazy, is that based on general consensus or on some clear standard?

Prodigy54321

12-14-2006, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what exactly is an "unknown known?"...if we're following the patter...it would mean something that we do not know we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

An unknown "known" is actually a type of unknown that is falsely labeled and sold to those who only think they know.

Concepts like atheism and materialism are classic examples which claim, without embarrassment, a comprehensiveness of knowledge the usual consumers of these empty calories like to ridicule as an aspect of theism or metaphysics.

[ QUOTE ]
why would atheists like this? and what do you mean by "god-like?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again, there is a huge difference between what is advertised and what is actually delivered. The conversion of the masses from God to "reason" has always, in reality, ended up with an all-too-human earthly counterfeit playing a very unreasonable god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you are implying that atheists take the unknown - whether or not there is a god..and claim that they know..

I think you'll find that relatively few atheists claim to know this unknown..that is..relative to how many theists do claim to know this unknown..

would you not agree?

the standarda atheist or materialist claim is more like..."So far as I can tell, _____."

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
why would atheists like this? and what do you mean by "god-like?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Here again, there is a huge difference between what is advertised and what is actually delivered. The conversion of the masses from God to "reason" has always, in reality, ended up with an all-too-human earthly counterfeit playing a very unreasonable god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen an example of the conversion you speak of...that is "from God to "reason""

the examples that I believe you are talking about were most certainly about taking power away from their peoples' god(s) and taking it for themselves. some did indeed believe themselves to be gods, others believed that they were serving their god.

atheists certainly don't desire such a situation

theists, more than anyone, seem to desire a human figure to put in a "god-like" position..

someone needs to tell them what their god desires, and from some reason, people tend to trust a single person with that position /images/graemlins/wink.gif

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. so if a famous theoretical physicist or evolutionist (like dawkins) were to make a reference to a "foam of universes", is he an idiot?

the idea is a theory about an unknown for which there is no experimental evidence.

ray

Prodigy54321

12-14-2006, 11:44 PM

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 11:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables,

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you after Rumsfeld job ..

" There are known knowns.There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things
We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know. "

Are you referring to the known unknowns or the unknown unknowns?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

ok this was funny man i gotta admit.
and that really is a genuine rumsfeld quote is it not?

ray

RayBornert

12-14-2006, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again we call them crazy and have little rational justification for doing so. Do you have anything to justify your assertion here? If I believe that an invisible pink elephant follows me wherever I go, am I called stupid or crazy? And if I'm called crazy, is that based on general consensus or on some clear standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem with generalizations like this is that you're suggesting that the actual probability of the existence of the elephant is somehow identical to anything else in the set of unknowns. this is also the basic sentiment behind the entire FSM joke which is a fine example of an unknown but it would seem pathetic if you're willing to embrace it with the same probability as other unknowns.

ray

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. so if a famous theoretical physicist or evolutionist (like dawkins) were to make a reference to a "foam of universes", is he an idiot?

the idea is a theory about an unknown for which there is no experimental evidence.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

if he did such a thing and placed unwavering belief in it..I would certainly call him an idiot..

forming theories is not the problem, believing it in without sufficient evidence means you are an idiot...believing in it to the point of action is what makes it dangerous

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. so how much "faith" or "belief" does a scientist need to have in a theory or his work in order to move him to collect experimental evidence?

before he collects lab data, the idea or theory would be an unknown that does not have sufficient evidence. so apparently whatever form of "faith" or "belief" that a scientist has in his work is somehow sanctioned (i'm assuming you'd not indict the scientist) but if i read your words correctly it would mean that anybody else that constructs ideas about unknowns is an idiot.

you seem not a lot unlike the thought police.

i will fully agree with you that there are people who have a seemingly unlimited capacity to construct worthless ideas and beliefs that lower their quality of life. have mercy on them. or would you prefer to erase them right now instead of at the end of their life?

ray

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ok. so how much "faith" or "belief" does a scientist need to have in a theory or his work in order to move him to collect experimental evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

it shouldn't come into the equation..faith and belief (I assume not based on any evidence)..doesn't count for anything.

[ QUOTE ]
before he collects lab data, the idea or theory would be an unknown that does not have sufficient evidence. so apparently whatever form of "faith" or "belief" that a scientist has in his work is somehow sanctioned

[/ QUOTE ]

typically not..theories are rarely just random ideas..for some reason the theorist usually has some reason to believe the theory to be somewhat more likley than a random idea..

but if he has nothing better to do, and has no other theory with even mild supporting evidence, he should go nuts.

[ QUOTE ]
(i'm assuming you'd not indict the scientist) but if i read your words correctly it would mean that anybody else that constructs ideas about unknowns is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said before, constructing a random idea doesn't make them an idiot..believing that that idea has more validity that what the evidence suggest does make him an idiot in my mind.

just because a scientist test a hypothesis, doesn't mean that he is placing a great belief in that hypothesis.

[ QUOTE ]
i will fully agree with you that there are people who have a seemingly unlimited capacity to construct worthless ideas and beliefs that lower their quality of life. have mercy on them. or would you prefer to erase them right now instead of at the end of their life?

[/ QUOTE ]

again I don't mind them formulating random theories..

if they place a huge (sometimes unwavering) belief in their random theory (or even just an excessive belief in a somewhat supported theory)..to the point that they take actions that are harmful...I guess I would rather them not exist.

-------------------------------

I want to point out that I do not consider most religions to be just random theories...they are often theories developed due to apparent evidence...such as some guy telling them that he spoke to god...so they are certainly justified in exploring that theory..

problems come up because of the fact that the theory often demands unwavering belief that it is true dispite a lack of sufficient evidence..and action as well.

Skidoo

12-15-2006, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming you are implying that atheists take the unknown - whether or not there is a god..and claim that they know..

I think you'll find that relatively few atheists claim to know this unknown..that is..relative to how many theists do claim to know this unknown..

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a rare theist who claims to be have proof of the existence of God. In that case, theism has all the right in the world to consider certain truths as a priori, or self-evidently perceived.

The (committed) atheist, however, does not argue from an equivalent position, but claims to have excluded God through some sort of rational process.

[ QUOTE ]
theists, more than anyone, seem to desire a human figure to put in a "god-like" position..

someone needs to tell them what their god desires, and from some reason, people tend to trust a single person with that position

[/ QUOTE ]

Some theists do make the mistake of putting all-too-human surrogates in a god-like position over their own freedom and judgement, as do many who pretend to be atheists.

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a rare theist who claims to be have proof of the existence of God. In that case, theism has all the right in the world to consider certain truths as a priori, or self-evidently perceived.

The (committed) atheist, however, does not argue from an equivalent position, but claims to have excluded God through some sort of rational process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of many such atheists...you say "committed" as if you feel that this is an essential atheist position..it surely is not.

I essentially exclude the possibility of specific gods or a general god because the probability is so small that it does not dictate my action.

I would never say (and I don't believe many others would say) that I believe the possibility of anything to be ZERO..and I place to probability of a god and even some specific gods at well above just a random possibility..still I have not encountered many (maybe any) instances where my inclusion of that possibility dictates an action.

[ QUOTE ]
Some theists do make the mistake of putting all-too-human surrogates in a god-like position over their own freedom and judgement, as do many who pretend to be atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could an atheist put someone in a position that they do not believe exists? I guess that is what you mean by saying that they are "pretend atheists?"

madnak

12-15-2006, 12:57 AM

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again we call them crazy and have little rational justification for doing so. Do you have anything to justify your assertion here? If I believe that an invisible pink elephant follows me wherever I go, am I called stupid or crazy? And if I'm called crazy, is that based on general consensus or on some clear standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

it depends on what you mean by "crazy"..

for instance...if you can hear and see the elephant you are probably justified in concluding that it is probably there...

to me, I would still call you crazy.. I am justified in concuding that the elephant is probably not there...

so my use of "crazy" in that case is pretty informal...

it is when both people see the same evidence, yet one places a belief in it that is not justified given the evidence that I would actually consider them crazy..

although, again..by the other person's point of view it is the other way around..

still we cannot do anything but conclude what our reason tells us..so we're both justified..from an outside perspective. without knowing the individual or the evidence..neither can be considered more likely to be correct in the outside person's mind.

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again we call them crazy and have little rational justification for doing so. Do you have anything to justify your assertion here? If I believe that an invisible pink elephant follows me wherever I go, am I called stupid or crazy? And if I'm called crazy, is that based on general consensus or on some clear standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem with generalizations like this is that you're suggesting that the actual probability of the existence of the elephant is somehow identical to anything else in the set of unknowns. this is also the basic sentiment behind the entire FSM joke which is a fine example of an unknown but it would seem pathetic if you're willing to embrace it with the same probability as other unknowns.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, I'm arguing your side. Don't rock the boat.

But the others aren't interested in responding. Are you guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

i gathered that and my response wasn't worded as good as it could have been. apologies.

i took your purposeful invent-a-ridiculous-unknown example into an isolated context and jumped on that because i've been wanting to make that general point in my reply for a while now.

hope you understand.

ray

madnak

12-15-2006, 01:47 AM

Right, but it's the idiot thing I take issue with. Not that I don't think most religions are idiotic. But this is a matter of misapplication of reason, not misapprehension. In fact, smart people are crazy much more often.

Now, believing such a thing just because somebody told you to... Well, I'm not sure what descriptor I'd use for that.

arahant

12-15-2006, 04:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, but admit that there is no experimental evidence for the claims, what do we call these people?

[/ QUOTE ]
we call them idiots, too. (except, again, the religious)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again we call them crazy and have little rational justification for doing so. Do you have anything to justify your assertion here? If I believe that an invisible pink elephant follows me wherever I go, am I called stupid or crazy? And if I'm called crazy, is that based on general consensus or on some clear standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, what "we" call people means nothing...and obviously, i was just making a point. My 'assertion' was purely a rhetorical device. If we actually want to have a side discussion about which label is best for which irrational belief...well that would be stupid.
In fairness to religious people, I think they are stupid but not crazy (not sure how that's more 'fair', but anyway...).

But since we've moved on to elephants (a relieving development), if you say "a pink elephant is following me, but there is no way you can see it" then i call you an idiot. If you claim I can test for the elephant, and I do, and the test shows no elephant, then I call you crazy.

But that's just me.

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 05:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In fairness to religious people, I think they are stupid but not crazy (not sure how that's more 'fair', but anyway...).

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness to atheists, I think they are stupid but not crazy.

See what I just did there?

I'm also wondering: do you think Isaac Newton was stupid?

When the vast majority of people who have ever lived are/were religious in some way, and when some of the greatest minds in history are/were religious, you should consider the possibility that religious people are not stupid.... Mainly because it doesn't make much sense that someone can be stupid and one of the most brilliant minds in history at the same time.

Perhaps you meant that some religious people are stupid? This is true. Some atheists are stupid as well though, so I don't see how this statement has much meaning.

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but it's the idiot thing I take issue with. Not that I don't think most religions are idiotic. But this is a matter of misapplication of reason, not misapprehension. In fact, smart people are crazy much more often.

Now, believing such a thing just because somebody told you to... Well, I'm not sure what descriptor I'd use for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

i'm trying to find a way to agree with atheists that there are a lot of definitions of god that are damaging, without somehow suggesting to them that all humans must now surrender the right and power to have healthy definitions of god.

if a human has an unhealthy definition of god then they should forsake it or modify it. becoming an atheist is an option but it's going too far to suggest that this is the only valid option.

ray

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 10:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fairness to religious people, I think they are stupid but not crazy (not sure how that's more 'fair', but anyway...).

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness to atheists, I think they are stupid but not crazy.

See what I just did there?

I'm also wondering: do you think Isaac Newton was stupid?

When the vast majority of people who have ever lived are/were religious in some way, and when some of the greatest minds in history are/were religious, you should consider the possibility that religious people are not stupid.... Mainly because it doesn't make much sense that someone can be stupid and one of the most brilliant minds in history at the same time.

Perhaps you meant that some religious people are stupid? This is true. Some atheists are stupid as well though, so I don't see how this statement has much meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

matt,

well said.

i boil it down to simple observations about pure information (known or unknown) - possibly what holy books refer to as light/dark.

if there are a group of humans that exist in a place where the set of knowns (light) is significantly small compared to the set of unknowns (dark) then it does not seem crazy to me for those humans to hope-want-pray-need-fear in response to contemplating the darkness (unknowns).

some humans deal with the darkness better than others; some have been overcome by monsters in their mind; i want us to have mercy on these people. others have been able to kill the mental monsters and use the light of reason to move forward; grats to them; some use a lot of faith to deal with the darkness; some use both faith and reason.

here's an old testament example of a simple guy trying to find his way in the dark:

"Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil." (1 Chronicles 4:9-10)

this guy wants quality of life and he reveals a little bit about what that means to him; he wants all the help he can get; and he wants to avoid a future where evil happens to him and also to avoid a future where he causes evil to others.

given the size of the set of knowns back then compared to today, this seems like a perfectly fine strategy to me. and in fact it still seems like a perfectly fine strategy today.

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 11:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When the vast majority of people who have ever lived are/were religious in some way, and when some of the greatest minds in history are/were religious, you should consider the possibility that religious people are not stupid.... Mainly because it doesn't make much sense that someone can be stupid and one of the most brilliant minds in history at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm clipping this for class today. What a wonderful example of an intertwining of three logical fallacies.

thanks, luckyme

madnak

12-15-2006, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if a human has an unhealthy definition of god then they should forsake it or modify it. becoming an atheist is an option but it's going too far to suggest that this is the only valid option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in theory but in practice I think religion tends to be highly destructive.

I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to set fire to a straw guy but is "ALL" actually the claim the we hear a lot. The common one I hear is along these lines -
Given a large random group of people, the atheists will be more educated/intelligent than the theists. How true that is can be argued until a good survey shows up. On here, we see a lot of taking that general claim and applying it to a specific.

'Americans are taller that pygmies' is not disproved by finding a short american and a tall pygmy.

luckyme

madnak

12-15-2006, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to set fire to a straw guy but is "ALL" actually the claim the we hear a lot. The common one I hear is along these lines -
Given a large random group of people, the atheists will be more educated/intelligent than the theists. How true that is can be argued until a good survey shows up. On here, we see a lot of taking that general claim and applying it to a specific.

'Americans are taller that pygmies' is not disproved by finding a short american and a tall pygmy.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but "if you're tall it means you're an American" is a bit harder to justify.

[ QUOTE ]
When people form ideas that have no basis in reality about unknowables, then claim that there is any rational basis for these ideas, we call them idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I know, this is indirect, but the implication seems clear.)

[ QUOTE ]
if he did such a thing and placed unwavering belief in it..I would certainly call him an idiot..

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
believing it in without sufficient evidence means you are an idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
believing that that idea has more validity that what the evidence suggest does make him an idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
if you say "a pink elephant is following me, but there is no way you can see it" then i call you an idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

This is no straw man on my part.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is no straw man on my part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm.... so you actually believe that the idiom "he's an idiot" means the speaker believes the person is well below 100?
Or are they using it in a more case specific idiomatic way .. Math professor cuts me off, "fkg idiot".

I may be wrong, but I take those comments to refer to the action taken even though the idiom refers to the person in general.

but, you could be right and they mean it literally and wouldn't let a christian fix their car.

luckyme

luckyme

12-15-2006, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sklansky put his 50K at risk. Very intelligent people that have strong beliefs ( admitedly rare) are doing nothing more than what happens with "the husband is the last to know" or "my son didn't kill anyone".

Amagdala Rules.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if a human has an unhealthy definition of god then they should forsake it or modify it. becoming an atheist is an option but it's going too far to suggest that this is the only valid option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in theory but in practice I think religion tends to be highly destructive.

I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

i agree with you. the list of historical religious abuses is not short. however, the act of constructing ideas about god shouldn't be indicted just because of the historical screw ups.

the better strategy is to champion the idea for more healthy definitions of god and this effort begins by attacking any and all definitions that act like a life threatening parasite (insert picture of the alien face hugger leeching itself to the victims head and throat). i'm sure that many atheists are in favor of this. where we seem to differ has to do with whether or not it's possible to construct a healthy definition of god. i certainly think it's possible.

there are other forces in history that have also caused considerable damage like politics or government in general.

ray

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 01:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm clipping this for class today. What a wonderful example of an intertwining of three logical fallacies.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luckyme,
I'm clipping THIS for class today. What a wonderful example of an intertwining of 67 logical fallacies.

Again, see what I just did there?

It would be useful if you pointed out what was wrong with:

1) Religious people are idiots.

2) Isaac Newton was religious.

3) Isaac Newton was an idiot.

Again, you should consider the possibility that the father of the scientific method was not an idiot.

Judging by your other few posts, you seem to think this argument is a straw man. Well, when I hear the term, "People who exhibit property X are idiots.", I tend to think that means, "People who exhibit property X are idiots." It the statement does not mean what the words indicate, then perhaps different words should be chosen.

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 01:48 PM

Upon further review, your whole "straw man" claim is incredibly funny.

I'm responding to the specific claim, "religious people are stupid". Because I pointed out that some religious people are clearly not stupid, and thus the statement must be wrong, you claim that I am committing a logical fallacy (well, 3 to be exact). I am creating a strawman... I still don't know what the other 2 are to be honest.

You then go on to claim it is a strawman because: "Hate to set fire to a straw guy but is "ALL" actually the claim the we hear a lot."

Well, considering I wasn't responding to the "claim we hear a lot", I was responding to the claim that I quoted, it is actually you who are creating the strawman. You are shifting my argument to a position I was not taking. Don't you find this funny, when you were the one making the claim that I was creating a strawman argument?

luckyme

12-15-2006, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It the statement does not mean what the words indicate, then perhaps different words should be chosen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Right.

Most people communicate in the idiom of the day and have little difficulty with the meaning ( see above). Deciding to read one literally and betting on that meaning would cost one a lot of bucks.

luckyme

luckyme

12-15-2006, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"People who exhibit property X are idiots.", I tend to think that means, "People who exhibit property X are idiots."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know. :-(

“Americans are tall”

If you want to contend that 1 ( or 2 or 500) short American makes the that a false statement, have at it.
I'd seriously be interested in what your class says about it. I could have been reading such comments wrong all this time.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"People who exhibit property X are idiots.", I tend to think that means, "People who exhibit property X are idiots."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know. :-(

“Americans are tall”

If you want to contend that 1 ( or 2 or 500) short American makes the that a false statement, have at it.
I'd seriously be interested in what your class says about it. I could have been reading such comments wrong all this time.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

correct me if i'm wrong but i was taught to interpret solo words as prefixed by the word "all" or "100%" unless the speaker specifically used the word "some".

it seems as if your guideline would be that the word "some" is there by default and that the speaker must specifically used the word "all" in order to refer to the 100% case.

can anybody point to the standard accepted default here?

ray

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 02:35 PM

So, since there is experimental evidence that black people, on average, have lower IQ's than white people, can I make the statement "Black people are idiots"?

If you want to contend that 1 (or 2 or 500) smart black people make that a false statement, have at it.

"Americans are tall"

Height is easy to quantitify. Intelligence is not. Unless you want to say one specific IQ test is the be-all-end-all of measuring intelligence. This would be pretty clearly incorrect though.

Additionally, saying someone is tall does not have nearly the same negative connotations as saying someone is an idiot.

Do you see the differences?

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 02:41 PM

Ray,
It depends on the context. Unfortunately some people cannot see this and like to insult the intelligence of entire groups of people while claiming that it's the same as saying someone is tall or short.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Americans are tall"

Height is easy to quantitify.

[/ QUOTE ]

But do you agree that that the phrase ( with idiomatic exception) often means "In general,..." It doesn't mean "some" although that can be true obviously.
"Americans are tall"
"Some Americans are tall"
"All Americans are tall"

Mean 3 different things to me.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ray,
It depends on the context. Unfortunately some people cannot see this and like to insult the intelligence of entire groups of people while claiming that it's the same as saying someone is tall or short.

[/ QUOTE ]

matt,

understood. so what's the best procedure going forward in order to avoid misunderstandings?

ray

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 02:49 PM

I don't think if often means "in general...", I think it sometimes means in general. It depends on the context.

When applied to height, if I see the statement "Americans are tall." I tend to think it means Americans are tall, on average, or are generally taller than other groups. If I see the statement, "Americans are freaking gigantic" I tend to think that pretty much every single American is huge.

If I see the statement "religious people tend to be less intelligent than non-religious people", I would interpret this as "on average religious people are less intelligent than non-religious people" (ignoring the difficulties with IQ testing for the moment). If I see the statement "religious people are idiots" I tend to take it as "all religious people are so stupid that it is okay to insult their intelligence".

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 02:51 PM

Ray,
I would start by not insulting the entire group by making claims like "People who exhibit property X are idiots."

Insulting someone = bad when trying to convey an idea. This is groundbreaking, I know.

Prodigy54321

12-15-2006, 02:51 PM

1) Newton did not have access to the same information, nor do we know which information he actually accessed, so calling him stupid by any reasonable standards is ridiculous.

2) If Newton lived right now and knew of and accessed the same info that I did, I would consider that Newton was stupid in the sense that on a particular subject, he came to the incorrect conclusion...

I do not know that he came to the wrong conclusion, but as far as I am concerned he did.

if he lived right now and knew of and accessed the same info that I did, he would consider that I was stupid in the sense that on a particular subject, I came to the incorrect conclusion

still there is nothing wrong with evaluating things by your own perspective, it is the only perspective we have.

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Americans are tall"

Height is easy to quantitify.

[/ QUOTE ]

But do you agree that that the phrase ( with idiomatic exception) often means "In general,..." It doesn't mean "some" although that can be true obviously.
"Americans are tall"
"Some Americans are tall"
"All Americans are tall"

Mean 3 different things to me.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

0% of americans are tall (none)
x% of americans are tall (0% < x < 100%) (some)
100% of americans are tall (all)

these are the 3 basic unambiguous mathemtical choices

so how are we supposed to interpret the statement

"americans are tall"

which of the 3 choices above should i consider it to be?

i was taught that the default was "all" unless the speaker specifically said "none" or "some"; was i taught wrong?

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ray,
It depends on the context. Unfortunately some people cannot see this and like to insult the intelligence of entire groups of people while claiming that it's the same as saying someone is tall or short.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, some are wondering why the statement "religious people are stupid" means that Newton was stupid. "Americans are aggressive" doesn't mean there are no nuns in america or pacifists.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ray,
It depends on the context. Unfortunately some people cannot see this and like to insult the intelligence of entire groups of people while claiming that it's the same as saying someone is tall or short.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, some are wondering why the statement "religious people are stupid" means that Newton was stupid. "Americans are aggressive" doesn't mean there are no nuns in america or pacifists.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

the fact is that if you make blanket statements you're going to need to use the word "some" if that's what you intend otherwise people are going to force you to explicitly admit that for no other reason than to force you to do it.

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i was taught that the default was "all" unless the speaker specifically said "none" or "some"; was i taught wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very wrong. In fact, you'll probably use it correctly yourself today. General statemnts are very common.

"The traffic is bad in NY today"
"Cheetahs are fast"
"Blonds are more fun."
"Young people are more reckless than old people"

You're claiming there's an implied 'ALL' in those... wow.
luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ray,
I would start by not insulting the entire group by making claims like "People who exhibit property X are idiots."

Insulting someone = bad when trying to convey an idea. This is groundbreaking, I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ok well said. but hold on ... i might want to reserve the right to make statements like that myself. if used with timing and accuracy they can increase my quality of life /images/graemlins/grin.gif

you're right of course. those kinds of statements should be accompanied by a giant "flame me now" sign.

ray

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 03:07 PM

It means Newton was stupid, because again:

1) Religous people are stupid.
2) Isaac Newton was religious.
3) Isaac Newton was an idiot.

If you have an issue with the change of tense, substitute Newton with Freeman Dyson (Prodigy appears to have this problem).

As to your "Americans are aggressive" analogy. Aggressiveness isn't necesarilly bad... can be in some circumstances, but not always. Making a blanket statement like this doesn't insult Americans. Thus they can and probably should give some interpretational leeway as to whether it means "in general" or "all".

When you start throwing insults at an entire group, you better be sure the context is understood and your meaning is clear. Otherwise you can expect to be flamed. And the cop-out of "but you didn't interpret how I wanted you to interpret it!" is extraordinarily weak when you were completely abiguous.

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i was taught that the default was "all" unless the speaker specifically said "none" or "some"; was i taught wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very wrong. In fact, you'll probably use it correctly yourself today. General statemnts are very common.

"The traffic is bad in NY today"
"Cheetahs are fast"
"Blonds are more fun."
"Young people are more reckless than old people"

You're claiming there's an implied 'ALL' in those... wow.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

i agree with you within the context of general conversation.

but if we were to get into strong words about one of those statements then i can force you to forsake the expectation of casual or general - in other words if we're word fighting then i dont grant you the privilege of using casual or general statements - on the contrary, i want you to be unambiguous. and if you refuse to be unambiguous then i reserve the right to prefix "all" or "some" or "none" to suit myself first and you second. if you don't want me to do that during a word fight then don't use ambiguous statements.

ray

luckyme

12-15-2006, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As to your "Americans are aggressive" analogy. Aggressiveness isn't necesarilly bad... can be in some circumstances, but not always.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does good/bad have to do with it. Either general group statements have an implied "all" in front of them or they don't.

"Americans are wonderful"
"Americans are jerks"

All or no all? Why should it mean "all" when it's insulting? cheeesh.

luckyme

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 03:16 PM

So, your position is that the statement:

"Black people are idiots."

Has nothing wrong with it?

luckyme

12-15-2006, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i want you to be unambiguous. and if you refuse to be unambiguous then i reserve the right to prefix "all" or "some" or "none" to suit myself first and you second.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you find that works for you in your exchanges with people? interesting.
I find I have to do the opposite and query them on their meaning if I have trouble making sense of it the way I initially grasp it.

luckyme

luckyme

12-15-2006, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, your position is that the statement:

"Black people are idiots."

Has nothing wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is only... do we take the statement to mean -
1 - All black people are idiots.
2 - In general, black people are idiots ( as a group they are stupider than the comparison group).
3 - Some black people are idiots.

Oh, you mean is there something PC wrong about it, what does that have to do with it's meaning?
You're insisting on #1. I'm claiming generic statements are #2.
If you stated "Black people are idiots", I would not take you to mean that Bill Cosby is an idiot or, more importantly, that you believe that.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-15-2006, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i want you to be unambiguous. and if you refuse to be unambiguous then i reserve the right to prefix "all" or "some" or "none" to suit myself first and you second.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you find that works for you in your exchanges with people? interesting.
I find I have to do the opposite and query them on their meaning if I have trouble making sense of it the way I initially grasp it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

i dont grant you as much casual freedom in word fights.

and yes, the major portion of my day is in the context of casual polite conversation.

and no, if i presented a word fight posture in all of my conversations that would not be a good strategy.

so ... when you make a statement like

"religious people are idiots"

you need to consider the possibility that you might be picking a word fight with somebody (i.e. flame on) and if that's the case then you can expect your opponents to force you down from an implied "all" prefix. in other words you can expect them to force you to say

"some religious people are not idiots"
"not all religious people are idiots"
"some religious people are idiots"

and you simply do not have a choice if you want to maintain your side of the word fight.

ray

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 03:43 PM

luckyme,
So if I make the statement, "atheists are miserable people" rather than "on average, atheists are less happy than theists". It is your opinion that there is nothing wrong with this statement.

Also, if I make the statement "black people are idiots" rather than "black people on average score less than white people on some specific IQ test", it is your position that there is nothing wrong with this statement either.

I find it hard to believe that if I made the statement "atheists are miserable people", that you think the counter-claim "hey, I'm an atheist and I'm not miserable, therefore your statement is false" is not valid.

If you think both of my above statements are "okay", either semantically or PC-wise, I think it sums up your worldview quite nicely.

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 03:46 PM

Also, I am wondering why can't you acknowledge that some exchanges between people require much greater precision than others? It is clear, at least to me, that when you start using derogatory terms that this is one occasion where more precision is necessary.

Otherwise, you come to an absurdity like the claim "black people are idiots" is a true statement.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
a statement like

"religious people are idiots"

you need to consider the possibility that you might be picking a word fight with somebody (i.e. flame on) and if that's the case then you can expect your opponents to force you down from an implied "all" prefix. in other words you can expect them to force you to say

"some religious people are not idiots"
"not all religious people are idiots"
"some religious people are idiots"

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're that dorky that they don't know that all three of those statements are possible ( and even likely in most usages) in an unqualified general statement, I don't worry too much about serious conversations with them. If that phrasing is a problem for them, imagine what the rest of the discussion would go like.
I'd have to explain, "Yeah, Right" means I disagree, and "have a good day" can mean "up yours", etc.

luckyme

luckyme

12-15-2006, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I am wondering why can't you acknowledge that some exchanges between people require much greater precision than others? It is clear, at least to me, that when you start using derogatory terms that this is one occasion where more precision is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether something 'should' be made clearer for PC reasons has nothing to do with what it means.
Saying "Americans are aggressive jerks" doesn't change in meaning when I say it to a Taliban or to a Texan. Just because the Texan may punch me in the nose and the Taliban will kiss my hand.

Why you are twisting a discussion of the meaning of a phrase to it's emotional content or it's political correctness .. ( well, I think I understand why, but it's not relevant).

luckyme

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 04:00 PM

I would just like to solidify this one last time in my (and your) mind.

You think that the following statements are true:

1) Religious people are idiots.

2) Black people are idiots.

3) Atheists are miserable people.

Correct?

kurto

12-15-2006, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to solidify this one last time in my (and your) mind.

You think that the following statements are true:

1) Religious people are idiots.

2) Black people are idiots.

3) Atheists are miserable people.

Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

To mirror the subject line... Anyone else think all this discussion of generalities is ridiculous?

luckyme

12-15-2006, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that if I made the statement "atheists are miserable people", that you think the counter-claim "hey, I'm an atheist and I'm not miserable, therefore your statement is false" is not valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if YOU said it or Ray said it, and I'm now aware you guys see an implied 'All' in front of general statements then I'd disagree with it, but only by your stated usage of general terms.
If I read it in an editorial, I'd give the editor credit for meaning "in general" and agree or disagree with him on that basis.

If the group I hang with says, " young people cause more problems in the downtown core than business people" not one of them would take that to mean "All young people".

Now, if a young person heard that and protested, "are you saying I'M a problem downtown" then I shrug it off as an error of youth and take the time to explain general statements. Not because of this specific incident but because it'll help him in other areas of discussion.

luckyme

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 04:10 PM

kurto,
Yep, definitely. I think it is completely ridiculous to generalize religious people as stupid. I also think it is completely ridiculous to generalize black people as stupid.

luckyme disagrees unfortunately, and I'm trying to show him why it is wrong to generalize over very large groups of people when the comments are derogatory.

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 04:12 PM

luckyme,
Stop squirming.

Please just answer the following question.

You think that the following statements are true:

1) Religious people are idiots.

2) Black people are idiots.

3) Atheists are miserable people.

Correct?

It requires a simple yes or no answer. It shouldn't take much thought.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to solidify this one last time in my (and your) mind.

You think that the following statements are true:

1) Religious people are idiots.

2) Black people are idiots.

3) Atheists are miserable people.

Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been fun.
To translate into your idiom -
1) In general, religious people are more likely to be less intelligent and/or less knowledgable than non-religous people. Just as 'americans are taller than pigmies'. But lots of exceptions, both ways. Truer at the higher levels than the lower.

2. I think race is mainly an arbitrary blurry grouping and very little can be said of it in general terms. I'm not aware of any intelligence inference, even so.

3. In general, "miserable" isn't something that seems the norm with them anymore than other large groupings. That means finding out somebody is an atheist won't sway my expectation of 'misery' one way or the other. ( similar with black people and intelligence).

thanks Matt, learned some things from this exchange that will be helpful 'on the street'.

luckyme

luckyme

12-15-2006, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To mirror the subject line... Anyone else think all this discussion of generalities is ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm being a bit selfish with it. Probing Matt and Ray on these usages happens to be very valuable in my day-to-day role. I didn't expect it to be that useful/interesting to the general SMP group.

( for the most part, my role doesn't have me interacting head-on with the Matt's and Rays of the world very often, but it does arise).

luckyme

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 04:36 PM

I see.

So it is your position that when the connotation of a word is something YOU don't like, you must clarify its meaning. You must be more precise when it has a "bad" meaning and it is ascribed to a group you don't want it ascribed to.

If this is not your position, why did you have to clarify the meaning of every single statement that I made?

Why didn't you just say "yes"?

Do you realize you just agreed with me?

luckyme

12-15-2006, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see.

So it is your position that when the connotation of a word is something YOU don't like, you must clarify its meaning. You must be more precise when it has a "bad" meaning and it is ascribed to a group you don't want it ascribed to.

If this is not your position, why did you have to clarify the meaning of every single statement that I made?

Why didn't you just say "yes"?

Do you realize you just agreed with me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with your what?
We know you and I use different meanings for general statements, so we don't agree even if we use the same phrase.
"Americans are aggressive" means something different to the europeans I know than it does to you. They mean it as I do, you read it as "All americans are aggressive".

I disagreed specifically with all 3 of your claims as you've described what they actually mean to you ( and 2 seems imaginary to me, and 3 has no evidence I'm aware of).. but if that means to you that I agree with your beliefs about them then that's why I say..

When I'm in front of 30 people tonight, I'll use a general statement and have no fear of it being taken your way. I'll be able to say "austraiians are laid back" and not one person will yell out. ... "hold it, I know an uptight auzzie".

That's one reason this has been helpful for me, there are others.

thanks again, appreciate the time, luckyme

Matt R.

12-15-2006, 04:55 PM

luckyme,
I don't know how much more clear it can be.

If you simply answered "yes" to my question, it would have been clear that you thought my statements were true and required no further clarification or precision.

My position is that ALL of those statements, the generalities, were not true as written. Because they were derogatory in nature, they required greater precision to simply be called "true" or "correct".

What you did, was clarify each statement to a greater level of precision before saying "yes, they are true".

You made my point for me. Thank you.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you simply answered "yes" to my question, it would have been clear that you thought my statements were true and required no further clarification or precision.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm... I don't think 2 of your statements are true, unclarified or imprecise, in either how you use general statement or how I use general statements.

If, for some reason I can't fathom, it helps you to consider I agree with your beliefs in 2 and 3, have at it, nothing I can do about it.

Your 'general means all' is simply not something I get exposed to, or rarely, but that's a result of the people I spend time with and it's good to be reminded that there are other dialects out there.

useful exchange for me, thanks, luckyme

madnak

12-15-2006, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmm.... so you actually believe that the idiom "he's an idiot" means the speaker believes the person is well below 100? Or are they using it in a more case specific idiomatic way .. Math professor cuts me off, "fkg idiot".

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it depends on context, and that this is getting off the subject. I certainly don't think these statements resemble the car statement.

[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong, but I take those comments to refer to the action taken even though the idiom refers to the person in general.

but, you could be right and they mean it literally and wouldn't let a christian fix their car.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Idiot" is clearly a relative term in this case, but the statements in my earlier post leave little doubt, as far as I can tell, that the belief being presented here is that if a person believes a certainly thing, then that person is mentally deficient. Not necessarily in general, but certainly "lacking in the brain department" in some capacity. The statements go much further than "he made a dumb mistake, we all do it," or "religious people are dumb." It's, "any person who believes such-and-such must be dumb." And even more, "this person is dumb because he believs such-and-such." Rather extreme statements.

I'm feeling that this whole semantic hair-splitting issue is a bit disingenuous. As far as I can tell, it was made very clear. This wasn't so much a logical debate in the first place, so dissecting it seems to be of limited value. Certainly it's a convenient out in more ways than one.

The point is that the God dilemma is not obvious, and discussions on the subject aren't deluded or idiotic. In fact, discussion of subjects like God is a common quality among the very smart - the very stupid are indeed more likely to believe in God, but they're much less likely to discuss or really think about the subject. Recently, perhaps in response to Ray, a wave of the atheists on this board have decided to use their beliefs to stifle creativity and intellect, in many of the same ways that the theists do. This concerns me and makes me think twice about the "atheism is a religion" garbage. Atheism isn't a religion because it celebrates thought, because it encourages intellectual exploration.

madnak

12-15-2006, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if a human has an unhealthy definition of god then they should forsake it or modify it. becoming an atheist is an option but it's going too far to suggest that this is the only valid option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in theory but in practice I think religion tends to be highly destructive.

I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

i agree with you. the list of historical religious abuses is not short. however, the act of constructing ideas about god shouldn't be indicted just because of the historical screw ups.

the better strategy is to champion the idea for more healthy definitions of god and this effort begins by attacking any and all definitions that act like a life threatening parasite (insert picture of the alien face hugger leeching itself to the victims head and throat). i'm sure that many atheists are in favor of this. where we seem to differ has to do with whether or not it's possible to construct a healthy definition of god. i certainly think it's possible.

there are other forces in history that have also caused considerable damage like politics or government in general.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the ideas I'm opposed to. I believe in free interchange of ideas, and I believe it very strongly. It's concerning to me that many of the atheists are suddenly advocating the restriction of ideas.

What I am opposed to is actions that may result from these ideas, and more importantly, social structures ostensibly associated with the ideas but actually dedicated to stifling them.

luckyme

12-15-2006, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism isn't a religion because it celebrates thought, because it encourages intellectual exploration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism does nothing that I'm aware of. It's a philosophical position reached by various people in various ways. Saying "Hortense is an atheist" tells you nothing about how he arrived at it.

Hortense saying "I don't believe there is a god" does not move him into some intellectual discussion circle. On this forum we have an overdose of intellectually derived atheism, that's not the norm on the street. Much simpler, thank god.

luckyme

madnak

12-15-2006, 11:20 PM

Right, atheism can be many things. But not a religion, so long as people hold a basic respect for the imagination.

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if a human has an unhealthy definition of god then they should forsake it or modify it. becoming an atheist is an option but it's going too far to suggest that this is the only valid option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in theory but in practice I think religion tends to be highly destructive.

I certainly don't think all religious people are idiots, personally I think that claim is vapid. I suppose I'll have to "agree to disagree" with the other atheists on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

i agree with you. the list of historical religious abuses is not short. however, the act of constructing ideas about god shouldn't be indicted just because of the historical screw ups.

the better strategy is to champion the idea for more healthy definitions of god and this effort begins by attacking any and all definitions that act like a life threatening parasite (insert picture of the alien face hugger leeching itself to the victims head and throat). i'm sure that many atheists are in favor of this. where we seem to differ has to do with whether or not it's possible to construct a healthy definition of god. i certainly think it's possible.

there are other forces in history that have also caused considerable damage like politics or government in general.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the ideas I'm opposed to. I believe in free interchange of ideas, and I believe it very strongly. It's concerning to me that many of the atheists are suddenly advocating the restriction of ideas.

What I am opposed to is actions that may result from these ideas, and more importantly, social structures ostensibly associated with the ideas but actually dedicated to stifling them.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

in all fairness to the atheists, it must be said that some people have a much "fairer" quality when it comes to constructing ideas theories about the set of unknowns.

a genuine scientist will climb down from an idea if it's proven false or innacurate (that experience might not be pleasant nevertheless a good scientist will always do that).

in contrast, there is a long record of an entire class of theoricists that have a very difficult time climbing down from ideas when those ideas are proven to be wrong or innacurate - i call this class the "beliefism" class.

so i'm not sure that all atheists are meaning to resist imagination or ideas; i think they just want something rational - they want all humans to possess the quality of being able to climb down from innacurate ideas.

so i think when they hear somebody discuss a theory about unknowns they immediately want to know if that person is a scientist (i.e. able to self correct) or a believer (i.e. unable to modify beliefs)

btw i want the same thing.

ray

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism isn't a religion because it celebrates thought, because it encourages intellectual exploration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism does nothing that I'm aware of. It's a philosophical position reached by various people in various ways. Saying "Hortense is an atheist" tells you nothing about how he arrived at it.

Hortense saying "I don't believe there is a god" does not move him into some intellectual discussion circle. On this forum we have an overdose of intellectually derived atheism, that's not the norm on the street. Much simpler, thank god.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

in the technically correct sense, atheism is the rejection of theism which has to do with an entire class of definitions of god most commonly associated with the abrahamic faiths.

i am very atheistic toward some of the theistic definitions but i dont call my self an atheist because the word is too often confused with what i now call "agodism" which is the rejection of all possible definitions of god.

the phrase commonly used to suggest "agodism" is "pure atheism" or "true atheism"

the lab test for this is described in the godism thread entitled "do you want god to exist?"

an agodist is willing to say that they are against all possible definitions of god.

some atheists are godists; some atheists are agodists.

you cant know unless you ask them.

ray

luckyme

12-16-2006, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

in the technically correct sense, atheism is the rejection of theism which has to do with an entire class of definitions of god most commonly associated with the abrahamic faiths.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are atheists who think theism is good for the common people, so it's a muddy way of referring to atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in the existance of god(s). Period. Nothing else.
It has nothing to do with the reasons for that lack of belief. It has nothing to do with the moral stance of the person. It has nothing to do with the political views of the person. It has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the person. It doesn't refer to monotheism or Thoristic god(s). etc.

Anything you add besides 'Atheists don't believe there is a god(s)'' is just your own invention.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

in the technically correct sense, atheism is the rejection of theism which has to do with an entire class of definitions of god most commonly associated with the abrahamic faiths.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are atheists who think theism is good for the common people, so it's a muddy way of referring to atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in the existance of god(s). Period. Nothing else.
It has nothing to do with the reasons for that lack of belief. It has nothing to do with the moral stance of the person. It has nothing to do with the political views of the person. It has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the person. It doesn't refer to monotheism or Thoristic god(s). etc.

Anything you add besides 'Atheists don't believe there is a god(s)'' is just your own invention.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

your position is fine according to the dictionary and so i dont fault you for that.

i'm probably complaining that the dictionary doesn't describe atheism in a manner suggested by the construction of the word itself.

the dictionary should not use the word belief - it should simply say that atheism is the rejection of theism. quite literally it means "against theism" or "anti-theism" and then point to the word "theism" for continued reference to see what is being rejected.

if the definition of theism were to ever change then the definition of "against theism" is technically changed as well.

ray

luckyme

12-16-2006, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the dictionary should not use the word belief - it should simply say that atheism is the rejection of theism. quite literally it means "against theism" or "anti-theism"

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are confusing the prefix 'a-' with the prefix 'anti-'. If you are a-logical, it doesn't mean you're against logic. If you are a-typical it doesn't mean you are against typical.
'a-' means - not having the property of -X.

You sure have a need for inventing words and/or personalizing the meanings of the ones others use. I'd have it checked out :-)

luckyme

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the dictionary should not use the word belief - it should simply say that atheism is the rejection of theism. quite literally it means "against theism" or "anti-theism"

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are confusing the prefix 'a-' with the prefix 'anti-'. If you are a-logical, it doesn't mean you're against logic. If you are a-typical it doesn't mean you are against typical.
'a-' means - not having the property of -X.

You sure have a need for inventing words and/or personalizing the meanings of the ones others use. I'd have it checked out :-)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

fine.

if atheism is used as "not a theist" then that seems like a correct usage. but look at the dictionary entry and see that it goes beyond the expression of "not a theist"

to me the phrase "not a theist" would not encompass the set of all possible definitions of god because theism does not address the set of all possible definitions of god. theism addresses a subset of all possible definitions of god.

draw a venn diagram if you need to.

by definition godism addresses the set of all possible definitions of god

g.o.d. (god of definition(s))
d.o.g. (definition(s) of god)

a godist favors at least 1 definition
an agodist is "not a godist"

ray

madnak

12-16-2006, 02:18 PM

The way they're going about it is to attack creativity and curiosity and, dare I say it, intelligence itself.

luckyme

12-16-2006, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
by definition godism addresses the set of all possible definitions of god

[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis Carroll summed it up thus -

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

A word whose definition is 'anything you want' means nothing.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by definition godism addresses the set of all possible definitions of god

[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis Carroll summed it up thus -

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

A word whose definition is 'anything you want' means nothing.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

you're indicting the concept simply because it's possible to create a definition that might have questionable value.

the concept stands nonetheless. it's up to you to decide which, if any, definitions have any value. if you don't think it's possible that any definition could have value to you then just say this outloud: "i am an agodist" and be done with it. i won't judge you unless of course you want to abuse any that would claim to be godists.

theism addresses a limited subset of definitions; it's very important to point to this fact; it's also important to identify the concept of the set of all possible definitions of god such that it can be referred to in philosophical discussions.

ray

luckyme

12-16-2006, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
THE concept stands nonetheless, it's up to you to decide which, if any, definitions have any value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm a godist, as is every human who ever lived.
Now, go next door and tell your neighbours "luckyme is a vegetarian, republican, asian and godist". then ask them what they know about me.

THE word has no meaning if it has all meanings, there is no THE concept that you typing out.

luckyme

RayBornert

12-16-2006, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THE concept stands nonetheless, it's up to you to decide which, if any, definitions have any value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm a godist, as is every human who ever lived.
Now, go next door and tell your neighbours "luckyme is a vegetarian, republican, asian and godist". then ask them what they know about me.

THE word has no meaning if it has all meanings, there is no THE concept that you typing out.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

luck,

care to elaborate on your assertion here:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a godist, as is every human who ever lived.

[/ QUOTE ]

haven't you seen the poll results in the godism thread?

it suggests there is about 1 agodist for every 5 godists on this forum.

are you saying the agodists didn't answer the poll correctly?

ray

vhawk01

12-16-2006, 05:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would just like to solidify this one last time in my (and your) mind.

You think that the following statements are true:

1) Religious people are idiots.

2) Black people are idiots.

3) Atheists are miserable people.

Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can disagree with some and agree with others right? Even 'in general' black people aren't idiots. Are you telling me that the majority of black people have <80 IQs? Like, 80% of black people are below average intelligence?

Or is this an intentionally bad analogous statement in order to take the emotional high-ground, since no one would ever say that the majority of black people are stupid. I think what you would say if you weren't simply trying to win an argument in a cheap fashion is:

Black people are less intelligent than white people.

at which point we have to decide whether to grant your premise that IQ score = intelligence, but at least it is now analogous to lucky's claim.