Let's sum it up
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
In that sense, 'god' is now loosely and multiply defined as the Christian god, Alloah, some other divine being as in the Masonic sense or now some arbitrary assignment to the "power" that initiated the universe.
Yep. It's the Deists vs. the Theists.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Rather than labelling it the work of some 'god', I admit there is no current understanding of why anything is here and refuse to invoke mystical beings in order to put some kind of naive closure on the question.
Which makes you agnostic and that's fine, but Spinoza, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and I take issue with the use of the word, "naive." ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
In that sense, given their history and predilection for censorship, religion may seek to prevent the ultimate answer to the question of 'why'.
Absolutely. Religion, regardless of why each is founded or how noble-sounding its goals, ends up being an employment agency for its Priests. Anything which threatens the livlihood of the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury or Imam Mugwump will be stamped out with all the force the religion can muster. (Similarly, I have noticed that our government seems to prosecute tax evasion with far more vigor than they do murder.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Which makes you agnostic and that's fine, but Spinoza, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and I take issue with the use of the word, "naive."
I'm not sure I'd classify myself as agnostic - I reject the concept of god completely. You are correct to have seized upon the one problem I have - that I cannot prove it. But as I mentioned, I don't feel that it is my responsibility to either prove or disprove god. In that sense, I am not agnostic.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Just a parallel thought... but since you work in finance, you know about the black swan theory, right?
I know well the theory of black swan events. I also know Nassim Taleb - we shared the same doctoral supervisor.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Until 1697, centuries' worth of evidence from Eurasia and the Americas led people to conclude there were no black swans. Indeed, any reasonable European (and equally, an Asians or an American) then would have said that there was absence of evidence in favour of the existence of black swans.
I understand where you are trying to go with this Vikram, but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact on European (and other) society during the Middle Ages. Now, if that impact (which remains today in the courts of law and political policy) were based on something that is completely false...well, the implications are quite severe.
73Zeppelin wrote:
but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact
Sorry, Zep, you're going down the wrong path. You said the lack of evidence led you to "reject religion outright" and I merely provided a parallel, that of 14th century Europeans rejecting "the existence of black swans". We're not discussing the effects of discoveries of black swans or superbeings. I agree Christianity has been a major force in shaping the world - but that is not the point of discussion.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Just a parallel thought... but since you work in finance, you know about the black swan theory, right?
I know well the theory of black swan events. I also know Nassim Taleb - we shared the same doctoral supervisor.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Until 1697, centuries' worth of evidence from Eurasia and the Americas led people to conclude there were no black swans. Indeed, any reasonable European (and equally, an Asians or an American) then would have said that there was absence of evidence in favour of the existence of black swans.
I understand where you are trying to go with this Vikram, but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact on European (and other) society during the Middle Ages. Now, if that impact (which remains today in the courts of law and political policy) were based on something that is completely false...well, the implications are quite severe.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I also know Nassim Taleb
I forgot to say Very Cool. Taleb's book is on my wishlist. :-O
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I also know Nassim Taleb
I forgot to say Very Cool. Taleb's book is on my wishlist. :-O
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I forgot to say Very Cool. Taleb's book is on my wishlist.
It's only natural that I know him, he was supervised by the same person as I was, so how to put this...Taleb has a problem with academia and academics. If you want to see what I mean, search for him on YouTube. Now the disclaimer. That is not to say I either like him or dislike him, agree with him or disagree with him. Simply put: he has great contempt for academics/academia. Whether that's good or bad, I'll leave for you to judge.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
but there is an important difference - black swans had very little social impact on European society. In contrast, Christianity had a huge impact
Sorry, Zep, you're going down the wrong path. You said the lack of evidence led you to "reject religion outright" and I merely provided a parallel, that of 14th century Europeans rejecting "the existence of black swans". We're not discussing the effects of discoveries of black swans or superbeings. I agree Christianity has been a major force in shaping the world - but that is not the point of discussion.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Sorry, Zep, you're going down the wrong path. You said the lack of evidence led you to "reject religion outright" and I merely provided a parallel, that of 14th century Europeans rejecting "the existence of black swans". We're not discussing the effects of discoveries of black swans or superbeings. I agree Christianity has been a major force in shaping the world - but that is not the point of discussion.
Fair enough - point taken.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which makes you agnostic and that's fine, but Spinoza, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and I take issue with the use of the word, "naive."
I'm not sure I'd classify myself as agnostic - I reject the concept of god completely. You are correct to have seized upon the one problem I have - that I cannot prove it. But as I mentioned, I don't feel that it is my responsibility to either prove or disprove god. In that sense, I am not agnostic.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I forgot to say Very Cool. Taleb's book is on my wishlist.
It's only natural that I know him, he was supervised by the same person as I was, so how to put this...Taleb has a problem with academia and academics. If you want to see what I mean, search for him on YouTube. Now the disclaimer. That is not to say I either like him or dislike him, agree with him or disagree with him. Simply put: he has great contempt for academics/academia. Whether that's good or bad, I'll leave for you to judge.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Atheists at least have consistency on their side. Ask them the same questions and the answer you get is: "[insert superstition here] does not exist."
That's not consistency, that's an arrogant belief unsupported by conclusive evidence, which makes Atheists just as much "true believers" as any religious fundie. The other side of the same coin.
Rob Graham wrote:
That's not consistency, that's an arrogant belief unsupported by conclusive evidence
Fascinating. You got a whole bunch of bronze 1 votes. Almost as if someone registered three times just to vote you down. Anyway I balanced, not because you would think it was a big deal, but because he -- or they -- obviously think it is.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
An atheist is a believer. An agnostic is not.
Nonsense; an 'agnostic' is a believer, also. What an 'agnostic' is logically committed to believing is that "nothing at all (about anything at all) may be known!" Now, of course, no one can actually function like that. So, as a practical matter, 'agnostics' *behave* as though they were 'atheists.'
Ilíon wrote:
What an 'agnostic' is logically committed to believing is that "nothing at all (about anything at all) may be known!"
Nonsense indeed. I know, for instance that: 1. You are committed to the idea that other people should fight and die for your country, while you stay home and cheer. 2. Those exceptions you make when saying that abortion is evil make you a pro-lifer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
scpierre wrote:
Or are you using some strange definition of the word atheist that I'm not familiar with?
Atheist means not a theist. Since you never defined what you mean by theist how the hell should anyone know what you mean when you use the word?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
dictionary.com is free.
-
dictionary.com is free.
scpierre wrote:
dictionary.com is free.
Then perhaps you should have used it before interupting the adults.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface