Elton John: ban organised religion

[lord of the mark]

when people say "i dont beleive in Conservative Judaism"

it generally means - "your services are too long" "your dues are too high" "I keep getting lost looking for the dairy section of the kitchen" "aramaic is boring" and "if i hear someone quote Abraham Joshua Heschel again, Im gonna die!"

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Sigh, another discussion of whether "atheism" is a "faith"? I fail to see what is interesting, or useful, in that. (which btw, is not the argument that everyone lives for something, and that is their "god" - which also got sidetracked into aspergerian hyperfocus on the dictionary definition of "god" and missed the point of the metaphor)

Yeah, well, I'm vulnerable to that particular troll. It's a weakness of mine.

The everyone lives for something thing is a bit more interesting... at times I do wonder "to what point and purpose, sir?" (about my life). I am not sure, actually, that I require a purpose. I don't really have one (at least nothing clearly defined), and seem to be getting along alright.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

If there is entirely new physics, that allows for invisibility and teleportation of Bigfoot, then yeah, as I said, you would be a stupid pseudo-intellectual for saying that there was scientific evidence against an invisible teleporting Bigfoot (where the invisibility and teleportation arise from physics which does not exist in anything else observed).

Why the collararies? It's as if you can barely bring yourself to admit the possibility of invisible teleporting Bigfoot. Of course, invisible teleporting Bigfoot exists outside of physics.

[Jon Miller]

You are the one who started out being picky..

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What is the simpler explanation is not neccesarily reality. 100 years ago, Quarks weren't part of any explanation, now they are and are likely reality. As such, what you suggest science does is not what science does.

Huh? I never said that science never expands knowledge.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Science does not say that more complicated explanations, or what have you, don't exist. Now it is true that Occam's Razor is sometimes used between explanations which all have equal evidence. But using Occam's Razor on something does not make it scientific. This is a fallacy that I see atheists repeating time and time again.

It's a critical part of science. I could reformulate F=ma so that "The acceleration vector is equal to twice the force vector times the mass when west of Tuscon Arizona and half when east and an invisable helper monkey provides an opposite force equal to one half the force applied (which is not compensated by an additional helper monkey) when west and a parrelel force equal to a quarter the applied force when east (which is also not compensated by an additional helper monkey)". What is different between the two ideas? They produce the same experimental results! The only difference is parsimony. Parsimony is a very important part of scientific reasoning.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Yeah, well, I'm vulnerable to that particular troll. It's a weakness of mine.

The everyone lives for something thing is a bit more interesting... at times I do wonder "to what point and purpose, sir?" (about my life). I am not sure, actually, that I require a purpose. I don't really have one (at least nothing clearly defined), and seem to be getting along alright.

-Arrian

hunting for the quote, I at least got some info on this guy, whose affirmation of that arguement is quoted in the Conservative high holiday prayerbook.

Interesting bio.

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

[Arrian]

What quote? To what point and purpose was me paraphrasing Pirates of the Carribean (Captain Jack Sparrow).

Gotta run. Perhaps later...

-Arrian

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman


Am I a stupid pseudo-intellectual for not believing in invisible teleporting Bigfoot? Or should I keep an open mind?

you should not claim that science informs your opinion on it's existance. Of course I'm assuming you are postulating an utterly undetectable teleporting bigfoot.

[Aeson]

A few points.

Agnosticism (weak) is not limited to 50:50 certainty. The only prequalification for agnosticism (weak) is the absence of belief for or against God. Whatever ratio of uncertainty that the individual feels disqualifies believing in or against the possibilities fits.

Agnosticism (hard) is the denial of the possibility to prove or disprove God's existance. It's actually not mutually exclusive with any other stance, since you can still believe one way or another.

Atheists (hard) denies the existance of God. Not only a specific God, but all possible Gods. (I think in regards to a creator being.) There are plenty of examples out there of atheists (hard) denying the existance of God(s) and offering their proofs against them.

Atheism (weak) refers to those who do not believe in a God. Because of it's wide definition, it encompasses agnosticism (weak and hard) as well as those who just haven't thought of it at all (a child with no concept of God), and even atheism (hard). It is generally just a confusing mess to try to label yourself this way. It's like if someone asks you what political party you support, and you say "I'm an American". It needs further qualification to be of any real use.

The people who have decided upon the definitions of these terms are obviously fundies, as they use "weak" for the moderate standpoints.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
The people who have decided upon the definitions of these terms are obviously fundies, as they use "weak" for the moderate standpoints.

In all seriousness (I'm not sure you're joking) it follows from how mathematical statements are categorized. Hard atheism is a stronger assertion than weak atheism.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Perfection
And obviously you did? What did the guy actually say?

and

Originally posted by Perfection
Why should I respect a belief that says that I am the devil?

Are we really to believe that a theist said you were the devil?

[Dr Strangelove]

Funny thing. Didn't atheist Red China legislate a number of restrictions on homosexuals this year? I wonder what little Sir John has to say about that? How long will the truce in the civil wars in the Congo and in Rwanda hold? What do they have to do with religion? What did Korea, Vietnam, WW2 or WW1 have to do with religion? Maybe the problem is organized humans. We should ban all human organisation.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
Huh? I never said that science never expands knowledge.


It's a critical part of science. I could reformulate F=ma so that "The acceleration vector is equal to twice the force vector times the mass when west of Tuscon Arizona and half when east and an invisable helper monkey provides an opposite force equal to one half the force applied (which is not compensated by an additional helper monkey) when west and a parrelel force equal to a quarter the applied force when east (which is also not compensated by an additional helper monkey)". What is different between the two ideas? They produce the same experimental results! The only difference is parsimony. Parsimony is a very important part of scientific reasoning.

How is this at all relevant?

Err, you are really not understanding. I recommend you read some books about the history of science and basic logic, maybe I will discuss things with you again sometime.

Jon Miller

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In all seriousness (I'm not sure you're joking) it follows from how mathematical statements are categorized. Hard atheism is a stronger assertion than weak atheism.

I can see where your confusion comes from... "" does tend to imply a very serious context...

[Jon Miller]

One more try. I agree that Occam's Razor is an important tool that is sometimes used to add insight as part of the reasoning used in the scientific process. However, it is not always right, it is not always used, and it is not a substitute for experimentation and observation.

If you don't beleive me, read some history of science books. Pay careful attention to the processes used. Note when Occam's Razor gave insight.. and also the times it led people down the wrong path and kept insight from developing for some time.

Jon Miller