Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2006 > OT: Agnoticism (WAS: Making money from Java)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: Agnoticism (WAS: Making money from Java)
|
|
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rsZpf.39476$2k.25236@pd7tw1no...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> Fine in the above, and I can understand your reaction. How I view the
> topic; there are essentially three groups Believers (in ANY religion),
> Agnostics and Atheists. As Judson has commented with which I agree, if
> there is NO God then we are all eventually just dust - no harm done,
> except us suckers that did believe were spending a lot of time believing
> in something that didn't exist. However if a particular God DOES exist
> ......?
There's also the possibility (perhaps minute), that there exists a God,
but that God only likes agnostic people, and anyone who is either a believer
or an atheist will be sent to hell for all eternity. Or maybe there exists a
God who only likes people who post on comp.lang.cobol. Or maybe He only
likes people who are born on even days, and anyone born on an odd-numbered
day will burn in hell for all eternity. Or maybe he just chooses randomly,
and who you are or what you do really has no effect on whether He'll send
you to heaven or hell.
That's the "problem" with a lot of religions. They seem to
(arbitrarily?) assume that He might be loving or kind or good. As far as I
can tell, there really is no evidence to lead us to believe that might be
true.
>
> To an extent I see agnosticism as a half-way house where you hedge your
> bets, so that hopefully nobody is able to apply the label to you, "damned
> if you do, and damned if you don't". Agnosticism is a religious insurance
> policy to protect your arse ! I think you (Oliver), owe it to yourself to
> be honest to yourself. You can sit on the fence for your remaining days on
> earth, quite a few more decades than I will be around, and still check-out
> as an agnostic. No harm done and you didn't have to make any decisions.
(Let's ignore for this discussion the question of free will)
I am not agnostic because I am unwilling to make a decision; rather, I
have actively "decided" that I am agnostic. When someone says they are sure
that God exists, I may be interested in hearing why, 'cause if God really
does exists, I'd like to know that too. But more often than not (i.e. every
time), it'll turn out that choosing to believe in God was really arbitrary,
and there was no rational, logical evidence for making that choice (in my
opinion, anyway). Similarly, if someone says that they are sure that God
doesn't exist, I will want to know why the yare so sure. But I find that
their explanations too are not always logically sound.
The only thing we can say about God, I think, is that we know pretty
much nothing about Him. And that is a very agnostic viewpoint.
[story of Joan of Arc snipped]
>
> So Oliver, be true to thyself. Don't sit on the fence, research ALL
> religious groups. You may come to the decision that it makes sense you
> should be an atheist. However, the alternative is you may find something
> in ANY religion which gives your soul the comfort you may yearn for. Go
> for it.
There are so many religious groups though! Researching ALL of them is
pretty much infeasible. I figure if an omnipotent being wants me to believe
in a certain religion, he'll find a way to make it happen. Until then, I've
got plenty of other things to keep me occupied.
>
> The God I believe in and my own particular brand of religion has been
> consistent in this thought; if you accept ANY religion my God will accept
> you; if you stay an agnostic, I can't know His mind, but he will be
> somewhat disapproving although you will still be acceptable; if you are an
> atheist, and providing you stance is not based on intellectual arrogance,
> again He will accept you. Now go look at the following Section X dealing
> with types of Baptism - you have the intellect to understand what is being
> stated :-
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
I took a quick glance at it when you posted it earlier, elsewhere in
this thread, and I was a bit  about how it says there are 3 types of
baptism, and then describes only two of them. I'll try to take a closer look
at it later tonight.
- Oliver
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:rsZpf.39476$2k.25236@pd7tw1no...
> Similarly, if someone says that they are sure that God
> doesn't exist, I will want to know why the yare so sure.
I see no compelling evidence for God. Is that good enough?
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>
>
> I see no compelling evidence for God. Is that good enough?
>
It's good enough for me.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
> There's also the possibility (perhaps minute), that there exists a God,
> but that God only likes agnostic people, and anyone who is either a believer
> or an atheist will be sent to hell for all eternity. Or maybe there exists a
> God who only likes people who post on comp.lang.cobol. Or maybe He only
> likes people who are born on even days, and anyone born on an odd-numbered
> day will burn in hell for all eternity. Or maybe he just chooses randomly,
> and who you are or what you do really has no effect on whether He'll send
> you to heaven or hell.
<snip>
So you choose to sit on the imaginary fence - CYA. Perhaps a "Somebody"
might clout you on the head with a two by four some day, but I wouldn't
bank on it. Still it has happened.
Jimmy
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:04:31 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
> That's the "problem" with a lot of religions. They seem to
>(arbitrarily?) assume that He might be loving or kind or good. As far as I
>can tell, there really is no evidence to lead us to believe that might be
>true.
Certainly some religion followers believe stuff that if true would
preclude this possibility. (an omnipotent god who allowed eternal
torture, for instance)
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1135123935.116102.310550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> I see no compelling evidence for God. Is that good enough?
No. =)
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'm just saying that to me, that
isn't enough to be "sure". I'm using the relaxed definition of "sure" here
(i.e. I'm avoiding the philosophical question of "How can we be sure of
anything?") "There is no evidence" is a strong argument against the belief
that God exists, but it is not a strong argument for the belief that God
does not exist (in my opinion anyway).
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:%X1qf.41941$2k.6087@pd7tw1no...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> So you choose to sit on the imaginary fence - CYA. Perhaps a "Somebody"
> might clout you on the head with a two by four some day, but I wouldn't
> bank on it. Still it has happened.
Well, I don't like what "Cover Your Ass" implies about my motives for
believing what I believe, but I suppose that *is* one way of interpreting my
position. Here's the analogy I could come up with:
A: What's the weather gonna be like tomorrow?
B: It's gonna be sunny. I can tell 'cause whenever my knee tingles like
this, it always ends up being sunny.
C: It's gonna rain. I used my tarot cards to check, and they say rain.
D: Snow. Definitely snow. I can feel it in my soul.
Oliver: I don't know.
A: Wait, what do you mean you don't know?
Oliver: I'm not a meteorologist. I don't know what the weather is going
to be like.
B: Well, you have to choose SOMETHING.
Oliver: Why? If I say "I think it's going to [some weather condition]",
that would be lying, because I don't actually think that. If I want to be
honest to myself, and honest to those around me, I must say that I don't
actually know what the weather is going to be like.
A: Fine, sit on the fence, but I think that's a cowardly position! Me, I
definitely think it's gonna hail. I mean, smell that air. Doesn't that smell
like hail to you?
etc.
- Oliver
| |
| Defaultuser 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:8Xfqf.262$km.18@edtnps89...
>
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:%X1qf.41941$2k.6087@pd7tw1no...
>
> Well, I don't like what "Cover Your Ass" implies about my motives for
> believing what I believe, but I suppose that *is* one way of interpreting
> my position. Here's the analogy I could come up with:
>
> A: What's the weather gonna be like tomorrow?
> B: It's gonna be sunny. I can tell 'cause whenever my knee tingles like
> this, it always ends up being sunny.
> C: It's gonna rain. I used my tarot cards to check, and they say rain.
> D: Snow. Definitely snow. I can feel it in my soul.
> Oliver: I don't know.
> A: Wait, what do you mean you don't know?
> Oliver: I'm not a meteorologist. I don't know what the weather is going
> to be like.
> B: Well, you have to choose SOMETHING.
> Oliver: Why? If I say "I think it's going to [some weather condition]",
> that would be lying, because I don't actually think that. If I want to be
> honest to myself, and honest to those around me, I must say that I don't
> actually know what the weather is going to be like.
> A: Fine, sit on the fence, but I think that's a cowardly position! Me,
> I definitely think it's gonna hail. I mean, smell that air. Doesn't that
> smell like hail to you?
> etc.
>
> - Oliver
But if one assumes that A asks the question for a reason other than filling
time, then perhaps an educated answer would be appropriate?
For example, you could have said (say the question is by a farmer suffering
in a drought):
I am not a meteorologist, but this past Sunday one told me that he had it on
good authority that the meteoroligist had seen evidence to indicate that
there was no doubt that it would be sunny if you didn't do the rain dance.
If you did the rain dance, then it would rain, but only if the rain gods
thought that you had done it with real integrity.
DU
DU
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:38 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
>"There is no evidence" is a strong argument against the belief
>that God exists, but it is not a strong argument for the belief that God
>does not exist (in my opinion anyway).
Although logic only arguments don't have the force of evidence, we
have many religions that appear to be mutually exclusive - that
deities as worshipped in one are contradictory to deities as worshiped
in others.
Are all *wrong* religions equally unlikely? (Without the hindsight
of True Belief)?
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:vi4jq1pqpcqpr0n86q1h53fq2r2r31d1hb@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:38 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Although logic only arguments don't have the force of evidence, we
> have many religions that appear to be mutually exclusive - that
> deities as worshipped in one are contradictory to deities as worshiped
> in others.
>
> Are all *wrong* religions equally unlikely? (Without the hindsight
> of True Belief)?
I'm not sure I followed everything you said here, but as an attempt to
answer your question...
I think probabilities are a question of perspective. That is, the
probability of something occuring changes as new information is gathered. Or
the probabilities may be evaluated to two different values as seen by two
different people simultaneously, as they may have different information.
For example, given a dice, person A might assume the chance of rolling a
3 if 1/6, but person B might know that the dice is rigged, that the
probability of rolling a 3 is actually 2/3. Both persons are looking at the
same dice at the same time, but come to different conclusions because they
have different information.
So given a *wrong* religion, it's unlikeliness is 100%, and in that
sense, yes, all wrong religions are of equal unlikeliness (they are all
100%).
But if you don't know beforehand that a religion is wrong, then
different religions might have different probabilities of turning out to be
true, depending on what claims they make and what information you have.
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"Defaultuser" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:djgqf.45576$6e.21018@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
> news:8Xfqf.262$km.18@edtnps89...
>
> But if one assumes that A asks the question for a reason other than
> filling time, then perhaps an educated answer would be appropriate?
Yes, so in this story, let us assume that I know absolutely nothing
about meteorology (which is pretty close to true).
> For example, you could have said (say the question is by a farmer
> suffering in a drought):
>
> I am not a meteorologist, but this past Sunday one told me that he had it
> on good authority that the meteoroligist had seen evidence to indicate
> that there was no doubt that it would be sunny if you didn't do the rain
> dance. If you did the rain dance, then it would rain, but only if the rain
> gods thought that you had done it with real integrity.
Okay, but if I had NOT met an meteorologist this past Sunday, saying the
above would obviously be lying.
If you want, we could change the analogy to "What value do you think
will result if I roll this die?" and me saying "I don't know, but probably a
value between 1 and 6", "But which value between 1 to 6?", etc.
The point of the analogy was to illustrate that it is not "fear of being
wrong" that makes me not believe in any one particular religion (or
atheism), but lack of information. I say that I do not know the answer as to
whether or not God exists, because that is the statement which is closest to
the truth.
As for educated guesses, I can make statements like the Bible is
self-contradicting, so I do not think it should be taken literally, but
otherwise I am unsure as to wether God, if he exists, is anything like how
he is typically portrayed in Christian religion, for example.
- Oliver
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:26:30 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
> But if you don't know beforehand that a religion is wrong, then
>different religions might have different probabilities of turning out to be
>true, depending on what claims they make and what information you have.
So how does someone narrow down his search to the more probable
religions and other beliefs in the supernatural?
Evidence in the natural world? (This doesn't look promising)
The society that he happened to be born into? (Most True Believers
use this route)
Which religion is popular with the rich and powerful? (That has
historical success).
Those which don't have a lot of hatred directed towards them?
(astrology, ghosts)
Those which are not morally repugnant? (those that believe in Heaven &
death vs those who believe in Heaven & Hell)
What kinds of statistical analysis can be done to find the more likely
roads to Truth?
| |
| Defaultuser 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:15iqf.934$km.618@edtnps89...
>
> "Defaultuser" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:djgqf.45576$6e.21018@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Yes, so in this story, let us assume that I know absolutely nothing
> about meteorology (which is pretty close to true).
>
>
> Okay, but if I had NOT met an meteorologist this past Sunday, saying
> the above would obviously be lying.
Ah, you are so literal and I so obtuse.
Meteorologist = Preacher
Good Authority = Bible
Sunny = Hell
Rain Dance = Accept Jesus
> If you want, we could change the analogy to "What value do you think
> will result if I roll this die?" and me saying "I don't know, but probably
> a value between 1 and 6", "But which value between 1 to 6?", etc.
I'd say 3 right now, but I'd be inclined to change my mind if you asked
again.
> The point of the analogy was to illustrate that it is not "fear of
> being wrong" that makes me not believe in any one particular religion (or
> atheism), but lack of information. I say that I do not know the answer as
> to whether or not God exists, because that is the statement which is
> closest to the truth.
Then why use the word "minute" probabilty? Is one type of God more probably
than another? Are you leaning on your fence?
Just out of curiousity - you live in a very logical system - if I may...
What kind of weather would you want it do be?
Consider your answer if the above question was not a literal question.
> As for educated guesses, I can make statements like the Bible is
> self-contradicting, so I do not think it should be taken literally, but
> otherwise I am unsure as to wether God, if he exists, is anything like how
> he is typically portrayed in Christian religion, for example.
>
> - Oliver
I enjoy reading your posts btw.
DU
| |
| Richard 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| > What kind of weather would you want it do be?
Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la come to me baby
Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la don't say maybe
Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la come to me baby
Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la
| |
| Defaultuser 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1135196889.548969.300400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la come to me baby
> Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la don't say maybe
> Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la come to me baby
> Shoo bee doo bee doo ooh la la
Ok...so I made a typo....but what does the Like A Virgin Madonna have to do
with this thread? Go up a few posts, across some and you'll be in the right
area for discussions on the sins of Mary and her son.....
DU
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"Defaultuser" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ksiqf.45596$6e.1511@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
> news:15iqf.934$km.618@edtnps89...
>
>
> Ah, you are so literal and I so obtuse.
>
> Meteorologist = Preacher
> Good Authority = Bible
> Sunny = Hell
> Rain Dance = Accept Jesus
I think you lost me completely here... I'm trying to justify my decision
of being agnostic. I could have said what you have suggested above, but I
didn't. And I explained why I didn't. The fact that I could have done
something else doesn't change the fact that I didn't do that something else,
and it doesn't change the reasons for my doing what I did.
So I figure I must have missed the point entirely.
>
>
> I'd say 3 right now, but I'd be inclined to change my mind if you asked
> again.
Right. But you and I are different. I maybe be true that YOU think it'll
be 3 (at that particular moment in time), but it wouldn't be true that I
think it'll be 3. So I'd say "I don't know", because that's the truth. If I
said "3", that'd be lying. Which is why I said "I don't know" as opposed to
"3" (or any other value for that matter).
>
>
> Then why use the word "minute" probabilty?
More specifically, I described the probability of God only liking
agnostics as being "perhaps minute"; it was a defense tactic to avoid the
argument "But the probably of God only liking agnostics is so minute!"; I
admit that it may be minute, but I wanted to emphasize that it was non-zero.
> Is one type of God more probably than another? Are you leaning on your
> fence?
Yes. I coincidentally made a reply to Howard on that very topic just a
few moments ago; the more specific your guesses are (e.g. God only likes
people born such that when they were born, the universal unix time [seconds
from the epoch] is a prime number; this implies he hates everyone born
before the unix epoch), the lower the probability that they are correct.
>
> Just out of curiousity - you live in a very logical system - if I may...
>
> What kind of weather would you want it do be?
>
> Consider your answer if the above question was not a literal question.
I don't like snow.
- Oliver
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>
> I don't like snow.
>
> - Oliver
>
>
I do not mind the snow, but it seems to always come with cold. If it
snowed when it was warm out, I'd be quite happy with it.
Donald
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:vi4jq1pqpcqpr0n86q1h53fq2r2r31d1hb@
4ax.com...
> For example, given a dice, person A might assume the chance of rolling a
> 3 if 1/6, but person B might know that the dice is rigged, that the
> probability of rolling a 3 is actually 2/3. Both persons are looking at the
> same dice at the same time, but come to different conclusions because they
> have different information.
>
> So given a *wrong* religion, it's unlikeliness is 100%, and in that
> sense, yes, all wrong religions are of equal unlikeliness (they are all
> 100%).
>
> But if you don't know beforehand that a religion is wrong, then
> different religions might have different probabilities of turning out to be
> true, depending on what claims they make and what information you have.
So now you've moved from sitting on the fence to using something like
Monte Carlo simulation to confirm there is/isn't a God :-)
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| Donald Tees wrote:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>
>
> I do not mind the snow, but it seems to always come with cold. If it
> snowed when it was warm out, I'd be quite happy with it.
>
> Donald
Now wonder Albertan's used to have stickers, "Let the Eastern Bastards
Freeze". You are so insular in the 'Centre of the Universe'. You might
like it warm and snowy - ever considered what the guys running the ski
slopes think about warm with snow :-)
Jimmy
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| James J. Gavan wrote:
> Donald Tees wrote:
>
>
>
> Now wonder Albertan's used to have stickers, "Let the Eastern Bastards
> Freeze". You are so insular in the 'Centre of the Universe'. You might
> like it warm and snowy - ever considered what the guys running the ski
> slopes think about warm with snow :-)
>
> Jimmy
>
Let them eat ice cream.
Donald
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:41:15 -0500, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I do not mind the snow, but it seems to always come with cold. If it
>snowed when it was warm out, I'd be quite happy with it.
Skiing in warm weather is enjoyable.
Golfing in snowy weather is not enjoyable.
| |
| Defaultuser 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:a6elq1pg0h4unaae5v3c8hqog1tsk7l24a@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:41:15 -0500, Donald Tees
> <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Skiing in warm weather is enjoyable.
>
> Golfing in snowy weather is not enjoyable.
As they say, golfing is a good walk spoiled.....no matter what the weather.
DU
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:JGnqf.48760$2k.34729@pd7tw1no...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> So now you've moved from sitting on the fence to using something like
> Monte Carlo simulation to confirm there is/isn't a God :-)
Rather than saying I've "moved", I think it's just two different views
of the same belief system.
It's not so much that I'm actually running a Monte Carlo simulation to
determine the answer; rather, I'm acknowledging that different religions
have different probabilities of correctness and therefore (by definition),
some are more likely to be "the True Religion" than others.
I'm just noting the probabilities; I haven't nescessarily just picked
the most probable one and said "I chose to believe in this one!"
- Oliver
| |
|
| In article <tGzqf.1510$m05.364@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
>"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:JGnqf.48760$2k.34729@pd7tw1no...
[snip]
>
> Rather than saying I've "moved", I think it's just two different views
>of the same belief system.
>
> It's not so much that I'm actually running a Monte Carlo simulation to
>determine the answer; rather, I'm acknowledging that different religions
>have different probabilities of correctness and therefore (by definition),
>some are more likely to be "the True Religion" than others.
>
> I'm just noting the probabilities; I haven't nescessarily just picked
>the most probable one and said "I chose to believe in this one!"
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
.... well, when you pick it don't worry; you'll be welcomed, with open
arms, by Bill the Galactic Hero and all the other Latter-Day Zoroastians.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:32:41 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
> It's not so much that I'm actually running a Monte Carlo simulation to
>determine the answer; rather, I'm acknowledging that different religions
>have different probabilities of correctness and therefore (by definition),
>some are more likely to be "the True Religion" than others.
Those with different amount of empirical evidence supporting them will
have different probabilities of being true.
After sorting those out, I suppose all of those with logical
inconsistencies could be separated into two camps:
1. Those where the supernatural has the power to overcome logic.
2. Those where the supernatural requires logical consistency.
And there isn't really a requirement that a deity be supernatural. If
God wanted to be measurable, testable, part of Nature - He could be
natural.
But deciding between Christianity and Islam is deciding between two
religions that have very similar philosophies about how we are
convinced about their veracity. The major difference is the claim
that the Koran is written in a way to make man-made changes in it very
difficult. Ask a Christian why Islam is wrong - and the answer is
invariably because it conflicts with Christianity. (Or that
particular sects - like particular sects of Christianity - do bad
things).
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:40:17 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>... well, when you pick it don't worry; you'll be welcomed, with open
>arms, by Bill the Galactic Hero and all the other Latter-Day Zoroastians.
Bill's just an ignorant space-grunt. His space ships use a fairly
unique method of traveling though.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... well, when you pick it don't worry; you'll be welcomed, with open
> arms, by Bill the Galactic Hero and all the other Latter-Day Zoroastians.
So, you read Keith Laumer, eh? Fancy that. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:50:35 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>So, you read Keith Laumer, eh? Fancy that. :-)
Not to mention Harry Harrison.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:.
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention Harry Harrison.
Oops! I'm a fan of both authors, and my brain misfired on that one. The
"Bill ..." books are a bit too morbid for my taste.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <oFBqf.26488$k76.1063@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>So, you read Keith Laumer, eh? Fancy that. :-)
I've read some of Laumer's works - 'The Great Time Machine Hoax' comes to
mind - but as I recall that 'Bill the Galactic Hero' came out under Harry
Harrison's name.
What I haven't read is your response to the Separation of Church and State
suggestion I posted a while back, neither in the original nor associated
with the link I requested you post to document your assertion that you
twice responded to it... nor have I read anyone else's mentioning that
you'd replied; I'm beginning to have my doubts. Might you be so kind as
to post the URL to groups.google.com for it?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:39:56 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>I've read some of Laumer's works - 'The Great Time Machine Hoax' comes to
>mind - but as I recall that 'Bill the Galactic Hero' came out under Harry
>Harrison's name.
That particular novel is reminiscent of Harrison.
Laumer's pre-stroke writings were quite enjoyable. That said, my
favorite Retief story was his first - before they were comedic.
When I was young, I loved _Earthblood_. Later on, I recognized that
it is part of the Van Vogt style of science fiction based upon the "we
are so superior" centricism that I now find uncomfortable.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:JGnqf.48760$2k.34729@pd7tw1no...
>
>
>
> Rather than saying I've "moved", I think it's just two different views
> of the same belief system.
>
> It's not so much that I'm actually running a Monte Carlo simulation to
> determine the answer; rather, I'm acknowledging that different religions
> have different probabilities of correctness and therefore (by definition),
> some are more likely to be "the True Religion" than others.
>
> I'm just noting the probabilities; I haven't nescessarily just picked
> the most probable one and said "I chose to believe in this one!"
>
Can't help feeling the words "correctness" and "probabilities" are
inappropriate when referring to *any* religious belief. Religion is the
'inner soul' or human spirit if you prefer, whether your "religion" is a
deity, agnosticism or atheism.
The guiding thought has to be, "Be true to thyself". Unless you become a
true monster, I think that's something we are all capable of. Regardless
of how the outside world sees us, we are devoid of anything if we can't
truly talk to ourselves, modestly accepting any good features we may
have, or think we have, but at the same time acknowledging our
weaknesses. Then of course comes the tricky part - correcting our
weaknesses. The spiritual path you choose must be based on your
innermost person.
Should one choose to follow a deity - I don't think that should be based
on, 'Am I going to getting a bonus or frequent flyer points, somewhere
down the road'. Rather, does a particular deity have meaningfulness to
your own life values.
There's only one concrete way of proving the existence of any deity -
your own death.
Jimmy
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:54:14 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Can't help feeling the words "correctness" and "probabilities" are
>inappropriate when referring to *any* religious belief. Religion is the
>'inner soul' or human spirit if you prefer, whether your "religion" is a
>deity, agnosticism or atheism.
Religious people have come around to this belief as a response to
queries about evidence. There is nothing about religion in general
requiring an inner belief, nor is there anything in agnosticism nor
atheism requiring this.
It *is* necessary to say external evidence is not part of beliefs if
you are a true believer and external evidence is not available.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-10, 7:55 am |
|
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:z9ywf.80035$6K2.15580@edtnps90...
>
> "charles hottel" <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bc342$43ad63f3$4f9c637$23393@DIALUP
USA.NET...
>
> There's this joke about a mathematician and a physicists attending a
> lecture. The lecturer goes on about terribly abstract concepts, mostly
> centered around a 37 dimensional figure. The physicist is frantically
> taking notes, scratching his head, and furrowing his brow, while the
> mathematician just sits calmly, arms crossed, occasionally nodding in
> agreement.
>
> At the end of the lecture, the physicists ask the mathematician a few
> questions, and soon realizes that the mathematician had no trouble
> understanding the concepts involved at all. He asks the mathematician how
> he was able to visualize a 37 dimensional space. The mathematician
> responded that he simply visualized an n-dimensional space, and lets n =
> 37.
>
> The trick that I've heard and use, is don't bother trying to visualize
> spaces of dimensions 5 or higher. You might be able to manage 4
> dimensions, by thinking 3 spaces plus time (i.e. an "animation"), or you
> might be satisfied to limiting your visualizations to 3 dimensions or
> lower. Just try to understand the concepts in 0, 1, 2 and 3 dimensions,
> use induction to convince yourself that whatever concept you believe in
> will also be true in arbitrarily higher dimensions, and just leave it at
> that.
>
> The "shadow" trick you mention, I assume has to do with the idea that a
> 3 dimensional object casts a 2 dimensional shadow onto a 2 dimensional
> surface, and so I suppose you could extend that to a n dimensional object
> casting an n-1 dimensional shadow onto an n-1 dimensional surface. I
> prefer to think in terms of "slices" than "shadows". Take a 3 dimensional
> object, and imagine taking a (3D) knife and cutting an infinitely thin
> slice out of it. You get a 2D object. If parts of the original object were
> "hollow", then you might not end up with a single continuous objects, put
> rather what appears to be several small 2D objects. For example, a slice
> through a donut might look like 2 circles that aren't attached to each
> other. When I try to visualize hypercubes, I usually visualize 3D slices
> of it. I usually don't get very far though.
>
> A 1D creature moving about a line might ask how it's possible for his
> universe to be without edges or centres? A 2D creature would say obviously
> that the "line" that the 1D creature is moving about must form a circle.
> But then the 2D creature moving about a surface will turn around and ask
> how it's possible for his universe to be without edges or centres. A 3D
> creature would say that this surface must be a sphere. Then the 3D
> creature moving about a volume will turn around and ask how it's possible
> for his universe to be without edges of centres. And this is where I stop
> visualizing, and just assume that this process can continue indefinitely
> onto to arbitrarily high dimensions.
>
> - Oliver
I seriously recommend "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku to anyone who is
interested in this. It uses the same basis as your explanations above, but
is fully illustrated and written in a very easy-to-read style. (Kaku is a
teacher and Physicist). It covers a lot more beside, but one of the
interesting things I remember from the book is that Salvador Dali had a
Hypercube (4 dimensional figure) in one of his paintings of Christ.
Pete.
>
|
|
|
|
|