In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message



[snip parts which seem fine to me]

6) I can't say the above concerns or bothers me much.

Except that it is anti-Christians who predominantely beat this drum in
virtually every context.

I'm not clear what you may mean by "this" since I made a number of points
and I'm not sure if you are referring to one/some of those or a more
general "this".

I listed the points I made to see if you thought any were ones you assigned
to me as "tightly held beliefs". Since you didn't then point to any and say
they were examples I now presume you don't think any of the points I
numbered were of that discription. Maybe, as above, you had in mind what
others may have said, etc...


Obviously it is a big issue for them. Any analytical reading of their
writings shows considerable self-righteousness and other hostile and
anxious emotions. Look at the history of this issue on UKRA.

If people weren't anxious about this issue, they wouldn't bring it up so
often, and so far out of context. I only discuss it when people try to
stuff it up my duff.

OK. Fair enough. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Belief and understanding work together in the human mind. Like many
such thing it needs to be managed, not worshipped.

I'd agree that there are matters where 'belief' really isn't a matter to be
subject to attempts to apply the scientific method. For me the concerns
just tend to be when either someone (religious or anti-) tries to shove
their views on others who have no interest. Or where, as in the examples
you give below, someone tries to dictate as a matter of their personal
interpretation something about how the observable universe works that
simply clashes with the observational evidence.

FWIW so far as I am concerned, beliefs like creationism are a problem best
left to Christians to resolve as it tends to have a negative impact on how
Christianity in a more general and thoughtful sense is perceived. My
impression is that many Christians don't accept creationism and find it an
embarassing or annoying distraction from what they actually believe.

So far as I can see, it is quite possible for someone to believe in a
deity, and accept a religion like 'Christianity' without having to also
accept 'add on' ideas that clash with observational reality


It is inherently anti-scientific to hold onto certain beliefs too
strongly. People are kind enough to show their true colors whenever I
say" "Evolution is just a theory". The usual believists who rail
against other's beliefs turn themselves upside down and angrily tell me
how it is an immutable fact.

Again, afraid I don't know who has said what to you on that.

However "Evolution is just a theory" isn't really adequate as a
description. The point is that Evolution as a scientific theory is
consistent with a load of experimental evidence and has not been refuted by
the scientific method. (i.e. by many experiments that gave opportunities to
give outcomes that would have conflcited with the idea.)

So "Evolution" isn't "just" a theory if "just" means "nothing else
involved".

It is also a number of detailed ideas, etc, which fit together as a
coherent explanation consistent with a large body of observatioinal
evidence and experimental results. IIUC The details of what is meant by
"Evolution" have themselves developed as further evidence and analysis has
been done over the years.

Gravity is far more fundamental than evolution and far more easily
observed, but even gravity is not an immutable fact. Gravity is
usually assigned to Newton who appears to have been a born-again
Christian. Einstein the non-obsevant Jew debunked it almost 100 years
ago. But it is still a useful theory.

Again that is rather missing the point due to an over-simplification that
fails to distinguish significant details. "Gravity" can mean either a
theoretical description and/or a proposed physical mechanism or cause
and/or the observation of the consistent patterns of behaviour we ascribe
to it.

So we now use General Relativity as the basis for theoretical study and
explanation of "Gravity" as it has wider scope and higher accuracy than
"Newton's Laws". Both 'theories' are extraordinarily good at explaining and
allowing us to predict/model a great deal in astonishing detail.
"Evolution" also does something similar in biology. But in each case the
details and approach change in response to the standard scientific method
being applied.

So "Evolution" occurs in that we can observe the details of living things
altering in response to environment, etc. And "Gravity" occurs in that we
can see thing fall, planets orbit, etc. In each case the current "theories"
explain a lot, but in science we always look for where we find a puzzle and
then use that to develop and improved 'theory'.

So the key point is that "Evolution" and "Gravity" are based on the
scientific method and being tested and altered in accord with critical
experiment and observation. But since I'm a physicist.engineer my knowledge
of Evolution is pretty limited, so you'd need to talk to an evolutionary
biologist to get a clearer view of that topic! :-)

We can make up all kinds of "theories". But the science part means that we
then use and develop those which stand up to tests against observable
reality. In practice 'Evolution', and both Newton and Einstein versions of
'Gravity' have done quite well on that score I think.

One of the more interesting things to watch is someone trying to
seriously teach something that they don't believe in at all. It is
lying, pure and simple.

No idea what or who you mean, I'm afraid.

One lesson is that we need to understand that the truth can be fluid.
Whose truth? Which truth?

Erm... that does lead to "What is Truth". Not sure you want to be in that
company! :-)

Personally I have no idea what "truth" means in such an unfocussed and
philosphical sense. Afraid I've tended to regard such philosophising as a
waste of time.

My interest tends to focus on what we can establish is consistent with
observable reality, and then use the scientific/rational methods to try and
see if we can form ideas that are useful in helping us understand, model,
or explain that. So far as I am concerned the closest science gets to
"truth" is to find at any time a set of explanations that fit what we can
observe as best as we can, and then seek to find newer ideas that have
wider scope or are more precise or are easier to use. As such all idea are
provisional, but may be very powerful as useful and accurate ways to deal
with reality. The scientific approach is to always look for flaws or
loopholes and when found, use them to try and build a better view that
explains these 'puzzles' as well as what we thought we already understood
well.

So in science "truth" is only "fluid" if your meaning of "truth" just means
"our current model of something" which science tends to expect will be
altered as new evidence crops up to be dealt with. It does not mean
"everyone can form their own view regardless of if it fits the evidence or
not". Hence "truth" isn't a term that in my experience is used much in
serious science. Theories may be "reliable" because they model a load of
observations and have survived many attempts to find flaws in them. That is
a practical and useful reason for choosing to use a theory.

I appreciate that in popular science TV programmes and magazines and
newpapers they talk about scientists "proving" things to be "true". But the
basis of science is actually quite different to that. The aim is to see if
you can show ideas are flawed by repeatedly testing them against observable
reality. When an idea keeps passing such tests it become regarded as a
reliable and useful "theory" rather than a weak or daft one that gets
dumped.

The problem here wiith "truth" is that it tends to lead to the muddle of
people who don't understand science saying things that boil down to
variations on "If we don't know everything then we know nothing" or "my
ideas are as good as yours". Such approaches may be fine in a pollitical
debate or a music circle deciding what to listen to next. But science isn't
like that, nor is engineering. There the ideas are tested against reality
in a way designed to search out and find any errors in the idea in terms of
not agreeing with observational reality.

Personally I'm happy to leave "truth" in an absolute sense to
mathematicians, philosophers, theologians, and lawyers. But I'm not sure I
always take them seriously. :-) Otherwise it is a concept I only use in
situation-limited contexts like digital logic or computer programs.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:

People tend to decry this sort of poll - when it
produces results they don't agree with.

A good example is Trevor's avoidance of more recent data
from the same polls that disagrees with his initial
claims.

Perhaps you'd post a link to those polls, then?

A bunch of them, and right from the pollster's web site:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evo...nt-Design.aspx

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
6) I can't say the above concerns or bothers me much.

Except that it is anti-Christians who predominantely
beat this drum in virtually every context.

Have you ever had any 'anti-Christian' knocking on your
door?

Sure. They call themselves Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I get God botherers of various sorts about once a
month here. Can't say I've noticed any anti-religious
spam on here either - but plenty of the religious sort.

"plenty of the religious sort"?

Do tell.

Obviously it is a big issue for them. Any analytical
reading of their writings shows considerable
self-righteousness and other hostile and anxious
emotions. Look at the history of this issue on UKRA.

What history on uk.rec.audio? Apart from crossposts from
the US loonies.

Not all that self aware, are we?

If people weren't anxious about this issue, they
wouldn't bring it up so often, and so far out of
context. I only discuss it when people try to stuff it
up my duff.

Sadly given the privileges accorded to the church in the
UK it's rather the other way round.

I'm not a big fan of state support for churches other than tax exempt
status, on the grounds that similar priveleges are available to secular
organizations of a similar nature.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:25:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:06:47 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity
based on ignorance

I probably know more about Christianity than most
Christians do. I've found it a fascinating subject. And
the more I know about it the less I understand how
anyone can "believe" in it. Of course the most obvious
point is that hardly any two Christians actually agree
as to what Christianity teaches them. We have
creationists (or believers in "intelligent design" as
they now style themselves), some of whom believe that
the world is only 6000 or so years old, and some who
accept that it's a lot older. But then again many
Christians regard Genesis as being a collection of
allegories and myths, not to be taken as literally true.
Some Christians believe in "original sin" others don't.
Some regard Jesus as "God", others don't. Some regard
the Pope as "the Holy Father", others see him as the
Anti-Christ, etc etc.etc.

Almost nobody believes in Christianity, including
Krueger.

True if one learns to write proper polite rhetoric and throws in a
strategically-placed "all", and if one is sufficiently broad in what one
considers to be Christianity.


What I say is perfectly accurate, and when I say Christianity, I mean
that contained in the bible, not the Bowdlerized, revisionist
simulacrum practised by many today. As for the word "all", where could
it go in that sentence? I see no place for it.

There are perhaps a few hundred actual
Christians in the world, to be found in the murderous
armies of central Africa.

Obviously, an excluded-middle argument.


There is no middle to exclude. If you are a Christian, you believe in
the bible. If you reject large parts of the bible, you are not a
Christian. This is simple.

For the rest, religion is made
up by the individuals as they go along, a
minute-by-minute invention based on the man-made moral
code and the current state of scientific knowledge.

That statement can be interpreted to mean that you have to be religious to
be current with the man-made moral
code and the current state of scientific knowledge. Otherwise, it is no
fault to be current the man-made moral
code and the current state of scientific knowledge, and mentioning that in
conjunction with religiousness is gratuitous.


No, that statement does not permit such an interpretation. But as to
up-to-date moral codes, tell me. Did God not know that all the nasty
**** he got people to do years ago was wrong - has he only just
realised? Or did he think to himself that it was all pretty nasty, and
he shouldn't be asking them to do it but hey, I'll tell them not to do
it in a few hundred years? Either way he doesn't come out looking too
good. And lets not get me started on moral relativism.

It is my view that all true Christianity and all true Science must agree. Of
course being imperfect humans, we lack knowlege of the complete truth in
both areas.


No. True Christianity is what is in the bible, and when it comes to a
description of how the universe, earth, life etc work it is utter
garbage. There is no need to find agreement. Religion was our first
attempt at explaining things, and it got it all wrong. Just move on.
I'm sure that by now you don't think that chemistry must agree with
alchemy, or astronomy with astrology. So it is with philosophy and
religion - the former has replaced the latter.


99% of the bible is entirely beyond the moral pale,
recommending as it is of genocide, infanticide, child
rape, cannibalism to name but a few of its choicer
recommendation.

The error here is taking the absolutely bizarre position that everything
that is mentioned is recommended. I guess you similarly believe that "Crime
and Punishment" recommends murder.


I'm not talking about the things that are merely mentioned, I'm
talking about those that are specifically sanctioned and commanded by
god. My list stands that test.

What remains is what decent people think
without its spurious intercessions.

Whatever that means in the context of the many bizarre and obviously flawed
claims that proceed it.

It means that religion is created by men, and draws its morality from
men. That is why the laws of the bible are essentially those of a
rural, farming people - women have the same status as farm animals,
for example (read up on coveting things to understand this).

Why anyone should want to waste their time in this
fashion is quite beyond reason, but there are those who
find it necessary, unfortunately.

Given the obvious prejudices and misapprehensions of the writer...


No misapprehensions or prejudices, just a clinical dissection of the
facts.

d

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:48:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


My view is that:

1) I have no idea if a deity exists or not.

My view is that there is no scientific proof either way.


The atheist position is that as there is no reason to believe that a
god exists, non belief is the logical and reasonable position. If you
want to believe that one does exist, you have to create and design it
since there is no natural prototype available. Thus all gods are
man-made. Why would you invent something to believe in - that is the
most circular piece of mis-logic it is possible to imagine.

2) I see no physical evidence or experimental result
which would allow me to clearly decide one did.

My view is that there is not even agrement about what form such evidence
should take.


There is no reason to define the form in advance. If there is a god,
and he is manifest, then the effects must be both observable and
measurable. No such observations or measurements have ever been made.

3) I feel no reason to presume one does.

My view is that a belief in God can have beneficial results.

That would be wishful thinking then. Wishing something to be so has
never yet made it true.

4) Even given one did I see no reason to decide that
'Christianity' is the one true version of such a deity's
nature, etc.

My view is that Christianity if sufficiently evolved can lead to a highly
beneficial world view.


Christianity admits of no evolution. Christ himself was quizzed on
this very question by the disciples. He replied that not one jot or
tittle of the law would change until all had come to pass. If you
think that christianity has evolved, you are not a christian.

5) Even given 'Christianity' I see no reason to pick any
given version of that religion as being 'correct'.
Although some versions seem rather dubious when they
espouse 'creationism' or other similar ideas that
conflict with the usual scientific methods.

My view is that Creationism while not itself a uniform belief system is
clearly wrong when it tries to contradict the better substantiated
scientific information we have about the development of the Universe.


Yet your holy book - the word of the living god - is crystal clear on
how the world and life came into being. Are you saying god got it all
wrong?

6) I can't say the above concerns or bothers me much.

Except that it is anti-Christians who predominantely beat this drum in
virtually every context. Obviously it is a big issue for them. Any
analytical reading of their writings shows considerable self-righteousness
and other hostile and anxious emotions. Look at the history of this issue
on UKRA.


No, the drum is being beaten at every possible moment by religious
retards in the USA. Fortunately, as in Dover PA, they are getting
their asses handed to them by the US legal system.

If people weren't anxious about this issue, they wouldn't bring it up so
often, and so far out of context. I only discuss it when people try to stuff
it up my duff.


Every right minded person is anxious about religion. Every day the
news is covered in the latest atrocity committed by it. Admittedly it
is usually by one religious cult on another vaguely similar - Shia
upon Sunni for example (see how the religious love each other!). Did
you know that the religious amendment to your constitution came about
because the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut were being persecuted by
the Congregationalists of that fair town. The world seriously does not
need any of this ****.

d

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:

People tend to decry this sort of poll - when it
produces results they don't agree with.

A good example is Trevor's avoidance of more recent data
from the same polls that disagrees with his initial
claims.

Perhaps you'd post a link to those polls, then?

A bunch of them, and right from the pollster's web site:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evo...nt-Design.aspx

The percentage of 'god created man in his present form' is 44% in 1982 and
44% in 2008...

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:00:07 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

My view is that a belief in God can have beneficial results.

That would be wishful thinking then. Wishing something to be so has
never yet made it true.

Any connection with the modern idea that ANYTHING can be achieved
given sufficient self-confidence?

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:39:03 +0000, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:00:07 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

My view is that a belief in God can have beneficial results.

That would be wishful thinking then. Wishing something to be so has
never yet made it true.

Any connection with the modern idea that ANYTHING can be achieved
given sufficient self-confidence?

Apparently you just click your heels together twice and Kansas is
gone.

d

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:00:07 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

My view is that a belief in God can have beneficial results.

That would be wishful thinking then. Wishing something to be so has
never yet made it true.

Any connection with the modern idea that ANYTHING can be achieved
given sufficient self-confidence?

There is some truth that believing in a higher power can be beneficial -
it's the basis of both AA and NA.

--
*Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.