Disturbing Passage from The Bible

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/09/2007 07:30:53 AM · #601

Originally posted by RonB:

WE cannot, it is true. My point was that the fact of our declaration of legitimacy is meaningless in the logical sense, just as our declaration of the colour of an object is subjective - the object's colour is what it is.

Taking this analogy to any religion, would you accept that it is meaningless to declare the legitimacy of any religion - the existence or not of one or more gods is what it is. There is no logic to belief, but it is entirely subjective (ie a personal view).

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Say, you were given a box with a marble in it, and a list of 50 colours and asked to mark against each colour "present" or "not present" in the marble. ...

My response would be that, if I believe that I have a bias ( either mental or physical ), that all marbles are green, then I must assume that every one else, likewise, has their own bias ( either mental or physical ), that all marbles have multiple colours. Under that premise my chances of being "right" are actually better than theirs, since my choice of colours is limited to one ( I either mark off green or no colour at all ), while they must choose ALL of the observed colours among 50 possibilities. Ergo, my chance of being 100% correct are 1 out of 50, while for them the same odds exist for the first color, but then the odds must be compounded second color, and the third, and the fourth, etc. So if they observe just four colours, their odds of getting them 100% correct is 1 out of 200.

I think that my analogy breaks down a little on the stats. Perhaps a better analogy would be if you believed marbles had a specific combination of 10 colours (representing a specific set of beliefs) rather than just one. However, I don't want to appear to skew the analogy to guarantee me a result - so perhaps this is best left alone for the moment.

Originally posted by RonB:

No, but to acknowledging something that I do not believe would be lying ( regardless of the "facts" ). I can state that I do not believe in gravity, but that won't enable me to levitate, because SAYING that I don't believe in gravity would be a lie. And while I could lie about it, I could not NOT believe in gravity.

I believe many things that I do not know (eg, that immigration provides a net benefit to the UK). However, I would not consider it to be a lie for my to say that I believe, but I do not know. Alternative [y] could be right. I don't know, even though I believe. As a corollary, I would not expect anyone else to act in a manner that necessarily defers to my particular belief when there are various alternatives. My belief should only be given weighted accord according to its objective likelihood.

Originally posted by RonB:

I will admit that there is *a* risk, just not a *significant* risk.

I would argue that your assessment of the degree of risk is affected by your belief.

Even on just *a* risk, surely you must therefore admit that other belief systems *may* be right.

Originally posted by RonB:

Certainly there are mysteries, but mystery does not mean unknowable, just unknown. How a gecko walked on glass was a mystery, but now it is known.

Hmm - what argument are you promoting here?! ;) [Ps - for anyone who did not know, the mystery of the gecko was that it can walk along ceilings or vertical polished - not just any glass - now explained (and replicated)).

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/09/2007 08:03:38 AM · #602

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.

Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality?

Yes. Many animals are probably aware that they exist, which allows monkeys to admire themselves in a mirror and makes "self-preservation" worth fighting for. Is it so difficult to imagine that an animal that can sense and recognize individuals among a group might also be able to sense and recognize itself? Surely if an animal can mourn the loss of a baby or partner, it can understand what it means to be alive. I don't profess to understand the mechanics of perception, but then I don't understand the how the brain processes sound or other sensory information either. That doesn't mean I'm going to attribute it to magic. I can't rationally explain why ribbon winners get votes below 3, but I'm pretty sure the explanation isn't supernatural. Just because something is unknown, that doesn't mean it's unknowable.

Just to be clear, I already agree that animals (including humans) are self aware. So you don't need to convince me of that.

I think the second part of your post really does try to address the issue that I am talking about, though. I guess I already knew that your reasoning would go along those lines ("Just because something is unknown, that doesn't mean it's unknowable"). Sounds reasonable enough...

You assume that perception can be explained by mechanics. OK. I can't prove you wrong. It just seems to me that perception is somehow different from all other known phenomena. It's not in the same league. Heck, it's not even in the same sport.

Edit to add: I wonder if we're both using different definitions of "self-awareness".

Message edited by author 2007-01-09 09:29:01.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/09/2007 09:50:40 AM · #603

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

I wonder if we're both using different definitions of "self-awareness".

My rationale is fairly simple: I think, therefore I am. If other animals think, then other animals could reasonably know they "are" too (we appear to agree on this). To your point above, it might depend upon how you define self-awareness, but is there any definition that would eliminate the aforementioned possibility?

As to the biomechanics of perception, it may turn out that "self-awareness" is simply a natural consequence of having sensory organs and a brain capable of processing that information. In other words, if you can sense pain and are able to avoid doing something painful, perhaps that means you have a sense of self that corresponds with the understanding that this hurts "me."

Message edited by author 2007-01-09 09:55:28.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/09/2007 10:19:44 AM · #604

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

I'm still waiting for an atheist (or someone who believes only in the rational) to tell me how one's awareness of one's own existence can be explained rationally.

Am I the only one who thinks that this must be a really huge dilemma for people who believe only in rationality?

Chris, as I understand it, the philosopher Daniel Dennett may address your question in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, though I believe he frames the question more as â��what is the difference between a creature that is self-aware and a creature that is not and yet behaves as if it were self-aware and why should it be so?â�� The book takes some effort to get through, however, as he delves into philosophical minutia. He also introduces the concept of â��cranes vs. skyhooksâ��, which you may hear now and again, as the way science is used to explain the natural world. (Iâ��ll bring it over later this week when I pick up Guns, Germs and Steel, which you wonâ��t be finishing either. ;P)

Oh, and, no, I donâ��t see it as a dilemma. I think, therefore I am sums it up nicely.

01/09/2007 10:30:13 AM · #605

Originally posted by milo655321:

Guns, Germs and Steel

Good book - (nothing to do with religion for anyone who might think it was by virtue of appearing in this post).

01/09/2007 12:10:07 PM · #606

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

For those who consider religion to be a harmless and personal affair, there is a current debate in the UK on a proposed act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexuality.

The Christian right is being most vocal in protesting the proposal because they wish to retain their ability to discriminate against people who are homosexual. This is one current example of a way in which an arbitrary rule in one religious tome may be brought to bear to the detriment of rational society as a whole.

The problem is that to deny gays the right to rent a church building for their wedding impacts them, but to force the congregation who owns the church to rent its building for a gay wedding impacts them. The difference is that gays COULD choose to be married elsewhere.

The U.S. Constitution specifies that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Thus, the US has, thus far, upheld the right of Religious groups exercise discrimination if necessary to maintain that "free exercise".

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/09/2007 12:31:51 PM · #607

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
WE cannot, it is true. My point was that the fact of our declaration of legitimacy is meaningless in the logical sense, just as our declaration of the colour of an object is subjective - the object's colour is what it is.

Taking this analogy to any religion, would you accept that it is meaningless to declare the legitimacy of any religion - the existence or not of one or more gods is what it is. There is no logic to belief, but it is entirely subjective (ie a personal view).

Absolutely not. That is akin to saying that it is meaningless to declare the color of an object. It is not "meaningless", it is just that everyone understands that it is an INTERPRETATION of that which cannot be absolutely known. For example: if you undertook an advertising campaign and your advert included an apple that you wanted to be "earth red", and you asked the agency to put your ad into a newspaper, and on a billboard, and on a TV spot - it is likely that you will get different colours for the apple, because of the different inks, etc used. Instead, you specify the colour as "Pantone 18-1631" ( Pantone is the universal definition of colours using the components of light that make up the colour ). Then, no matter which medium you use, the apple will always be the same colour.
Unfortunately, until the end-of-days, there will be no universally accepted definition of God.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
No, but to acknowledging something that I do not believe would be lying ( regardless of the "facts" ). I can state that I do not believe in gravity, but that won't enable me to levitate, because SAYING that I don't believe in gravity would be a lie. And while I could lie about it, I could not NOT believe in gravity.

I believe many things that I do not know (eg, that immigration provides a net benefit to the UK). However, I would not consider it to be a lie for my to say that I believe, but I do not know. Alternative [y] could be right. I don't know, even though I believe. As a corollary, I would not expect anyone else to act in a manner that necessarily defers to my particular belief when there are various alternatives. My belief should only be given weighted accord according to its objective likelihood.

But if you believe ( whether knowing or not ) that immigration provides a net benefit to the UK, and I asked you to state that you acknowledge that immigration does NOT provide a net benefit to the UK, and you did so, you would be lying.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
I will admit that there is *a* risk, just not a *significant* risk.

I would argue that your assessment of the degree of risk is affected by your belief.

Even on just *a* risk, surely you must therefore admit that other belief systems *may* be right.

I do, and I did. That's why I said at the end-of-days, we will know which, if any, was/were right.

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/09/2007 08:27:13 PM · #608

Originally posted by scalvert:

My rationale is fairly simple: I think, therefore I am.

If that's your rationale, then it is extremely simple ;)

If I go along with "I think, therefore I am", then what can we conclude from that statement? We can conclude that "I am", or in other words "I have self-awareness". But, as I said before, I already agree with you on that.

It seems that you basically don't think that self-awareness is "a big deal". You kind of just dismiss it as "a natural consequence of having sensory organs and a brain capable of processing ... information." Honestly, I think that's a cop out.

I think that Bill (milo655321) is on to something when he says that my question might also be phrased as "What is the difference between a creature that is self-aware and a creature that is not and yet behaves as if it were self-aware?" In other words, if in the future we develop machines/computers/robots/whatever that are so sophisticated that they can behave exactly like people, then what is the difference between people and those "robots"?

And please don't bring up animals again! I already agree with you that they are just as self-aware as humans are.

Message edited by author 2007-01-10 08:05:57.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 09:30:27 PM · #609

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
For those who consider religion to be a harmless and personal affair, there is a current debate in the UK on a proposed act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexuality.

The Christian right is being most vocal in protesting the proposal because they wish to retain their ability to discriminate against people who are homosexual. This is one current example of a way in which an arbitrary rule in one religious tome may be brought to bear to the detriment of rational society as a whole.

The problem is that to deny gays the right to rent a church building for their wedding impacts them, but to force the congregation who owns the church to rent its building for a gay wedding impacts them. The difference is that gays COULD choose to be married elsewhere.

The U.S. Constitution specifies that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Thus, the US has, thus far, upheld the right of Religious groups exercise discrimination if necessary to maintain that "free exercise".

Renting the building to the non-member public is a profit-making, non-tax-exempt commercial enterprise in which they are not allowed to discriminate. It has no impact on their ability to conduct their religious functions in any way and with whomever they want.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/09/2007 10:25:41 PM · #610

Sounds as if you are saying they could operate a whore house there, if it were legal, and it would be OK. It seems you don't understand the house of the Lord.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/09/2007 10:29:04 PM · #611

Originally posted by RonB:

Instead, you specify the colour as "Pantone 18-1631" ( Pantone is the universal definition of colours using the components of light that make up the colour ).Unfortunately, until the end-of-days, there will be no universally accepted definition of God.

You just need to get the right Pantheon charts, then we'll all be on the same page. I hear you can get different sets, Roman, Greek and so on.

Sorry, cheap I know, but it just seemed obvious.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2007 10:48:18 PM · #612

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Hate to argue with you ( not! ), but a church renting its building to non-members is NOT a profit-making, non-tax-exempt commercial enterprise - if it were the government would demand that the church pay taxes on said rentals - which doesn't happen. The monies received go straight into the church treasury to be used for NON-PROFIT activities sanctioned by the elders as charitable ventures.
On the topic of discrimination, a Roman Catholic Church will also refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony involving a divorced person who has not has his/her marriage nullified or dissolved by the church. So far as I know, no one has ever sued successfully to force the church to relent on that rule, either.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/09/2007 10:59:36 PM · #613

Originally posted by RonB:

Absolutely not. That is akin to saying that it is meaningless to declare the color of an object. It is not "meaningless", it is just that everyone understands that it is an INTERPRETATION of that which cannot be absolutely known. For example: if you undertook an advertising campaign and your advert included an apple that you wanted to be "earth red", and you asked the agency to put your ad into a newspaper, and on a billboard, and on a TV spot - it is likely that you will get different colours for the apple, because of the different inks, etc used. Instead, you specify the colour as "Pantone 18-1631" ( Pantone is the universal definition of colours using the components of light that make up the colour ). Then, no matter which medium you use, the apple will always be the same colour.

Unfortunately, until the end-of-days, there will be no universally accepted definition of God.

This color analogy is interesting, because what is being called a "definition" here is completely different from what one might call a "perception": agreed, if we want to standardize the production of colors, we can do so with a formulaic system. If we want to standardize the nomenclature of colors, we can use the same system. But none of this has any effect on the perception of color by individuals.

You have no way of knowing whether what I "see" when I look at Pantone 281C is exactly, or even remotely, the same as what you "see" when viewing the same, precisely-defined color. Indeed, if one of us is seriously color blind, we assuredly do NOT "see" the same thing, even though we are "looking" at the same thing. Furthermore, you can illuminate this standardized color with a variety of different light sources, and its appearance can change so much as to not even resemble the "actual" color it is.

So, by extension, might it be with God, and the atheist, in terms of "GodSight", might be said by some to live in a world without color, where all is rendered in shades of gray.

R.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/09/2007 11:59:27 PM · #614

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So, by extension, might it be with God, and the atheist, in terms of "GodSight", might be said by some to live in a world without color, where all is rendered in shades of gray.

R.

More apt, perhaps, would be that many.. while looking at the world of god, see only in Black and White.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/10/2007 06:45:46 PM · #615

Looks like the thread finally bit it...wow that was a big one.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/10/2007 07:22:42 PM · #616

Originally posted by boomtap:

Looks like the thread finally bit it...wow that was a big one.

Shannon must be out taking pictures for one of the challenges. Paul, too.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/10/2007 07:28:34 PM · #617

Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So, by extension, might it be with God, and the atheist, in terms of "GodSight", might be said by some to live in a world without color, where all is rendered in shades of gray.

R.

More apt, perhaps, would be that many.. while looking at the world of god, see only in Black and White.

As may be. Whichever, it shut the thread down good :-)

R.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2007 07:31:10 PM · #618

Gotta stir the coals, I guess...

"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank. " -Gabriel Rossetti

"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." --Mohandas Gandhi

"There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt." --Mignon McLaughlin

"If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence." â��George MacDonald

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/10/2007 08:41:29 PM · #619

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." --Mohandas Gandhi

Atheists don't fight against God. They fight against belief in God. There's a huge difference.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt." --Mignon McLaughlin

Oh, believe me, it would be MUCH easier and more comforting to believe than to not believe. You think I LIKE the idea of there being no afterlife??? It ain't no picnic. I wish there was a benevolent God who would grant me an eternal life in heaven. But that doesn't mean I'm just going to pretend to believe, just in case their is a God that might be angry that I didn't believe in him.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/10/2007 08:48:46 PM · #620

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

But would you really want 'eternal life'? - That would mean eternal boredom.

Doesn't the peace and solitude of non-existance sound like a better deal?

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/10/2007 09:00:25 PM · #621

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Oh, believe me, it would be MUCH easier and more comforting to believe than to not believe. You think I LIKE the idea of there being no afterlife??? It ain't no picnic. I wish there was a benevolent God who would grant me an eternal life in heaven.

But would you really want 'eternal life'? - That would mean eternal boredom.

Doesn't the peace and solitude of non-existance sound like a better deal?

It actually does ;)

I'm kind of hoping death is like sleep conciousness.. just eternal randomness. That'd be fun. I love dreaming.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/10/2007 09:47:50 PM · #622

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Gotta stir the coals, I guess...

snip

Sorry, no coals to stir here. As an atheist, those quotes don't really carry much meaning. It's like being told by someone "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" with that someone meaning it literally. You don't believe them and you just hope they're not "packing heat".

If you want I'm sure I could find some quotes about Theists being delusional, but it probably wouldn't carry much weight with you either ... but then we could get into a quote war! And wouldn't that be fun ... and pointless.

Message edited by author 2007-01-10 21:48:05.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/11/2007 01:03:22 PM · #623

Originally posted by RonB:

In the UK, gay people may only enter into a civil union, which excludes religion from the ceremony (ie can never take place at a church or use religious language) so your specific example is inapplicable in practice.

The arguments being raised are that, say, a Christian wedding photographers could not refuse to provide a service on discriminatory grounds. I daresay that in practice, such a wedding photog. would find a better excuse (if ever asked), the same as a white racist photog would if contacted by a black person. What they cannot do is hang a sign outside their business saying "no blacks, no gays" - both phrases are outlawed, not just one.

Yet the Christian right wants to preserve their right to actively discriminate based on their very specific, unlegitimised, religious beliefs. I understand that similar reasoning was used to defend slavery a century or so ago in the US, but I don't meet many modern Christians worrying about that religiously protected social evil being cast out.

Apple iPhone 5

01/11/2007 01:10:57 PM · #624

Originally posted by Artyste:

I'm kind of hoping death is like sleep conciousness.. just eternal randomness. That'd be fun. I love dreaming.

The idea of death is frightening to us. It's not knowing what happens 'after'. It's almost a taboo subject.

Religious people believe they live on for eternity in a spiritual form, or in some type of reincarnation. Athiests believe when you die it's 'game over'. The 'game over' idea is probably the most unacceptable one for us to get our heads around. We are so desperate to hold on to our existence that we find it unthinkable that we should just stop existing.

I don't know if you've ever fainted or lost consciousness. It's a very strange feeling, nothing like sleeping. When you regain consciousness you really have no idea who you are or how you got there. It takes you a few minutes to orient yourself. But you can in no way explain what it was like while you were unconscious. It's like that slice of time has been removed. As if you just didn't exist.