Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?


[1] clearly works as a safety feature as we didn't crash


-- 
Bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:42:55 +0100, bof wrote:

> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?

Yes.

And the people that know, know that it is.

Consult seatguru.com for more than you could possibly want to know
about aircraft seating layouts.  Having said that, if you're doing 
long-haul in cattle class it can be a help: fr'instance one of the
best seats on a 747 is where the 3-4-3 turns into 2-4-2; if you have
the window seat you have two tray tables to yourself, and a bit of 
extra space to the side to put coat / bag / etc.

Did a train trip last weekend.  On the plus side was somehow getting
seats in "club" class, despite paying "tourist" fares.  Whizzing along
at 250 km/hr was kinda cool; Junior enjoyed looking out of the window.

OTOH we had a moment of classic state railway "fuck 'em" at the 
ticket counter.  Just as we got to the front of the queue, the 
woman manning [1] the desk stuck up a "closed" sign and then proceeded
to end her shift, without acknowledging us in any way, or arranging
for us to get priority in another queue, or anything.  If my command
of Forrin was a bit better I'd have given her what for.

In the queue next to us was an American couple, who'd arrived long
after we had.  I like to think that had they been Brits, they'd
have recognised the fact that we'd been waiting longer and allowed
us in front of them.  Of course, being USAnians, it probably never
even crossed their minds.

[1] see what I did there?
-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

"bof"  wrote

> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?

I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
some lifts.

The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
 wrote:

>
>"bof"  wrote
>
>> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>
>I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
>some lifts.
>
>The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
>out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.

That doesn't make sense. 13 is a prime number so no other agencies eg
the Americans are implicated in the mindcontrol. 14 has factors of 2
and 7 which must bear some of the responsibility for bad luck.

Am I monothematic or what?

My shrink won't section me if I fax Parliament again. Hello Robbie.
Will you be making threats down the phone at my shrink and myself
soon?
-- 
YouTube Video of MI5 HorrorFags; www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e9x0TwHkbY
Jealous Gay Agents Masturbating Outside Window; www.mi5.com/evidence/#britspy
MI5 Tried to Kill Me in Florida 17/Nov/2001; www.mi5.com/evidence/#deathsquad
MindControl Torture and Proof It's Real; www.mi5.com/evidence/mc/mc.htm

In uk.misc,  (bof) wrote in ::

>
>Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>
>
>[1] clearly works as a safety feature as we didn't crash

Was it, perchance, an American plane[2]?

I've certainly sat in row 13 on some planes.  In at least one style of
plane, it was the emergency exit row, with extra legroom.

[2] Some American building also don't have a 13th floor, which proved very
unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.
-- 
Marc

Carpe Diem.  Fish for 10 cents.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:42:55 +0100, bof wrote:

>
>Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?

No, it's not normal, not in the galactic sense.  Humans are not very
intelligent, though, and give much credence to superstitions.  'Round
here, many streets don't have a number 13 house.  How fucking stupid
is that!

>[1] clearly works as a safety feature as we didn't crash

It wouldn't affect the whole plane, obviously, only row 13 would
crash.  You know, the one they pretend is row 14, it's still row 13
you know.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
There has to be a pun in this somewhere
- Mary

In message <482e16f3$0$2491$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Number Two 
 writes
>
>"bof"  wrote
>
>> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1]
>> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>
>I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in
>some lifts.
>
>The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed
>out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.

  . . . and four's unlucky in Japan, could get rid of quite a few rows 
taking the world's suppressions into account

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , Marc Wilson 
 writes
>In uk.misc,  (bof) wrote in ::
>
>>
>>Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1]
>>on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>>
>>
>>[1] clearly works as a safety feature as we didn't crash
>
>Was it, perchance, an American plane

I think it was a Boeing 7x7 but a Euro operator


>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.

Ooh, do you have a reference for this, I'd like to hear more.

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , Peter Ward 
 writes

>It wouldn't affect the whole plane, obviously, only row 13 would
>crash.  You know, the one they pretend is row 14, it's still row 13
>you know.

Nope, I was in row 14 which why I noticed, I didn't crash, so it works.


-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:35:19 +0100, bof wrote:

>In message , Peter Ward 
> writes
>
>>It wouldn't affect the whole plane, obviously, only row 13 would
>>crash.  You know, the one they pretend is row 14, it's still row 13
>>you know.
>
>Nope, I was in row 14 which why I noticed, I didn't crash, so it works.

<sigh> They evidently don't number the rows, just give them names
which happen to include numbers, the number in the name being the row
number for rows up to 12, and one more than the row number for rows 13
and above.  So, I presume from what has gone before that you were in
the row named "row 14", which if they numbered the rows would have
been row 13.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Yes, I know there's a homicidal clown in the sewer!
- groo

In uk.misc,  (bof) wrote in <hcK5$FHKSrLIFw36@hotmail.com>::

>In message , Marc Wilson 
> writes
>>In uk.misc,  (bof) wrote in ::
>>
>>>
>>>Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1]
>>>on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>>>
>>>
>>>[1] clearly works as a safety feature as we didn't crash
>>
>>Was it, perchance, an American plane
>
>I think it was a Boeing 7x7 but a Euro operator
>
>
>>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.
>
>Ooh, do you have a reference for this, I'd like to hear more.

I think it was featured in one of those "Darwin Award" books.  Hmm.  Now,
where did I file them...?
-- 
Marc

Carpe Diem.  Fish for 10 cents.

In article ,
Marc Wilson   wrote:

>[2] Some American building also don't have a 13th floor, which proved very
>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.

This seems a bit unlikely, or rather not particularly disastrous.
Even if he'd intended to arrange it so that it would stop him just as
he was about to touch the ground, he'd only hit the ground at the
speed he would have been going one floor up if he'd got it right.

-- Richard
-- 
:wq

In message <g0n09n$2bch$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin 
 writes
>In article ,
>Marc Wilson   wrote:
>
>>[2] Some American building also don't have a 13th floor, which proved very
>>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.
>
>This seems a bit unlikely, or rather not particularly disastrous.
>Even if he'd intended to arrange it so that it would stop him just as
>he was about to touch the ground, he'd only hit the ground at the
>speed he would have been going one floor up if he'd got it right.

 From what I've seen of bungee jumping it's rope round the ankles and 
headfirst downwards; hitting the pavement headfirst from just one floor 
is going to smart.

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:34:11 +0100, bof  wrote:

>In message <g0n09n$2bch$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin 
> writes
>>In article ,
>>Marc Wilson   wrote:
>>
>>>[2] Some American building also don't have a 13th floor, which proved very
>>>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>>>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.
>>
>>This seems a bit unlikely, or rather not particularly disastrous.
>>Even if he'd intended to arrange it so that it would stop him just as
>>he was about to touch the ground, he'd only hit the ground at the
>>speed he would have been going one floor up if he'd got it right.
>
> From what I've seen of bungee jumping it's rope round the ankles and 
>headfirst downwards; hitting the pavement headfirst from just one floor 
>is going to smart.

But you'd be decelerating all the way, and still on contact, so that ought
to ease it a bit.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
www.anax-andron.com/thunderbox

In article ,
bof   wrote:
> From what I've seen of bungee jumping it's rope round the ankles and 
>headfirst downwards; hitting the pavement headfirst from just one floor 
>is going to smart.

It's not equivalent to that.  You'd hit the ground with the speed you
pass the first floor on the way down on the bungee.  My guess is that
that's quite a bit less than falling from that height, but it depends
on the elasticity of the bungee, so I could be wrong.

-- Richard

-- 
:wq

In message <g0nc9t$2evg$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin 
 writes
>In article ,
>bof   wrote:
>> From what I've seen of bungee jumping it's rope round the ankles and
>>headfirst downwards; hitting the pavement headfirst from just one floor
>>is going to smart.
>
>It's not equivalent to that.  You'd hit the ground with the speed you
>pass the first floor on the way down on the bungee.  My guess is that
>that's quite a bit less than falling from that height, but it depends
>on the elasticity of the bungee, so I could be wrong.

It's a difficult one, a plain leap from the first floor would have you 
accelerate all the way under g to ground 0; with a leap from the 25th 
floor you'd be decelerating long before you passed the first floor

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:42:55 +0100, bof wrote:
> 
> >
> >Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> >on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
> 
> No, it's not normal, not in the galactic sense.  Humans are not very
> intelligent, though, and give much credence to superstitions.  'Round
> here, many streets don't have a number 13 house.  How fucking stupid
> is that!

There was nothing stupid about it in the street where I grew up - there 
were only 12 houses.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:55:18 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:

>Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 23:42:55 +0100, bof wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>> >on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>> 
>> No, it's not normal, not in the galactic sense.  Humans are not very
>> intelligent, though, and give much credence to superstitions.  'Round
>> here, many streets don't have a number 13 house.  How fucking stupid
>> is that!
>
>There was nothing stupid about it in the street where I grew up - there 
>were only 12 houses.

Fair point.  I could modify the statement to explicitly exclude
streets with fewer than 13 houses, but I can't be arsed.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
It's so hard having a big vocabulary.
- Dana Carpender

In article , 
MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >"bof"  wrote
> >
> >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
> >
> >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
> >some lifts.
> >
> >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
> >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
> 
> That doesn't make sense. 

It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?

In uk.misc,  (JAF) wrote in ::

>On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:34:11 +0100, bof  wrote:
>
>>In message <g0n09n$2bch$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin 
>> writes
>>>In article ,
>>>Marc Wilson   wrote:
>>>
>>>>[2] Some American building also don't have a 13th floor, which proved very
>>>>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>>>>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.
>>>
>>>This seems a bit unlikely, or rather not particularly disastrous.
>>>Even if he'd intended to arrange it so that it would stop him just as
>>>he was about to touch the ground, he'd only hit the ground at the
>>>speed he would have been going one floor up if he'd got it right.
>>
>> From what I've seen of bungee jumping it's rope round the ankles and 
>>headfirst downwards; hitting the pavement headfirst from just one floor 
>>is going to smart.
>
>But you'd be decelerating all the way, and still on contact, so that ought
>to ease it a bit.

Yeah, I gather he was only just dead.
-- 
Marc

Carpe Diem.  Fish for 10 cents.

In uk.misc,  (Richard Tobin) wrote in
<g0n09n$2bch$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>::

>In article ,
>Marc Wilson   wrote:
>
>>[2] Some American building also don't have a 13th floor, which proved very
>>unlucky for one bungee jumping fool who multiplied the height of one floor
>>by 25 to work out the right length for his rope.
>
>This seems a bit unlikely, or rather not particularly disastrous.
>Even if he'd intended to arrange it so that it would stop him just as
>he was about to touch the ground, he'd only hit the ground at the
>speed he would have been going one floor up if he'd got it right.
>
One floor up, head down..... bad prognosis.  These are *hotel* floors, not
domestic ones- probably 15-18 feet.
-- 
Marc

Carpe Diem.  Fish for 10 cents.

In article ,
 Amethyst Deceiver  writes:
> In article , 
> MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
> > On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >"bof"  wrote
> > >
> > >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> > >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
> > >
> > >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
> > >some lifts.
> > >
> > >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
> > >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
> > 
> > That doesn't make sense. 
> 
> It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?

If you have more than 12 rows, one of them is the thirteenth.  It doesn't
matter what it's called, does it?
-- 
SAm.

sam@ssrl.org.uk (Sam Nelson) writes:

> In article ,
>  Amethyst Deceiver  writes:
>> In article , 
>> MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
>> > On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
>> >  wrote:
>> > 
>> > >
>> > >"bof"  wrote
>> > >
>> > >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat
>> > >> row 13[1] on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if
>> > >> this is normal?
>> > >
>> > >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth
>> > >floor' in some lifts.
>> > >
>> > >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth
>> > >row) pointed out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not
>> > >13.
>> > 
>> > That doesn't make sense. 
>> 
>> It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
>
> If you have more than 12 rows, one of them is the thirteenth.  It
> doesn't matter what it's called, does it?

Seemingly, it does.

-- 
red pill? blue pill?

>> It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
>>
>> If you have more than 12 rows, one of them is the thirteenth.  It
>> doesn't matter what it's called, does it?
>
>Seemingly, it does.

Only to gullible nimnos who have lost, or never had, the power of rational
thought.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
www.anax-andron.com/thunderbox

On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:40:20 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:

>In article , 
>MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >"bof"  wrote
>> >
>> >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>> >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>> >
>> >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
>> >some lifts.
>> >
>> >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
>> >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
>> 
>> That doesn't make sense. 
>
>It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?

I thought you believed in a god?  Sorry if that's not so, but I had
got that impression, after all you had your kid christened, didn't
you?

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Been there, done that, the T-shirt is apparently in storage in Illinois.
- Lisa Ann

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
> 
> I thought you believed in a god?  Sorry if that's not so, but I had
> got that impression, after all you had your kid christened, didn't
> you?

No, we didn't. He can sort that out himself when he's older if he wants.
I don't believe anything either of us has ever posted could have given 
anybody the impression that we'd had J christened, either. I'm curious 
about how and why you came to think we might have.

There's a difference between religion and superstition, though I grant 
that most religions carry of lot of superstitious trappings with them.
Even Zen, to some extent.
I'm an atheist, L isn't. It can't be proven either way. Move on.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On 2008-05-20, Carlton Miniott  wrote:

> There's a difference between religion and superstition, 

Really? What, other than codification?

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

In article , me@privacy.net 
says...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:40:20 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
> 
> >In article , 
> >MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
> >> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >"bof"  wrote
> >> >
> >> >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> >> >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
> >> >
> >> >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
> >> >some lifts.
> >> >
> >> >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
> >> >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
> >> 
> >> That doesn't make sense. 
> >
> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
> 
> I thought you believed in a god? 

Yes, I do. Did I say I expect it to make sense? No, I didn't. Of course 
it doesn't make sense. It's no more rational than any other kind of 
superstition.

 Sorry if that's not so, but I had
> got that impression, after all you had your kid christened, didn't
> you?

You have strange impressions. No, we did not have our kid christened. 
Funnily enough, it was OldBloke (atheist) who suggested that we should, 
and me (Christian) who argued that we shouldn't.

And Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> was like:

> On 2008-05-20, Carlton Miniott  wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between religion and superstition, 
>
> Really? What, other than codification?

You've beaten me to it. I suppose you could say there's a difference
of scale and complexity, at least when they're viewed as countables:
superstitions are the building-blocks of religions. Or: religions are
made out of superstitions.

I remember being a bit shocked, some hundreds of years ago, at the
suggestion that the two were equivalent. Looking back, I'm grateful to
the person who said it for waking me up. Not that I've ever believed
in either, but I did have that "oooh, you can't say that" reaction at
one time. Thank you, that well-trained communist.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Do not touch happy fun gnooby

On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:10:00 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:

>In article , me@privacy.net 
>says...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:40:20 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , 
>> >MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
>> >> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> >"bof"  wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>> >> >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>> >> >
>> >> >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
>> >> >some lifts.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
>> >> >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
>> >> 
>> >> That doesn't make sense. 
>> >
>> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
>> 
>> I thought you believed in a god? 
>
>Yes, I do. Did I say I expect it to make sense? No, I didn't. Of course 
>it doesn't make sense. It's no more rational than any other kind of 
>superstition.

You make no sense.

> Sorry if that's not so, but I had
>> got that impression, after all you had your kid christened, didn't
>> you?
>
>You have strange impressions. No, we did not have our kid christened. 
>Funnily enough, it was OldBloke (atheist) who suggested that we should, 
>and me (Christian) who argued that we shouldn't.

Right, sorry about that then, I must have you confused with someone
else.  At least I got the "belief in a god" bit right.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
I think I'm going to need some grant money and beautiful lab assistants.
- Glenn D.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:38:31 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:

>Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
>> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
>> 
>> I thought you believed in a god?  [snip]

>There's a difference between religion and superstition, 

No there isn't.  Hmm, let's see:

Superstition n.
1. Irrational belief usually founded on ignorance or fear, and
characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, etc.
2. A notion, act, or ritual that derives from such belief.
3. Any irrational belief, esp. as with regard to the unkown.

Looks like religion to me.

>though I grant 
>that most religions carry of lot of superstitious trappings with them.

There's a reason for that.

>Even Zen, to some extent.

Bullshit.

>I'm an atheist, L isn't. It can't be proven either way. Move on.

Might as well say that Harry Potter's existence can't be proven either
way.  Just because some nonsense is asserted by people with vested
interests, or those in possession of too much ignorance, there's no
need to give it any credence.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
I think I'm going to need some grant money and beautiful lab assistants.
- Glenn D.

In article , 
dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
> superstitions are the building-blocks of religions. Or: religions are
> made out of superstitions.

Typically, yes; necessarily, no.

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

In article , me@privacy.net 
says...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:38:31 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:
> 
> >Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
> >> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
> >> 
> >> I thought you believed in a god?  [snip]
> 
> >There's a difference between religion and superstition, 
> 
> No there isn't.  Hmm, let's see:
> 
> Superstition n.
> 1. Irrational belief usually founded on ignorance or fear, and
> characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, etc.
> 2. A notion, act, or ritual that derives from such belief.
> 3. Any irrational belief, esp. as with regard to the unkown.
> 
> Looks like religion to me.

Well, the only word in that whole definition that applies to the 
majority of Christians I know personally is "belief". Hardly enough to 
rate the two concepts as identical. 
You appear to be attacking a particular version of religion that isn't 
espoused by the vast majority of believers, and hasn't been for some 
time, and generalising from that to all religion with no logical 
foundation for so doing.
It's like putting everybody called Tom in jail because one piper's son 
once stole a pig.
The older I get, the more I notice that fundamentalist atheists are as 
barking as fundamentalist theists.
You're giving atheism a bad name, please stop.

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

And Dave Budd  was like:

> In article , 
> dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
>> superstitions are the building-blocks of religions. Or: religions are
>> made out of superstitions.
>
> Typically, yes; necessarily, no.

This may be a question of definition. To me, if it ain't
superstitious, it's philosophy, or perhaps counselling, as on Star
Trek TNG. Unless it's an irregular verb: I seek after truth; you're
superstitious; he needs to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.
-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Do not touch happy fun gnooby

"Patrick Hardlentil" 
writes:

> Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.

Does she pray for you?

-- 
One of these days I'm gonna pull myself together

And August West  was like:

> "Patrick Hardlentil"
>  writes:
>
>> Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.
>
> Does she pray for you?

Hmm, now you mention it, I've no idea! In one sense I don't care, as I
don't go in for Pascal's Wager, even by proxy. Aesthetically, though,
I find the idea a bit repellant. Actually I doubt she does, because
she knows my feelings on the matter. She assures me she won't bring in
any hierophants to conduct my funeral, for example.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| That was all. beer atheism Did he believe that?

"Patrick Hardlentil" 
writes:

> And August West  was like:
>
>> "Patrick Hardlentil"
>>  writes:
>>
>>> Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.
>>
>> Does she pray for you?
>
> Hmm, now you mention it, I've no idea! In one sense I don't care, as I
> don't go in for Pascal's Wager, even by proxy. Aesthetically, though,
> I find the idea a bit repellant. Actually I doubt she does, because
> she knows my feelings on the matter. 

It's a good one, isn't it? I've had many discusions on this with my mad
sister-in-law's husband (who was my Serious Drinking companion at
uni). He's a devout atheist, she's a recovering fundie christian.

They've been a couple for about 20 years, but she woudn't mary him for
many years, as he was atheist, and her church[0] told her that was A Very
Bad Thing. As a result, she sort-of dumped him for about 4
years. They've got a "I don't ask, and she dosen't say" thing going, but
I'm pretty sure she does. Their 5yo[1] son does to church, though.

0] Seriously Weird happy-clappy fundie house church baptists with wild
   staring eyes, and no sense of personal space, and less dress sense.
1] As of today: Penblwydd Hapus!
-- 
never been too impressed

In article , 
dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
> 
> And Dave Budd  was like:
> 
> > In article , 
> > dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
> >> superstitions are the building-blocks of religions. Or: religions are
> >> made out of superstitions.
> >
> > Typically, yes; necessarily, no.
> 
> This may be a question of definition. To me, if it ain't
> superstitious, it's philosophy, or perhaps counselling, as on Star
> Trek TNG. Unless it's an irregular verb: I seek after truth; you're
> superstitious; he needs to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Where would you place Zen and Scientology? The former is generally 
acknowledged as a religion; the latter would like people to think it is.
Neither are build from superstition (drawing a distinction between 
superstition and cod science in the case of Scientology).
There are, too, several threads within Christianity that aim at 
discarding the superstitious elements - eg Don Cupit's "Sea of Faith" 
stuff, not a million parsecs away from the Jedi Force concept.
> 
> Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.

Ditto
> 

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

In article , 
dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
> 
> And August West  was like:
> 
> > "Patrick Hardlentil"
> >  writes:
> >
> >> Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.
> >
> > Does she pray for you?
> 
> Hmm, now you mention it, I've no idea! In one sense I don't care, as I
> don't go in for Pascal's Wager, even by proxy. Aesthetically, though,
> I find the idea a bit repellant. Actually I doubt she does, because
> she knows my feelings on the matter. She assures me she won't bring in
> any hierophants to conduct my funeral, for example.

I'm presuming you're not OldBloke in disguise, because I think he could 
have written the same thing. On the very slight off-chance that you are 
him, no, I don't pray for you. Or him. You're both old enough to make up 
your own minds and all my praying wouldn't make a scrap of difference to 
that, and anyway, would be disrespectful. Mind, I'm of the opinion it 
doesn't matter. If there's no god, you've won; if there is a god, I 
believe he'll make his decision when we're there in front of him 
regardless of how much praying's been done.

In article , me@privacy.net 
says...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:10:00 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
> 
> >In article , me@privacy.net 
> >says...
> >> On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:40:20 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article , 
> >> >MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
> >> >> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"bof"  wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
> >> >> >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
> >> >> >some lifts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
> >> >> >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
> >> >> 
> >> >> That doesn't make sense. 
> >> >
> >> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
> >> 
> >> I thought you believed in a god? 
> >
> >Yes, I do. Did I say I expect it to make sense? No, I didn't. Of course 
> >it doesn't make sense. It's no more rational than any other kind of 
> >superstition.
> 
> You make no sense.

Why?

And Amethyst Deceiver  was like:

> I'm presuming you're not OldBloke in disguise,

I don't *think* I am. Has he got any distinguishing marks I could look
for?

Actually, I think I may be less religion-friendly than he is.

> Mind, I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter. If there's no god,
> you've won; if there is a god, I believe he'll make his decision
> when we're there in front of him regardless of how much praying's
> been done.

Amen. Or words to that effect.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Don't make me fetch my cormorant

And August West  was like:

> "Patrick Hardlentil" 
> writes:
>
>> And August West  was like:
>>
>>> "Patrick Hardlentil"
>>>  writes:
>>>
>>>> Mind, I live with a christian, and she hasn't disembowelled me yet.
>>>
>>> Does she pray for you?
>>
>> Hmm, now you mention it, I've no idea! [...]
>
> It's a good one, isn't it? I've had many discusions on this with my
> mad sister-in-law's husband (who was my Serious Drinking companion
> at uni). He's a devout atheist, she's a recovering fundie christian.

Aye. I forgot to mention that I don't see how it can do much harm,
either.

> They've been a couple for about 20 years, but she woudn't mary him
> for many years, as he was atheist, and her church[0] told her that
> was A Very Bad Thing.

You sort-of want to ask whether it's worse to marry an atheist than to
live unmarried with one. But, in another way, I'm not sure I'd want to
know the answer.

> As a result, she sort-of dumped him for about 4 years.

Now, that I find a bit worrying. Still, nice to know they got back
together.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Text passed for distribution as an aid to the Dark cause

And Dave Budd  was like:

> In article , 
> dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
>> 
>> And Dave Budd  was like:
>> 
>> > In article , 
>> > dontmakemefetchmycormorant@dogslobber.demon.co.uk says...
>> >> superstitions are the building-blocks of religions. Or:
>> >> religions are made out of superstitions.
>> >
>> > Typically, yes; necessarily, no.
>> 
>> This may be a question of definition. To me, if it ain't
>> superstitious, it's philosophy, or perhaps counselling, as on Star
>> Trek TNG. [...]

> Where would you place Zen and Scientology? The former is generally
> acknowledged as a religion; the latter would like people to think it
> is.  Neither are build from superstition (drawing a distinction
> between superstition and cod science in the case of Scientology).

Um. I don't know enough about Zen to say. My general impression is
that it's more a philosophy than a religion, and I know that some
people object to having it called a religion. A bit of Googling tells
me it is *not* "a system of articulated beliefs or scriptures, a
formula or method for self-realization, [or] a structured system of
behaviors, practices, rules or guidelines" and moreover that "Zen is,
above all else, not Zen" (source:
http://www.betterbuddha.com/Buddhism_Zen_and_Taoism.htm#zen ). What to
make of that? I conclude only that my mind is too trammelled to get
very far with it.

Scientology appears to be 24-carat loopiness, although I don't exclude
the possibility that it will one day be proven true.

> There are, too, several threads within Christianity that aim at
> discarding the superstitious elements - eg Don Cupit's "Sea of
> Faith" stuff, not a million parsecs away from the Jedi Force
> concept.

I'm the man who's never seen a Star Wars film, so I may have the wrong
end of the stick, but surely Jedi Force would only be
non-superstitious if there actually were Jedis, and the Force. If Mr
Cupit thinks "faith" has anthing to offer, then I'm not buying. There
are some concepts that make me physically queasy when I hear their
names, and among these are faith, worship and prayer.

Well, you did ask.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Don't make me fetch my cormorant

On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:27:50 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:

>In article , me@privacy.net 
>says...
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:10:00 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , me@privacy.net 
>> >says...
>> >> On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:40:20 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >In article , 
>> >> >MI5.Victim@privacy.net says...
>> >> >> On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:21:18 +0100, "Number Two"
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"bof"  wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Noticed on the flight back home this evening there was no seat row 13[1] 
>> >> >> >> on the plane, not noticed this before, anyone know if this is normal?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I noticed that on the flight to Hong Kong - same as no 'thirteenth floor' in 
>> >> >> >some lifts.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The Chinese lady sat next to me (in row 14, i.e the thirteenth row) pointed 
>> >> >> >out that the number 14 is unlucky in China and not 13.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> That doesn't make sense. 
>> >> >
>> >> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
>> >> 
>> >> I thought you believed in a god? 
>> >
>> >Yes, I do. Did I say I expect it to make sense? No, I didn't. Of course 
>> >it doesn't make sense. It's no more rational than any other kind of 
>> >superstition.
>> 
>> You make no sense.
>
>Why?

I have no idea why you make no sense.

You appear to believe something you claim makes no sense.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Very few people have been shot by an airhorn.
- Bob Ward

On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:11:12 +0100, Dave Budd wrote:

>In article , me@privacy.net 
>says...
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:38:31 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:
>> 
>> >Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
>> >> >It's a superstition, do you really expect it to make sense?
>> >> 
>> >> I thought you believed in a god?  [snip]
>> 
>> >There's a difference between religion and superstition, 
>> 
>> No there isn't.  Hmm, let's see:
>> 
>> Superstition n.
>> 1. Irrational belief usually founded on ignorance or fear, and
>> characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, etc.
>> 2. A notion, act, or ritual that derives from such belief.
>> 3. Any irrational belief, esp. as with regard to the unkown.
>> 
>> Looks like religion to me.
>
>Well, the only word in that whole definition that applies to the 
>majority of Christians I know personally is "belief". Hardly enough to 
>rate the two concepts as identical. 

Ignorance is often the basis for belief.  Many christians, to pick a
familiar example, wear a cross.  The entire religious service is a
ritual.  There's nothing rational about belief in any god.

>You appear to be attacking a particular version of religion that isn't 
>espoused by the vast majority of believers, and hasn't been for some 
>time, and generalising from that to all religion with no logical 
>foundation for so doing.

What you appear to see is not what I'm saying.  Religion is nonsense,
plain and simple.

I've not come across someone who has a belief in a god but who was
prepared to admit it doesn't make sense.  Linz's response above looked
highly hypocritical to me, but it appears she thinks her beliefs don't
make sense either, which is just weird, but makes her response more,
umm, understandable, umm, in some ways.

>It's like putting everybody called Tom in jail because one piper's son 
>once stole a pig.

Really?  I don't see the similarity at all.

>The older I get, the more I notice that fundamentalist atheists are as 
>barking as fundamentalist theists.

There is no such thing as a fundamental atheist.

>You're giving atheism a bad name, please stop.

Atheism isn't an organisation.  It's just a rejection of nonsense,
nonsense which is often touted as truth.

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Very few people have been shot by an airhorn.
- Bob Ward

Patrick Hardlentil 
wrote:

> > Mind, I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter. If there's no god,
> > you've won; if there is a god, I believe he'll make his decision
> > when we're there in front of him regardless of how much praying's
> > been done.
> 
> Amen. Or words to that effect.

It's very difficult to argue with that stance. 

To be honest, my problem with organised religion is mostly just the
bloody proselytisers. That and what seems to me to be delusion, 
of course; I have this difficulty in suspending my critical faculties.

-- 
^Ï^                            Sn!pe  

            --------------[  I can text/plain  ]--------------

And snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) was like:

> Patrick Hardlentil 
> wrote:
>
>> > Mind, I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter. If there's no god,
>> > you've won; if there is a god, I believe he'll make his decision
>> > when we're there in front of him regardless of how much praying's
>> > been done.
>> 
>> Amen. Or words to that effect.
>
> It's very difficult to argue with that stance. 
>
> To be honest, my problem with organised religion is mostly just the
> bloody proselytisers.

Aye, rancid-trousered beard-mumblers. There's a great Australian song
that goes something like "I don't mind blokes what drinks or smokes,
or been sent down for arson. But somthing something something
something ... is a blithering, blathering parson". I wish I could
remember it or find it on the interwebs, but I can't. Ohttre.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Don't make me fetch my cormorant

Peter Ward  wrote:

> Atheism isn't an organisation.  It's just a rejection of nonsense,
> nonsense which is often touted as truth.

Arguably atheism itself is nonsense: I'm taking the agnostic viewpoint
here that it is impossible to _know_ whether or not there is a god or
gods. This being so, the question of whether or not he/she/it/they
really exist(s) is simply meaningless; merely ascribing e.g. "Creation"
to the actions of a conjectural superbeing just doesn't cut it, nor does
flat denial of the possibility.

-- 
^Ï^                            Sn!pe  

            --------------[  I can text/plain  ]--------------

"Patrick Hardlentil" 
writes:

> And August West  was like:
>
>> They've been a couple for about 20 years, but she woudn't mary him
>> for many years, as he was atheist, and her church[0] told her that
>> was A Very Bad Thing.
>
> You sort-of want to ask whether it's worse to marry an atheist than to
> live unmarried with one. But, in another way, I'm not sure I'd want to
> know the answer.

Oh, they certainly weren't living together - that's straight to hell
time!  As it was, they were living several hundred miles apart most of
the time - at one point in different countries.

-- 
Drinking his dinner from a paper sack

And August West  was like:

> "Patrick Hardlentil"
>  writes:
>
>> And August West  was like:
>>
>>> They've been a couple for about 20 years, but she woudn't mary him
>>> for many years, as he was atheist, and her church[0] told her that
>>> was A Very Bad Thing.
>>
>> You sort-of want to ask whether it's worse to marry an atheist than
>> to live unmarried with one. But, in another way, I'm not sure I'd
>> want to know the answer.
>
> Oh, they certainly weren't living together - that's straight to hell
> time!  As it was, they were living several hundred miles apart most
> of the time - at one point in different countries.

Oh, right. I guess phone sex was out of the question?

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| That was all. beer atheism Did he believe that?

August West  wrote:

> Drinking his dinner from a paper sack

You've been associating with OB again, haven't you? Next thing 
you'll learn to work the saxophone and die behind the wheel. 

Um, fingers crossed against that, actually; I wouldn't want an untimely
demise on my conscience, I've been known to be a bit prescient. I once
retold (in a froup next door) the old joke about "The train now arriving
at platforms two, three, four and five is coming in sideways" on the
very evening before the Potters Bar train crash. Troo.

Good lord, I appear to be displaying superstition, tsk.

-- 
^Ï^                            Sn!pe  

            --------------[  I can text/plain  ]--------------

snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) writes:

> August West  wrote:
>
>> Drinking his dinner from a paper sack
>
> You've been associating with OB again, haven't you?

I've been listening to The Dan since well before I knew OldBloke.

> Next thing you'll learn to work the saxophone and die behind the
> wheel.

It's tempting. Certainly easier to get a horn to gigs than the old dog
house.

> Um, fingers crossed against that, actually

There are already too many bad sax players in the world?

-- 
Tell me, did it fade away?

August West  wrote:

> snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) writes:
> 
> > August West  wrote:
> >
> >> Drinking his dinner from a paper sack
> >
> > You've been associating with OB again, haven't you?
> 
> I've been listening to The Dan since well before I knew OldBloke.

Well, sure, any right-minded music-lover would.
 
> > Next thing you'll learn to work the saxophone and die behind the
> > wheel.
> 
> It's tempting. Certainly easier to get a horn to gigs than the old dog
> house.
> 
> > Um, fingers crossed against that, actually
> 
> There are already too many bad sax players in the world?

Oh yes, oh yes indeedy.

-- 
^Ï^                            Sn!pe  

            --------------[  I can text/plain  ]--------------

On Thu, 22 May 2008 21:03:03 +0100, snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:

>
>Arguably atheism itself is nonsense: I'm taking the agnostic viewpoint
>here that it is impossible to _know_ whether or not there is a god or
>gods. This being so, the question of whether or not he/she/it/they
>really exist(s) is simply meaningless; merely ascribing e.g. "Creation"
>to the actions of a conjectural superbeing just doesn't cut it, nor does
>flat denial of the possibility.

Of course, it is impossible to say whether there is a god or not.
But what about the balance of probabilities?
We have plenty of evidence that prayer doesn't work, no evidence whatsoever
for a god of any description, masses of evidence to explain where we came
from and how we got here, and so on.  If some people insist there is a god,
and others are pretty sure there isn't, the correct answer doesn't have to
lie exactly halfway between.   In all probability, it's most likely all
makey-uppey bollocks.
Was it Spinoza who said 'It's because it is patently absurd that I have to
believe it.'  But then he said all kinds of rubbish.

Anyway, I'm a big boy and all growed up now, so I take responsibility for my
own actions.  Nor will I kneel to anyone (or thing).
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
www.anax-andron.com/thunderbox

JAF  wrote:

[...]

> Of course, it is impossible to say whether there is a god or not.
> But what about the balance of probabilities?
> We have plenty of evidence that prayer doesn't work, no evidence whatsoever
> for a god of any description, masses of evidence to explain where we came
> from and how we got here, and so on.  If some people insist there is a god,
> and others are pretty sure there isn't, the correct answer doesn't have to
> lie exactly halfway between.   In all probability, it's most likely all
> makey-uppey bollocks.

While I may agree with that viewpoint on a gut-feeling level, 
I've agnostically hedged my bets. Cop-out? Sure, why not.

-- 
^Ï^                            Sn!pe  

            --------------[  I can text/plain  ]--------------

Fevric J Glandules wrote:

> Consult seatguru.com for more than you could possibly want to know
> about aircraft seating layouts. 

Doesn't work, they don't even list the Cessna 172.

> 
> Um. I don't know enough about Zen to say. My general impression is
> that it's more a philosophy than a religion, and I know that some
> people object to having it called a religion. A bit of Googling tells
> me it is *not* "a system of articulated beliefs or scriptures, a
> formula or method for self-realization, [or] a structured system of
> behaviors, practices, rules or guidelines" and moreover that "Zen is,
> above all else, not Zen" (source:
> http://www.betterbuddha.com/Buddhism_Zen_and_Taoism.htm#zen ). What to
> make of that? I conclude only that my mind is too trammelled to get
> very far with it.

Odd, because both Buddhism (in its purest form) and Zen have writings of 
past Masters which are at least to some extent treated like scriptures 
(but I suspect I'm being a bit loose with the definition of scripture), 
and one of their major features is a form of meditation that must surely 
count as a "... method for self-realization, [or] a structured system of 
behaviors, practices..."
I think there's a bit of a grey area where philosophy shades into 
religion.

> I'm the man who's never seen a Star Wars film, so I may have the wrong
> end of the stick, but surely Jedi Force would only be
> non-superstitious if there actually were Jedis, and the Force.

Not really - you don't say that because Star Trek characters breathe 
oxygen, oxygen only exists if Star Trek characters are real. The Jedi 
Force is an idea that's common to many mystical systems - it's just that 
the Jedi stuff is currently the most known by the common herd. A couple 
of decades ago, to the right audience, it'd have been described as 
Carlos Casteneda's "Lines of the World" idea, maybe. Earlier, perhaps it 
would have been the Akashic Record.

 If Mr
> Cupit thinks "faith" has anthing to offer, then I'm not buying. There
> are some concepts that make me physically queasy when I hear their
> names, and among these are faith, worship and prayer.

I think he's using a very special version of "faith" which may not be in 
the OED... an actual power, a form of energy. Though I've not checked it 
out to be sure.

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Dave Budd  writes:

> I think there's a bit of a grey area where philosophy shades into
> religion.

Shall we call it "Buddism"?
I think we should.

Less sad than being a Jedi, anyway.

-- 
and you know it's righteous stuff

On 2008-05-23, Dave Budd  wrote:
>> 
>> Um. I don't know enough about Zen to say. My general impression is
>> that it's more a philosophy than a religion, and I know that some
>> people object to having it called a religion. A bit of Googling tells
>> me it is *not* "a system of articulated beliefs or scriptures, a
>> formula or method for self-realization, [or] a structured system of
>> behaviors, practices, rules or guidelines" and moreover that "Zen is,
>> above all else, not Zen" (source:
>> http://www.betterbuddha.com/Buddhism_Zen_and_Taoism.htm#zen ). What to
>> make of that? I conclude only that my mind is too trammelled to get
>> very far with it.
>
> Odd, because both Buddhism (in its purest form) and Zen have writings of 
> past Masters which are at least to some extent treated like scriptures 
> (but I suspect I'm being a bit loose with the definition of scripture), 
> and one of their major features is a form of meditation that must surely 
> count as a "... method for self-realization, [or] a structured system of 
> behaviors, practices..."
> I think there's a bit of a grey area where philosophy shades into 
> religion.

Having been to Sarnath and working with someone who is a Buddhist, it surely
looks like a religion to me.



-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

In article , me@privacy.net 
says...
> Ignorance is often the basis for belief. 

You need to qualify that quite a lot, to stop me saying something like:
I believe the earth goes round the sun.

> Many christians, to pick a
> familiar example, wear a cross. 

Which has what to do with either ignorance or belief? Or is this just a 
random non-sequitur to which we need pay no attention? Many goths, to 
pick a familiar example, wear black nail varnish.


 The entire religious service is a
> ritual.  

In a very real sense many things we all do are rituals.


> There's nothing rational about belief in any god.

I put it to you that there are circumstances in which it can be.

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:13:58 +0100, Dave Budd 
wrote:

>> There's nothing rational about belief in any god.
>
>I put it to you that there are circumstances in which it can be.

One being . . .?
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
www.anax-andron.com/thunderbox

In article , 
anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:13:58 +0100, Dave Budd 
> wrote:
> 
> >> There's nothing rational about belief in any god.
> >
> >I put it to you that there are circumstances in which it can be.
> 
> One being . . .?
> 
After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one 
might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and "un 
askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and since it 
is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to assume the 
existence of something that may as well be referred to by the word 
"God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private evidence of 
the experience of the numinous that many of us have had at some point or 
other.

Which, afaict, is roughly where many mainstream British Chistians are 
at.
-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

"Dave Budd"  wrote

>> >> There's nothing rational about belief in any god.
>> >
>> >I put it to you that there are circumstances in which it can be.
>>
>> One being . . .?
>>
> After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one
> might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and "un
> askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and since it
> is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to assume the
> existence of something that may as well be referred to by the word
> "God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private evidence of
> the experience of the numinous that many of us have had at some point or
> other.

Nice One.

> Which, afaict, is roughly where many mainstream British Chistians are
> at.

Also a very close paraphrasing of the answer given to me by a Rabbi!

In article <4836be00$0$10645$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, 
qrnq_znatyrq_cvtrba@zfa.pbz says...
> "Dave Budd"  wrote
> 
> >> >> There's nothing rational about belief in any god.
> >> >
> >> >I put it to you that there are circumstances in which it can be.
> >>
> >> One being . . .?
> >>
> > After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one
> > might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and "un
> > askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and since it
> > is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to assume the
> > existence of something that may as well be referred to by the word
> > "God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private evidence of
> > the experience of the numinous that many of us have had at some point or
> > other.
> 
> Nice One.
> 
> > Which, afaict, is roughly where many mainstream British Chistians are
> > at.
> 
> Also a very close paraphrasing of the answer given to me by a Rabbi!
> 
It's the only /rational/ route to it that I'm familiar with.
A lot of peeps get there the way I play poker though: mostly gut feel 
with a bit of thinking tacked on the end. Which is also what makes me an 
atheist!

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Dave Budd  writes:

> After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one
> might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and
> "un askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and
> since it is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to
> assume the existence of something that may as well be referred to by
> the word "God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private
> evidence of the experience of the numinous that many of us have had
> at some point or other.

That doesn't answer the 'why is there something instead of nothing'
style questions at all, unfortunately; any god(s) one may believe to
exist are part of the something that needs to be explained in the
first place.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

"Richard Kettlewell"  wrote

>> After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one
>> might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and
>> "un askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and
>> since it is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to
>> assume the existence of something that may as well be referred to by
>> the word "God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private
>> evidence of the experience of the numinous that many of us have had
>> at some point or other.
>
> That doesn't answer the 'why is there something instead of nothing'
> style questions at all, unfortunately; any god(s) one may believe to
> exist are part of the something that needs to be explained in the
> first place.

No, it requires the acceptance that there are physical phenomena that are 
inexplicable in terms of the frames of reference as understood by humans.

How would you explain the difference between black and white to a person 
blind from birth?

OK, I can predict where that will be steered, so here's another question:

What is north of the North Pole? Assume that I am Homer Simpson and have no 
understanding of three dimensions.

In article , rjk@greenend.org.uk 
says...
> Dave Budd  writes:
> 
> > After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one
> > might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and
> > "un askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and
> > since it is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to
> > assume the existence of something that may as well be referred to by
> > the word "God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private
> > evidence of the experience of the numinous that many of us have had
> > at some point or other.
> 
> That doesn't answer the 'why is there something instead of nothing'
> style questions at all, unfortunately; any god(s) one may believe to
> exist are part of the something that needs to be explained in the
> first place.
> 
Part of _a_ something, perhaps, but not necessarily part of _the_ 
something we're enquiring about. It may not answer it for you but it 
seesm to work for some people. And for other people, it's all about the 
numinous and very little about the "why is anything?" part anyhow.

The only real point is that we can't prove the existence or non-
existence of God scientifically or philosophically, so while it's fine 
to attack religions for the stupid things they do, we shouldn't attack 
them just for being religions.
-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

In message , Richard Kettlewell 
 writes
>Dave Budd  writes:
>
>> After extensive study of metaphysics and philosophy in general, one
>> might still be disatisfied with the responses of "unanswerable" and
>> "un askable" to the question "Why is any of this here at all?", and
>> since it is unprovable either way, one might rationally choose to
>> assume the existence of something that may as well be referred to by
>> the word "God", supporting this choice with the admittedly private
>> evidence of the experience of the numinous that many of us have had
>> at some point or other.
>
>That doesn't answer the 'why is there something instead of nothing'

I find the concept of there being nothing equally as difficult as the 
concept of there being something, I guess it has to be one or the other, 
looks like it's something.

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

bof  writes:

> I find the concept of there being nothing equally as difficult as the
> concept of there being something, I guess it has to be one or the
> other, looks like it's something.

YAOD,AY?

-- 
Lisp is the most intelligent way to misuse a computer

In message , August West 
 writes
>bof  writes:
>
>> I find the concept of there being nothing equally as difficult as the
>> concept of there being something, I guess it has to be one or the
>> other, looks like it's something.
>
>YAOD,AY?
>

Sadly not, unless you include alcohol and top music, so where does a 
middle aged fat bloke[1] get drugs, eh?

[1] nympho_teen_lesbo IRL, natch

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

bof  writes:

> so where does a middle aged fat bloke[1] get drugs, eh?

Dunno; I used to go round to a mate's, but he buggered off to Molvania.

-- 
never be the same again

In message , August West 
 writes
>bof  writes:
>
>> so where does a middle aged fat bloke[1] get drugs, eh?
>
>Dunno; I used to go round to a mate's, but he buggered off to Molvania.

Huh, always thought you were a middle aged skinny bloke.

-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

bof  writes:

> In message , August West
>  writes
>>bof  writes:
>>
>>> so where does a middle aged fat bloke[1] get drugs, eh?
>>
>>Dunno; I used to go round to a mate's, but he buggered off to Molvania.
>
> Huh, always thought you were a middle aged skinny bloke.

There's a fat biffer inside trying to get out.

-- 
go down easy

In message , August West 
 writes
>bof  writes:
>
>> In message , August West
>>  writes
>>>bof  writes:
>>>
>>>> so where does a middle aged fat bloke[1] get drugs, eh?
>>>
>>>Dunno; I used to go round to a mate's, but he buggered off to Molvania.
>>
>> Huh, always thought you were a middle aged skinny bloke.
>
>There's a fat biffer inside trying to get out.
>
So where are you ATM? ISTR you posting from the northbound train on  a 
Friday night
-- 
bof at bof dot me dot uk

bof  writes:

> So where are you ATM?

The Frozen North.

> ISTR you posting from the northbound train on a Friday night

I used to; but I gave up that silliness, about 20 months back, and
relocated to the Frozen North.

-- 
It don't matter how it all went wrong

On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:13:58 +0100, Dave Budd wrote:

>In article , me@privacy.net 
>says...
>> Ignorance is often the basis for belief. 
>
>You need to qualify that quite a lot, to stop me saying something like:
>I believe the earth goes round the sun.

You've snipped the context, conveniently for you.  If you wish that I
reply, I suggest you go back and respond to my post again, this time
keeping the context, then I might do so.

(I was responding to your assertion:
"Well, the only word in that whole definition that applies to the 
majority of Christians I know personally is "belief"."
which you made in response to my quoted definition of superstition.
My response was to show how other words were relevant.)

[snip rest of response]

-- 

Peter

I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Here am I, brain the size of a planet, and I spend my time posting to Usenet!

On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:05:53 +0100, August West wrote:

> bof  writes:
> 
>> so where does a middle aged fat bloke[1] get drugs, eh?
> 
> Dunno; I used to go round to a mate's, but he buggered off to Molvania.

How many people do you know that have buggered off to Molvania?

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Peter Ward said:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:13:58 +0100, Dave Budd wrote:
> 
> >In article , me@privacy.net 
> >says...
> >> Ignorance is often the basis for belief. 
> >
> >You need to qualify that quite a lot, to stop me saying something like:
> >I believe the earth goes round the sun.
> 
> You've snipped the context, conveniently for you.  If you wish that I
> reply, I suggest you go back and respond to my post again, this time
> keeping the context, then I might do so.
> 
> (I was responding to your assertion:
> "Well, the only word in that whole definition that applies to the 
> majority of Christians I know personally is "belief"."
> which you made in response to my quoted definition of superstition.
> My response was to show how other words were relevant.)
> 
> [snip rest of response]
> 
> 
Ignorance (of what? not clear from the context you had - scientifically 
revealed knowledge of the world, presumably) is often the basis for 
belief (in God, then, from context?)

Well it doesn't say much more does it? It still doesn't make an 
statement that invalidates my argument afaict.
"often" - but not always? 
"ignorance" - yet we have many believers who've achieved a lot within 
the world of science.
etc

I mean, I'm an atheist, I'd like everybody to be, but for the right 
reasons. I think it's the right choice, but I think we have to admit it 
may turn out not to be true.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshe