On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:07:49 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>> Because I prefer not to.  I'm a big boy, I can (and very much do) face up to
>> reality without a security blanket.
>
>That's not a logical argument. Why do you prefer not to? And, if God does
>exist, then they're part of reality. It makes no sense.

For there to be any possible intersection of these arguments, one of
you needs to define what is meant by God.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:11:20 +0100, Oxford comma wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:07:49 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>> Because I prefer not to.  I'm a big boy, I can (and very much do) face up to
>>> reality without a security blanket.
>>
>>That's not a logical argument. Why do you prefer not to? And, if God does
>>exist, then they're part of reality. It makes no sense.
> 
> For there to be any possible intersection of these arguments, one of
> you needs to define what is meant by God.

I think it's more about the possibility of certainty in such a discussion.
If one doesn't know what God is, then one can't break down the definition
into atomic statements. So it isn't logical. I don't get the need for a
concept of God, as a literal object (does that make sense), merely as a
cultural requirement (did any civilisation not have a God or Gods?).

Is there more evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson than the
existence of God?


-- 
Free the Omega three

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:55:49 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>
>I think it's more about the possibility of certainty in such a discussion.
>If one doesn't know what God is, then one can't break down the definition
>into atomic statements. 

Right.  So, if you don't define god, then you can't require Jaf to
make atomic statements saying why he doesn't exist. 

>So it isn't logical. I don't get the need for a
>concept of God, as a literal object (does that make sense), merely as a
>cultural requirement (did any civilisation not have a God or Gods?).

Which is operating on an entirely different axis to Jaf's statement
that he doesn't believe in a God or Gods.. 

>Is there more evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson than the
>existence of God?

Of course there is.  What has this got to do with anything?

Please don't get al buddhist extra calm high moral ground in this
discussion because that isn't so much an argument as a posturing and
it makes me want to poke your eyeballs out with sharp sticks.  I am
not making an ad hominem here; I am stating a future behaviour which
may not happen.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:55:49 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>Is there more evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson than the
>existence of God?

Oh, by Criminy, yes.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:05:55 +0100, Oxford comma wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:55:49 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>>I think it's more about the possibility of certainty in such a discussion.
>>If one doesn't know what God is, then one can't break down the definition
>>into atomic statements. 
> 
> Right.  So, if you don't define god, then you can't require Jaf to
> make atomic statements saying why he doesn't exist. 

No, I'm asking JAF to explain. He won't.

>>So it isn't logical. I don't get the need for a
>>concept of God, as a literal object (does that make sense), merely as a
>>cultural requirement (did any civilisation not have a God or Gods?).
> 
> Which is operating on an entirely different axis to Jaf's statement
> that he doesn't believe in a God or Gods.. 

He said that it was bollocks. That's not saying that one doesn't belive,
it's suggesting that others who do are wrong.

>>Is there more evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson than the
>>existence of God?
> 
> Of course there is.  What has this got to do with anything?
> 
> Please don't get al buddhist extra calm high moral ground in this
> discussion because that isn't so much an argument as a posturing and
> it makes me want to poke your eyeballs out with sharp sticks.  I am
> not making an ad hominem here; I am stating a future behaviour which
> may not happen.

I really don't understand that. If I do posture, then I apologise. I'm just
trying to explain my viewpoint. Part of my philosophical make-up includes
Zen Buddhism. I'm very sorry that you feel that way about me. It's probably
best that I stop taking part in this argument.


-- 
In order to compose, all you need to do is remember a tune that
nobody else has thought of.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:16:43 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>> Right.  So, if you don't define god, then you can't require Jaf to
>> make atomic statements saying why he doesn't exist. 
>
>No, I'm asking JAF to explain. He won't.

*What* are you asking JAF to explain?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:16:43 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>He said that it was bollocks. 

All superstition is bollocks.
I don't know why.
I've tried, but I can't see how to explain any further than that.  I don't
believe makey-uppey nonsense.  I can't see what further explanation is
necessary.
Tell me what you want me to say.  I'll say whatever you like, if it pleases
you. (1)

>That's not saying that one doesn't belive,
>it's suggesting that others who do are wrong.

More than suggesting.
If these 'others' want to show me some evidence, I promise I'll give it my
utmost consideration.


(1)  Stolen from a BBC Home Service interview, circa 1950.  The female
interviewer obviously had no experience of interviewing people, and the old
fellow being interviewed clearly had no idea how radio worked.  After three
or four minutes of the interview going nowhere, the old feller said those
words, with a tone of sheer exasperation.
.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, JAF said:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:16:43 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
> >He said that it was bollocks. 
> 
> All superstition is bollocks.

But...
In general, the Western magical systems do not involve superstitions: 
the closest description that, I feel from your previous comments, you'd 
"get" is that they're a form of ritualised self-hypnosis with the aim of 
changing the user's (or users', sometimes) psyche.
_some_ schools take the position that the psyche of others can be 
affected, by a form of telepathy or via some kind of Universal Mind.
Remarkably few schools think it's possible to directly manipulate 
matter. In fact I can't think of one.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:17:06 +0100, Carlton Miniott 
wrote:

>Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, JAF said:
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:16:43 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >He said that it was bollocks. 
>> 
>> All superstition is bollocks.
>
>But...
>In general, the Western magical systems do not involve superstitions: 
>the closest description that, I feel from your previous comments, you'd 
>"get" is that they're a form of ritualised self-hypnosis with the aim of 
>changing the user's (or users', sometimes) psyche.

I don't doubt that, but it's not magic of any form, whatever some people
care to call it.

>_some_ schools take the position that the psyche of others can be 
>affected, by a form of telepathy or via some kind of Universal Mind.

That's just mumbo-jumbo.  Telepathy is bollocks.  The idea of a Universal
Mind, I'd categorise as superstition.

>Remarkably few schools think it's possible to directly manipulate 
>matter. In fact I can't think of one.

Wiccans.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

In article , 
malone@invalid.really.invalid.invalid says...
> 
> For there to be any possible intersection of these arguments, one of
> you needs to define what is meant by God.
> 

God is whatever we choose to define as God. Ergo everyone is right.

Alternatively, it is impossible for any human being to think in terms of 
eternity, omniscience, or even anything beyond very very strange indeed. 
Ergo everyone is wrong.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:10:42 +0100, Bing Trotsky 
wrote:

>God is whatever we choose to define as God. Ergo everyone is right.

Sounds like one of the standard  creationist cop-outs.  Every time you say
something against 'god' they say 'That's not the god I mean.'  No matter
what you say,it never is.  They can't seem to define god,  Yet they know all
his likes and dislikes, what he wants, how he wants us to behave, and so on.
Most of those who criticise Dawkins claim that he doesn't refer to their
god, yet they never actually define what their god is, beyond insisting that
it's not the on *you* are talking about.

I'd better state that I am not criticising what you said in any way
whatsoever, just describing part of my experience, using your post as a hook
to hang it on.
-- 
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, JAF said:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:17:06 +0100, Carlton Miniott 
> wrote:
> 
> >Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, JAF said:
> >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:16:43 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >He said that it was bollocks. 
> >> 
> >> All superstition is bollocks.
> >
> >But...
> >In general, the Western magical systems do not involve superstitions: 
> >the closest description that, I feel from your previous comments, you'd 
> >"get" is that they're a form of ritualised self-hypnosis with the aim of 
> >changing the user's (or users', sometimes) psyche.
> 
> I don't doubt that, but it's not magic of any form, whatever some people
> care to call it.

But if the people doing it have been calling it magic ever since they 
started doing it, and that's what all the people saying they do magic 
have always been doing, in some form or another?
If it walks like a duck etc...
> 
> >_some_ schools take the position that the psyche of others can be 
> >affected, by a form of telepathy or via some kind of Universal Mind.
> 
> That's just mumbo-jumbo.  Telepathy is bollocks.  The idea of a Universal
> Mind, I'd categorise as superstition.
> 
> >Remarkably few schools think it's possible to directly manipulate 
> >matter. In fact I can't think of one.
> 
> Wiccans.

Really? Cite?
> 

-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:43:54 +0100, Carlton Miniott 
wrote:

>> 
>> I don't doubt that, but it's not magic of any form, whatever some people
>> care to call it.
>
>But if the people doing it have been calling it magic ever since they 
>started doing it, and that's what all the people saying they do magic 
>have always been doing, in some form or another?
>If it walks like a duck etc...
>> 
If it walks like a duck etc, it's a duck.  But you don't then call it an
Austin Healey Sprite.  They can play Humpty-dumpty all they want, it isn't
what most people understand the word to mean.


>> 
>> >Remarkably few schools think it's possible to directly manipulate 
>> >matter. In fact I can't think of one.
>> 
>> Wiccans.
>
>Really? Cite?
>> 
Casting spells.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude