No, I haven't forgotten ...

[oxmixmudd]

I will never cease to be astonished at the projection exhibited by you people.

Jorge

Hi Jorge,

Sorry you feel the world doesn't hear you. Perhaps a little introspection as to why it feels that way might be an idea?

That is, explore the possibility, no matter how remote, that you might, just might, maybe, be at least part of the problem.

Could be you know ... certainly the consensus here is that you spend most of your time avoiding real answers.

Do you suppose it makes sense that ALL the readers, including OEC's and some YE's, are just plain wrong?

I mean - if you are wrong - how would you find out except by listening to those that disagree with you?

I mean, that was the problem with the false prophets. They just told the king what he wanted to hear. So if you only listen to the guys that already think the way you do ... and you guys are wrong .......





Jim

[phank]

Hi Jorge,

Sorry you feel the world doesn't hear you. Perhaps a little introspection as to why it feels that way might be an idea?
Jim

We're back to the great Ham 'n' Nye debate.
Q: if you should happen to be wrong, what could convince you to suspect this?
Nye: Evidence.
Ham: Nothing.

[ChaosRain]

I do wish that TWeb had an option to put either a "Faith", or a "Disbelief". Perhaps merely having "Belief" and "Disbelief" would work best; Faith by itself can be misleading when providing the option for atheism and such things. Causes some confusion.

[phank]

I do wish that TWeb had an option to put either a "Faith", or a "Disbelief". Perhaps merely having "Belief" and "Disbelief" would work best; Faith by itself can be misleading when providing the option for atheism and such things. Causes some confusion.

Well, we all work with mental models of reality. Nobody's model can be complete, probably nobody's can be fully accurate either. Models are full of holes which we fill in by interpolation to make the models (more or less) self-consistent. But we must live as though those interpolations are actual data points - that is, we take our interpolations on faith. So I suppose you could say that the "disbeliever" is one who doesn't find it necessary to patch up his model with magic (the "supernatural") as some do, or doesn't find it necessary to find some way to paste in a heavy dollop of magic where it doesn't fit (usually by means of compartmentalization).

Think of various religious traditions as whole complex hypotheses that believers in other traditions have no need of. Factor out all the traditions not needed by some society or other, and we discover that "Belief" is parochial and superfluous.

[lilpixieofterror]

We're back to the great Ham 'n' Nye debate.
Q: if you should happen to be wrong, what could convince you to suspect this?
Nye: Evidence.
Ham: Nothing.

Yep because everybody knows that only theist can be blinded by ideology.