Religious belief

[Elok]

. . . honestly, all I'm saying is that I don't have the link, and don't see the need.  In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't much matter what I think of RD (I can't say I even think of him very frequently).  Nor the likelihood of him becoming a tyrant, since it seems highly unlikely that he will ever get the opportunity.  You take this awfully seriously.

[Buster's Uncle]

2. Why are you getting involved in YT comment threads?  They're the cloaca of the internet.  You could look up a video on nineteenth-century Parisian architecture and the comments would still mostly be people calling each other faggots.  And they wouldn't even spell "[homosexual]" correctly.

Note that you can't say [homosexual]here -it a slur, and nothing but, unless you're referring to burning firewood or English cigarettes- but our swear filter sucks and I deem the use in this context -giving an example of uncouth beyond-the-pale speech- acceptable.

Also, points for characterizing YouTube comments a lot more eloquently than I did.

[Elok]

(click to show/hide)

[Buster's Uncle]

Speaking of uncouth terminology...

I might have linked that one the day it came out, but for a term we don't allow in any context.  Sorry for the edit.

[Elok]

Ooops!  Sorry, not thinking.  By the by, how do tags work here?  I've never been able to get even italics to work.  CTRL-I just does bookmarks in Firefox.  When I tried doing the full reply thing and pushing the buttons, I couldn't get italics to turn off.

[Buster's Uncle]

It's standard []-[/] bbcode stuff.  I can't account for italics not turning off unless the [/I] was somehow garbled or it was one of those Firefox mystery problems we get.  Firefox is of teh devil and has endless problems playing well with our SMF software that other browsers don't.

[Elok]

On to epistemology!

Many moons ago, I subbed "methods of knowledge" class (basically critical thinking skills for AP high schoolers).  We watched a video on the Mayans, and at the end the students laughed at the bizarre notion that the survival of the universe depended on people ramming thorns through their genitals to give the gods blood to drink.  I didn't have time to smack them properly for that before the bell rang: "how often do you seriously stop to question received wisdom about the basic truths of the world"?

So, let's ask each other.  I simply take heliocentrism on trust, but it probably doesn't matter whether I believe it or not.  Ditto atomic theory, photosynthesis, etc.  Those all come down to "why would anyone make this crap up?"  Then there's climate change and economics questions.  Both involve systems so phenomenally complicated that I have doubts of my ability to properly understand the big picture even if I troubled to read into either.  I wind up assuming climate change is true because there's no credible profit in making it up, and have some suspicions regarding economists who consistently argue in favor of things that make it easier for rich people to accumulate power and influence.  But for all I know, it's t'other way around.

What's your rule of thumb?

[Buster's Uncle]

For one thing, don't take heliocentrism on trust.  It's been discredited for hundreds of years.

If I follow the question, my "it don't matter" answer to predestination and solipsism applies to a lot of this.  I don't understand economics that well either, but still think Keynes was -not so much wrong as- dangerous.  (Government can do a lot for an economy pumping capital into the system at the right times, but Ross Perot had a point, too.)

Any intelligent person has to assess the reliability of their information sources -could my eyes/senses have been fooled, are my observations statistically significant, does this guy even know what he's talking about, do I trust this guy's word, does his internal logic scan, do I accept the base assumptions, and so on- and assemble their own working model of the world to function in it.  Mom and Dad did a lot of the groundwork providing me with an ad-hoc consensus reality and values, of course, and beginning in adolescence, of course, I began challenging their model and tinkering it around into my own version - which I'm still working on, of course, just like everyone else (though I'd venture us nerds have to work harder at it for longer, being less plugged into the larger consensus reality of society around us by our very nature).

I buy into global warming mostly because the logic scans -though I have to accept base assumptions to that logic to do with how greenhouse gasses work, because I don't have the science to understand WHY carbon dioxide retains solar heat- and the measurements of the phenomenon in progress seem to match up.  Arguments that there's an agenda imagining it or lying about it strike me as saying a lot more about the people who think that way than the people they attack - it's political, and please go sell your bill of goods somewhere else that doesn't foul your own nest and mine, fools.

So, logic and a knowledge I can't have complete knowledge, and thus have to muddle through partly on faith and assumptions.  Does that answer the question well enough?

[Buster's Uncle]

"Pulling that vonbach junk"? What does that even mean?

I asked for a link. I prefer to make up my own mind about people, and all I get is people telling me "Oh, Dawkins is terrible. I read this thing that somebody else said about him, and no, I didn't actually read it myself, but people say this, that, and other stuff, so he must be a really awful person."

I'm saying that I prefer to go to the original source so I can evaluate it and decide for myself what my opinion is.

It's similar to the arguments about the nuDune books, btw. There are people who vilify the nuDune books, but can't specify exactly why because they haven't read them. They just repeat what other people have said and accept that as their own opinions. Well, the nuDune books are pretty bad, but I say that as someone who's actually read them and can point to specific reasons why I have that opinion. I don't rely on hearsay for my opinions of books, movies, or Richard Dawkins' character.


I am going to excuse myself from this thread, because I really don't see any way to continue. Even a request for a link so I can read something for myself is considered an "argument" so there's really no point.

This is one of those places that the limits of what you can put into the tone of bare text is a problem.  This is intended in a calm and friendly tone, just to be clear and answer your concerns...

There have been several times I pointed out what I considered poor behavior to a member and was accused of, oh, "liberal bullying" and such - it's an affront to my integrity, y'know, to be accused of speaking up BECAUSE BIAS when I said what I meant - and a bit of that baggage I mentioned.  I shouldn't have named any names, not least because it could mislead.  I said what I meant, and meant nothing else by it.  So no - I think you're better than accusing me of suppressing your POV for questioning your behavior, and wish I had phrased that better - and not mentioned von, who wasn't the one who said liberal bullying, BTW, just similar charges of biased supression.

In the mid 90s, Stephen Hawkings was the guest on Larry King Live and my parents were just fascinated by him, and I was filling them in about him during a commercial, and one of them asked me "How do you know about him?"  -Uh, because I'm a nerd and he's Stephen Hawking.  I told them I'd known about him for years, and couldn't say where I first heard of him to save my life.  (First time I recall is actually in Timescape by Gregory Benford, which had a physicist who talked a good deal about Hawking in it, but I drew a blank back then.)

The only attribution I could give you for where I formed my opinion of Christopher Hitchens is that he used to be a TV talking head a lot, and I found him to be the sort of atheist I have a problem with - openly contemptuous of opposing opinions.  Repeat: as I said very early in this thread, I've come to realize it's not atheist or atheism that I have a problem with; it's the ones that talk rude crap in service of it.  He's one of those, and I cannot give you more of a cite than 'saw him on TV'.

Dawkins, I've seen quoted in passing often enough to form a firm opinion that he's the same - mostly stuff my eyes flicked over online, and that's all I remember.  Like that Jesus Camp video you were on about in the past -my lifetime is finite, and I prioritize sometimes about what interests me, and the bar's higher for things I find wrong and unpleasant w/o detecting hints that there's something in there I want to understand about why.  (I actually read an Ayn Rand book as a result of an argument here just a few years ago, but there are limits.)

(Religious people are guilty of EXACTLY the same thing when they stray from "God is" into "your god is not", and make themselves equally obnoxious.  "Your god is not" is implicit in many religions IRT other religions, just as it is in atheism - the distinction is that going around saying it to people is both rude and contrary to keeping the peace in society.  Civility matters.  -And note that I'm even less interested in polluting my memory with Jesus Camp videos than I am in seeking out Dawkins speaking as I understand he does [Hitchens-like, if not worse] on things spiritual.)

There's a thing I see people do on the webs -baggage; I've never had a major problem with it, but find it off-putting and too common- where they demand attribution from the opposition in an argument.  They insist.  They keep insisting.  Sometimes the opponent will say "Do your own research" - when I suspect a more accurate reply would usually be "I'm telling you the truth" and/or "I don't remember where I read it" and or "You're more invested in this argument than I, and I'm not inclined to go to the trouble to find it just to satisfy your demand or just to score nerd points".

Valka, I'm not accusing you of that boorish debating technique, but I am pointing out possible appearances, and that it's good to not Be That (sorry) Guy, and hard as it is to let things go, sometimes it's just not worth keeping it up when the other person isn't cooperating.  That's why I was talking about argument versus conversation, and I apologize if I misread your tone - but note that others may have simularly.

You are CERTAINLY not one of the YouTube comment 'idjits', BTW.  You've mentioned before that you spent time there doing that, and I've always wondered, like Elok, what someone as bright and informed as you was slumming there for, so glad to have your answer to that.  Personally, I'm getting better and better at shrugging and deciding it isn't my problem when someone's wrong on the internet (cue someone posting the relevant xkcd - I have more than once) unless they seem reachable or at least fun to talk to...  Whatever floats your boat, though.

Several pages -and months- ago, I began and ended an account of my spiritual history with references to Thomas - and got so caught up in the narrative of Reagan coming into my church that I neglected to explain why he's my favorite disciple.  Since Elok just brought him up again, it's actually germane to this to elaborate.  Peter said lots -its right there in the Book- when Jesus was incarnate, and I think Thomas' doubt was in the other disciples who said lots.  When confronted with the evidence -according to the Book- he fell on his face and said "My Lord and my God" and Jesus blessed him, followed by a few remarks about the value of faith.  But I think the modern church would be better for more Thomas and less Peter, not least for being less likely to fall for Reagan's bill of goods and make themselves obnoxious to 'the world' foolishly getting into (Caesar's worldly) matters where they have no business supporting hate politics in the name of the Prince of Peace.

I bring that into this because I RESPECT a desire to see the evidence for yourself.  I'm the same way, witness when I asked binTravkin for a link last week when he first posted in US Presidential Candidates- then followed up to say I didn't mean to sound like I doubted him, just wanted to read it for myself.  -Just, there's no use when a source chooses to be unhelpful.

This is my opinion of the courtesies involved.  I hope this clears things up, and that everyone with anything interesting to say on the topic will continue to involve themselves to their hearts content.  Your perspective is certainly one of those valuable ones.


TL;DR:  Valka, please don't go - you're cool, and I only meant to say that it would be polite to take no for an answer after the second time...

[vonbach]

I'm not speaking to anyone in particular here. But the whole duty of man was spelled out by Soloman.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

King James Bible
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: FearGod, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man

Fear means Respect and God's name is Yahweh "God" is a title.

[Buster's Uncle]

Mom and Dad did a lot of the groundwork providing me with an ad-hoc consensus reality and values, of course, and beginning in adolescence, of course, I began challenging their model and tinkering it around into my own version - which I'm still working on, of course, just like everyone else (though I'd venture us nerds have to work harder at it for longer, being less plugged into the larger consensus reality of society around us by our very nature).

On the last parenthetical bit, a few more remarks because of who's in the room and how that informs our approach to modeling the world and forming our belief sets.

We replaced the light fixture in the kitchen yesterday, and I'm still wincing every time I go in there, especially after dark.  It had been a soft florescent light since we moved in 46 years and three days ago (note that precision, for which I had actually looked at the date and counted before I realized how it underlined part of my point) and the incandescent lighting changes the color of the light and everything and makes the shadows sharp and looks glare-y and that makes me unhappy.  -Kinda DEEPLY unhappy.  I had a horrible fight a while back over the bathroom remodeling and I'm. still. too. pissed. for that to be a safe subject to talk about around the house.

Many/most of you already see where I'm going with this part.  I watch Monk and Big Bang Theory and nitpick their accuracy.  Lori once posted a drawing of a 20-sided die, and somehow whether the numbers were arranged right came up and I posted a joking scold for putting up an OCD trigger like that.  And then I really got up and looked around the house for an analog one to check, and googled pictures when I couldn't find one.  I have a preference for which side of my cigarette pack is up when I lay it down.  I get furious when my coffee spoon is missing in the morning.  I alternate red and black stacks to the best of my ability when playing solitaire.

-I've never been diagnosed, but yeah, I'm definitely a bit on that autism/OCD spectrum somewhere.  Mostly I can turn it on and off when I really want to -and my women have come to sometimes ask me to nitpick things for them- so it's not a burden, exactly, but -- any difference that doesn't tend to make you alpha male is probably a social burden, and I am mentally more than a bit other.  You know; most of us have at least a touch, for it's a major part of what makes us nerds.

And I worked out long ago that pretty central to the definition of nerd is no (or little, really) sense of perspective.  It is typical of nerds to hyperfocus on their interests and resist (irrationally, according to outsiders) variation.  I'm picky about what I'll call Star Trek without qualifiers and hate it when others are careless about the distinction.  Vishniac keeps trying to pick fights with me for vocally disliking the derivative he likes.  We're nerds.  And the world laughs at us for caring when they see it.

But you know?  We're doing what everyone does - evaluating input and deciding our reaction and modeling the universe according to our individual druthers.  Yet, my sister still tells about how I looked at the "Are you a Nerd?" poster that was in circulation ca 30 years ago and pointing out stuff it missed.  And she laughs and laughs, my sister who wrote a book about a Victorian actress/playwright none of you ever heard of unless you heard from me (we host her website on the subject).  My 54 year-old sister, who pulls the hair out of Barbie dolls and sews in new hair, laughs at my pedantry.  And I laugh, too.

You gotta work on having that sense of perspective about the truly important things, if it don't come naturally.

And I don't really have a point here, aside from pointing out that being that way profoundly affects how you process reality (and how I react to finding the living room furniture moved around).  (And I understand is fundamental to how autism works - poor ability to filter out 'useless' sensory input.)  I'm sure sure that some of those monks doing science long ago, or meticulously illuminating manuscripts, or whatever painstaking monkish things they did, would tend to get what I'm talking about, if not the greater meaning of it - nerds are usually bad at the big picture, having such affinity for the details...

(Now to try to catch all my typos before 15 minutes have passed and it puts an edit notice on the post; I hate those.)

[Valka]

Can't you go into the admin panel and change the edit notice?

I try to edit quickly too; the edit notice is so untidy.

[Buster's Uncle]

I cannot.  What I could do is give everyone 15 minutes, and I did.

I hate 'em because baggage; I had a bad experience as a newb with someone who loved PMs and multi-quoting, constantly edited his posts, often to entirely revise the record, and, when he got into moderating, had an autocratic style and a love of disappearing posts.  You are at liberty to surmise a causal connection to druthers of mine and my own moderating style...

Now, my quirks are in contention, as they often are when I spot mistakes in my own posts too late.  I changed tenses mid sentence and typed "pointing" instead of "pointed" - I really DO dislike edit notices...

[Unorthodox]

Guess as good a place as any.

I'm seeing commercials for a movie based off the Infancy Gospel.

I thought most major Christian religions considered this particular portion of the apocrypha to be fantasy, if they even know it exists at all. 

Is anyone actually wanting to see this?  Is there a bigger following of this book than I'm aware?  How did it get greenlit?


I'll wait for video/netflix just to see if they include creepy Christ child cursing the family, killing the kid, and blinding the parents...

[Buster's Uncle]

Is that the Book of Thomas stuff where he pushed another kid off a roof and then resurrected him?  Yeah; mostly just the DaVinci Code conspiracy theory sorta crowd are even aware of that one, I think.  Gonna cheese a lot of people off if it makes much of a splash.