Sorry, Contrapuntal. Can’t believe I mixed up attributions like that.
This is a semantic issue: the difference between “agnostic” and “soft atheist” is pretty insignificant. If it’s important, I’ll gladly revise my previous sentence to “Famous agnostic Robert Anton Wilson.”
Daniel
Do you think words have either connotations or denotations, but not both? These two quoted sentences are very confusing.
If you accept the parameters of science, then sure, these are falsified. Get rid of just one of them–e.g., Occam’s Razor–and your falsifications fly out the window. So unless you can prove Occam’s Razor using the scientific method and without using a circular argument, then you got nuthin.
Although I do like the idea of the “read sea”–I imagine an ocean of paragraphs, with scholars in boats peering down into the depths.
Daniel
Why? Why is it rude? And what does it matter if I’m sharing the viewpoint with you or not? It’s equally delusory whether I’m private about it or public. In fact, if I wished to speak to you about the Robot Turtles, you would have no cause to state you find the notion delusory? That’s hate speech? Do you still assert that my claims of Robot Turtles, while not falsifiable by any known means, are not, in fact delusory? I can make any claim, and so long as you can’t falsify it, you must respect it? I can claim believe in leprhechauns, unicorns, The Great Pumpkin, faeries, sprites, pixies who hide my socks, and so forth, and that’s my valid oppinion, and all are obliged to pass no judgement, because they haven’t scoured the Earth themselves at the atomic level and proven me wrong?
Well, it would say that it differs in that I have access to my own nervous system and can evaluate claims of ‘love’ against other data I might posses in memory and ideology.
However, the World’s Best Coaster is only a matter of opinion.
Yes, I guess my milage does vary… I don’t see any reason to afford more respect to one delusion over another. Other than that it’s societally acceptable.
There are far fewer Pixie worshipers than God worshipers. But both beliefs are equally valid. If there were more Pixie worshipers, it would probably be ‘rude’ to call them on their bullshit too.
Maybe you are destined to be misunderstood… I just don’t understand how not speaking the truth for fear of offending someone is, in any way shape or form, not covering up the truth for fear of offending someone.
I’m not sure on that point. Fighting ignorance seems, at least to me, to be an end in and of itself. Sure, some people won’t listen. And will cling to the idea that the Great Fairy made them and is going to make them immortal, and if they do, no ammount of proof of logic or reason will convince them. Believing in the irrational means that, at least in that area, you’ve jumped the track o’ rationality and gone into imaginary land.
So, yeah… I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think most theists can be ‘converted’, because they’ve already chosen to discard reason and reality in favor of fantasy. But some are open to rational thought, and they can be shown that their beliefs are just that, beliefs, learned behaviors, and not true, at all.
Fair enough.
Can you get a good chianti for 3.99? 
I am going to bite you. :mad:
I’m a mystical agnostic, or an agnostic mystic
The man doesn’t claim he’s an atheist. Indeed, he goes out of his way to make his agnosticism evident. As such, calling him an atheist is, as best, false to facts.
Just keep gnashing your teeth over that one, why don’t you? Don’t stop using the word “delusional,” I don’t care. People will continue to think you are rude and (yes), an asshole. Sorry if that bothers you. But arguing about it won’t change anything.
You can pass judgement all you want. But if you use words that others consider to be assholish, they will pass judgment on you—and think you are an asshole.
Heh. Sorry about the mixup. As for the Wilson=atheist/agnostic thing, there are multiple and conflicting definitions for atheist; I believe that’s causing the confusion.
I’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Who said I respected the views of leprechaunists? I don’t much care about them. I’ve got no cause to render any sort of judgment on them at all as long as they don’t impact me. Go ahead and believe in the Great Pumpkin if it makes you happy; it’s no skin off my back, and due to my pesky lack of omniscience, for all I know you might be right. It’s different from how I think the cosmos works, but hey! Vive la difference!
Daniel
I grok that.
However, if a man defines his own philosophy, especilly if he’s written thousands of pages in support of it, I think it behoves us to take him at his word. If Wilson says he’s an agnostic, I think we should trust him on it.
Why does one have to prove or disprove Occam’s razor? It’s not an axiom, theory, law, or any other such concept. It’s simply a rule of thumb that can be used to guide interpretation of results. It’s useless as a tool if knowledge of the system being observed is sufficiently incomplete, and hence its naïve application often fails. It’s quite possible to do science without ever appealing to Occam’s razor, though it’s entirely likely a lot of time will be wasted as a result. The reason the falsifications don’t fly out the window, Occam’s razor or no, is because there are observables that ought to be connected to the supernatural events I mentioned. You don’t need Occoam’s razor at all to falsify the idea that the Earth was completely flooded. We know about floods, we’ve observed thousands of them, we know what happens to the land when its inundated and covered with water. We can make educated guesses about the energies that would be involved in such a cloudburst, we can make reasonable predictions about what the impact on the planet would be. Absolutely nothing in the geological record gives the slightest hint of any such catastrophe ever in the history of the planet, much less during human history. If I accused you of shooting my friend, yet I had no evidence of the crime, you have ironclad alibis saying you weren’t at the crime scene when I say you were, and worse, no one can find a record that my friend ever existed, not only would it be wrong of me to continue to assert you are a murderer, it would quite fair to say I am deluded to continue to believe it. The miracles are on about the same evidential footing. Of course, a judicious application of Occam’s razor would guide you to the conclusion that I am very possibly cracked, you don’t need such a guiding principle to know something is wrong. You’ve got a mountain of evidence refuting my claims, and I can provide nothing to convince you what I saw ever happened. This would be simple forensics. Occam’s razor is superfluous.
from Loopydude:
It is important to remember this. And please don’t mention that this is not Great Debates, because it IS the Pit. And that is certainly NOT a tea party.
So Yosemite, we are not assholes, except to the insecure and thin-skinned. But feel free to toss that oh-so-clever-term around another couple hundred times or so… Here… I’ll help you start. Asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole… (and I still haven’t typed it as many times as you have) 
Well, actually, some might call Occam’s razor an axiom, now that I think about it, but I’m not sure it rises to that level of self-evidence, apparent or otherwise. At any rate, as a rule-of-thumb that’s most useful when you have two or more candidate theories, each having roughly equivalent predictive and explicative power, and one of them is simpler than all the others. Using Occam’s razor, you would obviously favor the simplest theory, and usually this approach works well. But the only valid criterion for ruling out one-or-other theory conclusively is the evidence, whether the final choice is the simplest-seeming or no.
To put the story of Noah’s Ark and, say, plate tectonics, on equal footing as theory would be more than a bit of a stretch. I’m not even sure if application of Occam’s razor in such an instance would even be appropriate.
Mwahahahaha!
That was pretty funny.
Hey, it’s cool. You keep on believing that you are not assholes. That’s just fine. But you cannot expect other people to not think you are assholes, because you have absolutely zero control over how other people judge your behavior. And no, despite your protestations, it won’t just be the “thinned skinned” who will vew you that way. But, you just keep complaining and rationalizing and being thinned skinned about the fact that some people judge your actions as assholish. It won’t change anything, of course. Sorry if that bothers you.
Ya know what I’m thinking at this point (The Great Chasm of Impasse)? Is that we should choose up teams like they do for Red Rover, Red Rover.
I’ll go first and list my side, since I am the one who thought of this Wonderful Idea ™ and besides, we are right. 
Side A:
[ul]
[li]Left Hand of Dorkness[/li][li]yosemite[/li][li]me[/li][li](and if he’ll agree, we’ll happily take) Voyager (just to make it all even)[/li][/ul]
Side B:
[ul]
[li]Loopydude[/li][li]FinnAgain[/li][li]Contrapuntual[/li][li]I Love Me, Vol. I[/li][/ul]
See! I don’t call us The Angels of Goodness and Light or you guys The Evil Meanie Poopyheads.
So, who wants to go first? However, if we can’t play like good little boys and girls with their toys, then I’m taking my ball and going home. So there.
Well guess what? Theists do impact me. They impact you, too. If you don’t think that’s true, then I’d suggest we start another thread where we can hash out that little misconception.
So, I do have cause, great cause, to render a judgement. I’ve little choice in the matter, actually, as I am confronted by theism on a daily basis. An very large and influential number of theists don’t see to it that they in no way impact our lives in a manner I might find disagreable (with good cause, I think), and unfortunately all religious faithful share delusory beliefs. I can’t help commenting on the ones who bother me, and lumping all of them who believe in a delusory manner together, because that’s the nature of the beast. Simply because they are deluded is not bothersome. It’s when their delusions impact others (which, let’s not kid ourselves, is pretty often), I feel there is good reason for concern. If you’re that inured, more power to you, but I am not. Not being able to express myself appropriately would be even more of an imposition. I’d feel ill used, perhaps rudely treated. As I have been.
Who is telling you that you are NOT ABLE to express yourself “appropriately”? You can say whatever you want. You won’t be banned. No one is trying to muzzle you. No one (at least that I can see) is forbidding you.
All we’re telling you is that you won’t be universally loved or popular for doing so. Do you think you have some (pardon me) God-given right to have your words be popular or respected, no matter what those words are?
You kind of remind me of a kid who is whining because they want to touch the hot stove, but are upset because the stove burns their hand. They act as if they are ill-used because they can’t touch a hot stove and not be burned—like the stove has a lot of nerve being hot. And poor little them, they’ve got to be able to touch that stove, and by damn, why is it hot?
Because it is. Get over it. If you are so adamant that you must touch it, get used to being burned. Stop whining about how ill-used you are.
Oh? According to every post taking a contrary position to my own here, saying religious belief is delusory is, at best, rude, and at worst, makes me a total asshole. It’s that insulting. If that’s the consensus position, I could well be banned if I said the same thing in Great Debates. It’s not simply an oppinion; it’s an affront. Such things are verboten in other fora. So either I’m an asshole and should watch what I say, lest I commit a bannable offense, or maybe I’m making a valid point that should be protected as free speech (because it is not intrinsically insulting or a form of hate speech). If you are right, I have ever cause to be concerned, even at the SDMB. I have a feeling, given the nature of the world at large beyond this space, and especially in some other parts of the country than the one I live, such a frank and honest exchange of views could not only illicit censure, it might provoke violence. Why should I fear any of the above?
I think that Loopy knows that the stove is hot (Boy is it ever). Unlike the kid, though, **Loopy ** has not removed his hand. And I greatly admire him (her) for this.
That the stove is hot is not debatable. It is a fact. It is also a fact that people’s feelings about their sacred cows are easily hurt.
But why are the cows sacred? Why do the cows not have to pass the same scrutiny as everything else? Why is someone an “asshole” for questioning if the cows are actually sacred? Should they just take your word for it?
Will you take my word for it that the Robot Turtles created the Universe?
The stove is the world, to no small extent…
Calling you an asshole (or more accurately, saying that you are behaving like an asshole) is also insulting, but I’m not worried about being banned. People are insulting to each other all the damned time here on the Pit, and they aren’t worried about being banned.
Overdramatic much? Good grief. Who here has accused you of hate speech? Who here has suggested that you should be banned?
You are whining because people don’t like being insulted, and you want to insult them without them disliking you for it. But you don’t get to have that.
Get used to it. Nobody likes to be insulted. You obviously don’t—you don’t like being called an asshole. We don’t like being called “deluded.” We won’t call you an asshole if you don’t call us deluded. You are whining because you can’t call us deluded without us calling you an asshole. (i.e. You can’t insult us without us reacting negatively.) Poor pitiful you.
You can question anything you want, but if you use words or have an attitude that people consider gratuitously assholish, they will think you are an asshole. This is really quite simple. We’re not trying to squelch the message, we’re just saying that the manner in which the message is presented has impact, and may have consequences for the person presenting the message. Present your message in an assholish way (that you’ve been told—repeatedly—is assholish) and you’ll be called an asshole. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Not sure if you’re still paying any attention to me, but if not, that’s ok.
This must be what one would assume opium we be like. Addictive.
I think they do to. Certain ones. And I’m able to differentiate with no harm, no self-restriction, no great annoyance to me. If you can’t, I’ll echo yosemite… I’m sorry you feel that way.
[QUOTE]
So, I do have cause, great cause, to render a judgement. I’ve little choice in the matter, actually, as I am confronted by theism on a daily basis.
(All bolding mine.)
I think it would be a great idea, and I just might do it, to start a thread in GD about whether or not we have choices in the matters that control our lives. I know when I encounter a factual incorrect person on whatever issue, I can still let them know wherever I stand without being, IMHO, anything but polite. Again, obviously YMMV.
Boy, are we on the same page with that first part! I disagree, vehemently even (kinda like I’m doing here), with those people. I still don’t change the standard though, that I have for myself. Perhaps that’s part of the problem. We have different sets we use for our conduct. Sounds good to me.
Again with the “I can’t help.” Wow! I thought as adults that we could all “help” how we behave. But, I might need to rethink that. I am still considering that GD thread.
Oooh! What beast? That guy at the end of that story with those three identical numbers someone on his, probably, leathery red skin? If not, who said that the aforementioned grown-ups can’t stop from “lumping all of them” up together? I know that not all Latinos are the same, cars run differently and that one brand of jeans might last longer or fit better than another. And at least the last two can be VERIFIABLE facts. I do feel that once stated though, they come across to me (at least) as opinions and I will treat all of them equally. If you do not for whatever reason, then I suppose you are willing to deal with those consequences. Again, if any of that upsets you, I’m sorry you feel that way.
Yep, jump on them and we’ll be right there with you. Does anyone have the time that rally starts? With us both still on the same page (for once), let’s see where else we’re going…
Hey, that’s the way to do it. Good for you and thanks!
Hrmph. I guess here’s where we’ve got our backs to the wall again. I’m always (albeit muddled :D) able to “express myself appropriately.” Never felt it was an imposition either. So, as the re-played CD says, I’m sorry you feel that way. Because it truly must be an unfortunate place to find yourself in. As for it being an “imposition” on you, there we have another problem. I always prefer me having to go the extra mile than someone else, but I’m just like that. ::: shrug :::
Another dose of; I’m sorry you feel that way (too) and I guess we’ll just be agreeing (maybe) to disagree.
Lastly, regardless of your stance versus mine, I don’t feel “ill-used.” The only time that happens is when someone lumps me in where I don’t belong, ignores me when I’ve apologized or completely, then uses me as an example or etc. Just to take examples from this thread. Now rudely would be definitive. On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect someone else to alter their opinion/behavior/reaction/you-name-it just because I felt that way. Only, and I stress ONLY, if they felt they needed to change. For themselves, others’ perception of them and/or it simply being a good thing overall. If they’re not swayed by the outside view, then again, more power to ya, enjoy the trip and have a nice day.
That’s all I got for ya. And I’m sorry you feel that way.
Except for FinnAgain. He’s allowed us to work everything out over a cheap drunk. ::: hick! ::: It’s all good, right? Or at least from the perspective of AtD. (That’s my ever-present “agreeing to disagree” clause, for those laughing hysterically along (at us) at home.)
