From Fidoohki
Now for example, let us posit that you believe that you are Benito Mussolini, Mr. Hung-from-a-lamp-post-and-shot. This personal belief is going to be subject to intense scrutiny, and will have very little support as to your claim. It is very lonely pretending to be Mussolini but you get nice hats. Now pretend that you believe in an imaginary creator of the universe, who loves you, but if you piss him off he burns you forever, a being capable of creating the entire magnificence of the cosmos, but still finds the time to get intensely upset if you spray your nut-butter after a tug over a razzle mag. Unlike the loneliness of being Mussolini, you have an entire group of people sharing a common interpretation of a patently ridiculous belief. Two churches over, there is another group who share a common interpretation of that same patently ridiculous belief, but with a few festive variations.
What you don't have is the right to tell me, my beliefs are 'patiently (patently?) ridiculous. I have to return to this statement again because it bothers me hugely. There are arse-hats out there using this same line, backed up by whatever imaginary friend they kowtow to, to do ludicrous things. Child marriage (Fundamentalist LDS, some Muslim faiths, etc.) denying life saving medical treatments (Jehovahs Witness), abstinence only education (Did you catch the latest report on the effectiveness of AO education? More proof that AO education is bollocks) no rubber johnnies (Roman Catholic). I wont even start in on the young earth creationists, for whom all the beavers are not working on the dam although I will grant them one more beaver than the flat-earthers.
As I said above, I have every right to tell you your beliefs are patently ridiculous; you have every right to rebut mine; but if you want to do so, you better be ready to prove it.
Shayne
P.S. Jpub, I have read Hume and Bentham (I havent covered the entire Philosophers Song, but have made pretty good inroads.) I am much more inclined towards Dawkins and Sagan (Especially the Demon Haunted World) and have recently been digging into Ehrman and other studies of the emergence of the testaments (old and new).
PPS. AO Education - A good overview
www.theregister.co.uk/200...bstinence/
And the report
www.mathematica-mpr.com/p...inence.pdf
Quote:Actually everyone has the right to tell you that your beliefs are patently ridiculous. You have every right to defend your beliefs, but in that defense, you will be required to put up or shut up.
Which is fine by me. You have the right to believe as
you wish. What you don't have is the right to tell me
my beliefs are 'patiently ridiculous'. However I guess the day
we die will answer everything or not. If you are right then
I'll never know I was wrong. If I'm right...when you die you
will. So ask me who's better off?
Now for example, let us posit that you believe that you are Benito Mussolini, Mr. Hung-from-a-lamp-post-and-shot. This personal belief is going to be subject to intense scrutiny, and will have very little support as to your claim. It is very lonely pretending to be Mussolini but you get nice hats. Now pretend that you believe in an imaginary creator of the universe, who loves you, but if you piss him off he burns you forever, a being capable of creating the entire magnificence of the cosmos, but still finds the time to get intensely upset if you spray your nut-butter after a tug over a razzle mag. Unlike the loneliness of being Mussolini, you have an entire group of people sharing a common interpretation of a patently ridiculous belief. Two churches over, there is another group who share a common interpretation of that same patently ridiculous belief, but with a few festive variations.
What you don't have is the right to tell me, my beliefs are 'patiently (patently?) ridiculous. I have to return to this statement again because it bothers me hugely. There are arse-hats out there using this same line, backed up by whatever imaginary friend they kowtow to, to do ludicrous things. Child marriage (Fundamentalist LDS, some Muslim faiths, etc.) denying life saving medical treatments (Jehovahs Witness), abstinence only education (Did you catch the latest report on the effectiveness of AO education? More proof that AO education is bollocks) no rubber johnnies (Roman Catholic). I wont even start in on the young earth creationists, for whom all the beavers are not working on the dam although I will grant them one more beaver than the flat-earthers.
As I said above, I have every right to tell you your beliefs are patently ridiculous; you have every right to rebut mine; but if you want to do so, you better be ready to prove it.
Shayne
P.S. Jpub, I have read Hume and Bentham (I havent covered the entire Philosophers Song, but have made pretty good inroads.) I am much more inclined towards Dawkins and Sagan (Especially the Demon Haunted World) and have recently been digging into Ehrman and other studies of the emergence of the testaments (old and new).
PPS. AO Education - A good overview
www.theregister.co.uk/200...bstinence/
And the report
www.mathematica-mpr.com/p...inence.pdf