First, I expected better from you Adam. Better understanding of what I was saying. I did not call atheists cowards. I was responding directly to the quoted statement.
I was stating an opinion, not attacking. If you are so sensitive when having your beliefs questioned maybe you should examine your beliefs. You don't hear me crying foul when everyone mocks my beliefs with the Fly-Spaghetti monster crap.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
It's so easy that most children can understand it. Deep down inside all of us, we know that God is not real, however, we make God real because we NEED an explanation.
"You want answers?!"
"I want the truth!!"
"You can't handle the truth!!"
And the truth is folks, it's a fairy tale complete with all the magical and mystical elements we all enjoy in our fantasies. It's why Dean enjoys Battle Star Galactica - because it suspends our belief in reality. That's what creating God does for humanity.
So I guess in that sense, if we have created a God out of our need, then God does exist. The ideal of God exists; however, the living actual divine being was, is, and never will exist.
Adam, Eve, Noah, Job, David, Jesus, John, Paul, Buddha, Mohammad....the list goes on. Some are fictional characters, some are actual people with mythologic tales attached.
Search the truth and be honest - it's all make believe and you know it.
As a former believer, I wanted to believe. It's easier to believe....much easier. There's hope for justice, meaning, and an ultimate purpose to our lives. It's much harder to know that God is not real - that salvation is a lie - that heaven is a lie.
I'll take the morality of more atheists I know over the morality of most Christians I know.
Everyone lives their life as they choose, most Christians rarely put God ahead of themselves in the equation - is just social window dressing. Thanking God after a touchdown or after winning a Grammy - that's 100% horseshit!
What makes an atheist braver and place a higher sanctity on life than believers is that we know that this is all we've got - one life, one chance, so we have to make the most of it. It's true, you only get one chance - make it a good one.
So if you say you require proof of god, you're a coward? How does that follow, exactly? Walk me through it. How do you know why someone believes something, or what's behind it?
Saying that you can see into people's minds, whoever they are, and calling them cowards, is the definition of an attack.
I don't require proof of god, because the question is meaningless. I also don't require god (or his self-appointed surrogates) to tell me how to live a good life, or what constitutes right and wrong. Am I a coward? And if you think I am, what the hell justification do you have? Are you a mind reader?
I happen to think that a lot of militant atheists are insufferable. But I would never tell them what they believe or why they believe it.
Faith is by definition immune to reason. I have always wondered, though, why modern Christians think Zeus' thunderbolts are silly superstition, but being born of a virgin is perfectly understandable. That's just me.
From Catch 22 somewhere's around chapter 18-Capt. Yossarian is talking with Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife :
'What the hell are you getting so upset about?' he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. 'I thought you didn't believe in God.'
'I don't,' she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. 'But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.'
Yossarian laughed and turned her arms loose.
'Let's have a little more religious freedom between us,' he proposed obligingly. 'You don't believe in the God you want to, and I won't believe in the God I want to. Is that a deal?'
I've always felt Occam's Razor can be applied to whether or not one believes in a creator.
Is it more likely that a planetoid of a perfect distance from a celestial body putting off the perfect amounts of radiation with the perfect atmospheric composition needed to support and sustain life occur, or is it more likely that something else had a hand in it?
I mean, I can go on and on with how unlikely life, especially our life (self-aware humanity) is to occur randomly versus directed. The probability of one occuring is much higher than the other.
I'm not religious. I tend to think that all religions have got it wrong. I guess that's why I'm more of a Deist than anything else.
I'm a member of a family, a citizen of the United States, and a passenger on Spaceship Earth. All require accountability beyond my nose. None requires me to believe that Pat Robertson has more authority to tell me how to live my life than I do.
I think many have missed Rosemary's main point. She gave six definitions of faith. She and I both believe you can't live a fulfilled life without faith in something. For example, there was a great scene in 'A Beautiful Mind' where Nash's future wife explains to him that he will have to take her love on faith. Later on, though, I'd say she proved it!
I've heard the cowardice argument before and think it's balderdash.
(The thing that I do agree with you is that they do typically believe in all sorts of things without any better proof than what they have for the existence of God.)
That was my point.
Which is a rather different main point, and explains why she says it's not higher critical thinking. It's also a much better statement of that point, BTW.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Without a doubt, there are probably millions of other planets with similar life that we know on earth. There's a good chance that some of those beings are more evolved than we are, however, the existence of a diving being (whatever that means) worthy of our worship and hope of eternal life is sheer nonsense.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Yes, but don't you see a problem with claiming to be a Christian while insulting people? I have no problem with insults, but the whole idea of Christianity is love. You can have all the faith in the world, but without love, we are nothing.
I didn't think I was insulting anybody. I thought I was making a hypothesis. Either way, I am a Catholic, I am not perfect. I claim only to be a sinner that tries to do her best but often fails. Such is life, nobody is perfect. Besides, if you look at my history, calling someone a coward is far less insulting than I normally am. It's a huge fucking leap forward.
People often see insults where none are intended. This allows them to play the victim. And it allows me, Politenessman, to leap from the phone booth and rescue them!
I would like to point out that, although both as a group and as individuals nuns are notably polite, any rumors to the contrary, Politenessman never wears a nun disguise. He claims it is impolite.
And just to be clear, Rosemary's comments were insults, whether she intended them to be or not.
Wince, turn off the violins. You're comments are a bit scripty and insulting in their own polite whinny
fashion.
Any comment can be viewed as an insult depending on one's subjective options especially those suffering from the don't-cry-for-me-Argentina because I'm always the perpetual victim/loser and the torturer always, always wins --- boo hoo-- syndrome.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I have faith that Wince's ever present politeness is a better way of behaving towards our fellow creatures. I have faith that the essence of the teachings of Christ and those whose cannonized descriptions of him were trying to impart a great truth, that being excellent to each other is better than crapping in each other's swimming pool.
I have absolute conviction that Christ would have approved of Wince's consistent attempt to be polite.
Weirdly enough, I have a faith that there are reasons for things that happen, and that Karma, a kind of universal justice, a balance exists. For some reason that works for me and keeps me out of trouble. There are consequences for actions.
I also believe that meditation has a physical, emotional, psychological and medical benefit. I believe this since I've experienced it. I believe that prayer works along this same line since the concentration of Catholic penitence I've witnessed, doing the Rosary, is not unlike a form of meditation.
Perhaps my view is different considering I'm a 'heathen' but I take issue with Tim's 'knowing it's not real'. You KNOW what you KNOW, why do you want to force it upon people? Telling them you KNOW there's no god only makes you sound like a pompous ass, not like you have any knowledge at all.
I KNOW there are Lares that live in my house. I KNOW there is a great God and Goddess. Does that mean I think you must KNOW these things, or even accept them? No, just that you must accept we're different in our belief systems (and believing there is nothing is a belief system). You have your's which is best for you, I have mine. Let it be.
Wince, turn off the violins. You're comments are a bit scripty and insulting in their own polite whinny fashion.
Any comment can be viewed as an insult depending on one's subjective options especially those suffering from the don't-cry-for-me-Argentina because I'm always the perpetual victim/loser and the torturer always, always wins --- boo hoo-- syndrome.
Earlier, I said this:
People often see insults where none are intended. This allows them to play the victim. And it allows me, Politenessman, to leap from the phone booth and rescue them!
On a thread on Dean's world I said something like I was pretty sure that people who like a certain edginess in their internet writing found me a prudish nag.
I've often struggled with the problem: How do you tell someone they are being insulting, rude, boorish or biggoted without being or appearing insulting, rude, boorish or bigoted? And if you don't mention it, how do you discourage insults, rudeness, boorishness and bigotry?
Now, do you think you are telling me anything I don't know?
"How do you tell someone they are being insulting, rude, boorish or biggoted without being or appearing insulting, rude, boorish or bigoted?"
Sometimes a bit of humor can help, if done gracefully.
The best advice I could give on this subject though is that a little goes a long way. Trying to 'police' every rude comment makes a person seem like nothing but a senseless nag. An occasional appeal to politeness without pointing fingers at anyone is probably more productive.
I would also guess that if you think someone absolutely needs to be corrected, whenever possible a private forum rather then a public one is more effective.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
More people convince themselves to believe out of fear (of going to hell?) than convince themselves NOT to believe out of fear that they will have to change their lives.
I'm an example of someone who has always wanted and tried to believe but deep down inside I knew otherwise.
Sometimes a bit of humor can help, if done gracefully.
Thanks, Dave. I'll probably try pulling Politenessman out of the phone booth more often - but not too often. And not pointing at a particular person is good. He can use lines like, "Suspects abound!"
I would also guess that if you think someone absolutely needs to be corrected, whenever possible a private forum rather then a public one is more effective.
More people convince themselves to believe out of fear (of going to hell?) than convince themselves NOT to believe out of fear that they will have to change their lives.
Your argument is even stronger if you include fear of death.
I've often struggled with the problem: How do you tell someone they are being insulting, rude, boorish or biggoted without being or appearing insulting, rude, boorish or bigoted? And if you don't mention it, how do you discourage insults, rudeness, boorishness and bigotry?
My advice is just tell them that in your opinion, I find person x's comments rude, bigoted, dull, boring or boorish. As in, as Adam said: God your dumb referencing myself, of course. I have no problem with that.
I never found Rosemary's comments insulting in the least. And I never found a need to pick up a ruler and smack the fingers sitting on someone elses' word processor to behave themselves like as in 'dontcha know this internet place is a politeness zone'.
So who appointed you politeness editor ?
I'm trying to understand how you become the internet objective policeman/defender of a theoretical or even possibly self-proclaimed victims of Rosemary's words.
So who appointed you politeness editor ?
I'm trying to understand how you become the internet objective policeman/defender of a theoretical or even possibly self-proclaimed victims of Rosemary's words.
I did. I prefer polite discussion, so I try to obtain polite discussion.
So you can do that on your blog, not someone elses'.
Like there hasn't ever been any testy comments here afore ? Neville Chamberlain was very polite to Adolf Hitler, and you should know how that helped
Britain.
I really don't understand how one self-appoints oneself decider of comments and defender of other adults who can speak for themselves but choose not to.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Did someone just pull out the Hitler card? I seem to recall that the U.S. was once "nice" to Sadaam (can you say the Reagan administration kids?)
"Nice" is a very subjective term, but there really should be more of it going around amongst like-minded people.
This blog is comprised of like-minded people defined by each of our sincere desires that the world (and all of its citizens) come to enjoy a better more peaceful standard of living. We "haves" should be prepared to "sacrifice" in order for the less fortunate to raise their standard of living. A civic minded American (and Canadian too) should recognize that it is their duty to work toward improving the world and striving to leave it a better place than how they found it. That is our moral obligation.
As a citizen of this planet, I am compelled by my inner conscious to do all I can to help the suffering in all the world. However, Christians are commanded by their God to do this. Now, if God can't motivate you to do this, what good is your faith? Hmmmmmm...
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
You guys are full of crap, except Tim who would take that as a compliment.
I dubbed Wince Politeness Man, a couple of years ago.
And his powers are spread across several blogs, including Dean's, Ara's and his own.
His powers unfortunately have no effect at my blog. I'm like kryptonite to "Nice" and that pisses Wince off enough to avoid me, lest he say something snotty.
Nice and polite come in several flavors. Recently I was obliged to have a smog test for my auto license renewal.
I went to smog tester station one who very, very politely said my auto failed the smog test but that I could send in to the State of California for a $ 500 credit allowance for the repairs necessary to get my license renewed. He further politely informed me, I would only have to pay the first $ 100, then anything over $ 600 as the State of Ca would cover the middle $ 500. I, then, politely said, thank you, I'll send the form in and be back when I receive the $ 500 credit chit.
I reconsidered about twenty minutes later and called my regular service repairman, who suggested I contact the smog tester next to his shop. I did.
Polite smog tester number two, put the gizmo in the tailpipe, checked his computer screen and politely informed me there was nothing wrong as the auto will pass and you'll have the certificate shortly and the fee will be $ 52.00.
Thank I said politely. I received the certificate fifteen minutes later and mailed in my license renewal.
It seems all politeness is not created equal even when like-minded people define their sincere desires that the world and all of its citizens come to enjoy a better more peaceful and of course more polite standard of living.
In evaluating this short scenario, I came to the conclusion that smog station guy number one and his employees were definitely the more polite.
I told the story to a close friend, who informed me, I should turn the assholes in smog station one into the fraud division of the DMV.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Ara:
Perhaps, but I'm the one who originally asked if Wince was a Brit because he was so goddam....polite all the time.
I remember that. If I'm not mistaken, it was that thread, where ever that was, that spurred me to expose him as the holder of an all powerful Steel Handkerchief. I remember being surprised ... and then not so surprised after all ... to learn he was from Kansas.
{And Mr. McKiernan, please note that this blog has adopted a dress code -- now that the children are attending our sessions. Readers will not be allowed to participate without shirt, in bare feet or while wearing swimming attire. Bunny Slippers and bathrobes worn over P.J's. are optional -- Your cooperation is appreciated.)
Your entire argument rest on an equivocation. Josh, the atheist you criticize, commits the same fallacy. Religious faith and trust are too entirely different things. Like the difference between murder and self defense. You can call both "killing" but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.
"I don't believe it is possible to live without any faith at all."
She equivocates on the word faith. Confusing faith[2] with faith[1], faith[3], and faith[6].
It's entirely possible to live without faith[2], and faith[5]. It's only definitions 1, 3, and 6 which are required.
She's got a point in criticizing the Dean's world commenter. He's being sloppy in his language. He's confusing proof with evidence.
I require credible evidence that god exists, not proof. In fact, I don't know of any of my beliefs that are proven in the sense of a foundationalist deduction from a set of axiomatic concepts or empirical evidence. Science doesn't prove anything either. Rationality isn't about proof.
I don't use, need, desire faith[2]. In fact I think that kind of faith is in fact prone to error. It short circuits the process of error detection. I live an entirely faith[2] free life. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes or belief in things that are incorrect.
As an example of this short circuiting: I was explaining to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia why chopping the hands off a thief was not ethical. I explained to him that there are issues of emergency (starving person stealing bread), proportionality, false testimony, mistaken identity, and human error (convicting the wrong person), all of which argue against such punishment. His response was to the effect "If we make any of those mistakes then Allah will send the amputated person to paradise in the afterlife. So no problem." That's what faith earns you, gross error.
Equivocation on the meaning of the word faith is a very common error made by the religious.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
The worst part about having your hands mistakenly chopped off by an insane Islamic country: You have virtually NO CHANCE at winning next year's international "Slap Jack" competition being held in Boise ID. Oh that, and masturbating just got reeeeeeal challenging.
I was stating an opinion, not attacking. If you are so sensitive when having your beliefs questioned maybe you should examine your beliefs. You don't hear me crying foul when everyone mocks my beliefs with the Fly-Spaghetti monster crap.
"You want answers?!"
"I want the truth!!"
"You can't handle the truth!!"
And the truth is folks, it's a fairy tale complete with all the magical and mystical elements we all enjoy in our fantasies. It's why Dean enjoys Battle Star Galactica - because it suspends our belief in reality. That's what creating God does for humanity.
So I guess in that sense, if we have created a God out of our need, then God does exist. The ideal of God exists; however, the living actual divine being was, is, and never will exist.
Adam, Eve, Noah, Job, David, Jesus, John, Paul, Buddha, Mohammad....the list goes on. Some are fictional characters, some are actual people with mythologic tales attached.
Search the truth and be honest - it's all make believe and you know it.
As a former believer, I wanted to believe. It's easier to believe....much easier. There's hope for justice, meaning, and an ultimate purpose to our lives. It's much harder to know that God is not real - that salvation is a lie - that heaven is a lie.
I'll take the morality of more atheists I know over the morality of most Christians I know.
Everyone lives their life as they choose, most Christians rarely put God ahead of themselves in the equation - is just social window dressing. Thanking God after a touchdown or after winning a Grammy - that's 100% horseshit!
What makes an atheist braver and place a higher sanctity on life than believers is that we know that this is all we've got - one life, one chance, so we have to make the most of it. It's true, you only get one chance - make it a good one.
So if I tell you that when you die you go to Big Rock Candy Mountain, you won't ask for proof?
How about if I say that the world is hollow and filled with fairies? If you ask for evidence, is your life is sucking?
Saying that you can see into people's minds, whoever they are, and calling them cowards, is the definition of an attack.
I don't require proof of god, because the question is meaningless. I also don't require god (or his self-appointed surrogates) to tell me how to live a good life, or what constitutes right and wrong. Am I a coward? And if you think I am, what the hell justification do you have? Are you a mind reader?
I happen to think that a lot of militant atheists are insufferable. But I would never tell them what they believe or why they believe it.
You're valjean ?
Faith is by definition immune to reason. I have always wondered, though, why modern Christians think Zeus' thunderbolts are silly superstition, but being born of a virgin is perfectly understandable. That's just me.
'What the hell are you getting so upset about?' he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. 'I thought you didn't believe in God.'
'I don't,' she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. 'But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.'
Yossarian laughed and turned her arms loose.
'Let's have a little more religious freedom between us,' he proposed obligingly. 'You don't believe in the God you want to, and I won't believe in the God I want to. Is that a deal?'
All the rest is detail.
Is it more likely that a planetoid of a perfect distance from a celestial body putting off the perfect amounts of radiation with the perfect atmospheric composition needed to support and sustain life occur, or is it more likely that something else had a hand in it?
I mean, I can go on and on with how unlikely life, especially our life (self-aware humanity) is to occur randomly versus directed. The probability of one occuring is much higher than the other.
I'm not religious. I tend to think that all religions have got it wrong. I guess that's why I'm more of a Deist than anything else.
I believe in the Sun. Does that count?
How'm I doing?
I've heard the cowardice argument before and think it's balderdash.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
you don't know my mom, do you?
You're part of the Sun? Dang, Ramone! You bad!
LOL!
I see a problem.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
Hypothesis, or insult?
Yes.
And just to be clear, Rosemary's comments were insults, whether she intended them to be or not.
Yours,
Wince
Glad to see you.
Exactly.
Wince, turn off the violins. You're comments are a bit scripty and insulting in their own polite whinny
fashion.
Any comment can be viewed as an insult depending on one's subjective options especially those suffering from the don't-cry-for-me-Argentina because I'm always the perpetual victim/loser and the torturer always, always wins --- boo hoo-- syndrome.
Oh, sobness, the un-intended torture of it all.
I can't go on, Rosemary...
sob, sob
God, you're dumb. But I certainly don't mean that as an insult; just an accurate assessment.
I have absolute conviction that Christ would have approved of Wince's consistent attempt to be polite.
I have as much faith in the existence of a higher being as I do in the existence of a corporeal levitating conscious pasta with omnipotent power.
Weirdly enough, I have a faith that there are reasons for things that happen, and that Karma, a kind of universal justice, a balance exists. For some reason that works for me and keeps me out of trouble. There are consequences for actions.
I also believe that meditation has a physical, emotional, psychological and medical benefit. I believe this since I've experienced it. I believe that prayer works along this same line since the concentration of Catholic penitence I've witnessed, doing the Rosary, is not unlike a form of meditation.
Perhaps my view is different considering I'm a 'heathen' but I take issue with Tim's 'knowing it's not real'. You KNOW what you KNOW, why do you want to force it upon people? Telling them you KNOW there's no god only makes you sound like a pompous ass, not like you have any knowledge at all.
I KNOW there are Lares that live in my house. I KNOW there is a great God and Goddess. Does that mean I think you must KNOW these things, or even accept them? No, just that you must accept we're different in our belief systems (and believing there is nothing is a belief system). You have your's which is best for you, I have mine. Let it be.
But I like hearing from Wince and Rhianna, Tim. Without them, who would we play with?
Catch-22McKiernan,You said this:
Wince, turn off the violins. You're comments are a bit scripty and insulting in their own polite whinny fashion.
Any comment can be viewed as an insult depending on one's subjective options especially those suffering from the don't-cry-for-me-Argentina because I'm always the perpetual victim/loser and the torturer always, always wins --- boo hoo-- syndrome.
Earlier, I said this:
People often see insults where none are intended. This allows them to play the victim. And it allows me, Politenessman, to leap from the phone booth and rescue them!
On a thread on Dean's world I said something like I was pretty sure that people who like a certain edginess in their internet writing found me a prudish nag.
I've often struggled with the problem: How do you tell someone they are being insulting, rude, boorish or biggoted without being or appearing insulting, rude, boorish or bigoted? And if you don't mention it, how do you discourage insults, rudeness, boorishness and bigotry?
Now, do you think you are telling me anything I don't know?
Yours,
Wince
Sometimes a bit of humor can help, if done gracefully.
The best advice I could give on this subject though is that a little goes a long way. Trying to 'police' every rude comment makes a person seem like nothing but a senseless nag. An occasional appeal to politeness without pointing fingers at anyone is probably more productive.
I would also guess that if you think someone absolutely needs to be corrected, whenever possible a private forum rather then a public one is more effective.
I'm an example of someone who has always wanted and tried to believe but deep down inside I knew otherwise.
Thanks, Dave. I'll probably try pulling Politenessman out of the phone booth more often - but not too often. And not pointing at a particular person is good. He can use lines like, "Suspects abound!"
I would also guess that if you think someone absolutely needs to be corrected, whenever possible a private forum rather then a public one is more effective.
Absolutely.
Yours,
Wince
More people convince themselves to believe out of fear (of going to hell?) than convince themselves NOT to believe out of fear that they will have to change their lives.
Your argument is even stronger if you include fear of death.
Yours,
Wince
My advice is just tell them that in your opinion, I find person x's comments rude, bigoted, dull, boring or boorish. As in, as Adam said: God your dumb referencing myself, of course. I have no problem with that.
I never found Rosemary's comments insulting in the least. And I never found a need to pick up a ruler and smack the fingers sitting on someone elses' word processor to behave themselves like as in 'dontcha know this internet place is a politeness zone'.
So who appointed you politeness editor ?
I'm trying to understand how you become the internet objective policeman/defender of a theoretical or even possibly self-proclaimed victims of Rosemary's words.
That's all.
I'm trying to understand how you become the internet objective policeman/defender of a theoretical or even possibly self-proclaimed victims of Rosemary's words.
I did. I prefer polite discussion, so I try to obtain polite discussion.
What do you do to get what you want?
Yours,
Wince
Like there hasn't ever been any testy comments here afore ? Neville Chamberlain was very polite to Adolf Hitler, and you should know how that helped
Britain.
I really don't understand how one self-appoints oneself decider of comments and defender of other adults who can speak for themselves but choose not to.
Kindly,
Catch
So you can tell people what to do on other people's blogs, as you just did there, but Wince can't?
So who appointed you politeness editor ?
I think I did a couple of months back.
"Nice" is a very subjective term, but there really should be more of it going around amongst like-minded people.
This blog is comprised of like-minded people defined by each of our sincere desires that the world (and all of its citizens) come to enjoy a better more peaceful standard of living. We "haves" should be prepared to "sacrifice" in order for the less fortunate to raise their standard of living. A civic minded American (and Canadian too) should recognize that it is their duty to work toward improving the world and striving to leave it a better place than how they found it. That is our moral obligation.
As a citizen of this planet, I am compelled by my inner conscious to do all I can to help the suffering in all the world. However, Christians are commanded by their God to do this. Now, if God can't motivate you to do this, what good is your faith? Hmmmmmm...
I dubbed Wince Politeness Man, a couple of years ago.
And his powers are spread across several blogs, including Dean's, Ara's and his own.
His powers unfortunately have no effect at my blog. I'm like kryptonite to "Nice" and that pisses Wince off enough to avoid me, lest he say something snotty.
When the chips are down, the horse is empty.
Perhaps, but I'm the one who originally asked if Wince was a Brit because he was so goddam....polite all the time.
IJS.
I went to smog tester station one who very, very politely said my auto failed the smog test but that I could send in to the State of California for a $ 500 credit allowance for the repairs necessary to get my license renewed. He further politely informed me, I would only have to pay the first $ 100, then anything over $ 600 as the State of Ca would cover the middle $ 500. I, then, politely said, thank you, I'll send the form in and be back when I receive the $ 500 credit chit.
I reconsidered about twenty minutes later and called my regular service repairman, who suggested I contact the smog tester next to his shop. I did.
Polite smog tester number two, put the gizmo in the tailpipe, checked his computer screen and politely informed me there was nothing wrong as the auto will pass and you'll have the certificate shortly and the fee will be $ 52.00.
Thank I said politely. I received the certificate fifteen minutes later and mailed in my license renewal.
It seems all politeness is not created equal even when like-minded people define their sincere desires that the world and all of its citizens come to enjoy a better more peaceful and of course more polite standard of living.
In evaluating this short scenario, I came to the conclusion that smog station guy number one and his employees were definitely the more polite.
I told the story to a close friend, who informed me, I should turn the assholes in smog station one into the fraud division of the DMV.
{And Mr. McKiernan, please note that this blog has adopted a dress code -- now that the children are attending our sessions. Readers will not be allowed to participate without shirt, in bare feet or while wearing swimming attire. Bunny Slippers and bathrobes worn over P.J's. are optional -- Your cooperation is appreciated.)
Your entire argument rest on an equivocation. Josh, the atheist you criticize, commits the same fallacy. Religious faith and trust are too entirely different things. Like the difference between murder and self defense. You can call both "killing" but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.
Can I bring my crayons ?
I don't think Rosemary had an argument with or without equivocation.
She was just telling us stuff about her thoughts on the subject matter.
So your spin seems a bit spinney.
"I don't believe it is possible to live without any faith at all."
She equivocates on the word faith. Confusing faith[2] with faith[1], faith[3], and faith[6].
It's entirely possible to live without faith[2], and faith[5]. It's only definitions 1, 3, and 6 which are required.
She's got a point in criticizing the Dean's world commenter. He's being sloppy in his language. He's confusing proof with evidence.
I require credible evidence that god exists, not proof. In fact, I don't know of any of my beliefs that are proven in the sense of a foundationalist deduction from a set of axiomatic concepts or empirical evidence. Science doesn't prove anything either. Rationality isn't about proof.
I don't use, need, desire faith[2]. In fact I think that kind of faith is in fact prone to error. It short circuits the process of error detection. I live an entirely faith[2] free life. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes or belief in things that are incorrect.
As an example of this short circuiting: I was explaining to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia why chopping the hands off a thief was not ethical. I explained to him that there are issues of emergency (starving person stealing bread), proportionality, false testimony, mistaken identity, and human error (convicting the wrong person), all of which argue against such punishment. His response was to the effect "If we make any of those mistakes then Allah will send the amputated person to paradise in the afterlife. So no problem." That's what faith earns you, gross error.
Equivocation on the meaning of the word faith is a very common error made by the religious.