Posts

Comments

Comment by mist42nz on 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong · 2011-11-23T09:40:14.909Z · score: -4 (6 votes) · LW · GW

29

'#29 would be less wrong if you update for the realisation that Hinduism isn't a religion (it's a collection of similar religions). Also atheism, from the outside is a belief system which has tenants, position on deity and deity principles, and often recommends moral and ethical behaviour values based on anthrological position in relation to humans, authority and diety (or lack thereof). Futhermore these tenants are debated, expounded, tested, philosophised about and recorded in document. Often there is also demands and improperly qualified examination (based on wild-claims and popular brands of god/religion) that rely on faith and false assumption. ("creation of the brand of 'sky daddy') . That atheism is a natural vs. a revealed religion does not stop it being a religion "just because atheists say so" (because they don't like religion").

Who gets to set the value of God, for the test anyway?? For me the value of God "Is that which creates the whole of being". (ie universe/multiverse, with time being merely one dimension of many). All other values are other peoples' variants or "commercial brands". :. theism is the only sane choice, with further knowledge and exploration avilable from there. Atheism would require refutation of creation, or of all forms of existance (even illusionary ones). Consensus agreement on belief doesn't make it any truer (or falser) - and all tests must be done in context to the Information under examination. ie All atheist arguments re: god seem to rotate around a strawman assumption of God (eg like disproving drink is good for you by picking CocaCola is the only True Drink). And then they go on to build a Jengo of arguments and assumptions to prove their beliefs are correct - where they refuse to test their assumptions as they assume its Disputing Definitions (where if a possible assumption is occur it is likely to be less wrong to test it's case, and note the contexts)

Comment by mist42nz on Belief in Belief · 2011-11-23T09:10:52.735Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You have declared B(X) and B(~X) as is often done (re: P=P, Q=~P)

yet you have not proven (or examined) that X is properly (and only) dividable into X, ~X for all cases of "X" for practice: "this sentence is not true". is easily correct, if one realises that it -assumes- that the only possible values of the sentence are covered by X OR ~X. (ie the B(X)= TRUE || B(~X)=FALSE). When one realises that "a square circle" looks exactly like 'a square circle', and thus can be "real" then one starts to understand the a priori assumptions one has created when looking at conditions tested by B(X) and B(~X) as proof tests.

:) Not believing in belief (or faith) is a belief.