cdave: (Default)
Anyone free this evening? I've now got 2 spare tickets to Nine lessons & carols for Godless People tonight at the Bloomsbury (Euston).

Come see if Johnny Ball overruns denying climate change again!
cdave: (Default)
[ profile] andrewducker's hosting another conversation on the nature of changing belief. Well trying to. I hijaked one thread to argue for Agnosticism again. I wasn't joking when I set my religion to "Evangelical Strong Agnostic" of facebook. (I am somewhat tongue in cheek now having set it to match an equivalent from one of [ profile] paulcornell2's stories)

There's a couple of famous arguements for Atheism: {ETA not Agnostism}

Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it.

I often argue against strong atheism. For instance the argument that you can assert anything, even the existance a teapot orbiting the Sun too far away to see with a telescope. Or: "I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Richard Dawkins

Both of those things, are things I'm happy to assign negligible probabilities of existence.

Gardens are seen all the time, and there is not the slightest evidence of fairies. While it may be argued that it's impossible to prove a negative (as I have done previously), I'm happy enough to say that the overwhelming lack of evidence is enough that on the balance of probability I don't beleive in fairies. [ profile] cdave claps his hands.

The contents of solar space on the other hand is not so thoroughly known. However there's no reasonable way an implicitly human made teapot could placed into a solar orbit without more finance that I be prepared to believe would be spent in secret on such a daft project. {ETA} Therefore I believe that such a teapot does not exist, although I cannot prove it.

However as most gods are defined, there's not a similar argument that can be made. Their existence is beyond the realms human experience, so cannot logically be dismissed {ETA} as their existence would be beyond our experience.
cdave: (Default)
Owing to being really busy at work, and (when I get out on time) in the evenings, I've not posted much recently. So here's my current list of things I don't have time to do justice to:

  • Dating
    • Having seen a couple of people point to a flawed article on dating amongst other things has made me want to try and write an Introspection post on the topic, so I can get my own head around my own thoughts on it.
  • RaceFail '09
    • I've spent many hours I don't have to spare reading up on the past three of months this fandom wide argument, and come to the conclusion that I don't have anything useful I could say.
    • I may or may not keep reading, but given that you would find it hard it hard to tell if I had, lets not worry.
  • Avenue Q
    • Went to go see this at the weekend with Dad. Very good.
    • Particularity enjoyed the song "Everyone's a little bit racist".
    • For some reason I got tunes from The Little Mermaid stuck in my head afterwards.
      • What is the correct way to include A Title in a sentence about "a title"?
  • Images

    • New Shelves (from Islington Council's version of freecycle)
      • Photobucket
        How do I get in my room now?

      • Photobucket
        I just put these up, how are they full already?
      • Also: That's a lot of cr*p on my door too. Time to clear that down.
    • "Northern Irish" flag

      • Remember that artsy new flag for Northern Ireland?
        Well over the weekend it got caught in the string, and today seems to have been torn in half. Nature causing art to imitate life?
  • My Mad war with [ profile] chiller
  • A repost from my Facebook wall explaining why I was explaining maths to Jehovah's Witnesses
    • Gödel's incompleteness theorem is a mathematical proof that in any sufficiently complex system of arithmetic, there will statements that you cannot prove as true or false.

      E.g. Tell me if the sentence on the next line is true or false:
      This sentence is false.

      You can assume the statement is true and develop a whole branch of maths off of that. Or you can assume it is false and develop a whole different branch of maths.

      This is what I personally believe about God. The question is undecidable. You can form a coherent set of beliefs starting from the assumption that there is a deity/pantheon of some sort. You can form a coherent set of beliefs starting from the assumption that there is no God. But since it's not provable either way this seems like a waste of time.

      This is why my religion on Facebook is Evangelical (I like telling people this) Strong Agnostic (I believe you cannot disprove a god).

  • Meta post
    • Given how little time I seem to have to blog I wanted to take a look at why I do again. Culminating in a poll asking you to pick one of my tags: Diary, Link, Introspection, Reveiws.

    • Ironically, I don't have time for this.
cdave: (Default)
The book I've least enjoyed, was a Christian propaganda, thinly veiled as a sci-fi novel. Just as the protagonist gives up looking for proof, and accepts that God had saved his life, the proof that it was a miracle all along pops up. The resolution just rings false with me.

I'm aware that many of the great historical works of art were produced explicitly for Christianity, but I tend to avoid anything from the last century that markets itself as such.

However of my favourite illustrators is taking part in an upcoming Christian comic book anthology. So it looks like I'll be buying something created explicitly as Christian. I'll be interested to see if it's not preachy. Or if it is, if the story and art is good enough to over come this.

I'm trying to figure out what this starslip extra comic says about Vanderbeam.

The Starslip universe has not (to my recollection) dealt with religion before.
In fact not many that I read do. Skin Horse lists blood types for its characters, but not religion.

I don't think the strips primary purpose was actually statement on Vanderbeam's religion. Nor his intelligence for that matter. It's not clear, but I don't think he's saying these are statements of fact. It's more of a comment on how he values Beauty above Truth. A view he's shown before. The only reason that the religious context is interesting is how conspicuous it is in its absence elsewhere.

Analysing an evolutionary model of religious memes.

Make your own Papercraft Ceiling Cat (if that's the bible translation you follow).
Seen at Snowking's
cdave: (Brains)
Come my child, flip Jesus's switch.

Then Repent to iGod.
I think he's related to Alice, and Eliza.

Forwarded by the sibling

Agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions: A rebuttal..

I consider myself to be a strong agnostic. I believe that there's no way to dis-prove a gods' existence. Therefore Atheism, as a belief that there is no such thing, simply isn't justified. But at the same time I cannot envision a set of circumstances that would lead me to beleive in a god. Essentially I think religion's are pretty much a moot point.

Having said that I can accept that others have had experiences that lead them to have a different belief structure to my own. I've just yet to hear one that's come anywhere near impacting me.


cdave: (Default)

May 2017

 123 456


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 23rd, 2017 09:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios