2nd November 2011

“Does one set of superstitions have more legitimacy than another because more people happen to have been duped by them?”

Joan McAlpine

12 Responses to “2nd November 2011”

  1. captainzero Says:

    In a word, no. The number of people that believe something has no bearing on the truth value of the proposition. Flat earth, anyone?

    On a personal note. My.Wife.Rules.

    My daughter received a candy with a ‘Million Dollar Bill” attached. Covered on one side with religious warnings about hell, lust, Jebus and whatnot. The wife attaches a note: “No, thank you.” , marches it back to the source and hand delivers it to a slightly perplexed christian housewife. Awesome.

  2. R J Says:

    capt z………………….

    i adore women….and aggressive women……

    with the brains to back it up………….

    send my systen into OVERDRIVE !!! a life-long

    affliction.

    i have 4 women who have been my friends

    for over 30 years…..and i find them

    wonderful. each of them are what i like to

    think of as, ” beautiful survivors.” and i am a

    lucky guy to know them.

    YOU are a VERY lucky guy!!! i love what your

    wife did with the candy !! AWESOME !!

  3. R J Says:

    note to sinjin………………

    around my neck i wear a dog tag.

    it is red metal in the shape of a heart.

    engreved on the heart are these words………………

    ” GUITAR IS LIFE ”

  4. archaeopteryx Says:

    No greater legitimacy lies in numbers. They are just evidence of belief, not fact.

  5. Atheist MC Says:

    although somehow there is a critical mass of believers that can magically promote false belief from a delusion to a religion.

  6. archaeopteryx Says:

    Reminds me a bit of the SF/fantasy stories that describe gods that require a sufficiency of believers to exist!

  7. Clark Craig Says:

    In the case of the word “God” being used. In general it implys a belief in a single creator and to an an Atheist, should be no more offensive than the belief that each individual is their own god. By the way, the term God is generic and can stand in for any Monotheistic diety.

  8. The Heretic Says:

    What??!! A consensus doesn’t make it so??? Surely you jest.

  9. electrabotanical Says:

    Abstinence makes the Catholic Church grow Fondlers

  10. Atheist MC Says:

    In the case of the word “God” being used. In general it implys a belief in a single creator and to an an Atheist [sic], should be no more offensive than the belief that each individual is their own god.

    Not only off topic but loaded with assumptions. I’m not aware that atheists find the word god, or indeed God offensive in context. However I understand why in a supposed secular democracy attempts to remove the assumption that all citizens are theistic in some way might make it look that way. What atheists want is superstition to be confined to the individual and not endemic in government.
    Also, atheists do not believe each individual is their own god. In general we consider ourselves part of humanity as a whole without the interference of supernatural entities.

    By the way, the term God is generic and can stand in for any Monotheistic diety.

    Well duh! I doubt you need inform any atheist of that. However you may want to mention it (quietly) in some Christian circles, where they seem to have forgotten that their particular god has a name (Yahweh or Jehovah) and that other gods may be available to worship.

  11. Jeff Says:

    I think we can all agree that the met-empirical experience of wonder at the vastness of the universe and the diversity of phenomena within that vastness leads most often to the supernatural explanation thereof, whether mono- or pan- theistic in its expression. It’s far easier to accept those mythological explanations rather than do the hard skull work to find the natural causality behind all that complexity. What I find so frustrating is that when someone else has done the hard work, and a natural explanation is presented, why is it so damned easy for humans to reject it in favor of the mythological on the grounds that it is “unproven”?

    Anybody else scratching their dandruff over this one?

  12. Rj Says:

    jeff at 1759
    :::::::::::::::

    i’ll tell you what kills me……..the very dinks that

    are quick to cry “unproven” are just as blank about

    science, and physics, and astro-physics, as

    EVERYBODY ELSE !!! “skull work” is right. the kinds

    of advanced research that go on are way over nearly

    everyones’ head. so, to disperse the new knowledge

    and discoveries, scientists have to break it down

    into simpler language and demonstrations that the

    average guy can get his mind around. now, the

    RUB here is MAKING THE EFFORT to at least TRY

    to get a grasp of what the researchers are talking

    about. stephen hawking’s discussions with guys who

    operate at his level, are gonna be much more complex

    than the information he puts in his books for the general

    market. STILL, if you make the EFFORT to read his stuff

    ( even if you only get a LITTLE of it ) you’ll be much

    closer to understanding REALITY than the dinks who

    make NO effort because their understanding is based on

    myths of the supernatural.

    also, scientists can be conservative in displaying their

    wares. if they’re not 100% certain of some findings,

    they’ll be the first to say so…………..usually stating

    their ideas like this:

    we believe the reason for “effect A” is almost certainly

    “cause B.” we have eliminated theoretical causes C,

    D, E, as definitely untrue…………..and have settled

    upon “cause B” because we know that it positively

    produces 9 of the 10 variables necessary for “effect A”

    to occur.

    we are currently researching variable 10.

    ……………………………………..

    so the dinks who pull the “unproven” trigger are

    nowhere near as fast on the draw as the scientists

    who posit the theories originally.

    and the dinks, with their “faith” and “holy words”

    NEVER EVER have to do ANY ANY ANY skull work

    at all !!!!!!!