Reply #176 June 27, 2005 10:32 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay maybe I'll argue without the "Sophie's choice" at the end.

And if you can't see the qualitative difference between a rather un-specific belief that any representative from the religion in question will tell you they are not sure about but believe in anyway and a very specific statement that promises you a clearly defined reward for a clearly defined crime, then I'm afraid you will never understand religious people and they will never understand you.

First things first I'm not an atheist I just don't follow any organised religion.

Okay, onto the "arguement". How does specificity change the qualitative difference? You haven't actually told me what it is, you have just told me you believe there is one. Marvellous, have a cookie.

An uneducated guess is an uneducated guess. If we judged them based on pure logic you might say one was more likely than the other sure. If I showed a smallish wooden box to 2 people and one guessed it contained matter and the other guessed a dead mouse you might say that the former guess was more likely than the later and judge the people accordingly. However if you take their life histories/personalities into account you might judge it differently. Maybe the first guesser is just a very unimaginative concrete thinker with a science background, maybe the second has had a long history of burrying their dead pet mice in small wooden boxes and simply associated boxes strongly with dead mice. Both of these people base their beliefs on their life experience. In the face of limited information we are forced to make guesses based on our experience. The less the guess matters in the immediate future or the more unlikely it is that we will know the answer, the more likely we may be prone to throwing caution to the wind when guessing.

Besides I think most religions have very specific components, think about some of the implied/explicit specificity in religions:

Very specific about what acts are good and bad, though in the real world these things tend to have grey areas.

Specific about the number of god/s.

Specific about the number of fates your soul has after death.

Specific about the way you should pray.

Etc. etc. etc.

Beliefs specific or not are just a part of human nature and not an accurate gauge of sanity. How you might aquire those beliefs is a different matter, for instance if you believe your fridge came to life told you will get 72 virgins after you die that may be another story.

Reply #177 June 27, 2005 12:05 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

"Very specific about what acts are good and bad, though in the real world these things tend to have grey areas."

Given that in the Bible there are rules that apply to all children of Noah and rules that apply only to Jews, and religions that believe that some of the rules but not all of them apply to everyone, and that there is literally thousands of years of essays and books written by rabbis and church thinkers interpreting these rules, I cannot find that the Bible is very specific when it comes to good and bad.

Perhaps you are talking about other religions? More specific ones?

"Specific about the number of god/s."

The Bible often refers to G-d referring to Himself and others like him. Ancient Judaism did not deny the existence of other gods, merely believed that the Jewish god was the one who created the world (the other gods might still exist though). At least one of the words in Hebrew that refer to G-d is plural. Many other religions have very many gods, the original celtic religion apparently had to number them.

And Christianity still cannot agree whether the one true G-d is one or three.

"Specific about the number of fates your soul has after death."

I have seen hundreds of rabbis' opinions on that.

"Specific about the way you should pray."

All Jewish prayer books appear to be based on interpretations of what the Bible commands prayer should be like. Yet they are all different.

I still think it is more sane to believe in some unspecified reward for good people after death than to be able to measure the reward in virgins.

Reply #178 June 27, 2005 11:27 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Okay, I will concede that there are many different interpretations of different religions. Still each of those different interpretation has quite specific components. Even though christians may argue above whether there are 3 gods or one both side are taking a specific standpoint. From your line of arguement they should be considered more insane because not only do they have specific beliefs but they also bother to argue about it.

I still think it is more sane to believe in some unspecified reward for good people after death than to be able to measure the reward in virgins.

My question is why. In this case one person's guess is as good as another because nobody knows the truth and the possiblities are infinite. As I said before you should either show me some foundation for your belief that specificity versus generality in regards to unfounded beliefs say something about your sanity or you should admit to being insane yourself by your own reasoning.

Reply #179 June 28, 2005 12:15 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Even though christians may argue above whether there are 3 gods or one both side are taking a specific standpoint

--religion/# of gods can essentially be simplified to two groups...Theists and Diests (check my article...)

Reply #180 June 28, 2005 5:32 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

--religion/# of gods can essentially be simplified to two groups...Theists and Diests (check my article...)

Yeah I remember reading that in 3001: A Final Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke.

Reply #181 June 28, 2005 8:41 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

"My question is why. In this case one person's guess is as good as another because nobody knows the truth and the possiblities are infinite."

If you don't know something, guesses are more likely to be wrong the more specific they are.

If I had to guess the outcome of a game of roulette and guessed "red", I would more likely be right than somebody who guessed "14". And to bet one's life on "14" is therefor more insane than betting one's life on "red". It's even better to recognise "red" as a possible outcome.

And it's certainly more sane to base one's game on believing in the possibility of "red" than on the certainty of "14".

A sane person is more likely to bet some money on "red" than all his money on "14".

And that's because the first is a calculated risk and fun while the second is ruining your life.

Reply #182 June 28, 2005 11:16 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

If you don't know something, guesses are more likely to be wrong the more specific they are....

Agreed, I already gave a similar example a couple of posts back.

A sane person is more likely to bet some money on "red" than all his money on "14".....

I think you are confusing sanity with caution. Think about base jumpers. To people who aren't willing to take that risk they look "crazy" but usually base jumper are fairly normal people who jump happen to get a thrill out of high risk behaviour. Granted doing things that are highly risky all the time might rightly get you the label of stupid, but sanity is another issue all together.

I can't say exactly what goes on in a person's mind that leads them to do these terrible things all I can tell you is that these people believe in their cause. They think they are doing good. They think everyone else is on the side of evil. Therefore from their point of view their is no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded any less than a goody-two shoes Christian expects to go to heaven. The 72 virgins thing is just an elboration on what paradise will be like, and not suprisingly it seem to be a very male centre vision of paradise.

Reply #183 June 28, 2005 11:50 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah I remember reading that in 3001: A Final Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke

--One of the best authors and Series around...

If you don't know something, guesses are more likely to be wrong the more specific they are

--maybe...

--doc b

Reply #184 June 28, 2005 3:43 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Bakerstreet

The Bush Service record is very clear from his own military records. Dislike of Bush does not alter the fact he did not attend drills for 6 months in 1972, he did not follow orders and Air Force Regulations, he was grounded for not taking a physical and had it not been that he was the son of a powerful man (George H W Bush) he would have had to pay the price for not following the regulations that were in place.

Reply #185 June 28, 2005 3:56 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Wow, and Col Gene uses a reply as an excuse to reiterate the same statement he has made 100 times before, ignoring the point of what he is replying to.

I am beginning to think that the Col's posts aren't even for us or the casual JU reader, rather they are for stacking search engine results. Kind of like the folks we read about who do all the "Nazi" stuff regarding Bush so that anyone who searches Nazis comes up with Bush.

I really wonder. I can't think of many reasons someone would want to say the same thing on 100 different pages, and then when challenged say the same thing back, almost verbatim. They could, of course, be an AI programmed to do it tirelessly. Obviously it isn't to persuade us, since nothing is being done to do so..

Reply #186 June 28, 2005 4:32 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Bakerstreet The Bush Service record is very clear from his own military records. Dislike of Bush does not alter the fact he did not attend drills for 6 months in 1972, he did not follow orders and Air Force Regulations, he was grounded for not taking a physical and had it not been that he was the son of a powerful man (George H W Bush) he would have had to pay the price for not following the regulations that were in place.

--COL G, what you seem to forget is that there were many others that bailed on military service...so don't go blaming bush...blame the others...

Reply #187 June 28, 2005 5:35 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The Bush Service record is very clear from his own military records. Dislike of Bush does not alter the fact he did not attend drills for 6 months in 1972, he did not follow orders and Air Force Regulations, he was grounded for not taking a physical and had it not been that he was the son of a powerful man (George H W Bush) he would have had to pay the price for not following the regulations that were in place.

Hey Col... "if" what your saying is a fact then why is it your the only one shouting about it and not the democrats or the liberals? Can you explain that?

Reply #188 June 28, 2005 5:37 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Bakerstreet The Bush Service record is very clear from his own military records. Dislike of Bush does not alter the fact he did not attend drills for 6 months in 1972, he did not follow orders and Air Force Regulations, he was grounded for not taking a physical and had it not been that he was the son of a powerful man (George H W Bush) he would have had to pay the price for not following the regulations that were in place. --COL G, what you seem to forget is that there were many others that bailed on military service...so don't go blaming bush...blame the others...

Yeah how about we start with Clinton?

Reply #189 June 28, 2005 6:52 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Clinton and Cheney were up front. They did not want to go to Vietnam and did everything to stay out of the military. Bush also did not want to go to Vietnam but wanted it to look as if he served when it did not prevent him from doing what he wanted to do. He knew that National Guard Uniits did not go to Vietnam. We in the Army had a saying, "women and children first and then the National Guard", when talking about going to Vietnam!

Reply #190 June 28, 2005 7:02 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Drmiler

The information about the Bush service was first reported bt the Boston Globe and last year DoD released the Bush records. The one record that has not surfased is the required report that results when a Pilot does not take a physical and is grounded. The summary of his pay records shows he did not attend drills and was not paid for drills June- Oct and Dec 1972. The excuse given was that he has enough drills for a "Good Retirement Year" Problem is that to maintain flight status, a pilot MUST fly and attend double the number of drills needed for a "good retirement" year. The fact is Bush failed to attend drills and maintain flight STATUS and then did not take his physical and was GROUNDED! The ONLY reason he was in the Guard was to fly for which the taxpayers paid a lot of money to train him!

Reply #191 June 28, 2005 8:49 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

--One of the best authors and Series around...

Agreed. Have you read Time's Eye yet? It is sort of a Time Odyssey version of the series co-written with Steven Baxter, Arthur calls it an orthequel to Space Odyssey.

Reply #192 June 29, 2005 12:19 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

The information about the Bush service was first reported bt the Boston Globe and last year DoD released the Bush records. The one record that has not surfased is the required report that results when a Pilot does not take a physical and is grounded. The summary of his pay records shows he did not attend drills and was not paid for drills June- Oct and Dec 1972. The excuse given was that he has enough drills for a "Good Retirement Year" Problem is that to maintain flight status, a pilot MUST fly and attend double the number of drills needed for a "good retirement" year. The fact is Bush failed to attend drills and maintain flight STATUS and then did not take his physical and was GROUNDED! The ONLY reason he was in the Guard was to fly for which the taxpayers paid a lot of money to train him!

LIKE I SAID:

Hey Col... "if" what your saying is a fact then why is it your the only one shouting about it and not the democrats or the liberals?

Since "your" the only one whining about it I expect it's either not a big deal or bogus. And just an FYI for the rest of the class. Cheney may have used deferments to get out of going, but Clinton "dodged" the draft entirely!

Reply #193 June 29, 2005 7:21 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler

I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service. The number of people talking about his service does not change the fact he did not obey regulations. I wonder what Buah would say if the military today did not obey his orders the same way he did not obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (Nixon) that was in charge when he failed to get a REQUIRED physical and attend drills?

Reply #194 June 29, 2005 8:11 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service. The number of people talking about his service does not change the fact he did not obey regulations. I wonder what Buah would say if the military today did not obey his orders the same way he did not obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (Nixon) that was in charge when he failed to get a REQUIRED physical and attend drills?

Okay, I'm from Missouri. Show me who else is whining!

Reply #195 June 29, 2005 8:35 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service. The number of people talking about his service does not change the fact he did not obey regulations. I wonder what Buah would say if the military today did not obey his orders the same way he did not obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (Nixon) that was in charge when he failed to get a REQUIRED physical and attend drills?

And that really shows how pathetic you are. Bush not attending drills is a useless issue that liberals use to somehow justify more of their hatred against Bush. Amazing how people who hate the military so much are so offended that Bush missed a drill.

Reply #196 June 29, 2005 9:34 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Agreed. Have you read Time's Eye yet? It is sort of a Time Odyssey version of the series co-written with Steven Baxter, Arthur calls it an orthequel to Space Odyssey

--Ypep, I personally liked "Timeship" better, long book though...

Reply #197 June 29, 2005 9:45 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

IslandDog

When members of the Guard and Reserve who did not have the pull GWB had did not attend drills or follow regulations, they were placed on Active Duty and were subject to assignment to Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 70's! It is a BIG DEAL when a member of the military, especially an office, does not follow regulatuions. Following regulations and orders is the MOST BASIC requirement in the military!

Reply #198 June 29, 2005 10:28 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

When members of the Guard and Reserve who did not have the pull GWB had did not attend drills or follow regulations, they were placed on Active Duty and were subject to assignment to Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 70's! It is a BIG DEAL when a member of the military, especially an office, does not follow regulatuions. Following regulations and orders is the MOST BASIC requirement in the military

--Two things, so what, bush is not the only one who ran.....get it...and also, the most basic requirement in getting a point across is to concede to the other person that sure, you get their point, but that you respect their opinion, only that you still have your own, you have yet to do such... you are fighting a battle that can't be won...your're facing a tag team like debate (sucks doesn't it)....think about it...

Reply #199 June 30, 2005 9:24 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiler I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service. The number of people talking about his service does not change the fact he did not obey regulations. I wonder what Buah would say if the military today did not obey his orders the same way he did not obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief (Nixon) that was in charge when he failed to get a REQUIRED physical and attend drills?

You say it doesn't change anything! I'll say it again because you must be hearing impaired. SO what? Prove this in a court of law or shut up about it. "Until" that happens what "you" and others say about it means less than nothing! Hey Dr. Bailey can I join the tag team?

Reply #200 June 30, 2005 9:31 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

"I am far from the only one talking about the Bush military service."

To that I certainly agree. I simply question, as do many in the mainstream Democratic party, the sanity in this constant bashing by folks like yourself when it accomplishes basically nothing. Other Democrats languish in anonymity, other causes go ignored, while you continue to drone on while no one listens.

It isn't that we believe you are the only one, Col. Perhaps you are the only one HERE, but the real meat of the matter is how seriously people take the argument, even in the mainstream Bush opposition.

If you are being marginalized, it isn't because you are a voice crying in the wilderness, but because what you're saying makes you look like all the other kooks crying in the wilderness...