Pain Paien

I meant that to signify "no omnipotent being like the one described in biblical writings". If you propose a god that does not interfere in reality, then no, there is no logical basis to choose #1, except for the principle of parsimony.

yguy

What does God "interfering in reality" have to do with it?

Parsimony is not a principle, it is a test applied to a proposition to determine its worthiness for consideration - and not a very reliable one at that.

Pain Paien

The biblical description of god intervening in reality is not consistent with actual reality. This line of discussion isn't for this forum, however.

How does this make it not a principle?

As for its reliability, as I didn't really stake anything on that, I don't particularly care.

yguy

As I am using the term, principle is a general statement or idea from which a specific statement or idea may be reliably deduced. For instance, from the Pythagorean theorem we can reliably deduce - within the Euclidean paradigm - that if the legs of a right triangle are of lengths 7 and 24, the length of the hypotenuse is 25. Parsimony, OTOH, is based on Occam's Razor, which says entities shouldn't be multiplied unnecessarily. There is way to much wiggle room in the word "unnecessary" for anything to be reliably deduced from it.

The real point is, it is hardly some objective standard by which one can reliably determine the truth of anything. As far as I know, its only value is when one is groping in the dark for explanations for something that isn't understood. Presumably the one which passed the "parsimony" test with the highest score would be the one to spend time investigating. No way in the world can such a test give a clue about God's existence.

Pain Paien

Pointless semantics followed by a strawman.

There is more than one way to define principle, as you doubtless know, so your comments amount to very little.

I never said parsimony proved anything, it's just a logical position that in the absense of any evidence, there's no reason to assume a creator. This is irrelevant, however, because you don't believe in a creator that doesn't interfere in reality anyway(or you've been obfuscating intentionally).

I don't plan on bandying semantics with you any further: it's just boring. Should you choose to come up with substantial relevant points we can have something to discuss.

dk

People of wealth and power do feel threatened by the masses, and isolate themselves from the perceived threat. Over time the isolation becomes a threat in and of itself. Racism is but one aspect of a more complex scenario. Today racism in the US has become a tradition that makes people of wealth and power feel safe. Forced segregation and forced integration are obviously both instances of legal racism. Unless a person subscribes to the doctrine "one drop of Negro blood" racism lacks a biological bases, in the US. Even more absurd, I think Brazilians are considered white, and the rest of South America, Central America and the Caribbean targeted as minority Hispanics.

You raise a moral question…”Should a good person befriend or shun a White Supremists?”

Keith

Well, whether you're speaking only of yourself or a whole bunch of people, the concept of moral relativism doesn't, by itself, establish anything significant (morally) in a consensus.

So, you're still faced with the unpleasant fact that under relativism, anything and everything is ok for the person/people doing the deed. So it doesn't make any sense for an advocate of moral relativism to try to "condemn" the terrorism of 9/11 as wrong. It is merely another viewpoint that is every bit as valid and right as any other.

Theli

Fuck, this is a long thread!

Biff the unclean

People of wealth and power do feel threatened by the masses, and isolate themselves from the perceived threat.
Huh? What, who?

Over time the isolation becomes a threat in and of itself. Racism is but one aspect of a more complex scenario. Today racism in the US has become a tradition that makes people of wealth and power feel safe.
You must live in some other US than the one I do.
Forced segregation and forced integration are obviously both instances of legal racism.
Oh my gosh!!! We've broken the time barrier!! Look everyone we've contacted the distant past!!!
Unless a person subscribes to the doctrine "one drop of Negro blood" racism lacks a biological bases, in the US. Even more absurd, I think Brazilians are considered white, and the rest of South America, Central America and the Caribbean targeted as minority Hispanics.
So have you wandered into the wrong thread or something? What does this have to do with "moral codes" that are based on primitive superstitions?

You raise a moral question…"Should a good person befriend or shun a White Supremists?"
I didn't raise a question. The answer is NO. I have standards, not everyone is welcome to be my friend

contracycle

The people who sent in balck-suited thugs to thrash the shit out of demonstrators at the Battle of Seattle, for one.

The USA has terribly institutiionalised race problems, and is become more racist rather than less, IMO.

Primitive superstitions are clearly alive and well and living in the Republican party.