OT Happy Easter

[Dave Balderstone]

We certainly don't here in Canada.

[Larry Blanchard]

That seems to be one of your favorite posts, Tim. Tell me how "I don't know" rests on an unproven belief :-).

[sweet sawdust]

[J. Clarke]

Nobody can prevent you from believing whatever you wish. Mind reading as a practical tool of oppression simply does not exist.

[HeyBub]

I had a customer tell me once: "I don't care what people 'believe.' I don't even want to hear it. As far as I'm concerned, people don't have a right to believe shit. I'm only interested in what a person can PROVE! By prove, I mean present evidence sufficient on its face to compel a rational mind of the virtual certainty of the proposition supported by the evidence."

He went on: "For example, I'm agnostic on UFOs. But until someone can put a piece of one in my hand, I'm not interested in hearing about them and what they may or may not be. A corollary to that position is someone's claim of abduction and anal probing is NOT compelling evidence."

So I asked him: "You're a religious man, what's the compelling proof of God?" "Easy," he said. "One hundred thousand eyeball witnesses at Sinai (not counting slaves, women, and children) and an unbroken tradition re-telling the story. And before you say that's all hearsay, that process is as reliable as the reporting in the New York Times... shit! Never mind."

[HeyBub]

Sawdust is waste.

Our new president has vowed to eliminate waste.

All building in the future will be with pre-formed and pre-sized Legos.

No more waste. It's for the children.

[Lew Hodgett]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I understand.

Seems there is always a screw-up that shows up at almost every function.

Hope you feel differently next Easter.

Lew

[Tim Daneliuk]

Don't try and drag me into your finger-in-the-eyes festival, Bubbie. I was merely responding to:

... in the (possibly forlorn) hope that someday, someone, somewhere, will see them and rethink their addisction to an unproven belief

*All* beliefs are "unproven" including (especially) that the sense-reason process is reliable, correct, complete, and sufficient. There is no particular reason to trust the human rational process moreso than the human metaphysical curiosity ... unless, of course, you're satisfied with an explanation of human existence that is entirely mechanical, lacks any teleology, and cannot distinguish between microbes and humans. I ain't pickin' sides in this fight (it's pointless), but you're kidding yourself if you think the folks of faith are somehow down the intelligence scale from the post-modern "thinkers" that have polluted intellectual pursuits for the past 75+ years.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Naw. Go listen to the Handel "Messiah" to remind you about how transcendent the season can be. Ignore the grumps. Their reward is their own personalities.

[HeyBub]

I should have said "Most of the people in the world do not have an UNMOLESTED right..." One can believe whatever one wishes while the authorities have the will and the ability to punish that belief.

Thanks for helping clear that up.

[J. Clarke]

The "authorities" have no way of knowing what one believes unless one acts on that belief or makes them aware of it in some other way.

[HeyBub]

Then there's torture...

[J. Clarke]

If you're being tortured it doesn't matter what you believe, only what they want to hear.

[Tom Veatch]

Can't say I disagree with him there, but it begs the question of the reliability of the NYT

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

[Dave Balderstone]

Nope... pretty much sums it up IMO.

[Tim Daneliuk]

+1

[J. Clarke]

Read the Bible with an open mind and you realize that it's journalistic reportage, and like all journalistic reportage, it varies widely in both accuracy and artistic merit.

Newspapers these days are their own worst enemy--they don't seem to be doing much better on accuracy than your run of the mill blogger.

[HeyBub]

There's a simple test for religious fealty. The authorities simply ask that you grievously insult the unapproved religion to which they suspect you adhere. If you willingly blaspheme a particular faith, well, then you can't really believe in it, can you?

[J. Clarke]

Of course you can. It's called "lying".

[JC]

It's called lying to save your own skin....