h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

toxx

with reference to
Andrew S

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure why this assertion counts as rationalist rather than psychologist, and the question "Why do you feel the need to believe in a creator?" does seem to follow from it.

Which makes <> something of a non sequitur as far as I can see. (And although it's probably not intentional, how it could come across as a wee bit condescending.) Even for logical/mathematical types like me the question of whether a system of metaphysics can be applied outside its accompanying physics cannot be answered from within that system of metaphysics (self reference again). So there cannot be a rationalist *answer* to creation. And <>
(toxx) has far too many conceptually challengeable assumptions to explain anything.

I do, however, very much like <> (HS).

Noggin

az, he did 'mention it here' in Post: 19855 ( F55607?thread=192835&skip=19840&show=20#p5568440 )

Alji

Thanks, Toxx.
I seem to have got into a fight myself, without trying too hard!

Here's the address of the Opus Dei website FYI: http://www.opusdei.org.uk

Opus Dei is a RC organisation, and on organised religion, the bible and miracles my standpoint is different from yours.

thank you andrew
i need laser treatment on my brain cannot remember mentioning it but that typical of me
kind regards astroca

<>

I've also thought so as well, which is why the question is such a bore!

<<; there's Adelaide but she gets into too many fights somehow. Dunno whose fault that is!>>

And Adelaide doesn't know either! It started elsewhere, as far as I know... it seems some people are just always on the attack! (I am probably risking further attack by saying that, but que sera, there doesn't seem to be owt I can do about it, except go away, and darn it, I've been on this thread since early 2002 at least!)

<<; there's Adelaide but she gets into too many fights somehow. Dunno whose fault that is!>> (toxx)

<> (Della)




I think it's just your little way of bringing out the beast, oops, the best in people. Because you seem to work this magic everywhere you go. But of course it isn't your fault - we wouldn't want you to have to feel responsible for your own actions, would we?

Anyhow, you're not threatening to leave us again, are you Della? Please don't go!


anyone?


az

<>

Is this more of your fabled humour? Come on, azahar, you'd be sick with boredom if I did leave (NB I wasn't threatening to, this is your "home", but it is mine too!)
You remind me of the youngest child, who's sad because she came along later, and feels she doesn't get enough attention.

<>



<>

And I don't deny it even for a nanosecond.

<>

Ah g'wan, you're not *that* much older, Della. And it seems I get plenty of attention so I can't really complain in that department. I know I'm not quite so famous as you but I reckon I can live with it.


az

Hi Noggin.

<(toxx) has far too many conceptually challengeable assumptions to explain anything.>

So please challenge away. Surely that's what this board is for. At least you (sort of) do in the following:

<toxx

with reference to
Andrew S >

Fair enough; the latter indicates intuitionism not rationalism. As I've said, I don't know enough to attribute the, possibly atypical, approach of an individual to a whole organisation. That's why I say "*if* they prefer ...". The point is to disagree with many (including az) who take a psychologistic line; not to agree with AS regarding that particular remark.

<... the question "Why do you feel the need to believe in a creator?" does seem to follow from it.>

I disagree. If after eating fairly well, I say: 'I just do feel hungry', I don't expect the question: 'Why do you feel the need to feel hungry?'.

toxx

Hi Adelaide!
<>

Don't worry - after what I got into on this thread yesterday I wouldn't say it was your fault. These things just seem to happen.

Okay toxx, I'll agree that the phrase "feel the need" is too strong. Nevertheless, "I think I just do believe in a creator" is essentially a fact about someone's psychology, not a fact about the world, and is therefore essentially psychologistic rather than rationalist, and that therefore questions about the role that the belief plays in that person's psychology are perfectly in order.

My own position, as you know, is that there are limits to the application of metaphysics, and that it makes no sense to ask questions beyond those limits. And I have, of course, impeccable psychological reasons for believing this

And I think that any talk of persons or will in a context divorced from the general system of the metaphysics of the material world cannot tell us anything useful.

Noggin

And Adelaide doesn't know either! It started elsewhere, as far as I know...it seems some people are just always on the attack! (I am probably risking further attack by saying that, but que sera, there doesn't seem to be owt I can do about it, except go away, and darn it, I've been on this thread since early 2002 at least!)

Ladies shall we stick to the evidence

It started here.

The first verbal tussle between you two was on this thread it was fairly minor next to the one Della was having with peckish and others at the same time about homsexuality.

At least three people against Della.

On the accusation of wanting attention. Well shall we look at the leave a message section of your respective PS's

lets go with alphabetical order to avoid accusations of bias.

ADELAIDE'S: U179697#msgs

Of the four threads active within the last week only two are the kind of messages anyone would want. While other older message threads (even ones before I or az joined) do show a pattern of various people being upset with you and your postings on a wide range of subjects.

AZAHAR'S: U220722#msgs

A roughly similar but slightly moreactive message space inthat5 threads have beenactive in the last week. Looking through the list othreads there is a much lower density of unfriendly threads and postings

If this were a popularity contest Id have to give the win to az.

However its not so if you both want to, fight on ladies.

<>
BB, you're just proving Adelaide right!

To me it is an intuitionist position, whereas "I need to believe in a creator" is a psychological report. Without the 'just' it would be a pure doxastic statement.

I don't accept that there are any limits to what we can think about. 'Not impossible, just difficult' as I've recently remarked.

toxx.

Whose been attacking you?

Sorry missed the << quotey bits >> as they are sometimes used to signfy <>

Thanks, BB. No problem!

<>

Andrew, Della is *always* right! You'll find this out the better you get to know her. But you're not to ever confront her on anything she says that you disagree with or she'll accuse you of attacking her.


blicky,

I take umbrage to you saying I have <> than Della has. Mine are, in fact, pretty much non-existent. The only unpleasant postings ever to turn up on my page were from two weirdos who were stalking me and from Della.




az

Everbody hates the ref.