Re: OT - Conservapedia

Johnny wrote:
The debate is only legitimately scholarly on one side. Your
suggestion otherwise is enabling superstition by giving it a
"scholarly" face it does not possess. I didn't put words in
your mouth, I quoted and criticized the very words you chose
to use.

I'm not a religious scholar. I get my information on that only from
second-hand sources, like encyclopedias. They seem to imply
that there's considerable consensus that some person whom we
now call Jesus existed. That is *all* that I'm claiming. I don't
know enough to hold my own independent opinion on this.

I didn't criticize the clearly arbitrariness of conventions,
I criticized your describing them as "useless," and
"useless" was the very word you used.

Look carefully at my previous posts. The only time I used the
word "useless" was when I said, "Of course I don't mean that
they are useless..." I never characterized them as useless.

Moreover, in your
objection to my criticism, you didn't say your statement was
ambiguous, you said you didn't mean what you said. Dance
your way around that.

Dance around it? I can't even find it. Here's a direct quote of
what I wrote, in response to your asking whether I really think that
conventions don't matter:

I don't think you seriously believe I mean that. Of course I don't
mean that it's a useless convention--only that the exact details of the
convention don't matter. We could just as easily add 7 (or subtract 7)
from all the year numbers, and it wouldn't make much difference at all.

Where in this do I say I didn't mean what I said? What I do say is
that
I don't mean that conventions don't matter. Anyone who has read
any substantial part of what I write, in sci.astro.amateur, in
rec.puzzles,
in my work in security protocols, knows that I absolutely understand
the
value of having a convention. So insisting that I'm equivocating,
when
I say that I don't mean that conventions don't matter, doesn't make
much sense to me.

Spin and twist, do the old side step, then attack the
messenger's style. I must have hit a sore spot.

Yes. Being accused of meaning something other than what
I know I mean is a sore spot.

You didn't "clarify" anything: First you said something
that I criticized as careless, then you said you didn't mean
what you said and tried to spin the same old tune in a
different key, now you proceed to say that you meant what
you said you didn't mean in a different way. Either you
meant what you said or you didn't. Make up your mind.

???

I said that "the actual calendar basis doesn't matter--it's just
a convention." That is a direct quote. Nowhere do I say here
that conventions don't matter. What I meant by basis--what I
continue to mean by that--is the starting point of that calendar.
As you pointed out, the Jewish calendar has one starting
point, the Christian one has another, and of course, the
Chinese, the Islamic, and the Aztec calendars all have their
own. They are essentially equally useful. In my astronomy
software (link in my usual posts, but I'm posting from Google
today because of a glitch in my newsserver), I make frequent
use of the Julian date (ref. Scaliger). Another convention.
Its basis is highly arbitrary, but of course that does not make
it useless in the least. Obviously, I don't think so; otherwise, I
wouldn't use it.

I see how "basis" could be interpreted in multiple ways; is that
the source of any dispute?

I hope that clarifies my position enough for you. I *honestly*
didn't see, and continue not to see, where I said that
conventions don't matter. I can't help it if you persist in
seeing dishonesty in that, but I know I'm being honest.

And I really am disappointed in you. I thought you were a
serious scientist but I am beginning to suspect that you are
a closet religious enable who either secretly believes in
religious superstition or doesn't but is socially afraid to
come right out and say so. Rationality compromised is
superstition affirmed.

Holy cow. (Not really, of course.) You managed to divine
this faulty reading all the way from your terminal? That is
really amazing.

I suggest that you are relying too much on your supposed
ability to read pretext. How about this: I am an atheist or an
agnostic, depending on your definition. I have stated my
precise position on this question lots of times, both here and
in sci.astro.amateur. To wit: I think I am incapable of believing
in a god. That means that even if a god existed, I would be
incapable of accepting its existence, no matter what evidence
was proffered, because I would always doubt my faculties
more than I would believe the evidence.

Look in my Astronomical Games column. There is an essay,
entitled "The Unwinnable Race" (September 2002), in which
I give my viewpoint on a certain segment of religious
adherents. I don't feel I should have to defend my integrity
to someone whom I've never had much of a serious discussion
with but who insists on calling me a closet religious person,
but I think that essay should put a pretty significant kibosh on
any notion that this is just some position of convenience I'm
tossing out to "win" an argument. At this point, no one's
winning. We've both lost, we both look like total boobs to the
rest of the newsgroup. Oh well.

And the "bazooka" insult gets you a good-bye; there is no
reasoning with someone who intentionally takes a mere
criticism of his careless use of words as a personal insult
and responds with personal insults to avoid admitting he
made a mistake.

I admit I confused you. I don't admit that my words can't be
interpreted the way I mean them. In fact, I *honestly* don't
see how you interpreted them the way you did, but I suppose
it's enough that you did interpret them that way. What I took
offense at is the apparent suggestion that despite my further
posts, my words are some Freudian indication that I have
some religious basis for my assertion.

You can now spin the last word in this thread and declare
personal victory. A third attempt to get you to admit you
made a mistake both by labeling religious propaganda as
"scholarly" and by calling conventions "useless" would be as
futile as the first two.

I have no interest in winning any argument. In my opinion, I
don't see an argument. I don't think that we have disagreed
substantially on any religious issue. I'm willing to drop the
issue of the historicity of Jesus, since I'm no expert in that
matter, and at any rate, as anyone who inspects my earlier
post can see, it was entirely tangential to my point that being
off on the dating of a person's birth doesn't affect the utility of
the resultant calendar. I don't think that whether the person
actually existed or not makes the calendar any more or less
useful.

Again, I hope that settles the matter of where I stand on religion
and calendars, and conventions in general, and what I said.
If not, then perhaps we had better drop it. If it helps, I apologize
for calling your post condescending and patronizing.

Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Conservapedia
    ... convention don't matter. ... I don't mean that conventions don't matter. ... continue to mean by that--is the starting point of that calendar. ... I hope that settles the matter of where I stand on religion ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Not Gary . . . Though It Could Be
    ... Larson explained in his speech, ... "religion still matters ... of our Constitution. ... religion doesn't matter ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Not Gary . . . Though It Could Be
    ... Larson explained in his speech, ... religion doesn't matter and furthermore wherever this fanciful place ... interest group that are manipulating the Constitution for their own ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Quantum world: was Global warming update: Coldest April in 113 years ...
    ... a matter of logic but a matter of faith, and nothing, but nothing, is ... We do not accept our ignorance as proof of anything ... I'll will respect your religion and make no further comment. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: What is Islam?
    ... suicide bomber is akin to joining the Eagles, Elks, or Knights of Columbus ... psychologist Brian Barber found that adolescent participation in the ... opportunity is a matter of perception. ... way for us to allow those that wish to enslave us with their religion, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)