-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Christianity
- Thread starter Jools
- Start date
antman said:
If the argument is, as has been determined, sound then it is not circular. If it was I assume the programs would have identified that issue. I agree the OA is not an easy one to get your head around.
poppa x said:
We don't live in the U.S. Poppa, our head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church! ;D
Anyway I personally am all in favour of Secular democracy! But that should not mean that religious ideas are banned from parliament, just the church does not run government.
Djevv said:
The OA is easy to get your head around.
Let me go through it again.
I can imagine a being that is maximally powerful, does not have a cause and therefore necessarily exists.
Therefore it exists.
FFS Djevvy. It's not rocket science and its completely facile.
And as you well know, the "programs" did not test the axioms/definitions, only the internal modal logic. You are either being incredibly obtuse or outright deceitful. Unfortunately I'm swinging round to KR's view that its the latter.
antman said:
Yes agreed so the argument is not circular then. That was what you said. It isn't. Sorry if that upsets you.
So what is wrong with the argument? The definition? OK howso?
KnightersRevenge said:
Godel's argument is proof and it's sound. You can't just ignore evidence!
Well the accepted definition is the denial of the existence of God. A claim. Thats the real definition. I referenced it.
Please don't. You can't just re-define words to suit your preferred worldview, its dishonest.
I've addressed this elsewhere.
Actually an 'anti-theist' opposes religious practice and God. I would say you are one of those by your tone on hereKnightersRevenge said:
Yes you are an agnostic.
OK then you really are an agnostic. You aren't prepared to say whether the number of beans are even or odd. Fine
Well in science the default position is known as the Null Hypothesis. There are three possibilities:
1. There is a God
2. There is no God
3. It is impossible to know if there is a God or not.
I think that 1 is the best evidenced at this time so I would choose that.
I think it is a bit more complex than this simplistic scenario. Lets imagine a courtroom. There are 3 witnesses prepared to stand up and say that say 'I saw him do it'. There is no empirical evidence, no body, nothing. What do we do convict or acquit? I think it is a clearcut conviction but without anything measurable. This is the problem with your positivist worldview.
Faith really has nothing to do with anything I have said - it never ever means 'belief without evidence' BTW. Thats another atheist re-definition. Anyway there is evidence. Not engaging with the evidence and handwaving it by is irrational. Evaluating it and coming to a well considered conclusion is the only rational course of action in my view.
Djevv said:
No, it isn't. As I have said before, it is possible to construct a logical argument such that the axioms are consistent but the conclusion is not true in fact. The programmers haven't done what you claim they did. They just tested the logic against its rules (modal). That isn't evidence of anything more than how clever they are.
That is "A" definition, and it is narrow and it is what is usually referred to as "anti-theist". It does not apply to me or my atheism as I have also explained multiple times.
;D
Insufficently IMO. In a secular state god has no place in government it is much more than not allowing theocracy. It is not allowing laws or societal restrictions which are based on religious ideas such as those I referenced (abortion, marriage equality, school chaplains, tax exemptions on religious grounds, any exemptions on religious grounds come to think of it..)
Djevv said:
Again with the attempted pigeon-holeing, atheism as I have defined it and as I live it means exactly what I have said it means. Again there may be other things that inform my life but they are not being discussed here. I'll happily dicuss them but seperately.
"Antitheism (sometimes ) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secularcontexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods." (from wiki)
I know what I am, and it is what I have repeatdly stated, I care little for your attempts to fit it to your definitions
[EDIT]Wrong. I haven't stated "I don't know" (the agnostic position which you have incorrectly labelled). The theist takes a position "I know the number of beans in the jar is even". The agnostic takes a position "I don't know whether the number of beans is even or odd". The atheist references not the beans but the theist and says " I don't accept that you can know the number of beans is even". That is not agnosticism. It is atheism. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, atheism is position about theism.
Yes, the null hypothesis is used to test an assertion. Only the theist is making an assertion, "god exists". The null hypothesis stands until the weight of empirical evidence shifts it. You have admitted there is no emprical evidence...
A court's standard of evidence is well below that of science given we know and can prove empirically that human experience is flawed sometimes comically so. The courtroom analogy is usless here
The only evidence that matters is emprical evidence. The rest is conjecture. Faith in reference to religion is absolutely "belief without evidence" because there isn't any evidence.
Peaka said:
I suspect it will hardly differ. Just insert Allah or Muhammad in the appropriate places.
Just in case anyone reading this (is any one else reading this or is it me and DJ in an echo chamber?) thinks I'm being squirrely on atheism let me clarify where I think Djevv is going wrong. Atheism is a stance in response to theism. That is all it is. It is pointless in any other sense. It is not a stand alone worldview or philosophy, it has nothing to say about how you should behave, about morality, or justice or anything else. In a world where no one thinks gods exist, there are no atheists. In a world without Collingwood would it make any sense to say you disagree that Collingwood are the greatest team of all time? No. Ditto atheism. I might hold positions on various issues that fit within certain narrow definitions or philosophies but I consider myself beholden to none of them. Many atheists are humanists for example but the two are not the same. I haven't read extensively on humanism so I wouldn't call myself one, but that is not related to atheism in any way and to demonstrate that there are both religious and secular humanists.
Whilst I do not have religious affiliations per we I think the change in religious practices in this country has left a void that so far has not been replaced. In my opinion religious observance played a far more significant role in societal cohesion than many people realise.
Peaka said:
I have been bemoaning the death of "community" for a while. I'm not sure the reduction in religious observance is the explanation but I can see why you would link the two.
You could argue we've become a more humane society over the past 100 years.
And during this time religious observance has fallen.
Cause and effect?
Or co-incidence?
And during this time religious observance has fallen.
Cause and effect?
Or co-incidence?
By way of explanation of my comment above in times gone past when you moved to a new area you instantly gained a sense of community by connecting with people of a like mind religiously (by attending worship for example). There are other mechanisms of course such as through the local football/ netball club but this is not as all encompassing as the religious connections were.
When my wife and I last made a significant move we were very fortunes that we ha kinder age children and could make connections that way. Absent this I am it sure his long it would have taken us to fit in.
As Knighter alluded to there is no reason why communities could not develop mechanisms to help newcomers fit I but realistically there are very few examples where this has been effective.
As such I can appreciate the role that organised religions can play even if I am not personally religious.
Goodnight and may your god go with you.
When my wife and I last made a significant move we were very fortunes that we ha kinder age children and could make connections that way. Absent this I am it sure his long it would have taken us to fit in.
As Knighter alluded to there is no reason why communities could not develop mechanisms to help newcomers fit I but realistically there are very few examples where this has been effective.
As such I can appreciate the role that organised religions can play even if I am not personally religious.
Goodnight and may your god go with you.
