Christianity

[KnightersRevenge]

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.

We live in an era of individuals. We congratulate ourselves when we do things selflessly for others as though that is somehow remarkable (charity donations, aid etc.) rather than the engrained behaviour of social creatures. But we still feel alone on crowded bus.

 

[Peaka]

I wonder whether that's why Richmond players don't shepherd

 

[Djevv]

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.

A sound argument has valid logical form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms and the conclusion follows form the premises. So no you are not correct. The proof was written in modal logic which was found to be sound.

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.

So you don't oppose God and religion. Could have fooled me! Again a definition of atheism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/. They all say the same thing.

So to call yourself one and not fit the definition is to dishonestly redefine the word.

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..)

This is just something you believe. Is it in writing somewhere? Like I said, I'll vote for what I believe in and you do the same.

 

[Djevv]

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.

Thats a claim about the theist's epistemology - something that again (boring I know ) must be demonstrated. The 'evenist' may know the person who put the beans in the jar who told him there was an even number. The evenist may have a well developed ability to subitise (judge a number by simply looking at it) and his intution tells him even. etc ect.

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...

In science yes it's empirical evidence. But with God the claim is a metaphysical claim about the origin of existence, scientific laws themselves, human consciuousness and so on. There is absolutely no reason for us to limit ourself to only empirical evidence. Any sort of evidence that makes the theistic (or atheistic) claim more likely to be true should be acceptable. If not you need to give a reason - which you absolutely refuse to do. So it seems like a stalemate to me.

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

Really? A conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. So then any doubts are irrational by definition as well as doubts about its findings.

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.

When you demonstrate empirical evidence for the truth of this statement I will believe you.

 

[poppa x]

This is just something you believe. Is it in writing somewhere? Like I said, I'll vote for what I believe in and you do the same.

The first 3 chapters of the Consitution are The Parliament, The Executive Government, and The Judiciary.
These are the institutions on which our democracy is based.
You'll notice there is no reference to "Church" or "Religion".

 

[KnightersRevenge]

A sound argument has valid logical form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms and the conclusion follows form the premises. So no you are not correct. The proof was written in modal logic which was found to be sound.

You keep ignoring the "true in fact" bit, is that on purpose?

So you don't oppose God and religion. Could have fooled me! Again a definition of atheism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/. They all say the same thing.

So to call yourself one and not fit the definition is to dishonestly redefine the word.

The bit you are focussed on is irrelevant to the discussion we are having. There are many definitions but I cannot see how you can call me dishonest? Why do you so badly need it to be different?

This is just something you believe. Is it in writing somewhere? Like I said, I'll vote for what I believe in and you do the same.

I didn't say you should do otherwise did I? I was talking about how government functions.

 

[AngryAnt]

A sound argument has valid logical form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms and the conclusion follows form the premises. So no you are not correct. The proof was written in modal logic which was found to be sound.

I'm sure there's a modal logic argument about flogging a dead horse somewhere.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Thats a claim about the theist's epistemology - something that again (boring I know ) must be demonstrated. The 'evenist' may know the person who put the beans in the jar who told him there was an even number. The evenist may have a well developed ability to subitise (judge a number by simply looking at it) and his intution tells him even. etc ect.

Nope. There is no information about the origin of the jar. The discussion is only about the beans. The "evenist" is making a claim, the atheist is rejecting that claim, not making a claim of their own.

In science yes it's empirical evidence. But with God the claim is a metaphysical claim about the origin of existence, scientific laws themselves, human consciuousness and so on. There is absolutely no reason for us to limit ourself to only empirical evidence. Any sort of evidence that makes the theistic (or atheistic) claim more likely to be true should be acceptable. If not you need to give a reason - which you absolutely refuse to do. So it seems like a stalemate to me.

The problem here is the appeal to god and metaphysics as though this is a well established empirical fact equal to all the other empirical facts we use to test truth claims. It isn't. You wish to allow other types of "evidence" because you define god as not being subject to the ones that don't apply to god. How convenient?

Really? A conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. So then any doubts are irrational by definition as well as doubts about its findings.

This is a completely arbitrary definition that pre-dates our better understanding of empirical fact. It is not close to good at, nor even concerned with, establishing empirical truth in some cases. It is often little more than the ability of two debaters to convince a group of non-experts of their particular argument. Why should I care at all about it?

When you demonstrate empirical evidence for the truth of this statement I will believe you.

And we're back to philosophical hand-wringing. Empiricism has opened up the whole universe as well as the tiniest imaginable realms. It has proven its worth as our best way to understand our world.

 

[Djevv]

The first 3 chapters of the Consitution are The Parliament, The Executive Government, and The Judiciary.
These are the institutions on which our democracy is based.
You'll notice there is no reference to "Church" or "Religion".

OK, and..so what?

 

[Djevv]

Nope. There is no information about the origin of the jar. The discussion is only about the beans. The "evenist" is making a claim, the atheist is rejecting that claim, not making a claim of their own.

Subitising requires no information about the jar. Also the evenist may have that information but the aevenist not know it. Especially if there is a bet involved >

The problem here is the appeal to god and metaphysics as though this is a well established empirical fact equal to all the other empirical facts we use to test truth claims. It isn't. You wish to allow other types of "evidence" because you define god as not being subject to the ones that don't apply to god. How convenient?

I don't see how you can apply empiricism to something which is beyond/outside of/gave rise to both the physical and the laws that govern it. Suggest an experiment.

This is a completely arbitrary definition that pre-dates our better understanding of empirical fact. It is not close to good at, nor even concerned with, establishing empirical truth in some cases. It is often little more than the ability of two debaters to convince a group of non-experts of their particular argument. Why should I care at all about it?

Beyond reasonable doubt? Arbitrary? the foundation of our legal system. Sheesh.

And we're back to philosophical hand-wringing. Empiricism has opened up the whole universe as well as the tiniest imaginable realms. It has proven its worth as our best way to understand our world.

So you can't do it? Big surprise there.

Ok anyway I get it, no empirical demonstration no believo. NEXT!

 

[Djevv]

You keep ignoring the "true in fact" bit, is that on purpose?

A sound argument indicates the conclusion is 'true in fact'.

The bit you are focussed on is irrelevant to the discussion we are having. There are many definitions but I cannot see how you can call me dishonest? Why do you so badly need it to be different?

OK no worries atheism means whatever you say it means KR. Sorry for questioning you and showing you definitions. These dictionaries obvious have it completely wrong.

I didn't say you should do otherwise did I? I was talking about how government functions.

I don't know what you were banging on about in this part of the discussion. Seemed to be your favorite anti-theistic (sorry! :-[) hobby-horses.

 

[Djevv]

I'm sure there's a modal logic argument about flogging a dead horse somewhere.

1. Necessarily it is flogging a dead horse to share reason and evidence with people who reject reason & evidence.
2. Some people here reject reason and evidence
3. Therefore necessarily I am flogging a dead horse. ;D

Anyway I think we have done our 20 page slanging match so see you round the site and hope the Tiger's season improves.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Subitising requires no information about the jar. Also the evenist may have that information but the aevenist not know it. Especially if there is a bet involved >

Hey I set up this little game don't go acribiting or valmorphanising stuff out of thin air! :blah
It's just not cromulent. ;D

I don't see how you can apply empiricism to something which is beyond/outside of/gave rise to both the physical and the laws that govern it. Suggest an experiment.

That's okay, I don't see how you can assert that there can ever be something that has the properties you endow it with and claim that imaginary evidence is the equivalent of empirical evidence.

Beyond reasonable doubt? Arbitrary? the foundation of our legal system. Sheesh.

Correct DJ, "The law is an ass".

So you can't do it? Big surprise there.

Ditto, dude.

Ok anyway I get it, no empirical demonstration no believo. NEXT!

Hasn't steered me wrong yet DJ.

A sound argument indicates the conclusion is 'true in fact'.

Okay DJ god exists because some geeks and a Mac said so. Cool.

OK no worries atheism means whatever you say it means KR. Sorry for questioning you and showing you definitions. These dictionaries obvious have it completely wrong.

Not sure why so snooty DJ? There are many different types of christian, I accept that some use the narrowest of all definitions others follow a dogmatic path. I have simply explained that atheism at its narrowest is a rejection of theistic claims.

I don't know what you were banging on about in this part of the discussion. Seemed to be your favorite anti-theistic (sorry! :-[) hobby-horses.

I don't remember either. :headscratch Someone brought up church and state and I wandered off in that general direction.

 

[AngryAnt]

1. Necessarily it is flogging a dead horse to share reason and evidence with people who reject reason & evidence.
2. Some people here reject reason and evidence
3. Therefore necessarily I am flogging a dead horse. ;D

Anyway I think we have done our 20 page slanging match so see you round the site and hope the Tiger's season improves.

Slanging? No slanging on my part Djevv - I argue in good faith.

Unfortunately I've seen no evidence and in our discussion your "reason" has been limited to "there was a newspaper article about some guys who proved god with a macbook and modal logic".

 

[Chimptastic]

A sound argument has valid logical form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms and the conclusion follows form the premises. So no you are not correct. The proof was written in modal logic which was found to be sound.

No, it was found to be valid. Valid arguments and sound arguments are two different things.

A valid argument is a series of premises that logically lead to the conclusion.

A sound argument is a series of premises that logically lead to the conclusion, and each and every premise is factually true.

All sound arguments are valid. Not all valid arguments are sound.


For example:
1. If the sky is gold, it will always rain the next day
2. The sky is gold today
Conclusion: It will rain tomorrow

That is a perfectly valid argument, but it is not sound. A sound argument requires you to prove that the sky is gold, and that it will always rain the next day.

The "proof" you speak of was valid, as it was 100% logically consistent within it's own premises. To claim their proof is sound is to claim that God has been 100% proven to exist, which is an absurd conclusion.

Well the accepted definition is the denial of the existence of God. A claim. Thats the real definition. I referenced it.

No, atheism is not making a claim. Ridiculous assertion on your part.

The definition is embedded into the word.

Theism - same definition.

A- prefix, means ~.

An atheist is simply a person without belief in a God. That is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the existential claim of a (which?) God.

I take it you are a Christian.


Therefore, you yourself are an atheist to many Gods.
You are an atheist to the Greek Gods.
You are also an atheist to the Hindu Gods.
You are also an atheist to the Indigenous dreamtime spirits.
You are also an atheist to the South American tribal Gods.
You are also an atheist to the 'one true god' of Islam.
You are also an atheist to the 'one true god' of Judaism.
You are also an atheist to the beliefs of Scientology.
I am also an atheist to the 'one and only' Christian God.

You yourself are not making an existential claim about the existence of each and every one of the world's 2000+ Gods. Your default position is that most of them don't exist. We're both Atheists to over 2000 Gods, it's just we seem to disagree on that last one.

If I were to say polar bears don't exist, and someone else says they do exist, then it's ALWAYS the person who says they do exist who has the burden of proving it exists by providing links to photos of polar bears, videos, articles, research, reports of first hand experience with them, diary accounts of them, documentaries on their behaviour, and perhaps even peer reviewed papers studying the DNA of polar bears if the a-polarbearist was irrationally skeptical.

I haven't been following the previous pages closely so my apologies if I haven't provided a fair account of your opinion. If that's the case, treat the above as proof for another reader who might hold such views

 

[Azza]

Good post Chimptastic

 

[Djevv]

No, it was found to be valid. Valid arguments and sound arguments are two different things.

A valid argument is a series of premises that logically lead to the conclusion.

A sound argument is a series of premises that logically lead to the conclusion, and each and every premise is factually true.

All sound arguments are valid. Not all valid arguments are sound.


For example:
1. If the sky is gold, it will always rain the next day
2. The sky is gold today
Conclusion: It will rain tomorrow

That is a perfectly valid argument, but it is not sound. A sound argument requires you to prove that the sky is gold, and that it will always rain the next day.

The "proof" you speak of was valid, as it was 100% logically consistent within it's own premises. To claim their proof is sound is to claim that God has been 100% proven to exist, which is an absurd conclusion.

I agree with this and I was trying to draw out this distinction. I think you'll find their claim is that it is a sound argument. Make of that what you wish.

 

[AngryAnt]

I agree with this and I was trying to draw out this distinction. I think you'll find their claim is that it is a sound argument. Make of that what you wish.

You didn't agree with others in the thread when they pointed out the same thing.

PS welcome back.

 

[Djevv]

No, atheism is not making a claim. Ridiculous assertion on your part.

The definition is embedded into the word.

Theism - same definition.

A- prefix, means ~.

An atheist is simply a person without belief in a God. That is not a claim. The burden of proof is on the existential claim of a (which?) God.

I take it you are a Christian.

I lack belief in a Godless universe. An Aatheist. Thus I lack this burden as well. :hihi

Therefore, you yourself are an atheist to many Gods.
You are an atheist to the Greek Gods.
You are also an atheist to the Hindu Gods.
You are also an atheist to the Indigenous dreamtime spirits.
You are also an atheist to the South American tribal Gods.
You are also an atheist to the 'one true god' of Islam.
You are also an atheist to the 'one true god' of Judaism.
You are also an atheist to the beliefs of Scientology.
I am also an atheist to the 'one and only' Christian God.

I agree that I reject these Gods because I am a Christian. But that does in no way make me an atheist. An atheist believes in no Gods at all.

In another way to look at this is because I am married that makes me an abatchelor (ie NOT a batchelor). It doesn't make me a batchelor towards all the other women in the world! :hihi. Try that one out on the missus!

You yourself are not making an existential claim about the existence of each and every one of the world's 2000+ Gods. Your default position is that most of them don't exist. We're both Atheists to over 2000 Gods, it's just we seem to disagree on that last one.

Oh dear. Makes 'atheist' a pretty meaningless term if I am one as well! :hihi Well I guess then there is nothing to argue about.

If I were to say polar bears don't exist, and someone else says they do exist, then it's ALWAYS the person who says they do exist who has the burden of proving it exists by providing links to photos of polar bears, videos, articles, research, reports of first hand experience with them, diary accounts of them, documentaries on their behaviour, and perhaps even peer reviewed papers studying the DNA of polar bears if the a-polarbearist was irrationally skeptical.

No, if you claim they don't exist it is up to you to prove it. Its anyone who makes a claim. It's not that hard to prove a negative. Show a contradiction in its nature (ie a square circle) or a lack of evidence when you should reasonably expect evidence (ie there is NO planet between Mars and Jupiter).

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

[Djevv]

You didn't agree with others in the thread when they pointed out the same thing.

PS welcome back.

I've been around, I just don't post much on the Footy threads. Been enjoying the Tiger's winning for a change! In fact that is why I came here - I just got side tracked here .

I don't agree that the argument only has a valid logical form - I believe they showed it was sound (edit). I might be wrong but I seriously doubt that a scientific paper would have been published demonstrating the argument simply has a valid logical form. That is the easy part and has been established as long as there has been an OA.