Atheism

@neologist,

No heat from me.
Just an appreciation of the fragility of your devotion to the sciptures.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Once a Victorian, always a Victorian? LOL

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

In the everyday world, we do not just accept a lack of ultimate exactitude with a melancholic shrug, but we constantly employ such inexactitude in our relations with other people. Our relations with others also require a principle of tolerance. We encounter other people across a gray area of negotiation and approximation. Such is the business of listening and the back and forth of conversation and social interaction.

[…]

The relationship between humans and nature and humans and other humans can take place only within a certain play of tolerance. Insisting on certainty, by contrast, leads ineluctably to arrogance and dogma based on ignorance.

In reflecting on what Auschwitz teaches us about the dangers of certainty, Simon Critchley reminds us that uncertainty is not only essential to science, the core of the creative spirit, and the key to happiness, but also the root of peace and tolerance.
Pair with Alan Watts on how to make peace with uncertainty.
2-5-2014

Source http://explore.noodle.org/post/75694076115/in-the-everyday-world-we-do-not-just-accept-a?utm_content=buffer5dc48&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Interesting quote. Seems to parallel some of the material I was trying to share in my comments about "I treat "know" differently in casual conversation from how I treat it in a more demanding context, like a philosophy forum."

I may return to this!

0 Replies

@hingehead,

I was bemused by the woman with the sign which begins: "Because science is by definition a theory--not testable, observable of repeatable . . . " Science is a system of investigation, not a theory. An hypothesis does not rise to the level of a theory unless is has been tested, unless the data can be observed, unless any processes or experiments are repeatable. That's why it's almost impossible to discuss this with the religiously devoted--they don't understand what they're talking about, and i suspect they don't want to know.

3 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

In the everyday world, we do not just accept a lack of ultimate exactitude with a melancholic shrug, but we constantly employ such inexactitude in our relations with other people. Our relations with others also require a principle of tolerance. We encounter other people across a gray area of negotiation and approximation. Such is the business of listening and the back and forth of conversation and social interaction.

What's the situation when you choose to only listen to and interact back and forth with a certain section of the community?

Like when people use Ignore.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

All I can say in answer to that is homosexual acts are considered sinful according to scripture as, BTW, are the same acts committed between heterosexuals.
(I know I'm asking for heat with that statement)

If you defined "sinful" properly there is no reason for any heat.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

They don't want to know, because admitting the facts will destroy what they have believed all their lives.

That's an almost impossible admission for any one.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

An hypothesis does not rise to the level of a theory unless is has been tested, unless the data can be observed, unless any processes or experiments are repeatable. That's why it's almost impossible to discuss this with the religiously devoted--they don't understand what they're talking about, and i suspect they don't want to know.

The hypothesis that the Christian way of life would, despite the momentous obstacles in its path, eventually lead to a better life has been tested and the data has been observed and, if true, needs no repetition,

It is impossible to discuss that matter with half-baked scientific wannabees who restrict their investigations to dirt and, such as they are, to animals--they are scared to understand science applied to man in social groups and they definitely don't want to know so much that they will make fools of themselves by putting anybody who raises the matter on Ignore.

And it's all the rage.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Not quite. The reason so many believe in their unique religion is based on an accident of birth - not on choice by the individual.

People of all religions have committed atrocities against other humans, animals, and to our environment. Whether religion can be credited with 'morals' is an oxymoron. There are too much history about countries with religion that have gone bonkers in the treatment of others; the US included.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm not talking about choice for the individual ci. The idea is unthinkable.

Although it might be useful if the individual thinks there's a choice after some bony fingers have performed a few mesmerising movenents before the eyes and a shiny object has been swung back and forth accompanied by a deep-toned reassuring voice-over.

Come to think of it, are there any female hypnotists?

Perhaps men outnumber women, for the moment, in legislative chambers because their bass tones are more hypnotic than squeaks.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Lady holds a sign saying that science is not testable. I s she aware of what she is saying or was someone else making humor of her?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Show me a stupid believer and I will show you a stupid atheist. Both are straw men and have no relevance to an argument about the existence of God.

Problem is, there are scads of them.

2 Replies

@neologist,

BRAVO! Give em hell, neo.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Show me a stupid believer and I will show you a stupid atheist. Both are straw men and have no relevance to an argument about the existence of God.

Problem is, there are scads of them.

I was not making a claim I was asking a question.

It seemed as though the person who wrote the sign may have been joking.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

While we're on that, a classic line of reasoning

KashifShahzada Kashif Shahzada(retweeted by RichardDawkins)
Funny @RichardDawkins claims there is no evidence for God but doesn't say whether he is able to probe every nook & corner in space for it?

0 Replies

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense of course--but those making claims have the burden of proof. No one is obliged to disprove any claim. Those making extraordinary claims have extraordinary burdens of proof. In my experience, theists attempt to dodge this by demanding proof that it isn't so. Reminds me of the playground taunt: "i know what you are, but what am I?

0 Replies

This joker, Ryan Bell is going to be an atheist for a year. Rolling Eyes

I guess he thinks that's like switching to a new style of clothing. I heard him interviewed on the radio just now. I was not impressed. He's a former Seventh Day Adventist minister, who was defrocked for a reason i didn't really understand from his explanation.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

It seemed as though the person who wrote the sign may have been joking.

My vote is stupid.

My wife say so, also. Sometimes. But that is not part of this discussion and never shall be. !!!

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

My vote is stupid.

I agree neo. That's why I never vote.

It guarantees that we are ruled by the best counter-jumpers in respect of "doing sincerity" and learning their lines.

0 Replies

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/21411_10200507596721827_1721942279_n.jpg

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know