|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 7, 2020 22:53:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 7, 2020 22:58:40 GMT
Science is leaning again to the idea that the inanimate universe is eternal like a god.
If anything can be eternal and we don’t know what, the least likely candidate might seem to many to be rocks.
Sounds like paganism.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 8, 2020 19:59:08 GMT
Religion isn’t correct because of popularity - this isn’t what I said. Then why make mention the level of world-wide credulity at all? The context suggested you imply that it is enough to recommend religion based purely on numbers. I love the way because I question you and what you say it must mean that the whole of religion is being attacked lol. This constant aggrandisement tells readers much more about you than what I am saying. Quite right; I enjoy a good meal, films, chess, music and reading, as well as the usual earthly pleasures.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 8, 2020 20:00:29 GMT
I thought I mentioned before that the Argument from Popularity was a fallacy? It still is. As for why religion focuses me, maybe it is because this is a religious discussion forum. And I do like to stay focused. Rather than when on a themed thread going off on a tangential non-sequitur for instance.. Whenever I ever pledge to 'wipe religion of the face of the planet', feel free to remind me of the difficulty of abolishing human credulity and magical thinking again. Perhaps you've noticed by now that no one does nor should care what you think is a "fallacy." Popularity is a very important argument in many significant areas. Of course no science is determined by popularity, nor by any "consensus," but you don't police that at all. Why not? The Argument from Popularity is still a fallacy, no matter what I or anyone else thinks about it. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 8, 2020 20:20:53 GMT
Science is leaning again to the idea that the inanimate universe is eternal like a god. If anything can be eternal and we don’t know what, the least likely candidate might seem to many to be rocks. Sounds like paganism. There weren't many rocks around at the moment of the last singularity - a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist so no rocks then either. If anything is to be considered permanent in nature logic tells one that is likely to be at the quantum level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 8, 2020 23:21:30 GMT
Perhaps you've noticed by now that no one does nor should care what you think is a "fallacy." Popularity is a very important argument in many significant areas. Of course no science is determined by popularity, nor by any "consensus," but you don't police that at all. Why not? The Argument from Popularity is still a fallacy, no matter what I or anyone else thinks about it. Sorry about that. I wish you could sense how very sad it is watching you trying to be logical when it's obvious someone shot the right side of your brain out. Quite many important life decisions are properly advised by popular opinions although "science" in the sense of ceteris paribus is not. Democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 9, 2020 3:05:04 GMT
FilmFlaneur“Then why make mention the level of world-wide credulity at all? “ ——— As I explained to you more than once, you seem to be on a mission to try to drag people away from their religions. There are 5 billion believers or so. You can’t reach that many people. Get a new hobby.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 9, 2020 7:43:41 GMT
The Argument from Popularity is still a fallacy, no matter what I or anyone else thinks about it. Sorry about that. I wish you could sense how very sad it is watching you trying to be logical when it's obvious someone shot the right side of your brain out. Quite many important life decisions are properly advised by popular opinions although "science" in the sense of ceteris paribus is not. Democracy. Sorry, but that still does not affect the truism that the Argument from Popularity is a fallacy. Is there anything more relevant you can offer?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 9, 2020 7:51:50 GMT
FilmFlaneur “Then why make mention the level of world-wide credulity at all? “ ——— As I explained to you more than once, you seem to be on a mission to try to drag people away from their religions. As I have mentioned to you already, you seem to be projecting a spat on a discussion board into the wider world in a way which is quite unjustified, as well as attributing to me motives which it suits you to personify in an unjustified way. It would be more constructive if you could tell me why God, who is fully able to, does not prove his existence to doubters. Even if your preferred deity apparently does not need us to believe in it, there is no reason why it would not still wish to make an impact and give the credulous a helping hand. Indeed. Many of whom of course one would expect would not agree with you on many details of doctrine or philosophy, while the fact that there are so many does not necessary mean they are right or objectively true. I hope that helps. But it won't. For the answer to this, see my first point.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 9, 2020 8:16:47 GMT
FilmFlaneur “Then why make mention the level of world-wide credulity at all? “ ——— As I explained to you more than once, you seem to be on a mission to try to drag people away from their religions. You’ve turned hating religion into your religion. You proselytize for your religion every day. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 9, 2020 9:59:29 GMT
I wish you could sense how very sad it is watching you trying to be logical when it's obvious someone shot the right side of your brain out. Quite many important life decisions are properly advised by popular opinions although "science" in the sense of ceteris paribus is not. Democracy. Sorry, but that still does not affect the truism that the Argument from Popularity is a fallacy. Is there anything more relevant you can offer? Sorry, it's obviously not what I have to say that is the problem. You have no sense of context and several other things as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 9, 2020 19:47:02 GMT
Sorry, but that still does not affect the truism that the Argument from Popularity is a fallacy. Is there anything more relevant you can offer? Sorry, it's obviously not what I have to say that is the problem. You have no sense of context and several other things as well. Since you have said nothing to disprove what I say, and yet here you are again, now with a personal attack, one can see where any problem lies. As for context, when our friend SciFive says "There are 4 or 5 billion strong believers." while, for some odd reason (I think she is too unimaginative to be just making a rhetorical point with this) she suggests I vainly wish to reach them all through this message board, the implication is also that such a particularly large, and fervent, number of the devoutly-challenged is sufficient enough so that they must be right in their convictions and hence unswayable. Her "The human race would be long gone by now if the millions / billions of followers of the religion(s) saw things the way you claim" also suggests that the sheer number of believers is what makes them right. Is one seriously expected to think that each time SciFive trots out the "five billion" statistic it is just to blithely show the impossibility of speaking to them all here? Who is really hoping that - and has SciFive ever shown such deliberate irony anywhere else? It is the same as when she constantly refers to the age of her Bible, as if 3,300 years aged is a measure of anything except popularity or longevity,
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 9, 2020 19:49:02 GMT
You’ve turned hating religion into your religion. You proselytize for your religion every day. If you mean I often post here yes. But then so do several others - including you now, it would seem. I have yet though to overtly 'recommend' atheism to anyone, though my scepticism is no secret, as is my disdain for intellectual bunkum. But you seem to have given up with engaging with the specific topic of this thread and have returned to personal attacks and bluster again, so I will leave replying to you until the next thread when, perhaps, you might have something less hyperbolic to offer. I am sorry that you weren't able to suggest why your supposed God, who would be fully able to, does not prove His existence to doubters other that suggesting that He does not care. Perhaps those 5 billion believers or so you mention might have an idea more flattering to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 9, 2020 20:05:21 GMT
You’ve turned hating religion into your religion. Why proselytize to try to remove people from religion? If you don’t like religion, bully for you. Why try to ruin it for others? Why isn’t atheism satisfying enough for you? No one is asking you to join their religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 9, 2020 22:05:32 GMT
Sorry, it's obviously not what I have to say that is the problem. You have no sense of context and several other things as well. Since you have said nothing to disprove what I say, and yet here you are again, now with a personal attack, one can see where any problem lies. As for context, when our friend SciFive says "There are 4 or 5 billion strong believers." while, for some odd reason (I think she is too unimaginative to be just making a rhetorical point with this) she suggests I vainly wish to reach them all through this message board, the implication is also that such a particularly large, and fervent, number of the devoutly-challenged is sufficient enough so that they must be right in their convictions and hence unswayable. Her "The human race would be long gone by now if the millions / billions of followers of the religion(s) saw things the way you claim" also suggests that the sheer number of believers is what makes them right. Is one seriously expected to think that each time SciFive trots out the "five billion" statistic it is just to blithely show the impossibility of speaking to them all here? Who is really hoping that - and has SciFive ever shown such deliberate irony anywhere else? It is the same as when she constantly refers to the age of her Bible, as if 3,300 years aged is a measure of anything except popularity or longevity, Whose numbers should I believe, yours or hers? It does not matter. An exact count would be most difficult. More importantly an exact count is not necessary to the argument. It should be enough to observe that "large numbers" of Jews made a significant contribution to the existence of modern moral codes. There is no rule in debate that may dismiss that point out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 9, 2020 22:27:08 GMT
Since you have said nothing to disprove what I say, and yet here you are again, now with a personal attack, one can see where any problem lies. As for context, when our friend SciFive says "There are 4 or 5 billion strong believers." while, for some odd reason (I think she is too unimaginative to be just making a rhetorical point with this) she suggests I vainly wish to reach them all through this message board, the implication is also that such a particularly large, and fervent, number of the devoutly-challenged is sufficient enough so that they must be right in their convictions and hence unswayable. Her "The human race would be long gone by now if the millions / billions of followers of the religion(s) saw things the way you claim" also suggests that the sheer number of believers is what makes them right. Is one seriously expected to think that each time SciFive trots out the "five billion" statistic it is just to blithely show the impossibility of speaking to them all here? Who is really hoping that - and has SciFive ever shown such deliberate irony anywhere else? It is the same as when she constantly refers to the age of her Bible, as if 3,300 years aged is a measure of anything except popularity or longevity, Whose numbers should I believe, yours or hers? I may have argued that, all things being equal, a scientific consensus is more likely to be right than the eccentric views of just one (and you have agreed that science in this context is not a democracy) if this old hobby horse of yours is what it being resuscitated here, but I have never said that a majority means people are necessarily right. So you or anyone remain, as always, welcome to their opinions and to what you believe in. What was that again you said about the popularity of religious centres being one proof of the existence of God lol? As that is a suggestion no one has seen fit to oppose, or even debate, in general terms here then it is a non sequitur. But the sometimes barbaric moral code of the Old Testament, the stoning of adulterers, the treatment of sassy children etc etc is something which is perhaps wisely left unadded.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 9, 2020 23:34:16 GMT
The moral code of the Jewish Bible is the 10 Commandments.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 9, 2020 23:56:32 GMT
Catman has it on good authority that it's on God's to-do list, but hey, he's a busy guy what with running the whole multiverse thing taking up his days and nights. Could you please ask this 'good authority' how long God's days and nights are in earth terms? Thanks in advance.
|
|
