Would you like to see the death of religion.

Havermeyer

To be honest, the whole "we'll find out in the end" statement was just an attempt to appease the tension. I am as confident as the Brazilian football coach going into a football match against Uzbekistan is that there is no god. Therefore we do not need religion, in my ever so humble opinion. My "primitive" statement was a reference to the fact that people used to worship the sun because they thought it gave life to their crops etc etc.. and if they didn't worship it, it would not come back around again and the moon would permanently take it's place, hence their crops would fail. When people started to become more civilized, or in the know, their god took on more sophisticated forms. Which leads us to the god you have today. The creator of all things bright and beautiful. It just baffles me that people can believe in a deity whose gospel preaches that he who is righteous and does not need to see to believe will live forever in the kingdom of heaven. That's an ingenious cover story, until someone actually thinks about it.

I'm sorry. In my opinion it's just pure ignorance/desperation that you believe this without any form of proof/evidence. Call it what you will. I find it scary to be honest.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

nummnutts wrote: »

I'm sorry. In my opinion it's just pure ignorance/desperation that you believe this without any form of proof/evidence. Call it what you will. I find it scary to be honest.

post one it is then:D Something you touched upon in that 1st post was, to paraphrase, 'When the believers intellectually catch up with non-believers, the worls can be put to right as everyone will realise hat this life is all we have'. Just wondering, do you believe atheism would really lead to a change in world view in such a dramatic way? It'll stop greed? War? Global warming? Is religion really the cause of all the problems? I tend to wonder on what evidence this faith in mankind comes from? Do you realy think

TheThing!

Yes, except for my religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, Nummnuts and TheThing. I'm detecting schoolboys. Teenagers. Maybe leaving cert year, or just below. Little life experience, but knows what is required to be classed 'intellectual'. Judging by the level of Arroga.. I mean 'self belief', good education facility, possibly blackrock or the like. Hows my aim?

Ad hominem

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

JimiTime, I appreciate you keeping the discussion level.
I thought nummnutts' comments were almost too provocative when I read them.

Oh, and bogwalrus, we hope your next post has something better to say.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

TheThing! wrote: »

Yes, Nummnuts and TheThing. I'm detecting schoolboys. Teenagers. Maybe leaving cert year, or just below. Little life experience, but knows what is required to be classed 'intellectual'. Judging by the level of Arroga.. I mean 'self belief', good education facility, possibly blackrock or the like. Hows my aim?

Ad hominem

Depends on what it is in response to...bear in mind that JimiTime has been told quite explicitly that he is mentally deficient and/or irrational compared to atheists - and it may be that his response, insofar as it addresses those insults, is quite fair. It's not an ad hominen attack if it's in response to insulting language - it's simply a criticism of those who offered the insults.

However, it is not possible to dismiss the claim that believers are not acting rationally by stating that it is callow to make such claims. After all, if I say that my difficulties with faith are intellectual, I am essentially saying the same thing, if more politely. So if it is an attempt to dismiss the claim, it's an ad hominem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

Yes - through proactive secularism

and whats wrong with a bit of humour dades? Religion seems stupid and funny to me and it felt appropriate. I really do blame Religion for those things. especially christina aquilera.

I did make a fair point that better education in schools will lead to the end of organised religions. The more people know the more deeper they will question existence, showing people that organised religions are farcical. I think Buddhism most definitely is on the right road (this is not a religion). Meditation is probably the only thing that can sort out the conditioned brain and being truly compassionate will lead to happier people and a healthy human race.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

bogwalrus wrote: »

and whats wrong with a bit of humour dades? Religion seems stupid and funny to me and it felt appropriate.

Nothing wrong with humour (within a context), but read the charter if you will, and stick around.
Though I do agree that better standards of education may lead to a negative effect on religiosity.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

Though I do agree that better standards of education may lead to a negative effect on religiosity.

But surely that just begs the question, how does one defines "better standards of education"?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

But surely that just begs the question, how does one defines "better standards of education"?

Just to correct this very common misunderstanding - "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where you assume what you set out to prove. The phrase you're looking for is "invites the question".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Accepting the, ahem, invite to the question...

I don't understand where the difficulty lies.

I'm not talking about a change in curriculum (save for scientific advances) - I'm talking about more literate kids. Kids staying in school longer. Better leaving results. More people going to college. More people with diplomas, degrees, masters etc. More educational achievement basically.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to correct this very common misunderstanding - "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where you assume what you set out to prove. The phrase you're looking for is "invites the question".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, begging the question means something different in logic speak then common man idiom speak.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Beg+the+question

I am using common man speak, if that's ok.
I thought you didn't like someone picking holes with strict logic ;-)

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

Accepting the, ahem, invite to the question...

I don't understand where the difficulty lies.

I'm not talking about a change in curriculum (save for scientific advances) - I'm talking about more literate kids. Kids staying in school longer. Better leaving results. More people going to college. More people with diplomas, degrees, masters etc. More educational achievement basically.

Yes that would be good. But should a better education include a spiritual examination, a study of scripture and a study of classical philosophy including:
"What is there something rather than nothing" and Aristotle's "First cause"

My other question I would put to you would be an examination of happiness?
Should that be in the remit of education?

What about the various forms of prayer / worship?

Are spiritually inclined people happier, more equiped to cope with life, more equiped to cope with stress?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

I don't see a problem with an hour's Religious Studies per week, as long as it's even handed. Why shouldn't children be informed about the world religions and their impact on society? They can make up their own minds as adults, and their parents will no doubt try and indoctrinate them anyway.

As for prayer and worship, I can think of no bigger waste of time for those sponges for knowledge that are children.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Dades wrote: »

I don't see a problem with an hour's Religious Studies per week, as long as it's even handed. Why shouldn't children be informed about the world religions and their impact on society? They can make up their own minds as adults, and their parents will no doubt try and indoctrinate them anyway.

As for prayer and worship, I can think of no bigger waste of time for those sponges for knowledge that are children.

I can see the argument for including a theology class on a integration level but why cant it be a class that focusses on the differences in culture, national identity and heritage aswell as the arcane superstitions of the hill people of Berundi ?

And I agree, prayer is a waste and I would go so far as to say it is an intrusion.

edit:

/leaves conversation again before it turns in to another farce.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Yes, begging the question means something different in logic speak then common man idiom speak.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Beg+the+question

I am using common man speak, if that's ok.
I thought you didn't like someone picking holes with strict logic ;-)

No, I 'm against people claiming they're using strict logic when they're not, and holding people to standards they can't even apply, whether to themselves or others.

Logical fallacies are logical fallacies. If someone presents a logical fallacy in an argument, then the argument is invalid, whether the context is formal debate or a fight in a fish shop. However, there's no reason for someone to accept a lecture on logical fallacies from someone whose own arguments are riddled with them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I 'm against people claiming they're using strict logic when they're not, and holding people to standards they can't even apply, whether to themselves or others.

Logical fallacies are logical fallacies. If someone presents a logical fallacy in an argument, then the argument is invalid, whether the context is formal debate or a fight in a fish shop. However, there's no reason for someone to accept a lecture on logical fallacies from someone whose own arguments are riddled with them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But you agree "Begging the Question" has a different meaning in logic speak than in common man speak, as that link I sent enclosed?

Perhaps you might admit your error, trying to point out the phrase I should be using or clarify why it wasn't?

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

As for prayer and worship, I can think of no bigger waste of time for those sponges for knowledge that are children.

But this aspect is entirely subjective, as if God exists it surely is not a waste of time. Perhaps it's a waste of your time not other peoples.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote: »

But this aspect is entirely subjective, as if God exists it surely is not a waste of time.

Well thank God he doesn't exist then

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

But you agree "Begging the Question" has a different meaning in logic speak than in common man speak, as that link I sent enclosed?

Perhaps you might admit your error, trying to point out the phrase I should be using or clarify why it wasn't?

The use of the phrase "begging the question" to mean "inviting the question" is incorrect. It is in common usage, but so are many other errors.

I know that you have cited an internet source that agrees with your incorrect usage, but it is a single source. If you search for "begging the question", you will see that virtually every source uses it in the form I have stated - and many include a note to the effect that your common usage is incorrect. Your defence of "common man speak" (better rendered as "common usage") is not a very good defence, if you think it through.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

But this aspect is entirely subjective, as if God exists it surely is not a waste of time. Perhaps it's a waste of your time not other peoples.

Well if we objectively put aside prayer time for every deity who demands it, there wouldn't be much room for anything else would there? Your question pre-supposes not only that there is a God, but also that we could pick him out of a proverbial line-up.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

Well if we objectively put aside prayer time for every deity who demands it, there wouldn't be much room for anything else would there? Your question pre-supposes not only that there is a God, but also that we could pick him out of a proverbial line-up.

Which is to say it "begs the question" of whether a God exists by presuming not only that He does, but that He is a specific deity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TheThing!

Yes, except for my religion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Depends on what it is in response to...bear in mind that JimiTime has been told quite explicitly that he is mentally deficient and/or irrational compared to atheists - and it may be that his response, insofar as it addresses those insults, is quite fair. It's not an ad hominen attack if it's in response to insulting language - it's simply a criticism of those who offered the insults.

However, it is not possible to dismiss the claim that believers are not acting rationally by stating that it is callow to make such claims. After all, if I say that my difficulties with faith are intellectual, I am essentially saying the same thing, if more politely. So if it is an attempt to dismiss the claim, it's an ad hominem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It was meant in response to one of his comments which suggested that because I am (he presumes, albeit correctly) a teenager, my opinion is not valid, which is a grade A Ad Hominem.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The use of the phrase "begging the question" to mean "inviting the question" is incorrect. It is in common usage, but so are many other errors.

I know that you have cited an internet source that agrees with your incorrect usage, but it is a single source. If you search for "begging the question", you will see that virtually every source uses it in the form I have stated - and many include a note to the effect that your common usage is incorrect. Your defence of "common man speak" (better rendered as "common usage") is not a very good defence, if you think it through.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That is like saying eveytime the word "theory" is used it must be using in the Scientific sense, not in the common man's sense.

Here's another link to the common's man usage of beg the question:

http://bits.westhost.com/idioms/id67.htm

Your version of it, is a literal translation of the Latin: "'petitio principii" which is a translation from "'en archei aiteisthai'" which was taken from Aristotle's Prior Analytics.

(http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beg-the-question.html)

Languages evolve and changes.

You can agree terms with someone on how to speak but in ambiguous cases such as this you cannot force them how to speak or assume they are wrong and you are right, it's rather conceited.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

Well if we objectively put aside prayer time for every deity who demands it, there wouldn't be much room for anything else would there? Your question pre-supposes not only that there is a God, but also that we could pick him out of a proverbial line-up.

No. That assumes we know God before we pray, therefore we know which God and how to pray to him.

I say we find God through prayer.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

TheThing! wrote: »

It was meant in response to one of his comments which suggested that because I am (he presumes, albeit correctly) a teenager, my opinion is not valid, which is a grade A Ad Hominem.

Yes, that would certainly be correct. It's unfortunately a very common form of dismissal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

That is like saying eveytime the word "theory" is used it must be using in the Scientific sense, not in the common man's sense.

Here's another link to the common's man usage of beg the question:

http://bits.westhost.com/idioms/id67.htm

Your version of it, is a literal translation of the Latin: "'petitio principii" which is a translation from "'en archei aiteisthai'" which was taken from Aristotle's Prior Analytics.

(http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beg-the-question.html)

Languages evolve and changes.

You can agree terms with someone on how to speak but in ambiguous cases such as this you cannot force them how to speak or assume they are wrong and you are right, it's rather conceited.

Hmm. Is that the same 'John Wine' who objected so strenuously to the neologism 'alatrist'? Yes it is. Sauce. Goose. Gander.

Are you citing very very selective sources? Yes.

Does this whole discussion result from your initial unwillingness to use the terminology of logic appropriately, but instead claim the cover of "common man speak" for your errors while decrying Dades' use of 'subjectivity'? Yes.

John, it seems I am having exactly the kind of discussion with you that irritates me so much with Tim, and it seems to me also that you have rather deliberately chosen to do this. Bis repetita non placet - simply repeating what Tim does is not a defence of Tim in any way, but a reminder of him...at this stage quite a strong reminder.

regards,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

No. That assumes we know God before we pray, therefore we know which God and how to pray to him.

I say we find God through prayer.

Look, what you are suggesting is ridiculous. A classroom full of children praying to an unknown god so that one might "find" them? I really don't know where you're going with this, and what it has to do with anything on this thread.

TFI Friday, frankly!

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Is that the same 'John Wine' who objected so strenuously to the neologism 'alatrist'? Yes it is. Sauce. Goose. Gander.

Are you citing very very selective sources? Yes.

Does this whole discussion result from your initial unwillingness to use the terminology of logic appropriately, but instead claim the cover of "common man speak" for your errors while decrying Dades' use of 'subjectivity'? Yes.

John, it seems I am having exactly the kind of discussion with you that irritates me so much with Tim, and it seems to me also that you have rather deliberately chosen to do this. Bis repetita non placet - simply repeating what Tim does is not a defence of Tim in any way, but a reminder of him...at this stage quite a strong reminder.

regards,
Scofflaw

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am simple saying the usage of the idiom "Beg the question" is ambiguous. There is as you point the logical usage, which someone like you or Tim and many people would probably only use.
There is nothing grammatical wrong with what I said, I clarified I wasn't using in the logical context. You forcing me to only use logical rules, reminds me of Tim. Pot, Kettle, Black. Or perhaps you have a logical usage for that too.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

Look, what you are suggesting is ridiculous. A classroom full of children praying to an unknown god so that one might "find" them? I really don't know where you're going with this, and what it has to do with anything on this thread.

TFI Friday, frankly!

Ridiculous to you, agreed. But if there is a God and we are connecting spiritually to him, it is anything but ridiculous.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am simple saying the usage of the idiom "Beg the question" is ambiguous. There is as you point the logical usage, which someone like you or Tim and many people would probably only use.
There is nothing grammatical wrong with what I said, I clarified I wasn't using in the logical context. You forcing me to only use logical rules, reminds me of Tim. Pot, Kettle, Black. Or perhaps you have a logical usage for that too.

Sigh. No, I'm not arguing that you are incorrectly using an "informal but correct usage in a formal context". I am pointing out that you are misusing the expression. That's an incorrect usage, if that isn't clear, not by context, but completely. It is wrong to use the expression as you used it, because it does not mean what you meant by it, whether you are using it in the privacy of a PD meeting or at a philosophical convention.

That you can cite two web pages that agree with you means only that there are two web pages that misuse it the same way - and one of them at least is simply explaining what the expression means without any judgement on whether it is correct to use it. Since, as I've said from the start, this is a common misuse of the term, you would expect it to be just that: common. That does not make it correct.

If you are trying to prove that it is possible to irritate me by behaving exactly as Tim would, you have succeeded, and I congratulate you.

regards,
Scofflaw