- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,689
- Reactions
- 1,233
Crikey!!! Roll out the crucifix guys!
Just another classic case of shoot the messenger!!!
Who am I abusing?
...
What part of my position lacks scientific evidence? and I never said cynic doesn't believe in science, I am just saying we is using this disparate facts to point in an illogical area, because he has confirmation bias.
Scientific facts to not discomfort me, Your constant misdirection, twisting and failure to recognise your own confirmation bias does.
...
Who are you talking about? I think you'll find I have been willing to engage anybody in dialogue. The only person I find is a pain to talk to is Cynic, and only because of his dishonest style of debate.
...
I think he believes in science, it's just he suffers from confirmation bias, a big part of the scientific method involves trying to weed out your own confirmation bias, that's all I am saying. You can come to all sorts of wrong conclusions if you misapply the scientific method.
...
+100
I agree 100% on that. Cynic's contribution to the debate has been zero, just pure obfuscation. He has never produced any material to support what he says but just alludes to something different or throws back gratuitous replies such as "it's there for all to see" ignoring every request that he detail what's there for all to see. Just look at almost every one of his replies. Nothing ever addresses what is asked, but instead just additional meaningless dribble.
...
To VC - good on you. Keep exposing nonsense with facts.
Yes, complete obfuscation is the best description for Cynics replies.
...
Radical atheists?? Oh please, where are those violent hoards of atheists killing religious believers, persecuting them, strapping bombs to their bodies and killing the innocent etc. Not only is such an association obscene, it's asinine and absurd nonsense.I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.
“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
Radical atheists?? Oh please, where are those violent hoards of atheists killing religious believers, persecuting them, strapping bombs to their bodies and killing the innocent etc. Not only is such an association obscene, it's asinine and absurd nonsense.
1. remember my statement is only that it is beneficial to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
2. I am not saying only scientific things should be believed, or whatever extreme view you think I have, i willing admit we all believe things that are false, but I mainline that we benefit when we work to reduce the number of false things and increase the number of true things.
So then by your reasoning the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is an act by "radical atheists"? Yes, I think such an argument is absurd and in no way validates the incredible claims made by the religious.You might consider the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
If you think such allegations are absurd, then I'm sure you won't associate all religious people with the starting of wars etc. Such allegations are equally absurd, obscene and offensive to those people.
Just remember that religion in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a few within that religion, as atheists in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a subset of that group.
1. Yup, that counts. Thanks very much for your service to the nation. As a younger guy I went to 3RAR to be a weekend special forces guy...and found the women were bigger than me. I was wondering how I was supposed to haul the monster guys around. Got my viewpoint scientifically adjusted pretty fast.
In service, would you say that your confidence in yourself and each other in service and in hostile territory was such that you could go into situations that 99.9% of Australians would not think was viable for them? It's that part I mean. You think you can do it when a cross section of the populace would look with admiration but think that is a bit on the extreme side to say the least even if they had the immense requisites otherwise. In the uncommon belief that you can do it, you trained stupendously to achieve and earn that confidence. And then, you engaged in necessary activity carefully and with as much understanding of the risk as possible. Belief in winning is not to be equated with stupid bravado. Because you've done it, it may not seem like it, but I reckon most people would think that what you personally did is irrational in that they wouldn't do it...although they would be grateful for your presence anyway.
2. Key point: no-one can ever be sure about certain important things.
3. Fair point. I don't have the stats on the subset. And there is a difference between correlation and causality. Still, I am amazed at it and find the depth of belief was so strong and think, as opposed to know, that it was uncommon. I don't think that religious belief is exactly on the same plane as Queensland liberals though in terms of that issue. Maybe growing up in warm weather makes you a better soldier on average. Maybe there weren't enough jobs in Queensland at the time and the army was recruiting. Just kidding around.
4. I agree. But let's be careful about talking about religion in general and keeping it separate from some of the falsifiable claims that get made. As you know, the presence of falsifiable claims doesn't obviate the whole edifice. Science has made heaps of claims that have been falsified, per the scientific method.
There seem to be two arguments running here:The tooth fairy may not exist, but kids feel good when they believe it is out there. Part of having the Right Stuff appears to have something to do with religious belief. It makes an astronaut feel that all will be taken care of.....allowing him to be super cool under unbelievably stressful situations. It may not seem rational, but it produces better outcomes than what you might regard as rational thought.
If God exists and has been paying attention to His creations, he's not someone worthy of respect and admiration, and not someone you ought to pray to for forgiveness or for world peace let alone a lottery ticket.
If God is a parent and we his children, even DOCS would be able to see the neglect.
Not entirely accurate, asserting there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God is quite different to claiming that a God does not exist. The claim by many religious that not only does God(s) exist but that such existence has implications for your eternal soul means they own the burden of proof. An infinite number of beliefs are unprovable, but those related to a God must be since the consequences for the religious and human society are significant.There seem to be two arguments running here:
1. that a god exists or doesn't: neither 'side' can prove their point of view.
2. it's a feelgood thing to have something to believe in.
If only religion was so benign. Sure, self-delusion can be harmless, but the communitarian nature of religious belief means that all of human society is impacted by those who take the fiction in iron-age scrolls to seriously.I don't want to insult anyone by being simplistic, but if someone were just to say:
"I have no idea whether a god of any type exists, I certainly can't demonstrate his/her existence or otherwise, but I find it a comfort to believe that my life is guided by some higher being which supports me and helps my passage through life" then why would anyone argue with that?
So then by your reasoning the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is an act by "radical atheists"? Yes, I think such an argument is absurd and in no way validates the incredible claims made by the religious.
Competing claims in magic books taken to seriously by "radical religious believers" is tearing human society apart and is responsible for strife, suffering and death on a large scale. This is not an allegation, it's fact and readily observable daily.
What evil people do in the name of religion is a problem for their religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion and any attempt to label it as such is intellectually dishonest and mischievous for reasons already explained here many times. Atheists are not a collective group and not identifiable as such, please reread Harris' quote.
Cop out. You just can't accept that some atheists do nasty things. Take the blinkers off some time.
?
1. Not entirely accurate, asserting there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God is quite different to claiming that a God does not exist. The claim by many religious that not only does God(s) exist but that such existence has implications for your eternal soul means they own the burden of proof. An infinite number of beliefs are unprovable, but those related to a God must be since the consequences for the religious and human society are significant.
2. If only religion was so benign. Sure, self-delusion can be harmless, but the communitarian nature of religious belief means that all of human society is impacted by those who take the fiction in iron-age scrolls to seriously.
That's not quite what you said, you implied that atheism can cause people to commit genocide. Which is very different from saying an atheist can commit genocide.
Offcourse simply being an atheist doesn't guarantee that I person will never do bad things, so there would have been people that are atheists that have done bad things, but there is no doctrine in atheism that would cause people to commit bad acts.
This is not true for theism though, religions have various doctrines which can instruct people to commit bad acts, thats the biggest difference.
Your fixation with trying to vilify non-belief and attempt to characterize atheism as some kind of institutional force bent on the destruction of religion betrays an irrational loathing of those who simply suggest there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God. You conveniently ignore the atrocities committed in the name of religion daily and instead continue your blinkered focus on the evils of your atheist bogeyman.If you take atheism to an extreme, it turns into a hatred of religion (which we have seen here in this forum in varying degrees) . In the mind of a homicidal lunatic that could turn into violence against religious people or the institutions of religion. Don't you think that China's persecution of the Falun Gong (which as far as I know has no violence inherent in it's doctrine) falls into that category ? As was China's cultural revolution which was a similar attack against religion amongst other things. You seem anxious to ignore these examples of religious persecution while throwing verbal grenades against religion.
The notion that people are also persecuted "in the name of atheism" is a figment of your imagination and a totally unsubstantiated claim.Believe me, I think that some religious people do some nasty things, but to ignore the fact that religious people are also persecuted in the name of atheism is to ignore evidence contrary to your opinion, and given your obsession with evidence I certainly hope you won't do that.
Religious and political extremism is indeed a threat to human society. The deception masquerading as absolute truth pontificated from the pulpit in Churches every Sunday and drummed into the minds of children is hardly harmless or victimless. The tenants of Christian faith are a fraud perpetrated by religious leaders and institutions on a willing, duped and gullible flock sold on the fanciful fiction they will inherit eternity if they profess some level of belief that God crucified himself on a cross in the form of Jesus to redeem the original sin of a symbolic Adam and Eve (the progenitors of fallen humanity) who succumbed to temptation by a serpent - how absurd.The real threat to society is extremism of any sort. I hope you don't think that the millions of your countrymen who go to church every Sunday and go peacefully about their daily lives are going to let themselves be turned into murderers just because a preacher says so ? To do so would be to do good people a great disservice.
The notion that people are also persecuted "in the name of atheism" is a figment of your imagination and a totally unsubstantiated claim.
CommunismOnly to people wearing blinkers. What religion are the Chinese government ?
Once again, atheism is not a belief system, institutional force or doctrine. Your hypothetical question is pointless.If a person with undeclared religious beliefs declared war on atheists would you assume that they had religious beliefs ?
Atheism is not a philosophy and no amount of semantic argument can make it so.Atheism and religion are opposing philosophies. There is no need to persecute one of these groups unless you are a member of the other.
This totally irrational and emotive statement deserves no response. People don't persecute you through disagreement and force of argument, your sense of what constitutes persecution is a very distorted and imaginary one.And Richard Dawkins certainly persecutes religions in the name of atheism. Why else does he do it?
This totally irrational and emotive statement deserves no response. People don't persecute you through disagreement and force of argument, your sense of what constitutes persecution is a very distorted and imaginary one.
Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.
Richard Dawkins
Who would want to be a teacher now in those public school classrooms with no respect, not many, I can assure you.
The evidence is stacking up that it's becoming increasingly difficult for teachers, particularly primary teacher graduates, to find permanent jobs.
In May, a federal government body, the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership, released a report showing that only half of education graduates got full-time jobs.
In 2011, 55 per cent of primary teacher graduates obtained full-time jobs, 31 per cent had part-time work and 14 per cent didn't have jobs. For secondary teachers, 56 per cent had full-time appointments, 28 per cent worked part-time and 16 per cent didn't have jobs.
Many graduate teachers in Victoria have short-term contracts, but want permanent positions. A 2012 Productivity Commission report, Schools Workforce, says contract and casual employment has been growing in Australia.
The report also says there is a surplus of teachers as "evidenced by the substantial number of (mainly primary) teachers who are on standby for positions in metropolitan areas". For example, of the 33,000 teachers on waiting lists for permanent positions in NSW, about 19,000 are qualified primary teachers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?