Problem about America is that it is such a comedy of errors that it IS noticeable but for all the wrong reasons. The word 'hypocrisy' fits neatly.
it is routine practice here for forum threads to start a drift away from the original stance
it is routine practice here for forum threads to start a drift away from the original stance?
That doesn't give you the right to abuse the privilege. Especially when your deviation from the actual topic is just to start another of your America bad rants. We have enough of them already.
Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism. That paper also swapped ideologies when reporting on people higher in neuroticism and social desirability (falsely claiming that you have socially desirable qualities); the original paper said those traits are linked with liberal beliefs, but they are more common among people with conservative values.(source)
Jerry Pournelle long ago wrote an essay about the "social sciences," which he called the Voodoo Sciences...
Now, it's not sufficient to be scientifically minded in order to prove God. It takes also rigorous conceptual analysis to understand if one is really proving God or something else.
That depends. You can say you define X thusly and anything that doesn't abide by that definition isn't X. Or you can say X is a meaningless concept in reality and it should either be tossed or rephrased as Y.
That being said, I'm inclined to agree because iirc Michio Kaku is quite happy spreading all kinds of nonsense outside of his realm of expertise.
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God
If you know what conceptual analysis means, then no, you cannot. A definition is not merely whatever you put into a concept. The result must be contiguous vis-a-vis all other relevant concepts. It must fit into the concept system. Then it's properly a concept. Otherwise it's dismissible nonsense.
Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-25, 12:43:04If you know what conceptual analysis means, then no, you cannot. A definition is not merely whatever you put into a concept. The result must be contiguous vis-a-vis all other relevant concepts. It must fit into the concept system. Then it's properly a concept. Otherwise it's dismissible nonsense.Although we clearly differ greatly regarding epistemology, that's basically a paraphrase of what I said.
To be more explicit, most God concepts are easily dismissible nonsense (and they already differ greatly in all kind of incompatible ways),...
You are saying that God is nonsense because theologians disagree among themselves.
You are clearly saying that you reject the method of conceptual analysis. Therefore no, that's no paraphrase.
Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-25, 13:45:04You are clearly saying that you reject the method of conceptual analysis. Therefore no, that's no paraphrase.It's possible, but it sounds more like you're hung up on what may or may not be delineated by a particular word than by the concept it happens to represent.
I have found that atheists never examine the concept of God the way they examine other concepts.
I have found that atheists never examine the concept of God the way they examine other concepts. They deliberately replace God, wherever they see it, with some teapot or unicorn. Or something else they feel like at the moment. Unfailingly. Sometimes that's understandable, because grand theology or abstract metaphysics is not for everyone, just like high math or theoretical physics is not for everyone.
Don't confuse rhetoric with analysis.
I found the [philosophical] arguments [in aid of religion] so execrably awful and pointless that they bored and disgusted me. [...] I now regard "the case for theism" as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position -- no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest. I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it. I've turned the philosophy of religion courses over to a colleague.
In no particular order, here are a dozen good books that provide excellent arguments in support of atheism:1) Wallace Matson: The Existence of God2) Michael Martin: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification3) Graham Oppy: Arguing About Gods4) Jordan Howard Sobel: Logic and Theism5)Richard Gale: On the Nature and Existence of God5) Nicholas Everitt: The Nonexistence of God6) J.L. Mackie: The Miracle of Theism7) Theodore M. Drange: Nonbelief and Evil J.L. Schellennberg: Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason9) Nick Trakakis: The God Beyond Belief10) Robin Le Poidevin: Arguing for Atheism11) Richard Robinson: An Atheist's Values12) Erik Wielenberg: Value and Virtue in a Godless UniverseThese books provide a far better justification for atheism than can be found in the recently popular Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris style books.
As I say there is also a sense of urgency. I just turned 58...
There is so much pseudo-philosophy in the field that one cannot take much of it very seriously.
Page created in 0.101 seconds with 40 queries.