Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News3 mins ago
How To Choose Your Religion.
91 Answers
Found a handy flow chart to help you review and determine your most appropriate religion..
Enjoy! :)
https:/
Enjoy! :)
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Khandro, now you see, this is confusing. You defend the bible by analogising it with other books, but then say the mindless consumption of any book is futile, completely ignoring the fact that believers do actually ‘consume’ that unworthy tome ‘mindlessly’. Are you sure you know what you’re talking about?
birdie; To ask someone if they'd had a drink, is hardly a 'slur', you said no, and I have to take your word for it, there's nothing to retract. You have in the past accused me of cutting and pasting and when you were proved wrong, did not apologise, nor did I demand one.
What is amazing about the atheist "sect" as Dr Johnson calls you, is how you feel the need to have to support one another against what any member considers to be the slightest whiff of criticism. Is this paranoia, or a case of Bird[ie]s of a feather flocking together?
What is amazing about the atheist "sect" as Dr Johnson calls you, is how you feel the need to have to support one another against what any member considers to be the slightest whiff of criticism. Is this paranoia, or a case of Bird[ie]s of a feather flocking together?
@ Khandro
You are at it again. You did not "simply ask if birdie had a drink". This is what you actually said
"birdie; keyplus can defend himself, but why do you have to resort to such ad hominem swipes and rude attacks? These aggressive posts of yours I notice are always late at night, are they alcohol-fuelled?"
You still obliquely continue to cast doubt on birdies account, using this phrase ;"To ask someone if they'd had a drink, is hardly a 'slur', you said no, and I have to take your word for it, there's nothing to retract."
You did not simply ask if birdie had a drink; You accused him of alcohol-fuelled rants, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. When challenged on this, you continue to defend your assertion. That warrants a retraction. Your attempts to backpeddle and minimise the slur is pretty pathetic.
As for your reference to Dr. Johnson - I assume you mean Samuel Johnson. You offer a "quote" from Dr. Johnson that supposedly bolsters your position that "atheism is a belief" - because that devalues its position and places it at the same level as all other beliefs - Because Dr. Johnson says so. Really, Khandro? An Argument from Authority?
Its a tactic that is not working now, and was not working when you and the other evangelists here tried to assert it.
You offer up a Johnson - I will match your Johnson with a Baggini, and raise you a McCarthy.
Julian Baggini - “Goblins, hobbits… truly everlasting gobstoppers… God is just one of the things that atheists don’t believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name.”
John McCarthy - "An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
The default position for atheism is a lack of belief in a god; High quality proof is required to change that position. That is it.
And it is a bit rich you moaning about how "all the atheists flock together" - you fail to see the irony of you saying that at all..
You are at it again. You did not "simply ask if birdie had a drink". This is what you actually said
"birdie; keyplus can defend himself, but why do you have to resort to such ad hominem swipes and rude attacks? These aggressive posts of yours I notice are always late at night, are they alcohol-fuelled?"
You still obliquely continue to cast doubt on birdies account, using this phrase ;"To ask someone if they'd had a drink, is hardly a 'slur', you said no, and I have to take your word for it, there's nothing to retract."
You did not simply ask if birdie had a drink; You accused him of alcohol-fuelled rants, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. When challenged on this, you continue to defend your assertion. That warrants a retraction. Your attempts to backpeddle and minimise the slur is pretty pathetic.
As for your reference to Dr. Johnson - I assume you mean Samuel Johnson. You offer a "quote" from Dr. Johnson that supposedly bolsters your position that "atheism is a belief" - because that devalues its position and places it at the same level as all other beliefs - Because Dr. Johnson says so. Really, Khandro? An Argument from Authority?
Its a tactic that is not working now, and was not working when you and the other evangelists here tried to assert it.
You offer up a Johnson - I will match your Johnson with a Baggini, and raise you a McCarthy.
Julian Baggini - “Goblins, hobbits… truly everlasting gobstoppers… God is just one of the things that atheists don’t believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name.”
John McCarthy - "An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
The default position for atheism is a lack of belief in a god; High quality proof is required to change that position. That is it.
And it is a bit rich you moaning about how "all the atheists flock together" - you fail to see the irony of you saying that at all..
@Khandro - If you are going to base your philosophy on an acceptance of the argument from authority, take anyone you want- it speaks volumes about your willingness to suspend critical analysis in favour of faith and authority or any old speculative woo that takes your fancy.
It can be useful to know the source of information sure, but it is the message itself that is what is important, not the messenger.
When will you be offering Birdie the apology you owe him I wonder?
It can be useful to know the source of information sure, but it is the message itself that is what is important, not the messenger.
When will you be offering Birdie the apology you owe him I wonder?
@Khandro.
Attaching undue weight or importance or verity to a message simply because of the who is offering the message would be a logical fallacy; The power of the argument should rest on its content, not who says it.
To argue otherwise is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Dr.Johnson offers an opinion, thats all.
Oh gee someone is being, horror of horrors, rude, about your slur on another poster on the board - how lacking in manners! It is a public and open board - you do not get to pronounce on who responds.
So, when will you be offering an apology to Birdie for suggesting their posts are "alcohol-fuelled rants"? Or are you going to try and maintain the non- defence that you were "merely asking a question"?
Attaching undue weight or importance or verity to a message simply because of the who is offering the message would be a logical fallacy; The power of the argument should rest on its content, not who says it.
To argue otherwise is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Dr.Johnson offers an opinion, thats all.
Oh gee someone is being, horror of horrors, rude, about your slur on another poster on the board - how lacking in manners! It is a public and open board - you do not get to pronounce on who responds.
So, when will you be offering an apology to Birdie for suggesting their posts are "alcohol-fuelled rants"? Or are you going to try and maintain the non- defence that you were "merely asking a question"?
LG; //Attaching undue weight or importance or verity to a message simply because of the who is offering the message would be a logical fallacy; The power of the argument should rest on its content, not who says it.//
I really wonder what sort of world you live in. I have yet to see in serious debate, reference or quotations to substantiate an argument from "some one I met at a bus stop", It really doesn't have the resonance of say, - "Albert Einstein" does it?
On the other matter; please keep you nose out.
I really wonder what sort of world you live in. I have yet to see in serious debate, reference or quotations to substantiate an argument from "some one I met at a bus stop", It really doesn't have the resonance of say, - "Albert Einstein" does it?
On the other matter; please keep you nose out.
@Khandro - I am happy for you to continue with your logical fallacy - I am sure all here will see it for what it is. Einstein was a vocal critic of quantum theory - had we just accepted the weight of his persona, the science would have been set back.
But you just keep attaching undue weight to the messenger, not the message....
And no, I will not "keep my nose out". Public, open forum remember?
When can we expect to see an apology from you to Birdie, for describing their posts as "alcohol fuelled rants"?
But you just keep attaching undue weight to the messenger, not the message....
And no, I will not "keep my nose out". Public, open forum remember?
When can we expect to see an apology from you to Birdie, for describing their posts as "alcohol fuelled rants"?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
LG;//Einstein was a vocal critic of quantum theory - had we just accepted the weight of his persona, the science would have been set back.//
For the record; 'The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first half of the 20th century by Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Enrico Fermi, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Von Laue, Freeman Dyson, David Hilbert, Wilhelm Wien, Satyendra Nath Bose, Arnold Sommerfeld and others. In the mid-1920s, developments in quantum mechanics led to its becoming the standard formulation for atomic physics. In the summer of 1925, Bohr and Heisenberg published results that closed the "Old Quantum Theory". Out of deference to their particle-like behavior in certain processes and measurements, light quanta came to be called photons (1926). From Einstein's simple postulation was born a flurry of debating, theorizing, and testing. Thus the entire field of quantum physics emerged, leading to its wider acceptance at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927.'
For the record; 'The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first half of the 20th century by Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Enrico Fermi, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Von Laue, Freeman Dyson, David Hilbert, Wilhelm Wien, Satyendra Nath Bose, Arnold Sommerfeld and others. In the mid-1920s, developments in quantum mechanics led to its becoming the standard formulation for atomic physics. In the summer of 1925, Bohr and Heisenberg published results that closed the "Old Quantum Theory". Out of deference to their particle-like behavior in certain processes and measurements, light quanta came to be called photons (1926). From Einstein's simple postulation was born a flurry of debating, theorizing, and testing. Thus the entire field of quantum physics emerged, leading to its wider acceptance at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927.'
@Khandro - Your point? _ Oh, I get it- you are still trying to justify the argument from authority as a valid proposition.Bless!
Einstein and Bohr had several debates over the years during the discussions about quantum mechanics. Einstein was not a fan of what some of the mathematics was suggesting - stuff like quantum indeterminism. He changed his views - had to really, because of the math - but he was never a massive fan.
We have already established that the bona fides of the messenger have some relevance to the message; But it is still the content of the message that is the important thing. I would take a quotation or statement about physics using Einsteins words more seriously than say, a quotation or statement from Frank Skinner about physics, but it is still the content of the message that is the important thing.
Still no apology to Birdie for imputing that their posts were "alcohol-fuelled rants"?
Einstein and Bohr had several debates over the years during the discussions about quantum mechanics. Einstein was not a fan of what some of the mathematics was suggesting - stuff like quantum indeterminism. He changed his views - had to really, because of the math - but he was never a massive fan.
We have already established that the bona fides of the messenger have some relevance to the message; But it is still the content of the message that is the important thing. I would take a quotation or statement about physics using Einsteins words more seriously than say, a quotation or statement from Frank Skinner about physics, but it is still the content of the message that is the important thing.
Still no apology to Birdie for imputing that their posts were "alcohol-fuelled rants"?
birdie; regarding, //his well known theological world-view// Does upholding this theological world-view qualify someone to be called a "moron" by you? I hold no particular brief for Islam, but I defend their right to hold that view. An estimated 23% of the world's population are Muslim,- nearly 2 Billion human beings,- are they, in your opinion, all morons?
I have a good golfing-friend who is a devout Muslim, he is fluent in 4 languages, runs a highly successful international business, is courteous, happy and never tries to foist his religion on anyone, though I enjoy discussing it with him. Would he, because of his theological word-view, qualify in your estimation as a 'moron'. 'Someone at a bus stop//Albert Einstein' I'm sure you know, is a method of argument known as reductio ad absurdum, and came about because a quote had been given of a person of whom I have never heard called Baggini, I looked him up and found he was known chiefly for being an atheist and had done very little. Last time I looked, the wikipedia entry on yours truly is twice as long, and no one quotes me! (except on here and then to tell me I'm an idiot, -which I always take with good grace). Baggini and I at least share the same alma mater, so he can't be too bad.
Knowing your ex-profession I'm surprised you are so sensitive about my suggestion that one of your attacks might have been alcohol-fuelled, I'm sure you have been subjected to far worse than that, however if it upsets you so much, then I withdraw it.
I have a good golfing-friend who is a devout Muslim, he is fluent in 4 languages, runs a highly successful international business, is courteous, happy and never tries to foist his religion on anyone, though I enjoy discussing it with him. Would he, because of his theological word-view, qualify in your estimation as a 'moron'. 'Someone at a bus stop//Albert Einstein' I'm sure you know, is a method of argument known as reductio ad absurdum, and came about because a quote had been given of a person of whom I have never heard called Baggini, I looked him up and found he was known chiefly for being an atheist and had done very little. Last time I looked, the wikipedia entry on yours truly is twice as long, and no one quotes me! (except on here and then to tell me I'm an idiot, -which I always take with good grace). Baggini and I at least share the same alma mater, so he can't be too bad.
Knowing your ex-profession I'm surprised you are so sensitive about my suggestion that one of your attacks might have been alcohol-fuelled, I'm sure you have been subjected to far worse than that, however if it upsets you so much, then I withdraw it.
