Dealing with Fundamentalism: Secular alternative, or take back the church?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Faith in something for which there is no evidence sounds gullible to me, BK.

Pot calling kettle black.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I suppose you believe religious folks to be gullible, and not likely to think things through.

Yes, because there is strong evidene to believe that to be true, namely, that you express sincere belief in an invisible friend. You're not only gullible, you may be crazy, as crazy people are known to have conversations with imaginary people as well.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Pot calling kettle black.

You have no standing to call me the Pot, Kid. Not even your commie breatherin back you up. Now run along.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Time to start fighting fire with fire. I donated today to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and what's more I told my company to match it (hey, they're on our approved list!).

I'm sick and tired of relying on common sense to stop the religionistas. Time to fight back, in kind. The CC and other such groups put political pressure on pols, bring votes & money to the table. It's time the godless traitor liberals do the same.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The problem is that we not only have religious extremeists, but scientific ones as well.

There is nothing in either position that makes it impossible to combine the two, which is what MOST Americans do.

Occam's Razor is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

The only thing to which it is not applied is belief in causality - and that because every single person inherently believes in it, and it is impossible to disbelieve it except on a very intellectual level.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is it?

How would we ever prove that conclusively?

Is this statement falsifiable?

Because I said in the sense of everything that exists. Clearly, anything NOT in the set of "everything that exists" doesn't exist, and therefore can have no effect on anything that does exist, meaning that the universe is a closed system, by definition.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because I said in the sense of everything that exists. Clearly, anything NOT in the set of "everything that exists" doesn't exist, and therefore can have no effect on anything that does exist, meaning that the universe is a closed system, by definition.

That raises several interesting questions.

1. Is the universe necessarily the set of everything that exists?

2. If we define the universe as the set of everything that exists, is that the same thing as the observeable universe?

Could it be that there is much more to the universe than we know?

[Ben Kenobi]

Occam's Razor is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

I fail to see how Occam's Razor favours chance directed evolution over God.

What's your explanation?

The only thing to which it is not applied is belief in causality - and that because every single person inherently believes in it, and it is impossible to disbelieve it except on a very intellectual level.

It is also poorly understood, how events cause each other.

[Kuciwalker]

1. Is the universe necessarily the set of everything that exists?

I said the universe, in the sense of everything that exists! That means I'm defining the term universe to mean everything that exists! That means you can replace every instance of the word "universe" in my argument with the "set of everything that exists"

It's not an empirical question, it's that I didn't want to write "the set of everything that exists" fifty thousand times and decided to use the word "universe" instead!

[Ben Kenobi]

Time to fight back, in kind. The CC and other such groups put political pressure on pols, bring votes & money to the table. It's time the godless traitor liberals do the same.

What do you hope to acheive?

More persecution of religion and religious expression?

History shows this to be a poor course to undertake if one wishes to defeat Christians in the long run.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not an empirical question, it's that I didn't want to write "the set of everything that exists" fifty thousand times and decided to use the word "universe" instead!

Then I reject your definition. The universe is not necessarily the set of everything that exists.

[Kuciwalker]

You obviously don't understand what I mean.

I mean this: when you read my post, replace every instance of the word "universe" with the phrase "set of everything that exists"!

I'm not claiming any relation between what you conceive of as a "universe" and the set of everything that exists. I'm just saying what I mean by a word!

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, because there is strong evidene to believe that to be true, namely, that you express sincere belief in an invisible friend.

Again, after rejecting what cannot be true, the answer, no matter how improbable, is what remains.

So just because the best answer requires one to believe that Christ is Lord, does not, prima facie, mean that such answer is false.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're not only gullible, you may be crazy,

You believe all the apostles to be insane?

And I'm surprised that you would suggest me to be crazy. Do I sound like a crazy person?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm just saying what I mean by a word!

And I'm rejecting your definition. Deal with it.