Polytheish vs. Monotheism , Capitalism vs. Communism

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let me put it more bluntly: the Protestants conquored the world and run it economically still today.

Your fault for not electing Kerry.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Well okay so I apply logic to your philosophical basis and get:

Perhaps you need to re-read what I write again, since apparently you still fail to grasp some basic concepts.

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I think we can agree, that both are the same and that thus Atheism is NOT perfectly logical.

You seem to have some misconception about logic, too. Just because an argument is valid doesn't mean it is sound. Your argument isn't sound, because your premeses are wrong.

In fact, Agonsticism is a philosophically indefensible position, because it violates the fundamental law of the Excluded Middle.

There can only be two replies to the question, "Do you believe in a god?"

You either believe or you don't. Both of these are exclusive and cover all grounds. Replying you don't know is not an answer. It is sophism. Afterall, the question is not about whether you know or not, but whether you believe or not.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Odin
Neither hard Atheism nor Theism are falsifiable, therefore, Agnosticism is the only logical choice.

Neither are scientific theories, so falsification doesn't apply here. Ironically, that a scientific theory needs to be falsifiable is a philosophical requirment first proposed by Popper.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

In fact, Agonsticism is a philosophically indefensible position, because it violates the fundamental law of the Excluded Middle.

There can only be two replies to the question, "Do you believe in a god?"

You either believe or you don't. Both of these are exclusive and cover all grounds. Replying you don't know is not an answer. It is sophism. Afterall, the question is not about whether you know or not, but whether you believe or not.

I just flipped a coin. Do you believe it is heads or tails?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
I just flipped a coin. Do you believe it is heads or tails?

Your analogy has nothing similar to what I said.

Try "Do you believe I have a coin in the left pocket of my trousers?"

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You seem to have some misconception about logic, too. Just because an argument is valid doesn't mean it is sound. Your argument isn't sound, because your premeses are wrong.

In fact, Agonsticism is a philosophically indefensible position, because it violates the fundamental law of the Excluded Middle.

There can only be two replies to the question, "Do you believe in a god?"

You either believe or you don't. Both of these are exclusive and cover all grounds. Replying you don't know is not an answer. It is sophism. Afterall, the question is not about whether you know or not, but whether you believe or not.

I don't think that that's the correct question. I think the question is actually "Is there a god?" A theist would say "Yes, I believe in God." An athiest would say "No, I do not believe in God." An agnostic would say "There is no way to know if there is a god or not." Theists and Athiests can answer that question because they have been an underlying belief. Agnostics can't definitively answer the question because they don't have that underlying belief structure upon which a definative belief could rest.

When it comes to agnostics, the question "Do you believe in god?" is not applicable, as the concept of belief does not come into play for them. You have to agree to the premise that it is possible to have a belief in god before you can get to the yes/no question. Theists and Athiests believe that they can have that belief; Agnostics don't.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Your analogy has nothing similar to what I said.

Try "Do you believe I have a coin in the left pocket of my trousers?"

All three questions have in common that you say you believe one or the other, or say you do not know.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
All three questions have in common that you say you believe one or the other, or say you do not know.

No.

For starters, believing does not require knowing. In fact, knowing excludes believing - for most people, anyway. Do I believe in gravity? No, because I know it's there.

Okay, let me backtrack here and define what "believe" in this context. Roughly, it means you think something exists, to varying degrees of confidence, without any evidence that this is the case.

Thus, when you flip a coin, it will always come up either head or tail, no belief in such an event is required.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I don't think that that's the correct question. I think the question is actually "Is there a god?"

Not so. Theism is based on beliefs, not facts. Atheism is simply the lack of such beliefs.

The question "Is there a god?" is a query for a fact, similar to "Is there a beer in the fridge?"

Suppose I consider your question independently. There are still only two valid answers: "yes" and "no." "I don't know" does not answer the question. It is an evasion* for the most part.


* If a fat arse sitting on a soda asking you if there is a beer in the fridge, it can be a good move answering "I don't know." If nothing else, make the bugger move.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
You can not raise children without giving them any moral code "until they grow up and will be able to chose one".

Who said anything about religion having exclusive rights to moral codes ?


Oh, that's right, you've implied it.

What a shock.


So all atheists and agnostics are immoral, by your bizarre 'reasoning'.


Nonsense on stilts, as per.

[Az]

That's not what he said, Molly - He said that no matter what you do, you have to indoctrinate a child with a moral code.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
That's not what he said, Molly - He said that no matter what you do, you have to indoctrinate a child with a moral code.

He quoted me- the part in quotation marks:

"until they grow up and will be able to chose one",

in reply to your response to my statement:

I'd prefer it if a child could be left until they'd received some scientific instruction they could understand (though of course you'd still get the likes of Bush, Reagan and Blair), say until they were about 16 or 17, then let them choose what religion (if any) they'd like.

I'd say his meaning is clear- religion (only) inculcates a moral code.

It's what other religionistas assume, erroneously, too. As if somehow atheists, agnostics and the non-religious are incapable of working out any moral code for themselves in the absence of some alleged divine instruction manual.


I can think of a few Greek philosophers who'd have found that an amusing notion, as well as a few Eastern thinkers.

[Az]

In any case, my discussion was much more interesting.

[LiberalAtheist]

Laissez-faire paganism?

I don't know exactly what is being criticized here, but since world of warcraft is down and I'm all worn out at the moment from celebrating Katrina I actually decided to respond (gratitude is not necessary, but appreciated of course).


In any event, where is the criticism? All the essay did was note that a Soviet official complained about a lack of committee's in the US....so what?


I mean, you seem to complain about bureaucracy and red tape, and I'm sorry to break it to you---but corporations now at days are pretty bureaucratic. You have to be. You really think a company as large as microsoft can be run without any sort of extensive buracreaucracy?



Secondly, not all communism is necessarily totalitarian or authoritarian. Only third world communism is, and that's because pretty much any third world whatever system you got tends to turn violent and opressive. Look at India, third world "democracy"--but is it really much better then oligarchal china, with it's still in place caste system, and untouchables, and child slavery? Look at Pinochet's capitalism, it probably did worse on the civil right's record then castro's cuba. The problem is with how much collective violence is allowed within a culture, not with the economic systems--since more primitive cultures tend to allow more violence (as they lacked necessary law enforcement and democratic procedures by which to curb violent politics in the past) see Charles Tilly's The Politics of Collective Violence).


In any event, socialism and communism if properly implemented actually sounds a lot more democratic then an oligarchal/autocratic private company. That is because in a democratic state those industries would be just that---democratically run. What exactly is wrong with that?

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not so. Theism is based on beliefs, not facts. Atheism is simply the lack of such beliefs.

The question "Is there a god?" is a query for a fact, similar to "Is there a beer in the fridge?"

Suppose I consider your question independently. There are still only two valid answers: "yes" and "no." "I don't know" does not answer the question. It is an evasion* for the most part.


* If a fat arse sitting on a soda asking you if there is a beer in the fridge, it can be a good move answering "I don't know." If nothing else, make the bugger move.

But you have switched the questions. The questions were "Do you believe in god?", "Do you believe the coin landed heads or tails?". These should be very easy to answer, considering they only ask about the contents of your own mind. Nonetheless, saying you believe the coin landed tails (or heads) when you have no information one way or the other is hard to defend as rational.