Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: john on September 03, 2016, 06:50:56 PM
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
What is 'really gay?'
-
NS,
What is 'really gay?'
Gay, only not just at the weekends?
I sometimes wonder if the homophobic christians don't just have a typo in the bibles - it was figs that Jesus hated....
-
Can you be really heterosexual if you don't do anything?
-
Isn't sexuality about what 'gets you off' & doesn't necessarily mean you have to have sexual intercourse or 'nearly' to be gay. No actual physical contact?
It's a state of mind, no?
If you're male & you get sexually aroused ONLY my males & male nudity, I would say you were gay etc.
Nick
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
Course you can be gay and celibate. Think about it, there are plenty of celibate heterosexual people. Doesn't mean any of them have always been celibate but sometimes people reach a place in life where that's how it is and they are comfortable with it.
I read about the Bishop and couldn't quite work out how it was relevant but I suppose, as he lives with a long term partner, he felt he had to say to shut up the speculators.
-
How many more times? Celibate means unmarried not totally abstemious.
Isn't it about time that "Christians" got over their obsession with sex? It is a natural part of the human condition. In medieval times the church learned that sex was a very efficient tool for social control. Much of what,for example, the RC church "teaches" about sex is scientific tripe, but the punters still swallow it.
What any individual does with contents of his or her underwear is of no concern to any one else.
Are we soon to be faced with calls for the Bishop of Grantham not to be allowed into schools so that he cannot corrupt innocent minds?
-
Everywhere on the internet, celibacy is defined as abstaining from sexual relations.
This is the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'celibate' but there are plenty of others, plus a Wiki article, and they all say much the same:
1Abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons
So the Bishop is celibate, he has said so, and now everyone can stop nosing around in his business which is probably hy he made the statement.
-
In my opinion, it matters not a jot whether the Bishop is gay or not; what matters is that all Bishops and leaders of god-believing religions tell their followers to believe in some god or other with not one shred of testable evidence to back up such beliefs.
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
Of course it shouldn't matter, there is nothing wrong with being gay. The Bishop be able to have a sex life too.
-
A couple of excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on Celibacy:
1 The English word celibacy derives from the Latin caelibatus, "state of being unmarried", from Latin caelebs, meaning "unmarried".
2 A. W. Richard Sipe, while focusing on the topic of celibacy in Catholicism, states that "the most commonly assumed definition of celibate is simply an unmarried or single person, and celibacy is perceived as synonymous with sexual abstinence or restraint."[14] Sipe adds that even in the relatively uniform milieu of Catholic priests in the United States "there is simply no clear operational definition of celibacy".
In French celibataire means unmarried.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop of Grantham has not married his partner. He is thus celibate.
In the RC church, until about the 11th and 12th centuries, priests were married. The rule of celibacy was introduced to protect church property from being inherited by the children of priests.
-
A couple of excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on Celibacy:
1 The English word celibacy derives from the Latin caelibatus, "state of being unmarried", from Latin caelebs, meaning "unmarried".
2 A. W. Richard Sipe, while focusing on the topic of celibacy in Catholicism, states that "the most commonly assumed definition of celibate is simply an unmarried or single person, and celibacy is perceived as synonymous with sexual abstinence or restraint."[14] Sipe adds that even in the relatively uniform milieu of Catholic priests in the United States "there is simply no clear operational definition of celibacy".
In French celibataire means unmarried.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop of Grantham has not married his partner. He is thus celibate.
In the RC church, until about the 11th and 12th centuries, priests were married. The rule of celibacy was introduced to protect church property from being inherited by the children of priests.
It is about time the Catholic Church dropped this daft celibacy rule, especially as married Anglican Priests who convert can continue to serve as priests.
-
The best thing about being gay is that there's less likelihood to produce MORE bloody humans on this earth than there already is, eh ????
Nick
-
Can you be really heterosexual if you don't do anything?
Snap! My thought exactly.
-
Yesterday, I felt a bit iffy, but today I'm feeling really really straight. But tomorrow is another day.
-
A couple of excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on Celibacy:
1 The English word celibacy derives from the Latin caelibatus, "state of being unmarried", from Latin caelebs, meaning "unmarried".
2 A. W. Richard Sipe, while focusing on the topic of celibacy in Catholicism, states that "the most commonly assumed definition of celibate is simply an unmarried or single person, and celibacy is perceived as synonymous with sexual abstinence or restraint."[14] Sipe adds that even in the relatively uniform milieu of Catholic priests in the United States "there is simply no clear operational definition of celibacy".
In French celibataire means unmarried.
To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop of Grantham has not married his partner. He is thus celibate.
In the RC church, until about the 11th and 12th centuries, priests were married. The rule of celibacy was introduced to protect church property from being inherited by the children of priests.
That's all very well, but in the current context of the Anglican Church and being gay, it means "not having sex"
-
Yes it does so the Bishop has said he is not having sex, as if it's anyone's business. Nothing new anyway! There have been gay bishops and clergy for aeons, some of them in heterosexual marriage.
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
Only to those whose minds need to be crowbarred out of the late Iron Age.
What does it mean to be gay and celibate?
I would have thought it means the same as being heterosexual and celibate.
I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
Can you really be heterosexual if you don't do anything?
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
Aren't you just reducing being Gay to what one does with one's Hector?
-
In my opinion, it matters not a jot whether the Bishop is gay or not; what matters is that all Bishops and leaders of god-believing religions tell their followers to believe in some god or other with not one shred of testable evidence to back up such beliefs.
As I said before you put yourself out there in that space where your mind is telling you that there may or may not be a God with whom you can have personal contact with.
Access is free ..........or studiously avoided for fear that God might appear.
-
Only to those whose minds need to be crowbarred out of the late Iron Age.
I have to say Khatru I've missed you and your posts steeped in the imagery of violence and force.
-
Vlad,
As I said before you put yourself out there in that space where your mind is telling you that there may or may not be a God with whom you can have personal contact with.
That's the "space" most people occupy anyway - there may or may not be anything. That anything may be though says nothing about whether something is.
Access is free ..........
Access to what - God? You need to establish that premise before troubling yourself with clams about whether or not there's a cost for "access".
...or studiously avoided for fear that God might appear.
No - some of us "studiously avoid" claims about "God" because that's what study of the arguments made for his existence lead to. Whether it'd be something to fear if ever a cogent argument for a god could be made is a separate matter.
Anyways, back to the gay bishop - personally I'm not sure that it's such a bad thing that some christian clerics are up in arms about it. If they want to keep digging the grave of their faith by showing it to be ever-more ignorant, unpleasant and irrelevant then so be it.
-
Vlad,
That's the "space" most people occupy anyway - there may or may not be anything. That anything may be though says nothing about whether something is.
No.......... it says it may exist(what it says on the tin). Not it can't exist.
Whether people occupy that space is another issue since I have direct experience of avoiding inhabiting it, I know people who have reported the same experience and I can envisage people who just don't go there since it might involve some change in lifestyle.
-
Vlad,
No.......... it says it may exist(what it says on the tin). Not it can't exist.
What are you trying to say here?
Whether people occupy that space is another issue since I have direct experience of avoiding inhabiting it, I know people who have reported the same experience and I can envisage people who just don't go there since it might involve some change in lifestyle.
See above. The "space" most occupy is that anything might be - the Loch Ness monster, your choice of a god, leprechauns, whatever. The problem for the proponent of any of these claims though is to find a logical path from "might be" to "probably is".
-
No.......... it says it may exist(what it says on the tin). Not it can't exist.
Whether people occupy that space is another issue since I have direct experience of avoiding inhabiting it, I know people who have reported the same experience and I can envisage people who just don't go there since it might involve some change in lifestyle.
So should the gay bishop have sex with his partner , would he still be suitable as a bishop in your opinion?
-
NS,
So should the gay bishop have sex with his partner , would he still be suitable as a bishop in your opinion?
Oddly, there'a a corollary there with the christian fundie registrar refusing to officiate at a gay wedding and getting sacked for it. Similarly I suppose some would say that if the job description for a bishop is not to be gay, then a bishop who comes out has broken his terms of employment.
That the job description for being a bishop is backward and unpleasant is another matter, but in principle at least you could argue that both cases involve a breach of contract.
-
:-[
NS,
Oddly, there'a a corollary there with the christian fundie registrar refusing to officiate at a gay wedding and getting sacked for it. Similarly I suppose some would say that if the job description for a bishop is not to be gay, then a bishop who comes out has broken his terms of employment.
That the job description for being a bishop is backward and unpleasant is another matter, but in principle at least you could argue that both cases involve a breach of contract.
But if he doesn't have is sex then he can't be 'really gay'! And can you show me the contract?
-
So should the gay bishop have sex with his partner , would he still be suitable as a bishop in your opinion?
I'm not sure what my opinion is here or whether I really care which is broadly a similar position to yours but without the hint of mischieve making.
-
I'm not sure what my opinion is here or whether I really care which is broadly a similar position to yours but without the hint of mischieve making.
broadly similar to which position of mine? And given your continual misrepresentations about what people think, the hint of 'mischieve making' is the sound of breaking glass.
-
NS,
But if he doesn't have is sex then he can't be 'really gay'!
Yeah right. You'd need a type of thought control clause in the contract I guess: "If you wake up one day with a gay orientation, then you must turn yourself in forthwith, return your dog collar and leave the grace and favour apartments by mid-day" or some such.
And can you show me the contract?
No - that's why I said "if". They could though just says something like "you can't be a bishop and gay" and hope to get away with it. As the church is exempted from equal opportunities legislation re conducting gay marriage services though, perhaps they would.
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to say here?
See above. The "space" most occupy is that anything might be - the Loch Ness monster, your choice of a god, leprechauns, whatever. The problem for the proponent of any of these claims though is to find a logical path from "might be" to "probably is".
Again you have f*cked up category wise. Argumentum ad ridiculum again.
Bang on about the triumphs of science and close examination will reveal any developments, discoveries and inventions were all mays at one time.
God is unfalsifiable but Leprechauns aren't, neither is the Loch Ness Monster. If your mind was mousse-like prior to your holidays it has definitely turned into loose alvine efflux with the result that you have diarrheoed all over your own Bonfire.
The ''space most occupy'' is also suggestive of an argumentum ad populum
-
God might appear.
..or might not.
-
NS,
Yeah right. You'd need a type of thought control clause in the contract I guess: "If you wake up one day with a gay orientation, then you must turn yourself in forthwith, return your dog collar and leave the grace and favour apartments by mid-day" or some such.
No - that's why I said "if". They could though just says something like "you can't be a bishop and gay" and hope to get away with it. As the church is exempted from equal opportunities legislation re conducting gay marriage services though, perhaps they would.
No, it can't be about a 'gay orientation' it surely needs to be about acts. If it is about acts, how do we differentiate from any other sin.
Tbh though much of this is already covered in the idea that one should be sincerely sorry for any wrong acts, so you can be 'gay orienated' and not to anything, or do something about it and be sincerely sorry about it. In that case it probably is more likely to he wrong to be in a gay relationship and occasionally indulge in a bit of nookie, than maybe occasionally have sex with a 'proper stranger' since in the first it would not show sincere sorrow.
-
Again you have f*cked up category wise. Argumentum ad ridiculum again.
Bang on about the triumphs of science and close examination will reveal any developments, discoveries and inventions were all mays at one time.
God is unfalsifiable but Leprechauns aren't, neither is the Loch Ness Monster. If your mind was mousse-like prior to your holidays it has definitely turned into loose alvine efflux with the result that you have diarrheoed all over your own Bonfire.
The ''space most occupy'' is also suggestive of an argumentum ad populum
in which Vlad shows the problem of induction is too hard for him to understand
-
Vlad,
Again you have f*cked up category wise.
There's no "again" because you've never understood that category error does not occur when the two examples are not identical in every respect. Thus when I point out that the negative proof fallacy works equally for "god" and for leprechauns, that's not a category error regardless of how many times you fall off a cliff with your "but one is God and the others are little green men" error. The common category is, "conjectures for which the identical argument has been atempted"
Argumentum ad ridiculum again.
Something else you've never understood. However ridiculous you find, say, leprechauns (or for that matter an orbiting teapot) to be, the force of the argument is not thereby lost when they're used to illustrate that an argument for God works equally well for anything else, however daft.
Bang on about the triumphs of science and close examination will reveal any developments, discoveries and inventions were all mays at one time.
Yup - and then logical paths were found to take the from "may bes' to "probably is", which is when the conjecture becomes a fact. The problem with God, leprechauns etc is that there is not such logical path to reclassify them from conjectures.
God is unfalsifiable but Leprechauns aren't, neither is the Loch Ness Monster. If your mind was mousse-like prior to your holidays it has definitely turned into loose alvine efflux with the result that you have diarrheoed all over your own Bonfire.
Flat wrong as ever. How would you propose to falsify leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster exactly?
The ''space most occupy'' is also suggestive of an argumentum ad populum
No it isn't because I didn't use it to argue for the truth of something. Rather you tried to argue that someone should consider that a "relationship with god" or some such is possible. I merely pointed out that most do that anyway, albeit for the trivial reason that in principle at least anything is possible. Where you went wrong again was to imply that thinking that something is possible has anything whatever to say to whether it's probable.
-
NS,
No, it can't be about a 'gay orientation' it surely needs to be about acts. If it is about acts, how do we differentiate from any other sin.
Tbh though much of this is already covered in the idea that one should be sincerely sorry for any wrong acts, so you can be 'gay orienated' and not to anything, or do something about it and be sincerely sorry about it. In that case it probably is more likely to he wrong to be in a gay relationship and occasionally indulge in a bit of nookie, than maybe occasionally have sex with a 'proper stranger' since in the first it would not show sincere sorrow.
But in contractual matters you can say whatever you like provided it's legal. You could for example have a clause that said, "If ever you decide that you hate the colour purple then you must declare it and resign forthwith". It's all daft I know, but in matters of contract law you can be. If you don't like it, don't take the job.
-
Vlad,
There's no "again" because you've never understood that category error does not occur when the two examples are not identical in every respect. Thus when I point out that the negative proof fallacy works equally for "god" and for leprechauns, that's not a category error regardless of how many times you fall off a cliff with your "but one is God and the others are little green men" error. The common category is, "conjectures for which the identical argument has been atempted"
Something else you've never understood. However ridiculous you find, say, leprechauns (or for that matter an orbiting teapot) to be, the force of the argument is not thereby lost when they're used to illustrate that an argument for God works equally well for anything else, however daft.
Yup - and then logical paths were found to take the from "may bes' to "probably is", which is when the conjecture becomes a fact. The problem with God, leprechauns etc is that there is not such logical path to reclassify them from conjectures.
Flat wrong as ever. How would you propose to falsify leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster exactly?
No it isn't because I didn't use it to argue for the truth of something. Rather you tried to argue that someone should consider that a "relationship with god" or some such is possible. I merely pointed out that most do that anyway, albeit for the trivial reason that in principle at least anything is possible. Where you went wrong again was to imply that thinking that something is possible has anything whatever to say to whether it's probable.
I don't need to go about falsifying them they are falsifiable since Leprechauns are little men in green jackets with pots of gold and the monster is some kind of poikilothermic amphibious chordate.
-
I don't need to go about falsifying them they are falsifiable since Leprechauns are little men in green jackets with pots of gold and the monster is some kind of poikilothermic amphibious chordate.
in which Vlad uses long words to avoid his lack of understanding of the problem of induction
-
NS,
But in contractual matters you can say whatever you like provided it's legal. You could for example have a clause that said, "If ever you decide that you hate the colour purple then you must declare it and resign forthwith". It's all daft I know, but in matters of contract law you can be. If you don't like it, don't take the job.
You can't enforce declaration though so though the clause is meaningful it's unenforceable.
In addition to be a contract we need to understand this in terms of what the church in this case thinks, and that is the act
-
Vlad,
I don't need to go about falsifying them they are falsifiable since Leprechauns are little men in green jackets with pots of gold and the monster is some kind of poikilothermic amphibious chordate.
And I could equally well quote various of the characteristics people claim for "God".
Your claim though was that "God" cannot be falsified, whereas leprechauns can be. I asked you however how you would falsify leprechauns, and you just told me that you don't need to.
That's dishonest.
Again - if you seriously think that "God" can't be falsified but leprechauns (or an orbiting teapot) can be, how would you go about that?
And as we both know that you have no means to falsify leprechauns, then "God" and leprechauns are in the same category of "conjectures that cannot be falsified".
QED
-
NS,
You can't enforce declaration though so though the clause is meaningful it's unenforceable.
Yes, but only until the employee comes out or declares his dislike of purple. At that point the employer could say, "your contract makes clear that to do so is a gross breach so you're fired". On the bare facts, the employee would have no remedy because the breach would indeed have occurred.
-
Vlad,
And I could equally well quote various of the characteristics people claim for "God".
Your claim though was that "God" cannot be falsified, whereas leprechauns can be. I asked you however how you would falsify leprechauns, and you just told me that you don't need to.
That's dishonest.
Hillside just got his arse handed to him on a sling as to what constitutes Falsifiable and he's trying to accuse me of dishonesty to divert attention from his failure!!!
-
Hillside just got his arse handed to him on a sling as to what constitutes Falsifiable and he's trying to accuse me of dishonesty to divert attention from his failure!!!
in which Vlad having failed to understand the problem of induction declares his lack of understanding a victory
-
Vlad,
Hillside just got his arse handed to him on a sling as to what constitutes Falsifiable and he's trying to accuse me of dishonesty to divert attention from his failure!!!
When you flat out lie you really go for it don't you. The arse handing was all in your direction - if you really think that "God" isn't falsifiable but leprechauns are, stop ducking and diving and tell us how you'd propose to falsify leprechauns then.
Why so coy?
-
in which Vlad having failed to understand the problem of induction declares his lack of understanding a victory
What?
-
What?
in which Vlad declares his lack of understanding of induction is too confusing for him
-
Vlad,
What?
You've misunderstood your failure even to grasp the argument let alone to rebut to be a victory, even as you've put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger.
Again: how would you propose to go about falsifying leprechauns?
If this is going to be yet another question from which you intend endlessly to run away would you at least have the decency to say so so as to save me the effort of continuing to ask it?
Ta.
-
NS,
Incidentally, the employment clause that's enforceable only if the employee declares him/herself to be in breach is pretty much the situation that pertained in the US military for decades with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only when someone did ask/tell were they drummed out of the relevant service.
-
NS,
Incidentally, the employment clause that's enforceable only if the employee declares him/herself to be in breach is pretty much the situation that pertained in the US military for decades with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only when someone did ask/tell were they drummed out of the relevant service.
Mmm I always thought that was based on acts rather than attraction, so you could say I am gay but I have no intention to act.
-
NS,
Mmm I always thought that was based on acts rather than attraction, so you could say I am gay but I have no intention to act.
No - the (stupid) argument was always along the lines of whether a gay soldier would make the right decision in a crisis by saving six colleagues if the one he could save instead was also his boyfriend. Essentially it was painted as a conflict of interest issue. There was no requirement that soldier had been found in flagrante.
-
Vlad,
You've misunderstood your failure even to grasp the argument let alone to rebut to be a victory, even as you've put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger.
Again: how would you propose to go about falsifying leprechauns?
Since we are looking for Leprechauns I would deploy a team of primate hunters to go and visually detect extremely small irish men wearing green suits, the search to be concentrated in areas where there are rainbows.
For the loch ness monster I believe teams are on to it.
Alternatively I would completely cover the earth in cctv.
-
NS,
No - the (stupid) argument was always along the lines of whether a gay soldier would make the right decision in a crisis by saving six colleagues if the one he could save instead was also his boyfriend. Essentially it was painted as a conflict of interest issue. There was no requirement that soldier had been found in flagrante.
I didn't say that, I said intention to act not being caught in the act.
-
Since we are looking for Leprechauns I would deploy a team of primate hunters to go and visually detect extremely small irish men wearing green suits, the search to be concentrated in areas where there are rainbows.
For the loch ness monster I believe teams are on to it.
Alternatively I would completely cover the earth in cctv.
in which Vlad continues to illustrate his problems with the problem of induction
-
Vlad,
Since we are looking for Leprechauns I would deploy a team of primate hunters to go and visually detect extremely small irish men wearing green suits, the search to be concentrated in areas where there are rainbows.
For the loch ness monster I believe teams are on to it.
Alternatively I would completely cover the earth in cctv.
That's nice. And if neither leprechauns nor the Loch Ness monster were found using these methods, would you consider them to be falsified or just not found?
You might want to refresh your memory re Russell's teapot before answering that one.
-
NS,
I didn't say that, I said intention to act not being caught in the act.
That's true, you didn't - but the risk of emotional attachment whether intended to be acted on or not was considered sufficient to disqualify gay people from military service.
-
Vlad,
That's nice. And if neither leprechauns nor the Loch Ness monster were found using these methods, would you consider them to be falsified or just not found?
You might want to refresh your memory re Russell's teapot before answering that one.
Probably non-existent.
If they were found extraterrestrially an argument could be made that they were not Leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. We would be justified in assuming they were made up just like the Flying Spaghetti monster.
-
NS,
That's true, you didn't - but the risk of emotional attachment whether intended to be acted on or not was considered sufficient to disqualify gay people from military service.
Obviously interpretation is important but the words were about those who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" . This indicates a leaning to intent to act or indeed action.
-
Probably non-existent.
If they were found extraterrestrially an argument could be made that they were not Leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. We would be justified in assuming they were made up just like the Flying Spaghetti monster.
in which Vlad evades his problem with the problem of induction by begging the question
-
You might want to refresh your memory re Russell's teapot before answering that one.
I have a teapot which happens to be orbiting the sun.
-
Vlad,
Probably non-existent.
Maybe, maybe not - after all bacteria weren't known to exist before we had the instruments to detect them. Were they probably non-existent up to that point too?
Either way though, "probably non-existent" does not mean falsified. To be falsified, something must be shown to be not the case.
If they were found extraterrestrially an argument could be made that they were not Leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. We would be justified in assuming they were made up just like the Flying Spaghetti monster.
Where they would be found is irrelevant - either they exist or they don't. Leprechauns domiciled on Mars could be asserted to flit to and from Earth as readily as various assertions are made about your God.
Are you finally beginning to see the problem here? If you want to use, say, the NPF as an argument for "God" then you have no choice but to accept it for other conjectures too - an orbiting teapot included. That you find some such conjectures more (or less) ridiculous than others has nothing whatever to do with the basic principle.
-
NS,
Obviously interpretation is important but the words were about those who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" . This indicates a leaning to intent to act or indeed action.
Yes, but the act of declaring oneself (or being discovered) to be gay was considered sufficient to show the "propensity" ipso facto.
-
NS,
Yes, but the act of declaring oneself (or being discovered) to be gay was considered sufficient to show the "propensity" ipso facto.
it was variable over time becoming not de facto from around 2006, and the interpretation was continually argued with and never declared fully. Of course those arguing that it was a wring policy were according to Vlad just trying to attack Christians
-
Vlad,
Maybe, maybe not - after all bacteria weren't known to exist before we had the instruments to detect them. Were they probably non-existent up to that point too?
Either way though, "probably non-existent" does not mean falsified. To be falsified, something must be shown to be not the case.
Where they would be found is irrelevant - either they exist or they don't. Leprechauns domiciled on Mars could be asserted to flit to and from Earth as readily as various assertions are made about your God.
Yes but you have only asked me to say how I would go about it.
A comprehensive search of the world through all means possible I.e. surveying every inch of the planet by CCTV surveillance and all the present means could show there weren't any.
If you meant falsify them now or suggest I'm going out to prove them non existent you've deliberately muddied the waters.
They are falsifiable because they are small green men. You dodged round that with a red herring.
However you were seen through again.
In terms of a flit to mars.........I suggest you take one.
-
I have a teapot which happens to be orbiting the sun.
.......and so did Russell.
-
NS,
it was variable over time becoming not de facto from around 2006, and the interpretation was continually argued with and never declared fully. Of course those arguing that it was a wring policy were according to Vlad just trying to attack Christians
Yes, in the Name of Richard Dawkins too no doubt.
I mentioned it only in the context of an example of a contractual term that was enforceable effectively for what someone was rather than because they acted on it.
-
it was variable over time becoming not de facto from around 2006, and the interpretation was continually argued with and never declared fully. Of course those arguing that it was a wring policy were according to Vlad just trying to attack Christians
-
Yes but you have only asked me to say how I would go about it.
A comprehensive search of the world through all means possible I.e. surveying every inch of the planet by CCTV surveillance and all the present means could show there weren't any.
If you meant falsify them now or suggest I'm going out to prove them non existent you've deliberately muddied the waters.
They are falsifiable because they are small green men. You dodged round that with a red herring.
However you were seen through again.
In terms of a flit to mars.........I suggest you take one.
in which Vlad seems never to have heard of the problem of induction.
-
NS,
Yes, in the Name of Richard Dawkins too no doubt.
I mentioned it only in the context of an example of a contractual term that was enforceable effectively for what someone was rather than because they acted on it.
better ones might be Salic Laws or Test Acts
-
Vlad,
Yes but you have only asked me to say how I would go about it.
Yes, and the answer is incompetently. That's the point - you can no more falsify leprechauns than you can falsify "God", despite your assertion to the contrary.
A comprehensive search of the world through all means possible I.e. surveying every inch of the planet by CCTV surveillance and all the present means could show there weren't any.
No, it would just show that - according to the equipment and techniques available to you - there aren't any. You have a basic conceptual problem here: not being able to find something and that something not existing are not synonymous. Think bacteria pre-microscopes.
If you meant falsify them now or suggest I'm going out to prove them non existent you've deliberately muddied the waters.
Then you think wrongly. It's anything but muddying the waters to show you that "God" and leprechauns alike are unfalsifiable. What that means is that the NPF "works" equally for both - which should tell you that it's probably a bad argument.
They are falsifiable because they are small green men. You dodged round that with a red herring.
And still you don't grasp the basic problem. Small and green, curing little Timmy of shingles, whatever - these are just properties. They have no relevance whatever to the fact that you cannot falsify either.
However you were seen through again.
Actually you were - again.
In terms of a flit to mars.........I suggest you take one.
Your defeat (again) is acknowledged.
-
in which Vlad seems never to have heard of the problem of induction.
In which Sane keeps repeating the term 'Problem of induction' but can't say how it fits.
-
In which Sane keeps repeating the term 'Problem of induction' but can't say how it fits.
in which Vlad lies. because he hadn't asked. But illustrates again why he does not understand the problem
For others, if every swan you see is white, you cannot say there are no black swans because of that. If every day the sun cones up, you cannot say it will come up tomorrow, because of that. If every CCTV film you have shows no leprechauns, you cannot say there are no leprechauns.
-
Vlad,
No, it would just show that - according to the equipment and techniques available to you - there aren't any. You have a basic conceptual problem here: not being able to find something and that something not existing are not synonymous. Think bacteria pre-microscopes.
Piss poor analogy.
Prior to microscopes we could say we don't have the equipment.
To say that looking for diminutive people dressed in green is the same thing is wrong since we have the means to see those.
That's what comes of plucking stuff extra atmospherically. Don't do it.
-
Piss poor analogy.
Prior to microscopes we could say we don't have the equipment.
To say that looking for diminutive people dressed in green is the same thing is wrong since we have the means to see those.
That's what comes of plucking stuff extra atmospherically. Don't do it.
and your assumption, hidden by the problem of induction that you ignore here, and have ignored despite this being pointed out to you many many timed, is that leprechauns appear on film. Get back to me when you start to engage with the problem.
-
in which Vlad lies. because he hadn't asked. But illustrates again why he does not understand the problem
For others, if every swan you see is white, you cannot say there are no black swans because of that. If every day the sun cones up, you cannot say it will come up tomorrow, because of that. If every CCTV film you have shows no leprechauns, you cannot say there are no leprechauns.
If I can give total empirical surveillance of the world then I can state whether small humans dressed in green called Leprechauns exist.
I am not therefore establishing by prediction as the case of the sun coming up.
You are flat wrong in using the problem of induction here.
-
If I can give total empirical surveillance of the world then I can state whether small humans dressed in green called Leprechauns exist.
I am not therefore establishing by prediction as the case of the sun coming up.
You are flat wrong in using the problem of induction here.
How do yph give 'total empirical surveillance' of the world? How do you demanstate that is what you have done? Until you tell me, how it can be demonstrated the problem of induction applies. Black swan,black black swan.
-
Vlad,
Piss poor analogy.
Actually it'a s perfectly good analogy as I'll explain (but you wont understand or will lie about)...
Prior to microscopes we could say we don't have the equipment.
No, we could say that we don't know whether or not at some future time technologies will appear that enable us to identify previously unsuspected phenomena - bacteria or leprechauns alike for this purpose.
To say that looking for diminutive people dressed in green is the same thing is wrong since we have the means to see those.
What means would they be given their mystical nature? How for example would you know that, as well as their green-ness, they don't also have the remarkable property of disappearing whenever cctv is pointed at them?
That's what comes of plucking stuff extra atmospherically. Don't do it.
That's what comes of failing to grasp the induction problem with which you keep landing yourself. Don't do it.
As NS says, just because every swan you've ever found is white you have thereby no evidence whatever to tell you that the next one won't be black.
-
Vlad,
If I can give total empirical surveillance of the world...
You can't. All you can do it to survey the world using the techniques and technologies that happen to be available to you.
-
How do yph give 'total empirical surveillance' of the world? How do you demanstate that is what you have done? Until you tell me, how it can be demonstrated the problem of induction applies. Black swan,black black swan.
Total empirical surveillance sufficient to detect any small person dressed in green is all that is necessary. It can be done, now if there was the will to do it. All that is lacking is the will to find leprechauns.
There is no question in this of prediction. There is no problem of induction.
-
Vlad,
You can't. All you can do it to survey the world using the techniques and technologies that happen to be available to you.
What?, These are small humans Hillside not particles of dark matter.
-
Total empirical surveillance sufficient to detect any small person dressed in green is all that is necessary. It can be done, now if there was the will to do it. All that is lacking is the will to find leprechauns.
There is no question in this of prediction. There is no problem of induction.
and total empirical evidence is a prediction that you have total empirical evidence. Again how would you demonstrate that? You assert it can be done but how would you know that. Assertion is a prediction here, see black black swans
-
Vlad,
Total empirical surveillance sufficient to detect any small person dressed in green is all that is necessary. It can be done, now if there was the will to do it. All that is lacking is the will to find leprechauns.
Oh dear.
1. Did the Romans think they had "total empirical surveillance" when they sent their soldiers out to look behind all the trees?
How about the Tudors when they had magnifying glasses?
Or what about the scientists who had the first scanning electron microscopes?
What makes you so confident that the technologies that happen to be with us now are any more capable of doing the job than the technologies of the past were capable of it?
2. If you want to posit a god outwith known physical laws, then I can do the same for leprechauns. I've already told you my assertion that my supernatural belief objects can avoid at will any detection equipment you may happen to have.
How then would you falsify their existence?
There is no question in this of prediction. There is no problem of induction.
Of course there is - you just can't see it. Just because you can't find something tells you nothing at all about whether it exists. All it tells you is that it doesn't exist in the places you've looked using the techniques available to you.
As NS suggests, why not just delete everything you've attempted by way of an argument and try again?
-
What?, These are small humans Hillside not particles of dark matter.
this is your strawman of a definition.And even were I to accept if, say they have cloaking technology?
BTW my gran who did believe in the little people and believed she had experienced them and others had too, and indeed believed in god. thought they only appeared when they chose, are you saying her definition was wrong? Or that her experience was wrong? Or that her belief in shared experience of them was wrong?
If so, how?
-
Vlad,
What?, These are small humans Hillside not particles of dark matter.
"Humans"?
-
my gran who did believe in the little people and believed she had experienced them and others had too, and indeed believed in god. thought they only appeared when they chose, are you saying her definition was wrong? Or that her experience was wrong? Or that her belief in shared experience of them was wrong?
Total Empirical Surveillance (TM VLADCORP) for 'Little people'' should cover that.......unless you tip 'em off and I wouldn't put that past you.
-
Total Empirical Surveillance (TM VLADCORP) for 'Little people'' should cover that.......unless you tip 'em off and I wouldn't put that past you.
So cut out the part of the post that you don't address at all, and then ignored the bit you kept in. Why are you doing this sort of dishonest approach? Why do you continually refuse to actually engage with posts?
-
Vlad,
Total Empirical Surveillance (TM VLADCORP)...
Again, how would you know that it was "total" rather than just the best you could manage using the tools available to you at the time?
...for 'Little people'' should cover that...
"People" is just your straw man definition. My leprechauns are a type a fairy, able to appear and disappear at will.
....unless you tip 'em off and I wouldn't put that past you.
Not necessary - they could avoid you whether or not I tipped them off.
And again, the point you keep dodging remains: when an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument. You can't falsify leprechauns, so you can apply the NPF to each conjecture.
QED
-
NS,
So cut out the part of the post that you don't address at all, and then ignored the bit you kept in. Why are you doing this sort of dishonest approach? Why do you continually refuse to actually engage with posts?
He can't help himself.
-
Vlad,
Again, how would you know that it was "total" rather than just the best you could manage using the tools available to you at the time?
It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green. The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.
There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.
Your Leprechauns Hillside? What is Leprechaun about them?
-
Vlad,
It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green. The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.
And the king of the straw men is among us again...
Leprechauns are a type of fairy, outwith the known laws of the universe. I know this because that's my faith.
There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.
So you assert, just as I do about leprechauns.
Your Leprechauns Hillside? What is Leprechaun about them?
About two feet six since you ask.
Bit late to ask me isn't it given that until now you've just made up your own false definitions?
-
It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green. The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.
There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.
Your Leprechauns Hillside? What is Leprechaun about them?
and again "human' is your strawman definition. Why do you not engage? As to total surveillance that is as prediction. As is the no piece of equipment. As is the idea you are not a piece of equipment in the sense of experiencing things. And that is leaving aside your inability to give any logically consistent or meaningful definition of 'god'
-
Vlad,
And the king of the straw men is among us again...
Leprechauns are a type of fairy, outwith the known laws of the universe.
OK So you've redefined them......but you also mentioned the Loch Ness Monster.....redefine that Ha Ha,
-
NS,
and again "human' is your strawman definition. Why do you not engage? As to total surveillance that is as prediction. As is the no piece of equipment. As is the idea you are not a piece of equipment in the sense of experiencing things. And that is leaving aside your inability to give any logically consistent or meaningful definition of 'god'
As is the inability to explain why thinking you can have a "relationship" with this god "points to" there being a god at all. As is the provision of a method of any kind to distinguish his assertions about god from mistake, guessing, false attribution etc. As is the relentless re-invention of words and terms so as to support his bad arguments. As is the continued use of false accusations about logical mistakes ("category fuck" etc) when there is no mistake. As is the weird notion the he is "competent" by some secret means whereas others aren't. As is draining the entire North American crop of dried grass to construct his straw men. As is...
-
and again "human' is your strawman definition. Why do you not engage? As to total surveillance that is as prediction. As is the no piece of equipment. As is the idea you are not a piece of equipment in the sense of experiencing things. And that is leaving aside your inability to give any logically consistent or meaningful definition of 'god'
I think you've missed your own total inability to give any logical and meaningful definition of Leprechaun......and you and Hillside seem to have forgotten about the Loch Ness Monster.
That these can go into different categories marks your attempt at putting them into the same category slovenly and or desperate. Redefining them during an argument by progressively giving them more superpowers more so.
-
Vlad,
OK So you've redefined them......but you also mentioned the Loch Ness Monster.....redefine that Ha Ha,
No, you have. You're the one who misdescribed them as small people.
And the point yet again that you keep dodging remains: regardless of the object of your faith belief, if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
-
It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green.
That's not a concept of leprechauns that I recognise.
The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.
No it isn't. We have only learned how to surveil natural phenomena.
There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.
So first you say the technology for total surveillance is available and then you say it can never be available in the very next sentence.
Furthermore, if there is no piece of equipment that could detect God then all the Christians that say they know God must be lying.
-
Vlad,
I think you've missed your own total inability to give any logical and meaningful definition of Leprechaun......
This from someone who expects others to take seriously his claim about "God"?
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
Wow.
...and you and Hillside seem to have forgotten about the Loch Ness Monster.
No-one's forgotten about it. Or about Russell's teapot for that matter. They're just different means of illustrating the poverty of the NPF.
That these can go into different categories...
No they can't. They're all in the same category called "unfalsifiable conjectures".
...marks your attempt at putting them into the same category slovenly and or desperate.
No, accurate.
Redefining them during an argument by progressively giving them more superpowers more so.
The only person to re-define them is you. Why bother lying about that when your lies are so easily checked?
-
Vlad,
No, you have. You're the one who misdescribed them as small people.
And the point yet again that you keep dodging remains: regardless of the object of your faith belief, if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
I admit to call them small people......and Sane referred to them as Little people and to be fair I did ask you what was leprechauny about what you described as 'my Leprechauns'' and you passed over that.
Sane has rendered the falsifiable unfalsiable argument invalid. Following his logic it is impossible to falsify anything and therefore we can kick out Popper and leave the sexiest theory to prevail.
All theories are unfalsifiable according to him.
J'accuse therefore you of deliberate category and definition fucking.
However if you state that Leprechauns can appear then Total Empirical observation would catch that.
In any case:
Explain How being unfalsifiable guarantee that something is not objectively real or true without recourse to philosophy.
And to sane.....If unfalsifiability equals not being objectively true. What in your theory of universal unfalsifiability is objectively true?
It's been nice playing with you guys i'm going to find a reference to Leprechauns being the Little folks.
-
Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?
Of course not; what's more relevant is that s/he doesn't live in a way that runs contrary to Biblical teaching - be s/he homosexual or heterosexual.
What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?
Is that equally true in the case of a 'celibate' heterosexual, john?
-
Vlad,
No-one's forgotten about it. Or about Russell's teapot for that matter. They're just different means of illustrating the poverty of the NPF.
Illustrating the poverty of argumentum ad ridiculum more like.
-
..., what matters is that all Bishops and leaders of god-believing religions tell their followers to believe in some god or other with not one shred of testable evidence to back up such beliefs.
Evidence that the argument that only evidence that is testable, in the way you understand that phrase, is valid, please.
-
To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop of Grantham has not married his partner. He is thus celibate.
As the Bishop of Grantham isn't a Catholic, H, I'm not sure of the relevance of the rest of your post.
-
Evidence that the argument that only evidence that is testable, in the way you understand that phrase, is valid, please.
If you can't test a hypothesis, how can you know if it is true or false?
-
How many more times? Celibate means unmarried not totally abstemious.
Unfortunately, H, over the centuries, the term 'celibate' has become synonymous with total abstention.
-
It is about time the Catholic Church dropped this daft celibacy rule, especially as married Anglican Priests who convert can continue to serve as priests.
The reason they don't require celibacy from these ex-Anglicans is that would potentially lead to divorces - which is another thing they don't approve of, Floo.
-
Illustrating the poverty of argumentum ad ridiculum more like.
you mean your made up argument.
-
God might appear.
..or might not.
The problem with your argument, Seb - and with Vlad's - is that there is no conditionality involved in the issue. Christians believe that he has already appeared, and lived a human life for 30-odd years.
-
From what I read this chap this quite good at the Bishop-ing: not only did he get the job in the first place but he enjoys the support of the MD of the CofE, who says his personal life is irrelevant in relation to his suitability for his current job.
In addition, and despite the publicity surrounding him, he seems like a thoughtful and modest chap. Pity then that he isn't afforded the same personal privacy that the rest of us could reasonably expect.
-
I admit to call them small people......and Sane referred to them as Little people and to be fair I did ask you what was leprechauny about what you described as 'my Leprechauns'' and you passed over that.
Sane has rendered the falsifiable unfalsiable argument invalid. Following his logic it is impossible to falsify anything and therefore we can kick out Popper and leave the sexiest theory to prevail.
All theories are unfalsifiable according to him.
J'accuse therefore you of deliberate category and definition fucking.
However if you state that Leprechauns can appear then Total Empirical observation would catch that.
In any case:
Explain How being unfalsifiable guarantee that something is not objectively real or true without recourse to philosophy.
And to sane.....If unfalsifiability equals not being objectively true. What in your theory of universal unfalsifiability is objectively true?
It's been nice playing with you guys i'm going to find a reference to Leprechauns being the Little folks.
oh dear apart from your habitual misrepresentations, if you want to accept relativism as I discussed it means that your validation by others is pointless, so you have pissed so hard you drowned your own meagre argument and therefore said your experience is worthless, how sad!
-
oh dear apart from your habitual misrepresentations, if you want to accept relativism as I discussed it means that your validation by others is pointless, so you have pissed so hard you drowned your own meagre argument and therefore said your experience is worthless, how sad!
I haven't a clue what that means.
-
..or might not.
The problem with your argument, Seb - and with Vlad's - is that there is no conditionality involved in the issue. Christians believe that he has already appeared, and lived a human life for 30-odd years.
which is entirely useless to the ask to provide a method that Vlad was answering. Take it up with your 'fellow Christian'.
-
I haven't a clue what that means.
will lay it out for you tomorrow, sleep well
-
Vlad,
No, you have. You're the one who misdescribed them as small people.
And the point yet again that you keep dodging remains: regardless of the object of your faith belief, if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Yes Hillside but the argument about Leprechauns depends on their ridiculousness. Small people who collect Gold at the end of rainbows . In the course of the argument these are transmuted so they get more God like powers until they are totally unfalsifiable but still are surrounded by the halo of ridiculousness.
Outside that you have to face that if things are in different categories then statements such as
' if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument' are meaningless and carry a huge 'so what?' Value.
This is why you are desperate to coral God in the category of ridiculous things.
You aren't making an argument but merely attempting to get people into holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.
-
Yes Hillside but the argument about Leprechauns depends on their ridiculousness. Small people who collect Gold at the end of rainbows . In the course of the argument these are transmuted so they get more God like powers until they are totally unfalsifiable but still are surrounded by the halo of ridiculousness.
Outside that you have to face that if things are in different categories then statements such as
' if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument' are meaningless and carry a huge 'so what?' Value.
This is why you are desperate to coral God in the category of ridiculous things.
You aren't making an argument but merely attempting to get people into holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.
why are you lying again?
-
why are you lying again?
OK so why is it always fairies, Unicorns, leprechauns, spaghetti monsters ....and let's not forget.....Loch Ness Monsters?
-
Vlad,
I admit to call them small people......and Sane referred to them as Little people and to be fair I did ask you what was leprechauny about what you described as 'my Leprechauns'' and you passed over that.
Stop lying. What's "leprechauny" about them is the beliefs I hold as a matter of "faith" about something outwith the normal universal laws. The specific properties I attach to them (musicality etc) are no more relevant for this purpose than the properties you attach to your supernatural character "God" (healing etc).
Sane has rendered the falsifiable unfalsiable argument invalid. Following his logic it is impossible to falsify anything and therefore we can kick out Popper and leave the sexiest theory to prevail.
Try that again with a coherent sentence.
All theories are unfalsifiable according to him.
Stop lying.
J'accuse therefore you of deliberate category and definition fucking.
Then as ever you're flat wrong.
However if you state that Leprechauns can appear then Total Empirical observation would catch that.
Not if they can vanish just before whatever tools you use to do the job kick in it wouldn't.
In any case:
Explain How being unfalsifiable guarantee that something is not objectively real or true without recourse to philosophy.
Straw man. No-one says that. so why just make it up?
And to sane.....If unfalsifiability equals not being objectively true. What in your theory of universal unfalsifiability is objectively true?
It doesn't, and no-one says that it does. Stop lying.
It's been nice playing with you guys i'm going to find a reference to Leprechauns being the Little folks.
You can look if you like, but it'll have no relevance whatever to the point. My leprechauns are supernatural. You can't falsify them. Therefore for the purpose of the NPF they have the same status as your "God".
QED
-
Vlad,
Illustrating the poverty of argumentum ad ridiculum more like.
It's the wrong argument, and has been every time you've attempted it. My leprechauns and Russell's teapot alike don't depend on their ridiculousness for the primary effect - what they actually depend on is that some arguments the religious use for "God" work just as well for these conjectures too. Either you accept the argument for all of them therefore, or for none of them. There's no other option.
-
Vlad,
Stop lying. What's "leprechauny" about them is the beliefs I hold as a matter of "faith" about something outwith the normal universal laws. The specific properties I attach to them (musicality etc) are no more relevant for this purpose than the properties you attach to your supernatural character "God" (healing etc).
Classic Hillside pisstake . Accuse someone of lying while claiming a belief in the supernatural, you little scamp.
-
OK so why is it always fairies, Unicorns, leprechauns, spaghetti monsters ....and let's not forget.....Loch Ness Monsters?
why is it always god, why are you lying about it being different, why are you lying about definition being important but unwilling to provide a definition that can be looked at? Why do you lie about what other's position is! Why do you think lying is acceptable?
-
Classic Hillside pisstake . Accuse someone of lying while claiming a belief in the supernatural, you little scamp.
he doesn't, why are you lying again?
-
Vlad,
It's the wrong argument, and has been every time you've attempted it. My leprechauns and Russell's teapot alike don't depend on their ridiculousness for the primary effect - what they actually depend on is that some arguments the religious use for "God" work just as well for these conjectures too. Either you accept the argument for all of them therefore, or for none of them. There's no other option.
Hillside. You stated Leprechauns can flit to Mars. And you have demonstrated you can disappear ''up Uranus''.
-
why is it always god, why are you lying about it being different, why are you lying about definition being important but unwilling to provide a definition that can be looked at? Why do you lie about what other's position is! Why do you think lying is acceptable?
It isn't always God I've argued that Nature could have done supernatural things and/or have supernatural properties.
-
lad,
Yes Hillside but the argument about Leprechauns depends on their ridiculousness.
No it doesn't. It relies on the fact that some arguments work equally for "God" and for leprechauns. That you find one to me more ridiculous than the other is irrelevant.
Small people who collect Gold at the end of rainbows . In the course of the argument these are transmuted so they get more God like powers until they are totally unfalsifiable but still are surrounded by the halo of ridiculousness.
Stop lying. My leprechauns are not and never have been "small people". The fact that any published definition will tell you that they will grant you three wishes for their escape should tell you that they're not naturalistic in characater.
Outside that you have to face that if things are in different categories then statements such as
' if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument' are meaningless and carry a huge 'so what?' Value.
Stop lying. When the category is "unfalsifiable" then they're in the same category.
This is why you are desperate to coral God in the category of ridiculous things.
It's not "coral" and you don;t need to be "desperate" for the logic to hold. And unfalsifiable conjecture is an unfalsifiable conjecture - what it happens to be is neither here nor there.
You aren't making an argument but merely attempting to get people into holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.
Stop lying. The argument holds perfectly well - if an argument for "God" wors equally well for any other unfalsifiable conjecture, then it's probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you?
-
Hillside. You stated Leprechauns can flit to Mars. And you have demonstrated you can disappear ''up Uranus''.
wit,but also more lies.Bhs didn't state that. . Why is it that you think lying yet again is useful?
-
It isn't always God I've argued that Nature could have done supernatural things and/or have supernatural properties.
why are lying again about what's being asked? Why is it you cannot engage without lying?why Are you evading the definition issue againj ?
-
why are lying again about what's being asked? Why is it you cannot engage without lying?why Are you evading the definition issue againj ?
Sorry? Come again?
-
Vlad,
OK so why is it always fairies, Unicorns, leprechauns, spaghetti monsters ....and let's not forget.....Loch Ness Monsters?
Several reasons:
1. If you can think of a different unfalsifiable conjecture that doesn't seem ridiculous, then use it instead. I can't though.
2. Your "God" conjecture is just as ridiculous to me as my leprechauns conjecture is to you.
3. The ridiculousness of, say, an orbiting teapot serves well precisely to show how ridiculousness an argument will be when it leads to that conclusion and to "God" alike. That's what Russell chose it. Your complaint that the object is ridiculous doesn't undermine the argument - it affirms it
-
Sorry? Come again?
nothing hard to understand, why are you lying about that as well? As ever I am fi cingithRxgi engage with you when you lie so consistently
-
Vlad,
Several reasons:
1. If you can think of a different unfalsifiable conjecture that doesn't seem ridiculous, then use it instead. I can't though.
2. Your "God" conjecture is just as ridiculous to me as my leprechauns conjecture is to you.
3. The ridiculousness of, say, an orbiting teapot serves well precisely to show how ridiculousness an argument will be when it leads to that conclusion and to "God" alike. That's what Russell chose it. Your complaint that the object is ridiculous doesn't undermine the argument - it affirms it
Russell was highly likely to have had a teapot which was orbiting the sun.
-
NS,
nothing hard to understand, why are you lying about that as well? As ever I am fi cingithRxgi engage with you when you lie so consistently
I genuinely can't tell whether Vlad's endless lying is pathological, or he just doesn't grasp even the simplest argument, or he's just a troll. I see no other option.
-
Vlad,
Russell was highly likely to have had a teapot which was orbiting the sun.
But not the Earth. Further evasion noted
-
It's time for the Leprechaun quiz
A Leprechaun is
a) completely material
b)occasionally material
c) Not material at all.
Leprechauns, Invisible unicorns, spaghetti monsters are
a) ridiculous
b)occasionally ridiculous.
c)Not ridiculous at all.
Leprechauns are
a) falsifiable.
b)Occasionally falsifiable.
c) Unfalsifiable.
-
It's time for the god quiz
A god is
a) completely material
b)occasionally material
c) Not material at all.
gods are
a) ridiculous
b)occasionally ridiculous.
c)Not ridiculous at all.
gods are
a) falsifiable.
b)Occasionally falsifiable.
c) Unfalsifiable.
-
It's time for the god quiz
A god is
a) completely material
b)occasionally material
c) Not material at all.
gods are
a) ridiculous
b)occasionally ridiculous.
c)Not ridiculous at all.
gods are
a) falsifiable.
b)Occasionally falsifiable.
c) Unfalsifiable.
Bzzzzzzzzzzz Plagiarism
or to put it another way: I felt a little funny and SEBASTIAN TOE went on stage before it wore off.