Originally posted by Penguin It is one demonstration of the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of any particular god and is entirely consistent with there being no god at all, combined with our nature as pattern-seeking animals.
However, it is not an argument to be relied on. Generally speaking, the popularity of an idea has no intrinsic bearing on its truth value.
--- Penguin
Generally speaking, the popularity of an idea has no intrinsic bearing on its truth value.
--- Penguin
Agreed. What then does "an idea" depend on for "its truth value"?
Originally posted by googlefudge You are obsessed with authority.
The truth of a proposition is not determined by authority.
The truth of a proposition is determined by the accuracy by which it represents reality.
Who, then, is the arbiter of " the truth of a proposition" in the event of diametrically opposing points of view? Importantly, what gauge or standard is applied to a "proposition" to determine its accuracy; and who or what defines "reality"?
Originally posted by Great King Rat I love it that you would even ask that question. Absolutely love it.
Your need for authority is worthy of psychological research I would say.
I wonder how you would act during the Milgram experiment.
GKR, few months ago you kindly agreed to become my first atheism mentor when we attempted a role play with you as the teacher and me as the student without portfolio. Though the experiment last only a days, I found it beneficial in expanding my awareness of what it must be like walking around in your shoes for a day. Follow on question: does an atheist experience the least hesitation before typing the slang acronym, "OMG"? Is it simply a matter of good taste and style or would that usage be avoided so as not to betray an inner subliminal core acceptance that God exists? What about, "God Damn"?
I say God Damn (or its Dutch relative) every now and then, to express a certain feeling. "Oh my God" and "God Damn" and such are expressions. Doesn't make one more or less religious to use them.
Similary, people don't believe it's actually raining cats and dogs when they use that expression.
Of course, I could say "Flying Spaghetti Monster damn me", but that's way too long and besides, I fear I might end up in Pastaferian hell.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Who, then, is the arbiter of " the truth of a proposition" in the event of diametrically opposing points of view? Importantly, what gauge or standard is applied to a "proposition" to determine its accuracy; and who or what defines "reality"?
Originally posted by Great King Rat I say God Damn (or its Dutch relative) every now and then, to express a certain feeling. "Oh my God" and "God Damn" and such are expressions. Doesn't make one more or less religious to use them.
Similary, people don't believe it's actually raining cats and dogs when they use that expression.
Of course, I could say "Flying Spaghetti Monster damn me", but that's way too long and besides, I fear I might end up in Pastaferian hell.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Who, then, is the arbiter of " the truth of a proposition" in the event of diametrically opposing points of view? Importantly, what gauge or standard is applied to a "proposition" to determine its accuracy; and who or what defines "reality"?
Reality is the arbiter of whether or not a proposition is true or not.
Science is the mechanism by which we determine the nature of reality.
It is unending search for the truth about the nature of reality.
Whatever that truth may be.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Who, then, is the arbiter of " the truth of a proposition" in the event of diametrically opposing points of view? Importantly, what gauge or standard is applied to a "proposition" to determine its accuracy; and who or what defines "reality"?
There is more atheists than...
27 Jan '14 22:50
Back to Top