Don't want, (or need) to start a new thread - still want to post it though

[left at home]

I think I preferred the transistors

That way you can dial either way

AM

FM

Or flick the switch, presto it’s off.

 

[Black_White]

All religions have non negotiable rules that take away your freedom of choice and expression.
That’s cultish.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Or flick the switch, presto it’s off.

Yep the bill Jacobs button.

Always turn it off.
No pair of ears deserved such torture.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

A very narrow definition of belief there, a belief is different from belief system, a belief can be derived from empirical evidence or from faith.

For example I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, that is not a derived from a theological position.

This is a philosophical discussion which is kinda ironic considering where we are. The distinctions of definition within our language are vital to any philosopical discussion. Without them it becomes impossible to properly philosophise. So Philosophically speaking....

I didnt say a belief had to be devoid of empirical evidence to back it up, just that a belief always lacks certainty... as a defining point a belief is a choice of thought/ position in matters of uncertainty. Where things are certain or factual in our language you do not corrdctly use the term 'belief'. So your example doesnt work. Because we can't predict the future with 100% certainty, you can only believe that the sun will rise tomorrow and calculate a probability to support that belief. ( Which in this case is pretty high obviously. If you were talking a factual certainty, like the sun rose yesterday, then you would say I KNOW the sun rose yesterday.

That's a bit beside the point.
There is a spectrum of belief... From no Brainers like the sun will rise tomorrow (highly evidence supported so highly rational); to believing God doesnt exist(zero evidence to support so highly irrational). You have a hell of a lot more evidence to support a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow than you do to support a belief that God doesn't exist, or probably doesn't exist. I'm guessing that anyway. Perhaps you do. Care to share the empirical evidence of gods probable non existence with me?

Atheism is a personal belief largely devoid of any empirical evidence.... The same as theism... You are making a choice to believe that because it makes sense to you personally despite a complete absence of empirical evidence to support it... By definition it is an irrational position.

 

[Black_White]

This is a philosophical discussion which is kinda ironic considering where we are. The distinctions of definition within our language are vital to any philosopical discussion. Without them it becomes impossible to properly philosophise. So Philosophically speaking....

I didnt say a belief had to be devoid of empirical evidence to back it up, just that a belief always lacks certainty... as a defining point a belief is a choice of thought/ position in matters of uncertainty. Where things are certain or factual in our language you do not corrdctly use the term 'belief'. So your example doesnt work. Because we can't predict the future with 100% certainty, you can only believe that the sun will rise tomorrow and calculate a probability to support that belief. ( Which in this case is pretty high obviously. If you were talking a factual certainty, like the sun rose yesterday, then you would say I KNOW the sun rose yesterday.

That's a bit beside the point.
There is a spectrum of belief... From no Brainers like the sun will rise tomorrow (highly evidence supported so highly rational); to believing God doesnt exist(zero evidence to support so highly irrational). You have a hell of a lot more evidence to support a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow than you do to support a belief that God doesn't exist, or probably doesn't exist. I'm guessing that anyway. Perhaps you do. Care to share the empirical evidence of gods probable non existence with me?

Atheism is a personal belief largely devoid of any empirical evidence.... The same as theism... You are making a choice to believe that because it makes sense to you personally despite a complete absence of empirical evidence to support it... By definition it is an irrational position.

Very good.
Except of course the lack of actual evidence that God exists.
No problem saying there’s no evidence to say he doesn’t exist, but same goes for lack of evidence for his/her/it’s existence.

I love how a simple post linking to a rational piece on the colour of Jesus’s skin, and the misrepresentation of such through the Millenia, has morphed into an attack on atheists!
Such is the rare beauty of Big Footy.
Play on.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Very good.
Except of course the lack of actual evidence that God exists.
No problem saying there’s no evidence to say he doesn’t exist, but same goes for lack of evidence for his/her/it’s existence.

I love how a simple post linking to a rational piece on the colour of Jesus’s skin, and the misrepresentation of such through the Millenia, has morphed into an attack on atheists!
Such is the rare beauty of Big Footy.
Play on.

Ummm yes.. if you had understood my posts you would have seen that I had mentioned there was zero empirical evidence of either gods existence or non existence... That was kinda the point... Atheists and theists share something in common there... Blind belief. Now could you explain how it is an attack on atheism to point this truth out?, Given that you are obviously acknowledging it as such.
Such is the rare beauty of the age we live in where you can't point out the bleeding obvious without someone taking it as an attack and getting "offended". If you are an atheist and you had actually thought about it but still didn't realize your belief there was zero evidence based and therefore highly irrational, just like a Muslim or a Christian or a jew; sorry mate... don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Dynamics]

Ummm yes.. if you had understood my posts you would have seen that I had mentioned there was zero empirical evidence of either gods existence or non existence... That was kinda the point... Atheists and theists share something in common there... Blind belief. Now could you explain how it is an attack on atheism to point this truth out?, Given that you are obviously acknowledging it as such.
Such is the rare beauty of the age we live in where you can't point out the bleeding obvious without someone taking it as an attack and getting "offended". If you are an atheist and you had actually thought about it but still didn't realize your belief there was zero evidence based and therefore highly irrational, just like a Muslim or a Christian or a jew; sorry mate... don't shoot the messenger.

There's a bit of an unintended (?) straw man going on here.

All of this is based on this definition of atheism as the belief that there is no god. And to be fair you've provided evidence of that definition from a scholarly standpoint.

The problem seems to be (and I don't think I'm saying anything that your don't already know) that a great many people use the colloquial meaning of atheism to describe their absence of belief in a god. More akin to agnosticism.

The colloquial use of atheist is as unlikely to stop as my son is to stop saying "verse" instead of versus.

So when you argue that atheism is a question of faith, you're correct from the perspective of philosophy at a scholarly level, but it fails to represent what a great many people who consider themselves "atheists" actually think.

The problem with the term agnosticism (again I'm going colloquial here because I live in the real world) is that it opens the gate for the whole "we can't know either way therefore belief is as valid as disbelief" silliness that just throws evidence out the window and shuts the door on rational thought.

 

[neilk]

I do believe I was talking about the utility of transistor radios at the football. Can we get that loftier conversation back on track guys?

The old(er) guy in the seat in front of me yesterday had his trans and earphones going. The sun’s reflection off his bald head was blinding me. Was that you?

 

[JB1975]

The old(er) guy in the seat in front of me yesterday had his ****** and earphones going. The sun’s reflection off his bald head was blinding me. Was that you?

I took my headphones rather than earphones, and I enjoyed the experience. Thank you for asking. When 'Nothing Else Matters' started playing I decided that something else mattered, so I tuned into some AM pre-game fluff.

I'm mindful to keep my head from being any sort of hazard, and I'm not bald. The hairdresser who had to flip me onto the ground yesterday morning and shear me with industrial-grade clippers could attest to this.

 

[neilk]

The old(er) guy in the seat in front of me yesterday had his ****** and earphones going. The sun’s reflection off his bald head was blinding me. Was that you?

Whoops, looks like my abbreviation for transistor radio is a rude word.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

There's a bit of an unintended (?) straw man going on here.

All of this is based on this definition of atheism as the belief that there is no god. And to be fair you've provided evidence of that definition from a scholarly standpoint.

The problem seems to be (and I don't think I'm saying anything that your don't already know) that a great many people use the colloquial meaning of atheism to describe their absence of belief in a god. More akin to agnosticism.

The colloquial use of atheist is as unlikely to stop as my son is to stop saying "verse" instead of versus.

So when you argue that atheism is a question of faith, you're correct from the perspective of philosophy at a scholarly level, but it fails to represent what a great many people who consider themselves "atheists" actually think.

The problem with the term agnosticism (again I'm going colloquial here because I live in the real world) is that it opens the gate for the whole "we can't know either way therefore belief is as valid as disbelief" silliness that just throws evidence out the window and shuts the door on rational thought.

It's not a straw man at all. As I said, distinctions in terminology exist for very good reasons. If you want to conceptualize and philosophise with any substance and clarity you cannot do it using these colloquialisms. The difference between someone who accepts the reality that they don'/can't know (an agnostic) and someone who thinks they might know ( theists and atheists) is stark and must be recognised, because one is purely rational... The other is not.
I do consider someone who believes in Noah's arc and water into wine as not too dissimilar to someone who firmly believes there is no god. Both have taken a stance, made a choice based on zero evidence... I guess theists can point to the factual existence of Jesus, Mohammad etc at least.

For the record... In my rational thinking I am pure agnostic... But in my personal thinking Ihave moved from being a near pure atheist to being agnostic but with leanings that I now think there just may be a god... I have zero evidence for this and no idea what God is or wants and I acknowledge it to be an irrational personal preference in my thinking...I wish both pure atheists and theist could do the same. Then we all have some common ground here.
It apparently now suits me and my life experience to believe that there may be a god and this is based on 2 main things...1. Patterns of karma, irony etc that I have experienced personally... Things that just felt too pointed, too timely, too accurate and too necessary to happen by pure coincidence. 2. An understanding of the laws of nature, science, the mathematics of the universe. Contrary to many atheists beliefs, science in no way supplies any evidence one way or the other... It is all a matter of interpretation. For me there is an architecture and engineering in these things that points to the existence of some grand Poobah architect.

Many top mathematicians and physicists end up thinking this way too.
Stephen Hawking on the other hand interpreted his knowledge to form a belief that there probably was no god. But, and this is the crucial bit, he acknowledged that agnosticism was the true rational position on this question and that he had zero evidence either way but had made a choice based on his personal interpretation. I wish more atheists would be like him because making atheism a dogma is a pretty big and ironic mistake.

 

[JB1975]

Whoops, looks like my abbreviation for transistor radio is a rude word.

I wondered about that. I just thought you were saying nasty things about transistor radios but forgot to mention the transistor radio!

 

[Baltimore Jack]

“Easter” is a rip off of the pagan festival to honour Oestre celebrated >300 years before Christians established the date as the first Sunday after the full moon following the March Equinox

 

[Magpie Girl]

Whoops, looks like my abbreviation for transistor radio is a rude word.

?

 

[Scritchyscroony]

?

Put a space in it... Tra nny

 

[barrackers]

Good article on heart attacks of elite athletes.

Very coincidental timing too given the discussions on this board following Kirby’s concerns.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/hea...ow-safe-is-extreme-sport-20180328-p4z6m7.html

 

[Scritchyscroony]

A sticking point might be my usage of the terms rational and irrational. Rationality is a spectrum. At one end is pure rationality which is agnosticism. I.e.. There is zero evidence either way so the answer is I don't know,, at the other end is pure irrationality .... I truly believe in Santa Clause with not a sceric of doubt. Every position on god in between these two outliers has a combination of rational judgement, knowledge and thought, irrational cultural upbringing and personal life experience factors; which are all then solidified into a belief based on personal preference and choice in thinking. Where an atheist sits on this spectrum depends on their level of certainty of belief.

Basically, With the question of god, your position gets more rational the less certain your beliefs. And unfortunately a lot of atheists are very very certain in their beliefs....

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Just heard why Dermott Brereton played his first career game. Apparently Gary Ablett snr was going to be recalled to the seniors but was unavailable because he wanted to go hunting instead!!!! So Dermie got the callup to debut.

 

[left at home]

Just heard why Dermott Brereton played his first career game. Apparently Gary Ablett snr was going to be recalled to the seniors but was unavailable because he wanted to go hunting instead!!!! So Dermie got the callup to debut.

He wanted to hunting, instead of playing a final. Gee one weird person.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He wanted to hunting, instead of playing a final. Gee one weird person.

I dont think thats without argument!!

Gazza is also known to have asked a player what team he played for. The reply was "Geelong....I'm your teammate"

 

[JB1975]

I dont think thats without argument!!

Gazza is also known to have asked a player what team he played for. The reply was "Geelong....I'm your captain"

Edited for probable accuracy.

 

[Copeland]

Where can I find players stats for this season please.

 

[Mongo Ming]

Where can I find players stats for this season please.

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/th-collingwood-magpies

Can search via individual players on there too.

 

[spartan-magpie]

All religions have non negotiable rules that take away your freedom of choice and expression.
That’s cultish.

All peoples/societies have non negotiable rules that takes away your freedom of choice of expression.