Religious players in the AFL

[Hollow Knight]

Cuckoo? For disagreeing with you?

Can you read? I said your logic (no god = no anything) was cuckoo.

Moral high ground s**t? For disagreeing with you?

Okay, I suspect that willful ignorance is at play here.

"Mmmm. Not like you to be cynical about, derisive and dismissive of anything you don't agree with."

Yes, that is indeed clamouring for the moral high ground, and as I pointed out, hypocritically so.

I'm done with you. You are intellectually vapid. You argue with a bunch of pseudo-philosophical statements that really mean nothing, and use a munted form of logic on opposition arguments but refuse to apply it to your own.

In short, you're a faithy and have compartmentalised that particular part of your world view from the regular logic and rationality in which I am sure you live your every day life (think back to the bus analogy). If you had the intellectual courage to admit that faith was at the core of it, you'd look much better, but you paint yourself into a corner by refusing to acknowledge it as such. Not to mention you are clearly terrified of letting the discourse progress to the next level where your debating strategy is utterly incapable of standing up.

Enjoy the delusion.

I still hold hope that a believer will present something genuinely interesting in this thread... until then I'll just watch with unsurprised amusement.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Can you read? I said your logic (no god = no anything) was cuckoo.



Okay, so you clearly can't read.

"Mmmm. Not like you to be cynical about, derisive and dismissive of anything you don't agree with."

Yes, that is indeed clamouring for the moral high ground, and as I pointed out, hypocritically so.

I'm done with you. You are intellectually vapid. You argue with a bunch of pseudo-philosophical statements that really mean nothing, and use a munted form of logic on opposition arguments but refuse to apply it to your own.

In short, you're a faithy, but paint yourself into a corner by refusing to acknowledge it as such. Enjoy the delusion.

I'm done with you, too.

Your "If it isn't in my test tube it doesn't exist" arrogance is appalling.

Intellectually vapid? And you raise the dung beetle?

You came in here coolly shooting another idiot down, and it didn't work. Nor still have you responded to my questions re the link I posted.

If you look back through my posts you will indeed notice that I mention faith as my position.

In full, you're an angry athy, but refuse to give me an answer to a reasonable question re that link.

High moral ground? Paint myself into a corner? Please...

 

[Father Jack]

Like how and why the universe and everything in it exists?

Do you think science has no explanation of these things? I've seen docos on telly about it, but it's fair to say that I don't have the required scientific background to fully understand it. Just because the 'magic sky ghost' explanation requires little curiosity or effort to grasp doesn't necessarily make it right.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Do you think science has no explanation of these things? I've seen docos on telly about it, but it's fair to say that I don't have the required scientific background to fully understand it. Just because the 'magic sky ghost' explanation requires little curiosity or effort to grasp doesn't necessarily make it right.

That's true.

However, I don't think science has an explanation for why life exists on earth.

I don't think there will ever be a plausible explanation for it, outside of a creator.

Funny thing is, lots of scientists agree. Not every scientist is an non-theist. I've seen programs and read articles about scientists saying, for example, ..."DNA shows a blueprint for life and it's so complex that it cannot have been an accident...". If scientists are divided, can we not also consider alternatives to "it can't be as we have no scientific evidence for it" thinking?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Cynicism aside, this is where Occam's razor needs to be applied. Where there is an absence of a plausible explanation do not insert an explanation that itself requires an equal amount of explaining. Who created the creator? (the infinite regress) The more sound argument is the least complicated. In this case that the origins of the universe are an unknown.

Point taken re Occam's Razor, although both sides of the issue do it to some extent. Dawkins' 'something can come from nothing" is along those lines, isn't it?

I stand by my faith perspective, without expecting anyone else to come with me, simply because it has been my experience.

What I find difficult is when someone else comes in with "you have no proof" then presents hypotheses about how things might have come to be that also lack proof. Dawkins' proposition above is exactly that...and he claims to have enough evidence to make atheists out of God believers.

Not sure he's serious.

 

[phantom13]

Read the first page of this thread thinking "hmm this will be intersting to see which players follow which faith, wait this will turn into a s**t fight about religion real quick" glad to see i wasn't disappointed, surely there are thread to argue about religion for those who feel strongly enough to bother somewhere else, cant we talk players religious faiths and how it affects their footy here, Bachar and now Ahmed Saad intrigue me the most, training while fasting must be horrible on the body...

 

[scottwade]

... cant we talk players religious faiths and how it affects their footy here, Bachar and now Ahmed Saad intrigue me the most, training while fasting must be horrible on the body...

Houli has said that preparation is the key.
He actually fasts a couple of days a week in the lead up to Ramadan so that his body can adapt. Also Richmond modify his training load to help him cope with the fast.

Ramadan is currently during the footy season and will be for the next few seasons (July- June) so that he will not have to cope with heat.

Not ideal from a footy perspective, but he's been combining footy & fasting for a fair time now, so he presumably has a reasonable management strategy.

 

[seysearles]

I don't think there will ever be a plausible explanation for it, outside of a creator.

There is literally nothing plausible about there being a creator. Plausibility by definition demands proof. Therefore if plausibility is your criteria I suggest you look at abiogenesis as a robust explanation for life arising from inorganic matter. No one is claiming that this is an air tight case but it certainly leads the pack in the plausibility stakes. Religion on the other hand is a non-entrant.

 

[seysearles]

What I find difficult is when someone else comes in with "you have no proof" then presents hypotheses about how things might have come to be that also lack proof.

There is strong proof for abiogenesis in so much as they have reproduced the 'coming into being' of amino acids from carbon (which is an inorganic compound) under specific conditions in the laboratory. Accepting this concept to me is just an extension of evolution which you concede you accept as a reality. A chemically active place like the universe evolved into a biological active place like the earth.

 

[Bennett.]

but then the question arises as to who or how the chaos started? Carbon? fine, how did it get there? Amino acids? sure, but again, they have to come frome SOMETHING.

 

[seysearles]

but then the question arises as to who or how the chaos started? Carbon? fine, how did it get there? Amino acids? sure, but again, they have to come frome SOMETHING.

Wait a second. This is the point that I was addressing.:

However, I don't think science has an explanation for why life exists on earth.

I don't think there will ever be a plausible explanation for it, outside of a creator.

The origins of the universe is another question and one which I would refer to the Occam's razor proposition. Possibly space and time has always existed (which is perhaps the most passive assertion). Perhaps it's cyclical and returns in and on to itself. Perhaps there is a creator. Perhaps a dung beetle rolled it into existence from sand.

Ultimately without empirical proof the most satisfactory answer is that we don't know.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

However, I don't think science has an explanation for why life exists on earth.

Science is like a torch, Dimma. It illuminates, and that illumination is called 'knowledge'. Until it illuminates something and makes it known, it stays in the dark. Unknown.

Religion lives in that darkness. As science advances and illuminates the unknown, so religion retreats - always keeping to the shadows of what is unproven.

 

[seysearles]

Science is like a torch, Dimma. It illuminates, and that illumination is called 'knowledge'. Until it illuminates something and makes it known, it stays in the dark. Unknown.

Religion lives in that darkness. As science advances and illuminates the unknown, so religion retreats - always keeping to the shadows of what is unproven.

Nicely put.

 

[Bennett.]

Not nicely put at all, because science and religion can compliment each other beautifully. Too often it is one versus the other, when there is no need for it to be so.

 

[deeman12]

Wait a second. This is the point that I was addressing.:



The origins of the universe is another question and one which I would refer to the Occam's razor proposition. Possibly space and time has always existed (which is perhaps the most passive assertion). Perhaps it's cyclical and returns in and on to itself. Perhaps there is a creator. Perhaps a dung beetle rolled it into existence from sand.

Ultimately without empirical proof the most satisfactory answer is that we don't know.

This is a particular epistemological position and your assumption is that empiricism is the only way to frame knowledge-claims. I'll re-phrase your statement to make it better.

'Ultimately, my understanding is that empirical proof is the most satisfactory way to deal with knowledge.'

The above is something I disagree with. Human reason should disagree with the above position. Empiricism is cancerous to our capacity to reason and make deductions relating to knowledge. Where does God fit into this? So many things we see and purport to know point to a prime-mover of sorts. We know that 'nothing comes from nothing' thus not making it completely improbable that a deity exists.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

This is a particular epistemological position and your assumption is that empiricism is the only way to frame knowledge-claims. I'll re-phrase your statement to make it better.

'Ultimately, my understanding is that empirical proof is the most satisfactory way to deal with knowledge.'

The above is something I disagree with. Human reason should disagree with the above position. Empiricism is cancerous to our capacity to reason and make deductions relating to knowledge. Where does God fit into this? So many things we see and purport to know point to a prime-mover of sorts. We know that 'nothing comes from nothing' thus not making it completely improbable that a deity exists.

Nicely put.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Science is like a torch, Dimma. It illuminates, and that illumination is called 'knowledge'. Until it illuminates something and makes it known, it stays in the dark. Unknown.

Religion lives in that darkness. As science advances and illuminates the unknown, so religion retreats - always keeping to the shadows of what is unproven.

Well, it looks like "if the torch don't shine on it, then it can't be".

As long as Science is the only criteria, that may be true.
However, as has been said, that negates all other aspects of human experience. If what we experience can't be real unless it's measureable/ testable/scientifically rational, then what does that say of most of us in our daily lives?

Sorry mate, far too narrow to be a true understanding of everything we humans experience.

BTW,
"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it". John's Gospel, ch 1.

 

[Father Jack]

Of course it stays in the dark, unknown. Anything else is just guessing. You can quite easily live your life happy to know what you know and not know what you don't without seeking recourse to a god to manufacture an answer. Personally I'm happy to wait till I'm dead to find out what happens after death (I'm guessing not much), I don't need to believe in paradise or heaven or anything like that, as an example of a known unknown.

 

[seysearles]

This is a particular epistemological position and your assumption is that empiricism is the only way to frame knowledge-claims. I'll re-phrase your statement to make it better.

'Ultimately, my understanding is that empirical proof is the most satisfactory way to deal with knowledge.'

The above is something I disagree with. Human reason should disagree with the above position. Empiricism is cancerous to our capacity to reason and make deductions relating to knowledge. Where does God fit into this? So many things we see and purport to know point to a prime-mover of sorts. We know that 'nothing comes from nothing' thus not making it completely improbable that a deity exists.

So long as religion has an empirical effect on the world in which we live it will be held to empirical account by the people it effects. Trying to divorce it of this accountability is both arrogant and naive and will never be tolerated. We are simply holding religion to the same standards that the majority of the human race holds institutions that make claims of truth to. That is an accountable measure of that 'truth'. What is hilarious is that religion understands this expectation better than anyone and is constantly trying to present proof of authenticity (such as archaeological baloney like the Shroud of Turin) to justify it's claims.

Science, mathematics, astronomy, history, are all held to these standards and I'm afraid religion receives no free ticket on account of the fact that it happens to have a department of esoterism. Sorry.

 

[deeman12]

So long as religion has an empirical effect on the world in which we live it will be held to empirical account by the people it effects. Trying to divorce it of this accountability is both arrogant and naive and will never be tolerated. We are simply holding religion to the same standards that the majority of the human race holds institutions that make claims of truth to. That is an accountable measure of that 'truth'. What is hilarious is that religion understands this expectation better than anyone and is constantly trying to present proof of authenticity (such as archaeological baloney like the Shroud of Turin) to justify it's claims.

Science, mathematics, astronomy, history, are all held to these standards and I'm afraid religion receives no free ticket on account of the fact that it happens to have a department of esoterism. Sorry.

1) With matters relating to the natural sciences, the Church has every right to demand authenticity and the utilisation of the empirical approach. The Church primarily deals with metaphysical claims, which is why they should not be held to the same class of accountability as what the natural sciences should. To extend on this point, science provides an ultimately limited vehicle to understand the origin of our universe and the purpose of our existence. Ergo, philosophy comes into play and religion is the subsequent extension of this. The reality is that religion is a useful deductive tool.

2) Again to cover your final point, science, mathematics, astronomy and perhaps even history to a certain extent are fields which exist in the empirical realm. My conception of religion is that it is a deductive tool which provides me answers which the natural sciences will always be unable to answer. Too many atheists make the mistake of believing that science is an all-encompassing thing which is capable of answering all our big questions. Essentially, it is a very limited methodology which is meant to deal with a limited range of things. Its worship by so-called ‘new atheists’ is frankly embarrassing.

 

[Monniehawk]

1) The Church primarily deals with metaphysical claims, which is why they should not be held to the same class of accountability as what the natural sciences should. ...The reality is that religion is a useful deductive tool.

That's generally true. The problem each has is differentiating its fields.
Science can only presume an answer in the metaphysics, and that analysis may have some interest coming as it does from a different perspective.
While science is adept at validation of logic, metaphysics accounts for logic itself.

2) Again to cover your final point, science, mathematics, astronomy and perhaps even history to a certain extent are fields which exist in the empirical realm. My conception of religion is that it is a deductive tool which provides me answers which the natural sciences will always be unable to answer. Too many atheists make the mistake of believing that science is an all-encompassing thing which is capable of answering all our big questions. Essentially, it is a very limited methodology which is meant to deal with a limited range of things. Its worship by so-called ‘new atheists’ is frankly embarrassing.

Science through its methodology, quite rightly presumes a natural outcome. That is where it works without peer. Scientists don't transgress their pragmatic line, because they would cease to be scientists. i.e. if they cannot find a scientific/natural explanation, they (as scientists) don't seek a supernatural one.
Sometimes, the churches, as well as atheists and scientists, don't understand that rule of embarkation.

 

[Moti]

To those that live in the evidential world, please explain to me how you know another person has a mind. Thank you.

 

[Monniehawk]

To those that live in the evidential world, please explain to me how you know another person has a mind. Thank you.

We ALL live in an evidential world - parallel/multi universes aside.
Moti, you ain't a spirit being. Maybe just a being with "spirit".

 

[seysearles]

1) With matters relating to the natural sciences, the Church has every right to demand authenticity and the utilisation of the empirical approach. The Church primarily deals with metaphysical claims, which is why they should not be held to the same class of accountability as what the natural sciences should. To extend on this point, science provides an ultimately limited vehicle to understand the origin of our universe and the purpose of our existence. Ergo, philosophy comes into play and religion is the subsequent extension of this. The reality is that religion is a useful deductive tool.

I would dispute this. The pages of the Bible are full to the brim with claims that take place in the real physical world that are essentially measurable in and accountable to empiricism. The truth of the matter it is that it fails miserably on just about every level in providing satisfactory proof for any of them. This failure as a historical account leads me to conclude that this unreliability extends to it's metaphysical claims as well. I think that is a fairly reasonable conclusion. I agree that The Bible's claim that there is a prime mover (God) is essentially an abstract concept that is beyond the measure of logic, but the minute it begins to justify this belief in a physical context (which is essentially what the entire Bible does) it changes the game.

 

[Monniehawk]

I agree that The Bible's claim that there is a prime mover (God) is essentially an abstract concept that is beyond the measure of logic, but the minute it begins to justify this belief in a physical context (which is essentially what the entire Bible does) it changes the game.

Do you really think so?
It certainly tries to justify it from within a metaphysical context, but in a physical way?