-
Posts
-
Ruthless is not ‘in love’ with me. Stop bringing me up in every comment you make you silly billy goading numpty. Please stop lying about my friends too, according to you the only friends I have, have some sordid agenda behind it. Get over me, in fact get over yourself and stop bringing me up.
Its boring and I could so without the publicity you strange woman.
Newsflash I’m not very popular, stop making me relavent cos everyone including myself is really really bored of it and of me.
I can annoy people myself without you constantly throwing me in their faces.
Teapot saucepan shabbalabbaloolar where’s my jumper? That’s the only part of what I’ve typed that will probably make any sense to you.
Youve been on ignore for ages so please just pretend I’ve died and bury your issues with me in my grave and stfu.
- technical point -I’m not sure that’s a fair rendition of Kant (from the Critique of Judgement), and my guess is that you did a quick google. Apologies in advance if that is my prejudice.The reason it doesn’t matter to me is that I don’t like Kant’s attempts to demonstrate God by judgement anyway – they’re not convincing. But the book I was pointing to is the Critique of Pure reason, where he argues that reason cannot prove or disprove the existence of God because of its limits. That struck me, and still does, as a very convincing approach to proofs of god’s existence. Please address that point.
I don’t subscribe to childish nonsense about God or the “devil” so if you believe I am of the opinion I’m sent by Satan more fool you. I have already explained that simply being unable to prove something either way does not make it equal in probability…. perhaps you should use google yourself and type in basic probability theory. If you claimed there were three headed mongooses supping afternoon tea in the alpha centauri star system dressed in pink tights with somer as waitress and Mister Q employed as the jester, I couldn’t prove you were talking rubbish which doesn’t give it any increased probability.
My apologies..I was thinking of mags, who called himself a follower of Lucifer.
My wrong here.
But a three-headed mongoose on alpha centaur is on the same level as pixies giving mizzy a fright at the bottom of her garden. You don’t need probability theory to realise that this isn’t likely. David Hume was saying much the same thing 250 years ago in simple (and very witty, sharp) prose.
When you’re talking of how the universe was created, you’re on a different level of discussion. Was there a force which created the cosmos, or was it spontaneous combustion of some sort? Here, probability just doesn’t apply, because we’re not talking of the nature of the physical cosmos, or even reality. We’re talking of what created reality – Kant believed it was God but couldn’t prove it (though he thought he had demonstrated it). Since he couldn’t prove it, he called it the unknowable (the noumenon), and even then he had to tighten its meaning under criticism.
I’m not talking of a Christian God, or any particular religion here, but an unknowable Creator. Science explores the knowable cosmos, and has only recently begun to realise the mystery within it. But that means science (and probability theory etc etc) is part of what’s been created; it’s restricted (so far, and for the foreseeable future at least) to exploring what has been created. The force which created it is outside its ken.
That why deists got there long before the atheists when they said God didn’t exist – God created existence. Mind-blowing when you think of it.
It’s no coincidence, that as the educated liberal middle class has grown, Christianity has quite rightly declined in the UK. ‘Capitalism’ does NOT exist anywhere on planet earth and never has, just as ‘socialism’ has never existed. A bastard version of capitalism exists where wealth filters up, not down and which is doomed, ultimately, to failure, what replaces it remains to be seen.
If that’s the case, why is Christianity still so strong in the USA, where atheists still face problems in being accepted into society? The educated liberal middle class doesn’t exist anywhere – some of the educated groups of people are liberal, by no means all. The Enlightened middle class is more of a likely term, but even here not all the educated class accepts the term Enlightened, at least not in the same way.
I think you’ll find that it’s in the UK that Church attendance (not quite the same as Christianity ) has been falling steeply and over a long period of time.
It indicates it’s not so much to do with liberalism as a number of other factors – some would say urbanisation, there’s an ongoing debate, I believe; I would speculate that it’s to do with the decline of authority – the Monarchy is very closely tied with Christianity in this country. Social hierarchy has always been very strong in the CofE, where civil obedience has vied with grace as defining Christianity since the Anglican foundation.
God (oops,. sorry) knows why you don’t think capitalism exists, or what you mean by saying that wealth filters up rather than down (I’ll agree or disagree with this when I know what it means). A pure market economy, perfect competition, neither of these exist. But capitalism is more than market competition, even oligopolistic competition. Ditto with socialism. What do you mean by this term, to say we’ve never had socialism.?
OK pixies weren’t in my garden they were in his. And you forgot about the fairies and they’d not best pleased
No proof god exists end of. Argue the toss people but the fact remains. No proof.
Why are you all even arguing about it? Sposed to be a dating thread and I’d prefer to see where the story ended.
we argue about it because on jc threads go off in every direction. Ever since I remember. That’s why they’re challenging.
And the topics covered are interesting..to some of us.
If you’re not interested, fair enough. just ignore and continue with your own interests on the same thread.
Or if you feel that strongly about it, send a complaint to Martin coz you’re not going to stop a discussion as long as it interests people, any more than I can.
Science and religion are not compatible. These debates just go round and round and never lead anywhere. Quoting Kant etc doesn’t open the debate up to further scrutiny, or convince anyone to change their views. The fastest growing religion in the UK (and the world), is Islam. More people attend mosques in the UK than attend church and those who do attend mosques are from a predominantly working class background, it isn’t rocket science to make a connection between the huge growth of the Islamic faith in the UK, with class.
As the liberal, university educated centrist middle class expanded in the 50s, 60s and 70s, church attendance dramatically declined. Religion of all faiths is not compatible with a fair and tolerant liberal society hence those reduced attendance figures and and has been commented on many times on these boards, particularly in regards to Islam. The Liberal moderates attempting to ‘modernize’ Islam now, are the same liberal moderates who “modernized” (watered down) Christianity (in the UK). Religion once shaped the world, now the world is shaping religion, at least in liberal democracies.
There is no ‘pure’ capitalist economy anywhere on planet earth, nor has there ever been. It is a mishmash, a bastardized version of economic theory. Post capitalism would be a more accurate description now, including corporatism, or neoliberalism, where individuals are now squirreling away vast amounts of wealth and taking that wealth completely out of the food chain.
Oh and as it is a “dating” thread, I bloody love you Mags, really.
2 members liked this post.
It’s no coincidence, that as the educated liberal middle class has grown, Christianity has quite rightly declined in the UK. ‘Capitalism’ does NOT exist anywhere on planet earth and never has, just as ‘socialism’ has never existed. A bastard version of capitalism exists where wealth filters up, not down and which is doomed, ultimately, to failure, what replaces it remains to be seen.
How can you say capitalism doesn’t exist, perhaps you define your definition of capitalism
1 member liked this post.
There is no solution or resolution as no one really knows or can provide proof either way absolute. Just means people get their knickers into a twist and show off trying to prove their arguments blinding others with their ‘intelligence”
All been done before so many times until like always you all hit a wall.
Then it all gets removed until the next time.
And what was that definition of insanity again?
Isn’t it about repeating the same behaviors over and over again.
None of you mice are ever going to get the cheese.
I will shut up now and watch you on your hamster wheels.
Oh how would I possibly know anything about anything? Lol
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by
Sairs73.
It’s no coincidence, that as the educated liberal middle class has grown, Christianity has quite rightly declined in the UK. ‘Capitalism’ does NOT exist anywhere on planet earth and never has, just as ‘socialism’ has never existed. A bastard version of capitalism exists where wealth filters up, not down and which is doomed, ultimately, to failure, what replaces it remains to be seen.
How can you say capitalism doesn’t exist, perhaps you define your definition of capitalism
By capitalism I mean broadly, (simplistically) the text book definition. All I see in the UK, in big business, is corporatism, not capitalism and which I would argue are not one and the same, or an extension of each other. Monster corporations, predominantly in the service sector, who are financially propped up by state subsidy and who then become too large to fail as a direct consequence. Socialized ‘capitalism’ if you like where the state carries the burden of financial risk. Corporatism devalues labor in its never ending quest for efficiency savings, for ultimately profit and shareholder dividends, etc. That dosh does not swill about in the broader economy and is being squirreled away in tax havens.
The privatization of utility and the railways in the 80s which was supposed to lead to more competition and be more efficient as a direct result and so ultimately, cheaper for the consumer. I think most people recognize the big six energy cartel has been disastrous for the consumer. The shift away from high skilled manufacturing has been an absolute disaster for the British economy and has led to less competition and less efficiency (compared to our competitors).
etc.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!