RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 24, 2009 at 7:23 am
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 17, 2024, 6:45 pm
Thread Rating:
Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
|
RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 24, 2009 at 10:03 am
(June 24, 2009 at 7:18 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I concur. Which is what I have against gnostic atheism. How do they claim to know God doesn't exist? You can't prove a negative!! :SAgreed. Of course, there needs to be a distinction between relative and absolute knowledge. Relatively, I know there is no God. Absolutely, I do not know. Philosophy is fun RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 24, 2009 at 8:27 pm
So in other words... 'to you' you "know" there's no God. But you cannot absolutely know that, right?
And yes - I love philosophy too. I fucking love philosophy. I don't care whether I suck it or not...(I'm not sure how to rate myself on it anyway? I suck at it in a formal sense anyway (atm)) - I bloody enjoy thinking "Philosophically" though, that's for sure. As in pondering the universe and...thinking about thinking EvF RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 24, 2009 at 9:00 pm
(This post was last modified: June 24, 2009 at 9:13 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
@EVF
Can't prove a negative? Is that correct? I'm not being a smartarse, I'm really confused here. Would some one please explain the difference between "falsifying a claim" and "proving a negative" From Wiki Quote:Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "Testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone. My view is : The agnostic atheist who simply asserts "I don't' believe" has no burden of proof,as he makes no claims. The hard atheist,who asserts "There is no god" /"I believe there is no god", DOES have a burden of proof as he is making a claim just as much as the believer who asserts "there IS a god"/ "I believe there IS a god". I reject both positions as unfalisifiable,as metaphysical positions tend to be.My other favourite is the free will/determinism dichotomy. Many still make the same claim of dualism. I don't; I've long accepted the materialist view as having been proven.[to my satisfaction] RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 25, 2009 at 11:41 am
Proof of a negative:
1 - 7 = -6 RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 25, 2009 at 11:52 am
(June 25, 2009 at 11:41 am)g-mark Wrote: Proof of a negative: The stupidity of this statement is astounding. This isn't proving a negative statement. It's a math problem. Math and philosophy are not the same thing.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2009 at 1:16 pm by LukeMC.)
(June 24, 2009 at 9:00 pm)padraic Wrote: @EVF I'll give this a shot. You're right, they're essentially the same thing (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). On a small scale, proving a negative is the equivalent to falsifying a claim. However, on a universal scale, proving a negative/falsifying a claim goes from difficult to impossible. The real phrase should be "you can't prove universal negatives" or "absolute negatives". Here's why: RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm by g-mark.)
Quote:Math and philosophy are not the same thing. Get your facts right. Mathematics was once a philosophy. Every science was once a philosophy. Now your a moderator has that elevated you to 'know it all'. Looks as if it has. Should I bow now. Your jugements show evidence of your true character. Show me your scientific/researched evidence that Philosophy and Maths are not the same thing. Your opinion will not suffice. RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 25, 2009 at 2:54 pm
(June 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm)g-mark Wrote:Quote:Math and philosophy are not the same thing. Quote:phi⋅los⋅o⋅phy Hmmm, they suspiciously look like not the same thing. Proving a negative as a mathematical equation is a concept of numbers. Proving a negative in philosophy is a concept truth. Saying that they are the same because one was rooted in the other is silly. The concept that you can't prove a negative is about proving that something doesn't exist, not a negative quantity. That's a big difference. Whether you can or cannot prove a negative statement is debatable. And yes, a math problem is a statement, but with two different meanings. Like the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory, there is a difference in a philosophical statement and a mathematical statement. And no, I don't claim to know it all. Never have, never will. Moderator or not I still would have pointed out the fallacy in the statement you made. So please, try to argue based on facts and not make baseless accusations that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Ad hominems get you nowhere.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report RE: Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?
June 25, 2009 at 3:11 pm
(June 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm)g-mark Wrote:Quote:Math and philosophy are not the same thing.Every science was once a philosophy. Now your a moderator has that elevated you to 'know it all'. Looks as if it has. Should I bow now. Your jugements show evidence of your true character. Science still is a philosophy (indeed, in terms of actually seeking knowledge, the only philosophy that has been shown to work) ... I suppose math is too in that sense although it is more abstract. Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)