In all fairness, this is also my default position on things of science spouted by Christians, but you have to admit that pseudo-science mumbo jumbo runs rampant among a lot of creationists.

That being said, so long as you recognize your prejudice and choose to put it aside for sake of evaluating the claim, you are not the problem.

...are not the ones Hopey is talking about, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

Huh? I thought they did a study on that and it actually came out to show prayer and medicine had worse results than medicine alone? Obviously a hilarious result.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

I love how your main thing is to take one or two person's views, and then make a whole argument with yourself and those one or two with 30 people who have said numerous times the one or two are wrong and atheists do not agree with that position as a whole.

You are the worst at implying that every atheist is this or that because one said something.

Here is a bet:

Let's pick two arguments we both disagree with other people of our "religion" on. Say something like Christians and their belief in evolution, which I think(assume) you realize is true. Then we'll take a belief like "atheists invented science"

Now we'll do a study and ask Christians about their beliefs and atheists about their beliefs on the two subjects we both agree are misguided and we don't want to be associated with those who think that among our own religious beliefs.

Which side is going to have the higher percentage that agree with the belief we find absurd?

That sounds right.

Relying on medicine alone, or on medicine and prayer, is much better than relying on prayer alone.

There is a lesson there.

I'd like to here you rant (neutral use) about the relevance of evolution while you wait for a response on this one.

I'm very busy today and don't see the point to all of this and don't have the desire to spend as much time online as in the past.

But my statement above countering Hopey still stands.

I suggest you have a discussion with him against stereotyping people. Do you think theists are any less likely to avail themselves of science and technology than anyone else?

Because people hold various views on evolution/creation doesn't make them anti-science.

That's all I had to say.

Where did I state that "atheists invented science"?

Depending how you define science and atheist id state it. Though it would be a guess.

Yes, I thought this was very obvious in the real world?

Not sure what you are saying/asking.

Meh, I guess I was on a relevance kick at the time. Just thinking about what topics are really relevant.

I'd say this portion of your post triggered it:

Perhaps building 7 is to me, as evolution is to atheists
in a way...

Original Position is green! Congrats or condolences on your modding.

Congratulations to Original Position.

Don't tase me bro.

Good choice IMO.

this... I vote ORP least likely to go mad with power...

I'm not sure which one is in order either....

But we can certainly make him to mad, right?

Why? And how much of one, i.e. just for math, or with concepts in general?

My thoughts often attenuate into mere language. No emotion. In the past this habit was probably useful, to insulate me from certain insecurities. But it's not useful now. It means my daily thoughts don't connect very well with my memories and self-ideals.

Anyways, a while back I had a brief exchange with bunny in his thread "Why you should be a strong atheist". He made an effortless transition from some very vague idea to a belief about its existence.

The move felt so tangible, almost sensuous, even warm-and-fuzzy, that I never quite forgot it. Then last week I said what-the-hell, let's try this.

I'm not really sure. Wiki says Hilary Putnam is a major representative of "modern" platonism. Would you recommend any of his books? (Or those of another author?)

That is an interestingly paradoxical way of describing bunny's platonism. Typically I would think that if your platonism feels sensuous you are doing it wrong.

I wouldn't consider Putnam a "major representative" of modern platonism--I think he is usually associated more with pragmatism than platonism. However, Putnam and Quine did develop one of the most important arguments for platonism in mathematics. Basically, the argument say that we can't understand the language of modern science without assuming platonism in mathematics and so we should regard the necessary abstract objects of mathematics as being posits of modern science, even though they are unobserved.

More generally, to be a platonist in some field of discourse is to accept the existence of abstract objects relating to that discourse. So, obviously, with regards to math that means that you would believe that in some sense sets really do exist. Other philosophers have claimed that propositions exist as abstract objects.

I generally think that the really major modern figure in platonism is Frege, who argued against psychologism (the view that our ideas are something going on in our heads) more broadly, and in my view inspires the most cogent modern defences of platonism. His essay "The Thought" is a nice statement of some of his view. I'll also recommend Quine's essay "On What There Is," just because I find his writing so lucid.

I've read that Quine paper. The only thing I recall is that Plato's beard is frequently dulling the edge of Occam's razor.

Haha. I printed the papers you linked, will read them over the weekend. (As an intermission from Bohm's book The Undivided Universe, which duffe recommended as an example of the metaphysics "elaborated" by Jesus. The book recommendation is excellent; except that one clearly needs several years of graduate level physics to follow Bohm's arguments in detail...?)

Didn't really want to start a new thread for this because I'm sure it's been done to death, but I can't find any concrete answers from searching.

To those Christians that believe that Pascal's Wager is a justifiable reason to believe in God... why does it also not apply to every god that has been concieved throught world history?

Btw, hi people. I'm new to this forum but finding it fascinating reading. I'm a strong athiest but am extremely interesting in listening to, and trying to understand the views of others on the subject (and maybe trying to make them see sense).

Welcome to RGT