Rugby Australia: A Cautionary Tale

[manlyfan76]

Your reference to Jesus on the cross is awesome mate... I think many professing Christians would do well to spend much more time reflecting upon what this scripture communicates.

Izzy being one of them perhaps?

There are several stories from christians books that i can tip my cap too. Great examples for people to take on board. Same can be said for all holy books.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Im not claiming it, therefore i don't need to prove it. Do i need to prove every claim that someone imagines?

Are you saying then that you are just as equally likely a brain in a vat as a brain in a body?

 

[manlyfan76]

Are you saying then that you are just as equally likely a brain in a vat as a brain in a body?

No.

 

[eaglebuzz]

No.

But you said you aren't claiming it.

 

[manlyfan76]

But you said you aren't claiming it.

Lol

Will help you if i say you are right?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Lol

Will help you if i say you are right?

The point of the original question is that we all believe things that we don't have "solid, testable evidence" for. Because scientific investigation is only one way that we know things.

 

[manlyfan76]

What is your solid, testable evidence that you aren't a brain in a vat of chemicals being carefully stimulated to simulate what you believe to have been your entire life to this point?

You made the propsal, you bring the proof.
Give me your evidence that i am whatever brain you imply i am, you can't just argue that i am something and ask me to prove im not it.

 

[eaglebuzz]

You made the propsal, you bring the proof.

I don't need to, if you aren't able to prove that you're not, you're admitting that you have no evidence based grounds for any confidence that your beliefs about the location of your brain are accurate. So either you only believe things that you have solid evidence for, or you also believe things for other reasons.

 

[manlyfan76]

I don't need to, if you aren't able to prove that you're not, you're admitting that you have no evidence based grounds for any confidence that your beliefs about the location of your brain are accurate. So either you only believe things that you have solid evidence for, or you also believe things for other reasons.

You chose an example, the brain in a jar, and you then applied an absolute value to my beliefs that you deem i have. All of this only exists inside your head yet you want me to provide proof about what i believe.
You present a narrow view (2 options) and cant seem to see your way past it.

 

[Pittwater Legend]

You chose an example, the brain in a jar, and you then applied an absolute value to my beliefs that you deem i have. All of this only exists inside your head yet you want me to provide proof about what i believe.
You present a narrow view (2 options) and cant seem to see your way past it.

If you do happen to be a brain in a vat of chemicals then you’ve done a mighty fine job of getting EB’s attention

 

[manlyfan76]

The point of the original question is that we all believe things that we don't have "solid, testable evidence" for. Because scientific investigation is only one way that we know things.

You know that everyone belives things that they dont have evidence for? I disagree.

 

[eaglebuzz]

You chose an example, the brain in a jar, and you then applied an absolute value to my beliefs that you deem i have. All of this only exists inside your head yet you want me to provide proof about what i believe.
You present a narrow view (2 options) and cant seem to see your way past it.

It's a simple example that philosophers have been using variations of for hundreds of years to demonstrate the impossibility of knowledge without first assuming axiomatic propositions, that need to be true for knowledge to be possible, that we do not come to learn via science/experience. The imprecise nature of the discussion has something to do with being on a footy forum

 

[manlyfan76]

It's a simple example that philosophers have been using variations of for hundreds of years to demonstrate the impossibility of knowledge without first assuming axiomatic propositions, that need to be true for knowledge to be possible, that we do not come to learn via science/experience. The imprecise nature of the discussion has something to do with being on a footy forum

And if there was knowledge of Izzy's hell the christians would not need faith.

 

[eaglebuzz]

And if there was knowledge of Izzy's hell the christians would not need faith.

You use faith every time you get in your car or sit in a chair. Faith isn't ultimately what is at issue in religious discussions.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I don't need to, if you aren't able to prove that you're not, you're admitting that you have no evidence based grounds for any confidence that your beliefs about the location of your brain are accurate. So either you only believe things that you have solid evidence for, or you also believe things for other reasons.

Since you raised it; why is it that you follow your chosen faith over another? All religions suffer from the same inability to be proved or disproved. So what makes one more right than another? And if my faith dictates that women are property and should be treated us such (as an example) then should that right be protected in the interests of religious freedom?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Since you raised it; why is it that you follow your chosen faith over another? All religions suffer from the same inability to be proved or disproved. So what makes one more right than another? And if my faith dictates that women are property and should be treated us such (as an example) then should that right be protected in the interests of religious freedom?

I don't think I raised any of those things.

The questions you ask need a lot more questions before they can be answered. What do you mean by proof? What makes "proof" the standard for assenting to a particular worldview? Are you so sure that you aren't yourself believing things without "proof"? How do you know that all religions are equally unprovable?

As to the second question, in a civil society you could be free to hold that belief even if you aren't free to act on it. E.g. a sketchy comparison to Folau's case: even if he thinks that all gay people go to hell (which I don't necessarily think he does), it's not like he tried to send anyone there.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I don't think I raised any of those things.

The questions you ask need a lot more questions before they can be answered. What do you mean by proof? What makes "proof" the standard for assenting to a particular worldview? Are you so sure that you aren't yourself believing things without "proof"? How do you know that all religions are equally unprovable?

As to the second question, in a civil society you could be free to hold that belief even if you aren't free to act on it. E.g. a sketchy comparison to Folau's case: even if he thinks that all gay people go to hell (which I don't necessarily think he does), it's not like he tried to send anyone there.

You asserted that because we cannot prove a hypothesis that it is just as likely a reality as any other.
There is no incontrovertible proof for the existence of any religion's God. If there was we would all follow that one religion. So again, why is your chosen faith more valid than any other religion or abstract idea?
Many societies of the past would consider themselves civilised but carried out things such as slavery and the disempowerment of women. This was most often done through the idea that some people are worth less in the eyes of God to justify these actions.

 

[manlyfan76]

You use faith every time you get in your car or sit in a chair. Faith isn't ultimately what is at issue in religious discussions.

That has little to do with my point about Izzy's hell.
In this physical reality I am living in there is no testable evidence of hell, just story's.
If there was it would not be a matter of faith.

When I sit in a chair it is not faith I use but a physical test to see if the chair is there.

 

[Woodsie]

I find it interesting in all the debate concerning Folau's comments .... that the one point continually missed or ignored ... is the contention that his comments were .... in his mind .... not meant to castigate, or demonise ... but made from a place of love ... it is his love of gays and other sinning members of society that compels him to try and save their souls ... repentance and redemtion are his stated objectives .... praise the lord.

You may believe or say you think he is misguided .... but does any evil or sinister intent exist ..... should we be praising Folau for his committment to his "fallen" fellow man ..?

 

[Lyonstomenzies]

I’m sorry but the whole thing is just wrong from Folau.

I can choose to drink
I can choose to gamble
I can choose to lie
I can choose to cheat
I cannot choose to like vagina’s, it’s something that my penis decides when I see one.

Saying that someone will go to hell over something that they don’t have a choice over is just wrong.

Gay people can’t choose whom they are attracted to it’s in built in them. I for one really like the female form and find them very nice.