Let's leave out the emotive "unreasonable" because it adds nothing to your argument. If you claim an unproven, unevidenced, hypothesis true then you are expressing your belief. by holding that belief you might be right or you might be wrong. There is no lie. If a hypothesis has been disproven through evidence to the contrary, and you claim that that hypothesis is true, then that is a lie.
Godwin's law is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it's just an observation. You manage to wangle Scottish Nationalism into a surprising number of wide ranging threads. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just an observation. I did make a joke out of it but I thought you might see yourself in it and have a laugh. It looks like I misread you and offended you. So, I'm sorry for that, it wasn't my intention. I don't think I'm wrong but I do think I fucked up the delivery.
if people are hell bent on talking politics, your gonna have to hear mine, or is it just to be a big westminster love in on here?. as i have said already i dont think i have started any anti this or pro that threads, take a look back if you can be arsed because i cant, you will see i am responding rather than instigating easy 90% of the time, for as long as i remain on here i am gonna talk about our roads, our culture our politics the way i see it. :smileys:
I wouldn't have it any other way, finm. I just worried I might have insulted you and that's never my intention. I'm not very good at politics. I lost all belief in politicians a long time ago. I see them as self seeking, gobby, secretive, economical with the truth, manipulative and I wish they would all just fuck off and let us get on with it. But that's naive because in the world as it stands, one largely created by them with popular backing, they are, it seems, an unfortunate necessity so I'm stuck with them.
dont take no heed of me, i have been a grumpy fecker since august. i fear it comes across as something else half the time. :smileys:
pretty much everyone i have worked with has commented how my mood changes in winter. most want there job back come march. :Angelic::smileys:
@ Gimlet : "Trump says some silly things but as far as I'm aware he hasn't conspired to hush up the sexual abuse of children, he doesn't believe women should be condemned to die in childbirth to save the imaginary soul of an unborn child and he doesn't head a prohibition against contraception which has blocked emancipation for billions of women and contributed to catastrophic over-population in some of the most impoverished parts of the world" Really ? Now I'll accept you point about child-abuse - but I think you will find that the "GOP" Republican Party is strongly anti-abortion... Largely because it is full of "God-fearing" Americans - fundamentalist Christians, with the empahsis on the mental... And I think you will also find that they are strongly opposed to "planned parenthood". Could this be to keep control over the poorer (mostly southern and largely populated by non-whites) states ? It was never my intention to say that I believe that what religions do is right, or that what the pope says is right - my personal belief is that organised religion is nothing more than mind control perpetuated by control freaks and megalamaniacs. The fact that the Catholic church is one of the richest financial institutions on the planet but still takes money from some of the poorest people on earth whilst advocating "charity" is a clear illustration of this point. I am a believer in tolerance (yes, I know, it doesn't always appear that way). Believe what you want to believe. Believe in whichever god you want to. BUT do not ever believe that you have the right to say "my god is better than your god" or, even worse, "my god says I have to kill you because you believe in a different god". Trump, and his right-wing, "god fearing", racist, sexist, nut-case friends in the GOP are not only a danger to America, but to the rest of the world. They honestly believe that they have a "god given right" to rule the USA and to enforce their norrow-minded version of "democracy" on the rest of the world... So... Back to the OP... All I was asking was - does the fact that Donald Trump thinks he can tell the pope about religion illustrate just how bonkers he really is?
Oh yeah, JR, I'd forgotten about that. I think it shows he's unshakable in his self-believe, thinks he is unquestionably right in what he believes and it seems impervious to any outside opinion unless it aligns with his own. I'm not persuaded that Trump himself actually believes in God, or gives a fuck about anything but his own agenda. My guess is he'd score high on the psychopath test. But it's not Donald Trump you have to worry about. It's not the cynical backers and promoters that are riding the Trump Train for their self-interests. It's the ordinary people that believe in him. The unquestioning believers. They're always dangerous, regardless of what their belief is.
A piece in the Guardian includes the following: "Trump appears, however briefly, to have opened a new front in American politics. In large part it lies in articulating the latent prejudices of voters programmed to fear, and fed up with being told whom they may and may not offend. Trump has tapped into the craving for authenticity, for the real not the synthetic, the strongly-held view, however appalling." This seems rather insightful to me.
I'm not defending Trump. He may well be bonkers, but I don't think he's any more bonkers than a man in a robe whose office is a relic of post-Christian imperial Rome and who thinks he is God's representative on Earth.
We evidently differ on our understanding of the relationship between proof and truth. Try this: (A) A mathematician or logician advances a hypothetical proposition. So long as it is unproven, it cannot be said to be true. Then someone proves it by a process of reasoning. Now it can validly be said to be true. In the case of mathematical and logical propositions, proof is 100% certain and reasonable. (B) A writer of fiction creates a novel. Since the content is made up, it cannot validly be said to be true. There is no possibility of it being proved to be true, by any process of evidence or reasoning. If anyone asserts it is literally true they are mistaken or lying; their assertion lacks evidence or reason. (C) A scientist proposes a theory as a solution to a scientific mystery. So long as it is unproven, it cannot be said to be true. Then evidence is gathered by a process of experiment and observation which tends to indicate it is true, while attempts to disprove it are unsuccessful. Eventually by an inductive process the theory comes to be regarded as an established fact; this is not 100% certain in a mathematical sense, but is near enough to certainty to be regarded as true. The theory can now be validly said to be true, and anyone who asserts without evidence that it is not true is lying. This does not exclude the possibility of the theory being superseded or modified by later work. (D) A religionist advances a proposition about some supernatural being, such as a god. Since the content is made up, it cannot validly be said to be true. There exists the possibility of it being proved by some process of evidence or reasoning, but in the event no such evidence or reasoning is ever forthcoming; the proposition rests on nothing more than wholly unsupported assertion and the being has been defined in a way which has excluded enquiry. The supernatural proposition can thus be validly said to be untrue, and anyone who asserts without evidence that it is true is lying. This does not exclude the possibility of the proposition being supported by evidence or reasoning at some later date (if the definition of the being is amended to make this possible), but so long as no such support exists the proposition is evidently untrue. (E) An atheist considers the proposition that a supernatural being such as god does not exist exist. There is no proof (in the form of evidence or reasoning) that any supernatural being exists or does not exists, but the hypothetical being is defined in such a way as to be wholly immune to any kind of reasonable enquiry. The onus to prove a proposition lies wholly upon the person advancing it, so the atheist concludes that the proposition is not true and the being does not exist. The proposition is not proved 100% mathematically to be untrue, but it does not need to be; no proposition can be validly said to be true, if it is lacking in any evidential or reasonable substantiation.
I'm not so sure about the "lying" aspect though. Surely lying means deliberately holding a viewpoint that you know is not true, rather than just being an ignorant fool?
Can we step away from the theological debate please? This has been discussed at some length on other threads, and lead to some heated debate followed by people falling out... Whether God does or does not exist, or whether anyone can or cannot prove that God does or does not exist, was not the point of this thread. Personally, I think Wally is absolutely correct - post #50. And Pete1950 - post #51... The way Trump, and his backers and followers, are tapping into the bias, prejudice and fears of brain-washed American voters, scapegoating Mexicans and Muslims alike and spouting xenophobic nonsense, is uncannily and disturbingly similar to the methods Hitler and the NSDAP used to gain power in 1930's Germany.
your not normally so restrained. i will take comfort in that. in fact i will wear that badge with pride.
