i jjustwrote keve

the big adgenda item..for g20
MUST BE..youth unemployment...plan is send them 'backpacking'
witha small daily allowence..of bed plus 3 cheap feeds..small
entertainment budget

they effectively are 'our' eyes on the ground..
with DIRECT/ LIVE communication to govt..live web blogs
AMBASSADORS..for their home cuntry..but employed..and
deployable..liker boot camp

whatever YOU decide topay yuour kids..the casdh flow of a bed [say 5
dollars]\..and again say 5 each meal[ plus drink/shower]..the kids
will save us..once

IMPOTANTLY><<<govt becomes like a good mother..
not a bad mutha

anyhow it bails out the euro zone tourism
plus what kid dont want to go to ussa?...eh?

govt needs look afterr our kids*
needs toasure the4basdics
not spend it on the allrerady elite uni-vesities

govt must feed cloth teach
bailout THE POOR FIRST*..,we need to see a clear difference..what would jesus do

ps after g-20
become next..pope
bylovoing other..with empowrment..not impoverishment

AUSTERITY HAS FAILED*
CASH UP THE KIDS
SEND EM BACKPACKING[FOR MINIMUM WAGE

SORRY MATE got excited..[for who you could become...with a little help
from your brothers/sisters..mothers and fathers GOVT..HELPING the
caring/raising LOVING..for OUR kids

kids free*

I'm disappointed antiseptic – in my explaining ability, that is – that you seem to have misunderstood the point I was making… which was not:

"Wm Trevor, your argument is circular: "I think theists are mentally ill, therefore theism is a mental illness"."

Because I don't regard theists as axiomatically mentally ill, nor similarly, do I regard atheists as inherently mentally healthy.

For example, when a relative heard God speaking to her and as a consequence spent 40 years being a Christian missionary in Africa. I don't disbelief for a second her genuine belief in her description of actually hearing God's voice talking to her. Was she mentally ill? No.

Could she prove her claim or I disprove it? No. But obviously in her mind the evidence was intrinsic and proven to her satisfaction.

Will such an example ever stand the test of being an extrinsic proof of God? No.

Are people who claim to be the resurrected Jesus Christ mentally ill? More than likely.

Importantly, a discussion about the existence of God is separate from discussions about the existence of which particular one, which particular religion, which particular denomination, or which particular prescriptions of individual behaviour.

Of course, if God is unseeable and unknowable then none of that really matters.

If He exists that is…

And also, ironically, none of that really matters, if He doesn't.

After reading Antiseptic’s generous reaction to mac, I somehow regret having written the last post. It is after all just a matter of personal taste that I prefer debating Antiseptic, david f, Poirot, Yuyutsu, pelican, Pericles, Rhian, Lexi, just to mention a few, rather than others, especially if they call me dishonest or other names, without wanting to offend anybody.

Antiseptic, thanks indeed for the link to Academia.edu. I already signed in.

Anti,

You may be right, and I'm merely concentrating on the shallowness of it all.

It diffictult to get more shallow than dog-whistle politics....but, hey it seems to work a treat in modern-day Australia.

From here it seems that they're both attempting to match each other - and the underlying impetus is that they both wish to win the election.

(Hope yous don't mind if I actually say something on topic : )

From my experience those who have been particularly bound up in religion - and then reject it - appear to far more enthusiastic in their denunciation of anything classified as "supernatural".

I've met quite a few people, who having no experience of religious belief, when they examine their rejection of the metaphysical as a matter of course or ideology supporting the supernatural, come away a little less sure of their standpoint.

Thinking about the subject, and philosophically investigating ideas without bias, appears to broaden one's outlook and renders one more accommodating.

George,

So it's just about debating standards then? 

<<...without interference of outsiders who have different debating standards that you call “dishonest” and “sprinkled with jargon”. 

Are you honestly suggesting that there is no right or wrong; not good or bad, just personal preference? I realised you did this with regards to your religious beliefs, but I didn't think you extended that to everything else. This is what you indicated at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077#261139 at least.

I wonder how you can feel comfortable with criminal justice systems then.

<<The same as my exchange of opinions with Antiseptic about philosophy of science ... without us intentionally wanting to upset those who cannot follow the “jargon” necessary in this kind of opinion exchange.>>

Well, if that's not a shameless display of condescension, I don't know what is.

What you conveniently overlook, George, is that I am able to justify my accusations of dishonesty. Just as I did in that last thread. Your overlooking of this and, consequently, insinuating that the claims may amount to mere slander, is in itself slanderous.

Antiseptic,

<<AJ is upset that I don't disclose the observations and that I have shown flaws in his reasoning...>>

Yet you are still unable to point to any of those flaws because you know I corrected your false assumptions on every one of them, and thus pointing them out would highlight this.

<<he hasn't actually addressed my own reasoning...>>

Yes, I have. I did so when I mentioned logical absolutes. You're only response was, essentially, to move on as if nothing was said.

<<...but that's OK, he has his own epistemiological approach that he feels comfortable with even if I think it's not likely to be very productive in the circumstances.>>

In what circumstances? I suspect you don't even know and are deliberately remaining vague.

You people are utterly shameless.

So much is said about the need for proof or evidence, but something seemed to have been overlooked; what actually is proof or evidence? If someone asks "What is the proof/evidence that US president Barack Obama was born in Hawaii", what counts as proof or evidence?

Science advocates like to say that science is the best or something to that effect. So what happens when science contradicts itself? As an example, one scientific study says mobile phones may trigger Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2728149.stm
But another study claims mobile phones may protect against Alzheimer's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443541.stm
So which is it?