BS: Conservatives at Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:54 PM

Israel is a Jewish state, and this is primarily in a national sense -- similar to the way that Arab states are Arab, Chinese states are Chinese, etc. Many atheists have a Jewish identity and/or support the existence of a Jewish state.

Not all Jews are religious, in fact even in Israel, the majority of Jews are secular. And Israel does have separation of state and religion, already. Calling it a Jewish state has nothing to do with religion. Seems to me like you are confused, even though you don't think you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:39 PM

Would our trollish Guest care to explain why successive Israeli regimes have insisted on calling their nation a Jewish state, in spite of the fact that millions of people live there who are not of the Jewish faith? Don't those two words, placed together like that, signify a tight bond between politics and religion? Just asking, Guest-troll, not judging. I support the Israeli state's right to exist and I support the Israeli people. What's yer beef, old chap?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:27 PM

Post 20 Sep 15 - 05:39 PM = Hogwash.

RE: Do you think Christians should keep their views to themselves too

Well, Kim Davis is a case in point.......

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:01 PM

israel government and religion are completely and totally separated". So am I mistaken in understanding that there is no such thing as civil marriage in Israel?

And the claim that the basic justification for setting up Israel is a promise by God 5000 years ago does seem to crop up rather often.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:39 PM

And definitely better than Israel.

Another typical antisemitic trope from Shaw.

Israeli government and religion are completely and totally separated. There is nothing in the governmental institutions of that country that require (or welcome) religious notions (even though its westernized freedom of expression means that the religious orthodox have their own party and thus one or more seats in the Parliament). Nowhere in that country's actions will you see or hear the claim that they are acting on the will of god, prophets, rabbis, the Bible or whatever, unless you listen to the extreme right or ultra-orthodox.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:54 PM

Steve -- Re my last post: here, with details of thread &c, is one sometime response by Jim to my having mentioned his leftwing views, which should elucidate the point I was making:

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM
"the insufferable self-righteous little lefty prig!"
What my politics are is none of your business and has nothing to do with what I say - I am not a member of any particular party - I have no political line - I haven't voted in a general election of well over a decade.
If anything, I am a humanist (with a small h) and a pacifist (with reservations).
Some time ago you bent over backwards to find my politics - no doubt to use a a smearing substitute for argument - I declined, to no avail - you have decided to use a fictionalised construction of my politics as a substitute anyway

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:44 PM

"But trying to pin down religious beliefs as such in some political slot on a political spectrum is basically fallacious."

It is, but, as I've been saying, religious actions can be highly political. Even then, it's dodgy, as many actions purportedly done in the name of religion are perpetrated for reasons which have nothing to do with religion. Teasing politics and religion apart is hard work, but I think we've made slightly more progress in that regard than the US, and we've both done a lot better than some predominantly Islamic countries (some of whom haven't tried very hard at all). And definitely better than Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:25 PM

This thread seems to have wandered an awfully long way from politics. Which is fair enough, because thread drift can make for great discussions.

But trying to pin down religious beliefs as such in some political slot on a political spectrum is basically fallacious.

There is a relationship between religious belief and politics, but it's a lot more complicated than that. When religion comes together with politics it provides a different kind of motivation and energy. The word "enthusiam" is another that is built on the Greek word for God. But that can intersection can come at just about any political place. Pope Francis describing unfettered capitalism as "dung" isn't feeding into the same political place as the kind of religion that sees making lots of money as evidence of God's Favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:07 PM

Like most Republicans I cue off of Abraham Lincoln

Amusing, Garg. If Lincoln were presented with the Republican Party of today, he'd vomit. Ditto Teddy Roosevelt.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:00 PM

Steve -- that was perhaps because I had already, as it were, "disinfected" the term in relation to him. It was some years back. I will see if I can locate the thread concerned and point you towards it, but it might take a minute or 3!

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:48 PM

You are probably aware of the allegory of the two cows.

Galt's Gulch takes it further.

www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1dec2d/socialism-communism-fascism-nazismand-cows

I consider myself a conservative libertarion capitalist.
When it comes to voting I am a Jeffersonian.
Like most Republicans I cue off of Abraham Lincoln, The legitimate object of government is "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves."

When it comes to Mudcat....I am extreamly conservative......we need more collectors, and musicians, and technicians..politics be dam&d.

Religion - Calvanist, pre-trib, not by works but Grace alone, tri immersion, three-fold foot washing communion, evangelical, and this world was granted to Satan for his season and he has been a grim reaper on the innocents who have a right to life. However, eugenics is a very real science and has far science behind it than "climate change."

Sincerely,

GARGOYLE



Joe....you are far, far from being a Fascist. However, that book you have been so graciously researching....should be.....well you know....(quadruple the price for fear it falls into wrong hands)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:34 PM

Anyway, how's life on your holidays? Are you posting from the Costa Brava?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:31 PM

Context, dear boy, give us the context. I called Jim a leftie up this thread and he didn't object.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:17 PM

... but I remember, a while back, Jim was most indignant at my saying that his views were of the left. He seemed to think that in saying so I was associating him with some specific party alignment; which clearly was not the case at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 02:14 PM

"isn't it amazing that people who proudly proclaim their undoubted right-wing views here hate to be actually called right-wing"
.,,.
No I don't.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:43 PM

but it doesn't follow that, generally speaking, it is incompatable either. Certainly, a fundamentalist isn't going to do very well in the biology department, or astrophysics, but would probably have few problems in material sciences. A person who is not fundamentalist could fit in anywhere. It is back to this true/false mindset I was talking about. If you think both science and religion are competitors for truth then you will have problems. But if not, if religion is, as Joe put it, more about values than truth, there need be no more a conflict between science and religion than there is between science and being a vegan. There can be conflicts over the values of course, but you can have that in just about any other system of morals - animal rights clashes, for example, or whether NICE mechanisms to authorise a drug for treatment use adequate models.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:16 PM

"There are many people of faith among scientists."

Another failure in logic. Just because 'some' scientists choose to profess a religious faith, it doesn't follow that religion is necessarily compatible with science. Just because a few policemen have occasionally been caught breaking the law, it doesn't follow that every police officer is bent.

Anyway, what do you mean by "many"? How many?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:36 PM

".... instead of falling back on the rather abject and inexplicable notion of a creator kicking it all off."

However, that is the one recourse for a believer to stay a believer and not run afoul of those pesky demands of science. If you simply say: "The creator started it, and science and logic are how we explore the Creation.", you'll be fine. You can even, like Joe Offer, adopt one of the classic formulations of theology as a comforting, metaphorical guide to spirituality without serious contradiction.

" No person of faith spends their time on mudcat preaching except the atheist religion followers. "

That's a mis-reading of what atheism is, olddude.... we've discussed it many times. SOME atheists become as ardent as some evangelical Christians and can come off as just as obnoxious, but atheism itself is simply refusing to accept the stated claims about ^metaphysical stuff.


As to Ake's question..."I don't really understand what Theology has to do with Conservatism?".... I tried to answer that in that earlier post. There are often 'similar' thought patterns and errors in logic when you examine the structure of both viewpoints. It IS the case that most religious folk are also conservative in certain areas. It's not any sort of one-to-one mapping that allows blanket statements, but like many stereotypes, there are obvious roots.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:30 PM

Steve,
Take it outside, Keith. Start a new thread. Not here.

Again you think it OK to toss out your insults, but not for anyone to repudiate them!

Why must you and your ilk make these baseless accusations and wrongly label people?
Most people just address what is actually said.

If your ideas are so vacuous that you are incapable of defending them, give up.
Insults are not a substitute for debate, outside a primary playground.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:25 PM

"I respectfully remind you dmcg, that having an abrahamic faith is not in conflict with science,..."

Oh yes it is!

No it is not.
There are many people of faith among scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:11 PM

Do you think Christians should keep their views to themselves too, Dan? Songs of Praise is on telly here in a minute on one of our main channels. When BBC Radio 4 came on my radio alarm this morning they were broadcasting a service. All the churches in Bude have little wayside pulpits (as well as big crucifixes showing an X-rated scene of violence). I passed them today on the way to the food fair. Have a word, will you, Dan... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:56 AM

"I respectfully remind you dmcg, that having an abrahamic faith is not in conflict with science,..."

Oh yes it is! Mainly because "faith" is the fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence. Now that's as about as far from science as you can get!

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:04 AM

That's as much about temperament as anything , Steve. I'm a "heavy lifting" sort of guy myself, and one of the things that annoys me about articles in the New Scientist, for example, is when a specialist writing an article doesn't seem to have done the searching in the literature to be aware of things I have known about for years from other papers.   The way of thinking you criticise, as I would, is being satisfied with superficial interpretations when there is much more to learn if it is studied and thought about.


But in a way I give you the same answer as I gave Pete. I think we are getting too far from the purpose of the thread and all we are really trying to discuss at the moment is the relationship between religion and being right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 11:03 AM

Never cease to amaze me. No person of faith spends their time on mudcat preaching except the atheist religion followers. Always the same people trying to get us to buy into their bullshit and accuse us. However look in mirror will ya and keep your beliefs to yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:57 AM

Stu, I don't know where you get your ideas about Dawkins from. Read his books. Jack mentioned a bloody good one just there. The hundreds of YouTube clips of him, mostly attacking idiots, do not show him at his exacting best.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:48 AM

When you're on your belly admiring that daisy, I can't help thinking that you will achieve a greater completeness of insight, understanding and spiritual fulfilment if you do all the intellectual heavy lifting, instead of falling back on the rather abject and inexplicable notion of a creator kicking it all off. It gets in the way by stunting your curiosity and staunching your line of enquiry. Your pat answer is complete before you've even asked all the questions. You allow your inexplicable supernatural being, ironically, to explain everything instead of making the struggle yourself. Well I quite enjoy the struggle.

The life so short,
the craft so long to learn,
Th'assay so hard,
so sharp the conquering

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:29 AM

that a small fraction of people of Abrahamic faiths take that view, but the vast majority do not wasn't something I needed reminding of, Pete. After all, it has been discussed ad nausium on lots of threads so there is no need to do so again. Let's try to avoid traipsing down that path again. We have probably got too diverted into religion for the thread as it is, since the only thing we were trying to talk about was the relationship if any between being religious and being right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:13 AM

"And Shimrod, your idea that denying being right wing proves that you are, is less than helpful."

1. I didn't say that denying being right wing PROVES anything. I was just noting, what I perceive to be, a common pattern.

2. I don't think that, in making the observation, my primary intention was to be "helpful".

3. I obviously hit a nerve though!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 10:13 AM

I respectfully remind you dmcg, that having an abrahamic faith is not in conflict with science, but with an (allegedly) scientific theory.   Until you are able to demonstrate the verity of said theory , that is a fallacy of false alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:38 AM

Almost 100% in agreement with your 05:46 AM post, Steve. I could even give a biblical quote to back you up: "Not even Solomon in all his glory was arraigned like one of these", you know! The only real difference is you find religion gets in the way of such contemplation, while those religiously inclined find the approaches accumulative, not oppositional.

And Stu: I stand corrected. I should have said Dawkins is capable of much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:17 AM

Take it outside, Keith. Start a new thread. Not here.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:13 AM

You do have to wonder where they get their prejudices from in that case, no?

And, pray tell, do tell us where you get yours from.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 08:06 AM

In the intro to The Greatest Show on Earth : The Evidence for Evolution (2009) Richard Dawkins is at some pains to point out the extent of his collaboration with leaders of World Faiths in the petitioning of governments to stop the teaching of creationism as a science.

Whilst Faith is not entirely incompatible with a more enlightened and humanistic viewpoint that will always be left-wing, Fundamentalist Belief, and all that entails, is an utter anathema to the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:44 AM

Defending a very right-wing regime's obvious atrocities or even denying their wrongdoings is what you do,

I have never defended any atrocity and never would.
You are making shit up now.

I have put their version of events and they do deny wrong doing.
I have also shown that their enemies tell lies about them, with proven examples.

As you said,
"Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. "

Every Western politician is not far right wing and nor am I.

I request that you stop calling me right wing and worse until I express a right wing view or you manage to find a specific example.
Good luck with that!

And Shimrod, your idea that denying being right wing proves that you are, is less than helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Stu
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 07:27 AM

"Dawkins is far better than that"

The problem is, I'm not convinced that he is. The first thing a scientist is taught is that they're full of shit; they don't know much at all and whatver their hypotheses are, they are probably going to change. He is problematic in terms of science outreach by couching everything in absolutist terms; he allows his outrage at the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion to overwhelm the fact that most people in the world are actually kind, caring and compassionate beings regardless of their beliefs.

I don't believe Dawkins attitude to people of faith chimes with that of the wider scientific community which does of course have many people of faith within it. The main and most fundamental issue between science and religion is one of method, and when the results conflict with religious belief then problems arise. However, most people are more nuanced and sophisticated in their approach to religion than the headline-grabbing fundamentalists and can accommodate both theology and philosophy.

But also I don't believe that religion should be the sole source for our moral and ethical codes and has the sole claim to the expression of human spirituality; that way if fraught with danger as we all know from watching the telly every night. At the very basic level sciences tells us we are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself and as far as we know earth is the only place in the universe that exists where this is happening. That thought alone is so beautiful and profound in so many ways, not least the fact that every life is precious and should be valued and nurtured equally. Compassion is a universal value.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:54 AM

I don't really understand what Theology has to do with Conservatism?

Is it simply an excuse for atheists to make insulting remarks?
It seems to me that a socialist system will be more open to spiritual views than a capitalist one.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:01 AM

Some fool put an extraneous full stop in there. Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 06:00 AM

Well maybe there is, but not theory in the scientific sense. The word comes from Greek as I understand it and means "discourse about. God". Still, what's in a name?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:49 AM

there's a bit of theory in theology.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:46 AM

Well I agree that true/false is not applicable to religion. It's here, that's the thing. My point really is that you can try to get to grips with the wonderful universe we live in far better without adopting a mindset that has a creator at the root of its spirituality. To put it provocatively and rather brutally, you can be a damn sight more spiritual without a God than you can with him. He simply gets in the way. Get down on your belly and explore that daisy on your lawn for fifteen minutes. Think of the billions of years it took for it to evolve. Think of those millions of chloroplasts beavering away, converting light energy to stored energy (if only we were as good at it, and we're supposed to be brainy). See how the leaves avoid shading each other, all done without a brain. Admire the objective beauty of the colours and patterns of the ray and disc florets and don't forget to have a really close look at those miniature, perfect flowers. That little weed has more true spirituality for you (if you learn to be receptive to it) coming out of its pores than a thousand heavy theological tomes full of labyrinthine argument, big words and tortuous concepts that need college courses to get your head round, and all without the slightest strain. That's what Richard Dawkins is about, and I'm right with him. That daisy will dumb you up, not dumb you down.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:46 AM

I take it you're having a laugh LFF?

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Long Firm Freddie
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 05:12 AM

For those who aren't sure exactly where they may be on the political spectrum, this test may help:

Political Compass Test

LFF

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 04:54 AM

In my view - and I might be entirely alone in this! - I don't think that is what serious theology tries to do, Steve. Though I have to begin by saying what I think of as religious fundamentalists do precisely what you describe, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else.

The first question on religion should not be whether it is true or false, but whether the mindset of true/false is the applicable one in the first place. And for me it isn't. And it is where I part company with Dawkins because he believes it is the right one, and I don't. Once you do, you get into the situations where Abrahamic fundamentalists have to insist Adam and Eve is literally true, and that is in immediate conflict with science. Simultaneously Dawkins sits with fundamentalists in declaring anyone who claims to be a Christian (Jew, Muslim, ...) but does not assert Genesis as truth is a 'pick and mix Christian', choosing the bits they like and rejecting those they don't. I find this disappointing, Dawkins is far better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 04:12 AM

Keith dearest fellow, once again if you insist. Putting Israel's side is not right-wing. I do that far better than you do and I don't think I'm especially right-wing. Defending a very right-wing regime's obvious atrocities or even denying their wrongdoings is what you do, and that is why you're right-wing. I don't like what Hamas do and have said so many times, and I never deny what is demonstrably the case. I defend the right of Israeli people to live in peace and security and I only ever castigate their leaders, wishing that the people would elect less bellicose ones. I've said all these things many times. Put it to bed now Keith or start another thread on it, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:53 AM

Ha. I made a mistake there that let both Bill and Joe in to give me a bit of grief. What I should have said was "almost certainly an entirely false premise." Yes, I see you can get round that by studiously avoiding the word God from your riposte and speaking of "spiritual nature" instead. And "getting round it" seems to me precisely what theology has to do in order to legitimise itself. What you can't avoid, and I know I'm being facile, is that the word theology itself has God in it. And don't forget that I did not say you couldn't find truth via theology, just that it's a peculiar way of looking for it. Theology is doing a lot of thinking. Science is doing a lot of doing AND a lot of thinking, and we have the advantage of the null hypothesis. I love life and nature, etc, but it's all plenty beautiful enough for me from here on the ground. Spiritual if you like. You can't take that away from me, he sang.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:22 AM

Careless phrasing on my part: I should not have described scientific theories as true or false, but everyone knows what I meant, so please don't pick me up on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 03:20 AM

I agree, Joe. There is certain mindset - and this is not an accusation! - which likes to think of the world in true/false terms. And there's good reason to do that, since it is the basis of much of the advancement of the last few millennia, whether we are talking science or philosophy. As an approach to life, it is pretty solid and I have built my own career on it as well.

But no-one should fall into the trap of assuming that mindset is sufficient for everything. It would be an odd stance to say Beethoven's Pastoral is true or false. [I pick music as less contentious, but I think these points also apply to religion]. You can build theories of music, certainly, but they are not like scientific theories because they can never be true or false; the best they ever get to is 'usually, often'. And to an extent they are also 'ring-fenced philosophies' (on the assumption I understood what that term meant). We might perform MRI scans and observe which parts or the brain are stimulated when certain music is heard, but I can't really see any composer doing what they do differently as a result of learning that.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 01:04 AM

Steve Shaw says: Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it.

Well, since my college major was Theology, I might tend to disagree. If a theology is built upon a mythology that is taken to be historically and scientifically factual, then I might buy your argument. But you're defining a fundamentalist theology, not all theology. Most theologies are an exploration built upon a perception of a spiritual nature or meaning of what we observe and experience in life. Most theologies call that spiritual nature divine, in one way or another. So, the basic premise is that we are surrounded by a universe that has a spiritual essence that is worthy of exploration, partly through tools such as mythologies and rituals and traditions and sacred texts.

I would submit that one cannot prove or disprove that some or all aspects of our universe have a spiritual nature. That's a matter of perception - of faith, if you will. I find that perception to be rich and worthwhile. I have no quarrel with those who do not share my perception - they just see things differently. But when they say my perception is "false," then I have a quarrel with them. My perception is NOT false - it is simply different from theirs.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 15 - 12:49 AM

Shimrod,
That's what all right-wingers choose to believe!

It is also what centrists like me believe.

Steve,
Good point, Shimrod. Harks back to what I got told off for saying at the top of this thread, that right-wingers hate to be called right-wingers


I remind you that I have never expressed a right wing view, because I have none, so on what grounds do you make your malicious and vindictive smears?

Steve clearly believes that there is no centre position at all!
Anyone who does not hold his fringe far left extreme views must be far right!

He says,
"Keith, we have just about every western politician and media outlet putting Israel's side. " then says I must be far right for doing the same!

He says voting for Blair makes me far right, even though Blair got the majority vote and lefties like Musket voted the same way!
Steve chose not to answer if he voted Blair too!

You people have absolutely no reason to call me right wing, and until you find something, which you never will, please stop doing it.

When you have no reply, you smear and name call.
It is lying.
Stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Conservatives at Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 15 - 10:35 PM

I appreciate the compliments earlier, but must enlarge on one point to examine Steve's post:

"Theology is the art of taking a completely false premise and constructing a whole ringfenced philosophy around it."

I can't take credit for the original, even though it strikes a chord.... but its relevance is that it doesn't assert what premises are true OR false. It merely suggests that theological contortions of reason usually include some 'bad' reasons. We really can't demonstrate that its premise is "completely false".... but we can infer that IF you run into contradictions in logic and/or fact and discover that 2 or 3.... or many... conclusions that cannot all be true follow from the original premise(s), then at least one premise must be false.... and of course, perhaps all of them. **From false premises, anything follows**

An argument is 'sound' if it has both true premises AND correct structure. (It may be trivial, but that's another issue)

The real, simple, basic point is that there are certain claims that we cannot construct sound arguments for, because we can't determine what the required true premises are.... and "how the Universe began" ...or even IF it had a beginning... is just speculation and subjective opinion. It may be that we cannot even formulate the question correctly, given our mental & scientific limitations. But.... people being what they are, most WANT a satisfying answer, and all this 'logic' stuff is just tedious blather to most of them.
Somehow, I got the bug early on to try to figure out what made sense, not just sink into some comfortable belief system. Once I had a couple courses in comparative religion and saw how many competing 'comfortable systems' there were, none of them seemed comfortable. ;>)... so I post these long bits, mainly to sort out my own thoughts.