Is multiculturalism still working in London?

[CornockES]

Open discussion in terms relative to 'normal' people here please or there is no point at all - its just a show. Why do you need to impress in a room filled with strawmen? this is a forum for open discussion - please don't try and close it.

LOL at overreactions.

The kalam cosmological argument is a BIG thing in christian apologetics so if you're uncomfortable reading about it here I'm afraid you're in for a world of hurt when it goes mainstream.

I say read up on it now or watch some basic videos on it and get the pain over and done with....

[hugh]

Originally Posted by CornockES

I say read up on it now or watch some basic videos on it and get the pain over and done with...

Proselytizing?

[hugh]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

Oh for goodness sake! If you feel the need to couch things in a manner purposefully phrased to exclude general discourse, then go and do it privately or in a reading room. The only 'clumsiness' you might encounter there could be the rubbing of your anorak We are not all reading for this unit currently.

Open discussion in terms relative to 'normal' people here please or there is no point at all - its just a show. Why do you need to impress in a room filled with strawmen? this is a forum for open discussion - please don't try and close it.

Concur.

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by hugh

Proselytizing?

Why dont you watch the video and find out if it's possible to convert someone to a specific faith using a theologically neutral argument

[Loathing]

I've found Citizen401/MoveBeyond/CornockES's points pretty interesting, and I appreciate the rigour with which they've been presented. It doesn't take long to google "Kalam cosmological argument".

[hugh]

Originally Posted by CornockES

Why dont you watch the video and find out if it's possible to convert someone to a specific faith using a theologically neutral argument

Why is this relevant to a 'specific faith'?

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by hugh

Why is this relevant to a 'specific faith'?

Because convincing someone that "theism is true" is not proselytising. Its a philosophical argument.... not a specific proof for example for a christian God or muslim God.

[hugh]

Originally Posted by CornockES

Because convincing someone that "theism is true" is not proselytising. Its a philosophical argument.... not a specific proof for example for a christian God or muslim God.

Perhaps you've made certain assumptions about my position, as an agnostic I take a neutral position re an intelligence behind the universe - I would add to your list of variants, an indifferent god, a fickle god etc. It seems apparent to me that discussions on 'morality' in the context of that possible intelligence are a non sequitur.

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by hugh

Perhaps you've made certain assumptions about my position, as an agnostic I take a neutral position re an intelligence behind the universe - I would add to your list of variants, an indifferent god, a fickle god etc. It seems apparent to me that discussions on 'morality' in the context of that possible intelligence are a non sequitur.

Doesnt make a jot of difference whether you're an agnostic or atheist-- The kca is still relevant to you either way. The only difference it makes is what options YOU have in arguing against it.

[CornockES]

BTW given that we're discussing secularism in terms of its merits and weaknesses WRT multiculturalism....as an agnostic you cannot make ANY claim to the effect that "secularism is true" or "secularism is more likely to be true than belief in God" because as soon as you do that, you are effectively making an atheist truth claim. That includes claims made through implication and subtext, even mockery of faith beliefs as "superstition".

[hugh]

Originally Posted by CornockES

BTW given that we're discussing secularism in terms of its merits and weaknesses WRT multiculturalism....as an agnostic you cannot make ANY claim to the effect that "secularism is true" or "secularism is more likely to be true than belief in God" because as soon as you do that, you are effectively making an atheist truth claim. That includes claims made through implication and subtext, even mockery of faith beliefs as "superstition".

Any human construct is open to mockery.

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by hugh

Any human construct is open to mockery.

Well sir, that's exactly the kind of thing I mean. You simply can't say something like this and claim to be an agnostic at the same time.

If you dont mind my asking, as a claimed agnostic what is your opinion on the merits of multiculturalism and all the worries over "muslim patrols"?

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Originally Posted by CornockES

Doesnt make a jot of difference whether you're an agnostic or atheist-- The kca is still relevant to you either way. The only difference it makes is what options YOU have in arguing against it.

I'll leave it to Hawking. He refuted it years ago. There may well be a an intelligent designer, but one is not necessary for the universe to exist as we understand it.

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

I'll leave it to Hawking. He refuted it years ago

I have a better idea... Why not ask Dr Vilenkin himself



Also: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hawki...ivine-creation

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

I haven't watched the video, but I'm familiar with Vilenkin’s model of origins. Maybe you could tell me why I should put the time in to watch it?

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

I haven't watched the video, but I'm familiar with Vilenkin’s model of origins. Maybe you could tell me why I should put the time in to watch it?

The video explains why hawking's no boundaries proposal (...among other ways of escaping a cosmic beginning) are untenable in physics. I also added in Dr Craig's rebuttal because he addresses the philosophical side of hawking's claims.

[hugh]

Originally Posted by CornockES

Well sir, that's exactly the kind of thing I mean. You simply can't say something like this and claim to be an agnostic at the same time.

If you dont mind my asking, as a claimed agnostic what is your opinion on the merits of multiculturalism and all the worries over "muslim patrols"?

I think the concerns are justified, the 'muslim patrols' are a quintessential example of the idiocies - and often oppressive tenets of religion. Unfortunately, the more 'developed' religious traditions only serve to facilitate more of the same.

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by hugh

I think the concerns are justified, the 'muslim patrols' are a quintessential example of the idiocies - and often oppressive tenets of religion. Unfortunately, the more 'developed' religious traditions only serve to facilitate more of the same.

The problem is you don't seem to fare much better when it comes to how the religious (...barbaric, developed or otherwise) see you.... From their pov of a secular world they see widespread perversion, hedonism, greed, dysfunctional families, moral relativism, apathy, cults of personality and your own peculiar brands of dogma and ignorance. There's no denying that many that claim to be religious can be just as morally stellar as the worst among the "infidels" but the very least religion provides is a way of recognizing and correcting these percieved shortcomings.

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Or perpetuating them.

[CornockES]

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

Or perpetuating them.

Do the mono theistic religions really directly promote perversion, hedonism, greed, apathy, family dysfunction and naturalistic dogma -- or are you just refering to examples where those claiming to be religious stray from doctrine?