ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Today, 02:15 AM   #1081
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,401
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Methinks you're just confusing a rather British phrasing for something you can actually plug (all wrong) into modal logic.
Methinks you are inserting random bluster.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:28 AM   #1082
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,401
It would have been obvious to anyone paying even slight attention that the phrasing was a simple sentence in English and not intended to be a modal operator since - duh - the argument under discussion is not a modal argument.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:06 AM   #1083
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No! You are constantly just trying to change the scientific meaning of the word "proof".

Your definition is wrong. Science does not claim actual proof.

How do you know that? Einstein's ghost appeared to you? Do you have a Sacred Scientist Bible in your bookcase? Or have you read it on the internet?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But as I showed above - you finally had to admit that you could not claim that philosophy or science actually shows anything as a matter of "certainty".
If you means "certainty" as absolute certainty I have not "admitted" anything. I have said that no absolute certanty is possible in factual knowledge from the beginning of this thread and in others.


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
That means when you say "Philosophical writings "show" that God does not exist, by your own words that could only mean "philosophical writings show that God probably does not exist" .... so what is your claimed "probability"? and how did you calculate that probability from those 12 philosophical writings?

Where is is your probability calculation please?
To eye. Aproximatively. I don't think you can calculate the probability of the (non)existence of God by any mathematical method. If you know some study that do it I would be glad to know where is published.


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Please produce the calculation for what the word “show” means as a probability in 12 philosophical writings.
Please, don't ask silly things. You cannot calculate exactly what the degree of probability of a theory about facts is, even if you know that it is not absolutely true, but more or less probable.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:08 AM   #1084
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
In any case it is irrelevant since we are speaking of the Logica Argument from Evil which does not depend on specific scriptural claims as far as I am aware.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

That's what I said.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:52 AM   #1085
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,401
Originally Posted by David Mo
My point is that if you introduce any limitation of God's omnipotence, the whole concept of power is perverted. There is no reason to limit it to logical contradictions. We must continue with physical contradictions and moral contradictions and every supposed power of God becomes doubtful.
There is no reason to state any more caveats than logical contradictions.

And that is hardly a limitation on power unless you suggest that there is a more powerful possible being who could tell you the colour of the square root of two or could see to it that there was a lifted unliftable object.

As CS Lewis put it nonsense phrases do not gain meaning by the prepending of the words "God can"

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:08 AM   #1086
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,929
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Methinks you are inserting random bluster.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Not sure what that's relevant to, but I suppose I should be used by now to Robin style "arguments." Ran out of anything relevant to say again, huh?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:11 AM   #1087
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,366
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is rigorously false. I am explaining the position of many evolutionary Christians. I have not said here that it is false or true. I will say that later. I am simply stating their opinion, as objectively as I can.

This is false, again. They take nothing away from the theory of Evolution. They try to add some extra-scientific assumptions to it, which is a very different thing.

If we remove your annoying mania of accusing dishonesty of everything that doesn't fit into your neurons, you're just saying "There are scientists who try to justify their faith and science together". That's right.

False: the theory of Evolution does not enter at all into miracles that do not touch the presuppositions and conclusions of that theory. And as far as I know there is no part of that theory that goes into theological matters. Say one if you know it.
What emerges from the analysis of the theory of Evolution is that a finalist explanation is superfluous.

I didn't understand much about the first paragraph. Can you rewrite it a little more clearly? Thank you.

I don't think there is any empirical evidence that God interfered with the evolutionary process of species. I have said it several times before. Nor do I think evolutionary Christians necessarily say that. Their arguments are rather theological in many cases. Do you want us to discuss them? (But first clarify your objection above, please, because I haven't understood it very well).


We have been over all the above countless times. You are just squirming around trying to change the meaning of words in an attempt to claim that "more than 12 philosophical writings show that God does not exist".

This is what you claimed _

"More than 12 philosophical writings show that God does not exist"


I have pointed out to you repeatedly that you are there using the word “show” to actually mean the same as a literal “proof”.

OK, lets look at the way the word “show” is used in your own statement – the word “show” is used there as a sort-of shorthand instead of writing it for what it really means which is to “show that it is true”. Your statement actually is

“more that 12 philosophical writings show that it is true that God does not exist”


That is a statement of absolute factual proof. You are claiming to “show” it is “true “ (ie actual definite “Fact”) that “God does not exist'

We can see that another way which might be even clearer for all honest people here. Namely this -

- your statement is identical to “... 12 philosophical writings show that X is true”. Where in that sentence X is the claim “God does not exist”. However, that is a claim of the absolute! To spell that out – the claim “God does not exist” is absolute and is a claim of actual 100% certain fact” … so when you write -

“more than 12 philosophical writings show that God does not exist”

That most definitely is a claim from you of showing that the absolutely factual statement “God does not exist” is true as literal “fact” ... it's a claim of compete “certainty” with no wiggle room at all.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:11 AM   #1088
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,929
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It would have been obvious to anyone paying even slight attention that the phrasing was a simple sentence in English and not intended to be a modal operator since - duh - the argument under discussion is not a modal argument.
It would also have been obvious to anyone that a casual British phrasing is not something you can put verbatim into an "X is Y" proposition, and then argue that there's no contradiction between the propositions. You'd think one would have figured out you have to formalize it or admit that it's not actually claiming anything at all as is. But I had to read that nonsense anyway.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Today at 04:14 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:17 AM   #1089
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,366
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
How do you know that? Einstein's ghost appeared to you? Do you have a Sacred Scientist Bible in your bookcase? Or have you read it on the internet?


If you means "certainty" as absolute certainty I have not "admitted" anything. I have said that no absolute certanty is possible in factual knowledge from the beginning of this thread and in others.




To eye. Aproximatively. I don't think you can calculate the probability of the (non)existence of God by any mathematical method. If you know some study that do it I would be glad to know where is published.




Please, don't ask silly things. You cannot calculate exactly what the degree of probability of a theory about facts is, even if you know that it is not absolutely true, but more or less probable.

Then your claim that "more than 12 philosophical writings show that God does not exist" is only actually a claim of what you think is "probable', and that's nothing more than merely an "opinion" from you! Your claim of "showing God does not exist" is now admited by you to be just your opinion of what you think is "probable or "likley".

See my post above for an even more complete rubtal of your error strewn deceptive wrigling evasions.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:43 AM   #1090
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,929
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
There is no reason to state any more caveats than logical contradictions.

And that is hardly a limitation on power unless you suggest that there is a more powerful possible being who could tell you the colour of the square root of two or could see to it that there was a lifted unliftable object.

As CS Lewis put it nonsense phrases do not gain meaning by the prepending of the words "God can"
Just quoting one apologist doesn't automatically make anything true.

The problem with omnipotence is that it actually started as being defined as "god can do anything he wants." It took a whole bunch of philosophers pointing out the logical impossibility in that proposition, before theologians started to back into less spectacular corners with the definition.

E.g., Aquinas pretty much backs up into equivocating the "power" in omnipotence with what nowadays we'd call the physics meaning of "power": see, it ACTUALLY means that when god does something, he does it in no time and without going through any intermediate states. Or as we'd put it using more modern ideas of physics: finite work, but in zero time, so it's infinite POWER

Anyway... That Lewis nowadays is still backed in the corner of basically, god can do everything except when he can't, is BECAUSE such arguments have been made before about the impossibility of the former definition, not something showing that they were unnecessary.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:54 AM   #1091
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,929
Besides, let's look at whether such concepts are that silly in the first place.

- Can there be an "unliftable" object? Sure can, if you put the origin of your chart on it. Even I'm immovable in my own reference frame.

- Can such an object nevertheless also be at a distance from that origin point, i.e., from itself? Sure can. The whole idea of wormholes is based on that.

So the question becomes: could God create a wormhole? Well, can you see any reason why not?

And that's the problem with apologists: too often what they dismiss as some silly question that doesn't even make sense, turns out to be just a hole in their own knowledge.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Today at 04:55 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:32 AM   #1092
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,401
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It would also have been obvious to anyone that a casual British phrasing is not something you can put verbatim into an "X is Y" proposition, and then argue that there's no contradiction between the propositions. You'd think one would have figured out you have to formalize it or admit that it's not actually claiming anything at all as is. But I had to read that nonsense anyway.
Putting X and Y to stand for phrases hardly makes them 'propositions'.

And did you really just say that any non-formalised language doesn't claim anything at all?

You can't spot a teensy problem with that?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:43 AM   #1093
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,401
Anyway with Hans' dust kicking derails having reached peak stupid there doesn't appear to be any way of having a sensible discussion, so I am out of here.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:04 AM   #1094
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Well I don't mind being a discouragement to theists, so I'll let you in on something you'll never hear in Bible class: much of the early Old Testament is just repurposed Babylonian mythology. The oldest version of "Noah's Ark" we have is Atra-Hasis, which is a spat between the gods Enki and Enlil. You don't need an allegory; Enlil's just kind of a dick and tries to kill humanity, but Enki warns AH anyway and saves them.

[ETA] While I'm on the subject: ever hear of God's wife? Asherah. She's actually in the Bible, although not typically translated as such.
Serious question: Has discouraging theists often lead to a positive outcome in your experience? Ever? I feel like I often hear atheists speak about their desire to convince theists of the errors of theism, but then go about it in a way that has the opposite, polarizing effect. (Very akin to the "pro-lifer" hassling people at abortion clinics). These sorts of approaches seem to me to be self-gratifying in the short term, but detrimental in the long term.

Anyway, yes, I have heard of both Asherah (the wife) and Shekhinah (the feminine or dwelling place), though you're right, they are not often the focus of mainstream bible studies or church sermons . I just finished reading "The Dovekeepers" by Alice Hoffman, which was (in my very limited opinion) an interesting perspective on the Jewish culture around 50-100 A.D. and mentioned both of these ideas frequently. (The book is written entirely from a female perspective).

Last edited by attempt5001; Today at 06:06 AM.
attempt5001 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:36 AM   #1095
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,929
Except, again, the "atheists want to convert everyone" is mostly a canard. I can't recall EVER having someone ring my doorbell to bring me the good news that I can sleep late on Sunday.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:52 AM   #1096
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Except, again, the "atheists want to convert everyone" is mostly a canard. I can't recall EVER having someone ring my doorbell to bring me the good news that I can sleep late on Sunday.
I think it's fair to say though that many atheists would advocate for social and scientific policy that is free from religious influence; not converting individuals, but impacting change in society. Which is, of course, a vital part of our democratic society.
attempt5001 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:31 AM   #1097
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
There is no reason to state any more caveats than logical contradictions.

And that is hardly a limitation on power unless you suggest that there is a more powerful possible being who could tell you the colour of the square root of two or could see to it that there was a lifted unliftable object.

As CS Lewis put it nonsense phrases do not gain meaning by the prepending of the words "God can"

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Of course. A god that cannot make ilogical to be logic has a limitation.
Also a god who cannot make not to be what has been is also limited. ¿Can God to make not to be what has been? Why?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:42 AM   #1098
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Then your claim that "more than 12 philosophical writings show that God does not exist" is only actually a claim of what you think is "probable', and that's nothing more than merely an "opinion" from you! Your claim of "showing God does not exist" is now admited by you to be just your opinion of what you think is "probable or "likley".

See my post above for an even more complete rubtal of your error strewn deceptive wrigling evasions.
I don't know what you mean by opinion. It is a very vague word. I know it is very unlikely that tomorrow it will snow in my city. This is a very justified belief. I think the degree of trust in God's non-existence is very high. It is a very justified opinion if you will say it so. It's like your opinion that no believer in God can honestly believe in the theory of Evolution. It is a "mere opinion" of you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:25 AM   #1099
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,572
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
That's a philosophical opinion, and according to you, subjective....
Been busy. As to your point: What I have been doing is pointing out the sources for principled reasoning, which can be tethered to facts and built from foundational postulates in science, or drawn from first principles agreed upon to comprise formal preferential reasoning, such as ethics, politics, mythical preferences, and so on. This does, of course, relate directly to epistemology. However, you sweep with too broad a brush when you say it is philosophy, therefore subjective. You forget the science, the baby in the bathwater. But let us admit that if discerning and distinguishing reliable and valid sources of information is good for grounded reasoning, then philosophy can be a useful and in principle unbiased tool. However, before we get too heady, let's recall that many other species in the animal kingdom are perfectly capable of this form of philosophy.

TL;DR: My dogs don't pay attention to voices on the TV or even mobile phones, only real, "live" ones. They are good philosophers.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; Today at 09:28 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:41 AM   #1100
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,929
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
I think it's fair to say though that many atheists would advocate for social and scientific policy that is free from religious influence; not converting individuals, but impacting change in society. Which is, of course, a vital part of our democratic society.
That's a whole different thing, though. Most of us are for a secular society, not an atheistic one. I mean, I wouldn't say no to the latter myself, but in the meantime I'd just rather we don't end up with another crusade or with another 30 year war over religion.

But in the end, it's still the polar opposite of trying to convert anyone to atheism. It's more like everyone please keep their beliefs to themselves when it comes to laws and policies. Don't use the state to convert anyone either way, if you will.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:09 PM   #1101
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That's a whole different thing, though. Most of us are for a secular society, not an atheistic one. I mean, I wouldn't say no to the latter myself, but in the meantime I'd just rather we don't end up with another crusade or with another 30 year war over religion.

But in the end, it's still the polar opposite of trying to convert anyone to atheism. It's more like everyone please keep their beliefs to themselves when it comes to laws and policies. Don't use the state to convert anyone either way, if you will.
Fair point, thought I would say "distinct from" rather than "polar opposite of". Also, I think some of the responses around the forum (and more so other fora) suggest there is a pretty strong desire among a fair number of atheists to debate theists. Maybe conversion isn't the main goal, but I think many would find that to be a very satisfying outcome.
attempt5001 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:42 PM   #1102
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,661
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Some of them do. Attempts I mean. Intelligent Design, for example.

Well yes they will frantically search for evidence supporting a conviction inspired by holy scripture. Evidence contradicting such convictions will be deftly swept to one side however.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:47 PM   #1103
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,268
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
Fair point, thought I would say "distinct from" rather than "polar opposite of". Also, I think some of the responses around the forum (and more so other fora) suggest there is a pretty strong desire among a fair number of atheists to debate theists. Maybe conversion isn't the main goal, but I think many would find that to be a very satisfying outcome.
Nit-pick – deconversion.

Yes it’s very satisfying helping people revert to atheism. It’s as satisfying as helping people to leave cults or give up dangerous drugs. That’s not the main reason I post here though, I challenge theism here and elsewhere because I consider it to be divisive, damaging, restricting, insulting, debilitating, dishonest, controlling, etc. and simply not true. And none of the "good" done by theism can't be and isn't done without it.

ETA - Hope I get some brownie-points for not including silly, crazy, mad, insane, etc.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; Today at 03:27 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:06 PM   #1104
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 419
I actually think a place of wonder is the default starting position. Also convert is already a multi-directional and reversible term.
attempt5001 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.