• Julia Gillard makes stand as a social conservative
    158 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28715977]No Atheism is the rational position because it's impossible to disprove something which has no proof. But w/e.[/QUOTE] By that logic theism is the rational position because there's no proof that a god, or gods, don't exist.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;28716609]By that logic theism is the rational position because there's no proof that a god, or gods, don't exist.[/QUOTE] can't prove a negative, logical fallacy
Everything we heard about Julia Gillard across the pond (the big pond, not the little one between you guys and Asia) made her out to be some kind of excellent progressive leader, but it looks now like she's just some kind of [i]massive idiot[/i].
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28716643]can't prove a negative, logical fallacy[/QUOTE] Logical fallacy: God must exist because you haven't proven he doesn't exist. Not logical fallacy: We don't know either way, because there's no real proof that one does exist, and no proof that one doesn't/can't exist. Logical fallacy: There's no proof that a god exists, therefore we know for sure that no gods exist.
[QUOTE=Contag;28712571]Actually the rational position is agnosticism, as there is no way to prove or disprove a supernatural entity. But w/e.[/QUOTE]I'm not agnostic about the existence of fairies, gremlins, goblins, boogeymen or any other entity with as much proof for it's existence as God does. Yes, it's not a very polite view to hold, but saying agnosticism is the most logical position to hold just because one cannot disprove God is ridiculous. See: Russell's teapot
[QUOTE=Earthen;28715280]See thisispain's post. Maybe not all atheists are like that, but they should be like that.[/QUOTE] All people should be like that, atheist or not.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;28716764]No, a logical fallacy would be saying that God must exist because you haven't proven he doesn't exist. There is nothing fallacious about saying that we can't know for certain that a god or gods don't exist, because we haven't proven that they can't exist. It [i]is[/i] fallacious to say that we know for certain a god, or gods, don't exist because we haven't proven that they exist.[/QUOTE] It's a false comparison, IE; assuming god is real is just as logical as assuming he doesn't. You're also arguing the semantical difference between "you don't believe god exists" and "you think god can't exist". basically you're throwing out five kinds of bullshit.
[quote]she believes it is important for people to understand the Bible- despite the fact she is an atheist.[/quote] I don't understand this part. Sure we should understand the Bible, as much as the Qu'ran or the Torah, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. I think we have a spy in our midst.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28716936]I don't understand this part. Sure we should understand the Bible, as much as the Qu'ran or the Torah, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. I think we have a spy in our midst.[/QUOTE] Sounds like she's pandering to the christians out there who won't vote for an atheist because they want a fellow christian in power to force their morality on other people Incidentally Gillard is doing this anyway
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28717162]Sounds like she's pandering to the christians out there who won't vote for an atheist because they want a fellow christian in power to force their morality on other people Incidentally Gillard is doing this anyway[/QUOTE] Another pig-disgusting hypocrite. Nothing to see here. As a sidenote I'm stealing the Tilda Swinton joke.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;28717479]Another pig-disgusting hypocrite. Nothing to see here. As a sidenote I'm stealing the Tilda Swinton joke.[/QUOTE] Hypocrisy is the single more deplorable human trait, which makes it a shame that so many politicians are hypocrites.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28716864]It's a false comparison, IE; assuming god is real is just as logical as assuming he doesn't.[/QUOTE] I never said anything about "assuming", I was only talking about people who think they know for sure. I never said they were equally logical either. You're using what you would call a "strawman".
[QUOTE=Noth;28708828]Source: [url]http://www.news.com.au/national/julia-gillard-makes-stand-as-a-social-conservative/story-e6frfkvr-1226025095796[/url][/QUOTE] And? It's not like any other party are any better re these issues. I guess you could call Tony Abbott "so socially conservative that he falls off the end of the scale".
Bitch say what?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28716782]I'm not agnostic about the existence of fairies, gremlins, goblins, boogeymen or any other entity with as much proof for it's existence as God does. Yes, it's not a very polite view to hold, but saying agnosticism is the most logical position to hold just because one cannot disprove God is ridiculous. See: Russell's teapot[/QUOTE] I'm familiar with Russell's teapot. I still hold the same. Do I lean towards there not being a god/fairies/gremlins/cosmic teapots? Yes. Can I say, definitively, absolutely, without a doubt? No.
[QUOTE=Contag;28720592]I'm familiar with Russell's teapot. I still hold the same. Do I lean towards there not being a god/fairies/gremlins/cosmic teapots? Yes. Can I say, definitively, absolutely, without a doubt? No.[/QUOTE] thats atheism agnostics dont take a stance atheists have no god, but that doesnt mean that they have to rule out the possibility, in fact thats my personal belief, for all of my limited knowledge there could very well be a god somewhere out there in the universe, but since i see no evidence for it i dont believe in one either [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] agnostics dont believe either way, they dont actively disbelieve in a god but they don't actively believe either
[QUOTE=Contag;28720592]I'm familiar with Russell's teapot. I still hold the same. Do I lean towards there not being a god/fairies/gremlins/cosmic teapots? Yes. Can I say, definitively, absolutely, without a doubt? No.[/QUOTE] Atheism isn't supposed to be definitive. It's lack of belief in something, because of a lack of evidence. It's not the same as completely and utterly ruling out the possibility of something.
I have to do this again, really? :siren: [b]Agnosticism: Lack of knowledge[/b] :siren: :siren: [b]Atheism: Lack of belief in a god[/b] :siren: [b]THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.[/b] Most, if not all atheists are actually agnostic atheists. We can't have knowledge of nonexistence, but we're pretty damn sure nothing is there.
I love how every argument about religion just ends up with people explaining the same fucking definitions to someone, as if it even matters considering every religious text ever made is retarded pile of horse shit.
Oh god if she holds these views I can only imagine what Tony Abbot has up his sleeves
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;28723587]Oh god if she holds these views I can only imagine what Tony Abbot has up his sleeves[/QUOTE] But Tony Abbott is even more conservative, so he has nothing on her. Tony Abbott is the definition of a social conservative in Australia. Just see his views on women.
Gillard's a fool, but at least she's standing up to the Greens. Also, loling at the sentiment that there are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage and euthanasia.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;28723607]But Tony Abbott is even more conservative, so he has nothing on her. Tony Abbott is the definition of a social conservative in Australia. Just see his views on women.[/QUOTE] next week: australia announces public witch trial [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723632] Also, loling at the sentiment that there are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage[/QUOTE] right i forget it was icky
Americans complain about only having a choice between a democrat and a republican party. we pretty much have two republican parties
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723632]Gillard's a fool, but at least she's standing up to the Greens. Also, loling at the sentiment that there are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage and euthanasia.[/QUOTE] There aren't. Gay people will exist either way, your disdain of them, and willingness to legislate against them doesn't change that. Gay people are [b]people[/b] and deserve all the rights of other people, who they love shouldn't affect that. And why is it wrong to euthanize someone who is willing? There is ONLY the religious argument I'm aware of on this issue. but whatever, homophobes just want to find a way to be discriminator fucks.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28723664]There aren't. Gay people will exist either way, your disdain of them, and willingness to legislate against them doesn't change that. Gay people are [b]people[b] and deserve all the rights of other people, who they love shouldn't affect that. And why is it wrong to euthanize someone who is willing? There is ONLY the religious argument I'm aware of on this issue. but whatever, homophobes just want to find a way to be discriminator fucks.[/QUOTE] [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gKDzZYZa1NQ/TMO3p9OxUvI/AAAAAAAAAEU/eKHLBSWQAuw/s1600/truckerfags.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28723664]There aren't. Gay people will exist either way, your disdain of them, and willingness to legislate against them doesn't change that. Gay people are [b]people[b] and deserve all the rights of other people, who they love shouldn't affect that. And why is it wrong to euthanize someone who is willing? There is ONLY the religious argument I'm aware of on this issue. but whatever, homophobes just want to find a way to be discriminator fucks.[/QUOTE] How can you insinuate that anyone against gay marriage is a homophobe. Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean they possess any "disdain" for homosexuals. I believe men can't become nuns - do I hate men? Seriously, that's really thick. umm: marriage: [url]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinskic.html[/url] [url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304[/url] (fun fact: christopher pearson most likely isn't a "homophobe", given he's a public homosexual. euthanasia: [url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/test-of-conviction-on-a-life-and-death-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1225979620586[/url] look here's an entire site: [url]http://www.noeuthanasia.org.au/[/url] You're wrong.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723755]How can you insinuate that anyone against gay marriage is a homophobe. Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean they possess any "disdain" for homosexuals. I believe men can't become nuns - do I hate men? Seriously, that's really thick.[/QUOTE] bahahhaha [QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723755][URL]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinskic.html[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote]Sorry, but we can't find the requested article.[/quote]ahhah [URL="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304"][quote]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304[/URL] [/QUOTE] [quote]Among the reasons the Greens are so keen on same-sex marriage is that they want to reduce the population and drive down national fertility.[/quote]bahahhahahhahahhahhahhHAHHA great stuff man
knew I fucked the link: [url]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html[/url] and what does pearson's view of the greens have to do with gay marriage. aside from that, what's wrong with that statement? far as I'm aware, the greens always pushed for a small australia.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28723843]knew I fucked the link: [url]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html[/url] and what does pearson's view of the greens have to do with gay marriage. aside from that, what's wrong with that statement? far as I'm aware, the greens always pushed for a small australia.[/QUOTE] it's a stupid proposition. yeah the reason i'm for gay marriage is because i believe the population should be reduced. plus the arguments are total bullshit anyway. the idea of a secular argument against gay marriage is an interesting one considering they just take the same bullshit arguments put forth by religious people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.