Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "The New Culture Forum"
channel.
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TallisKeeton
"I think they are wise and just becouse of their effects (their fruits) :)"
That assumes that certain effects (fruits) are good (and others bad), which means that the question of what standard you are judging them by remains unanswered.
"...even though we can not be sure (agnosticism lets say) if they were inspired by God or just developed by human brain using its abilities gained from nature and from culture in slow process for centuries."
What makes you think we can't be sure?
"And I dont think that we must engage God in any debate to make sure that something (some topic) is objective or subjective."
I'm not suggesting that we must engage God in every debate; it would depend on the topic. But given that God is the source of everything good, then it is appropriate to acknowledge him in a wide range of topics.
"I m sure we can see God as the last resort or the last instance of truth, wisdom, justice, beauty and whatever :)"
No, God should be the first port of call, not a last resort.
"but I m q, sure also that there must be more to the topic of objective/subjective than only the use of the last instance (God) to divide between what is objective and what is subjective :)"
I'm not so sure, but I was specifically talking about morals, or right and wrong. If they are not from outside of us (i.e. from God), then they are just our opinion. And if those opinions are based on other factors (such as human wellbeing), then those factors being relevant is also just our opinion. And so on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Saskfinest1
"what was found by Christian precisely, stop being vague."
I'm not being vague. As I said, " It was Christians who founded science, based on their understanding of God, and some of that understanding still underpins science."
"What science exactly."
Science itself. The stuff that scientists do. Not the stuff the ancient Greeks or Chinese or whoever did, as that wasn't really science, as I explained above with a quote from Rodney Stark.
"They are not in denial that god exist, they believe he doesn't exist. Big difference."
What's the difference? They believe that God doesn't exist, so they are in denial that He exists.
"A positive belief that god doesn't exist is what?"
A description of atheism. Atheists often claim that they simply have a lack of belief in God, just like I might lack belief in aliens, but it's more than that, it's a belief (i.e. not simply a lack of belief) that God doesn't exist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anonnemo2504
"I've have no idea what you mean by "trying again part X" etc.."
I tried posting a comment, but YT hid it. So I tried again, breaking it into separate parts. The second part posted, so I then tried to break the first part into two sub-parts.
"Just as I have no idea as to why your powers of logic fail you so and can you see not see that the term, "magic Grandpa" is only a euphemism?"
It's not merely a euphemism. It's mockery, where you choose to insult rather than be civil.
"I have already answered your final question."
Not that I've seen.
"One cannot prove the non-existence of a supreme being, because one cannot uncover an absence of evidence for it."
I realise that, as I said. But that does not remove the onus of someone making such a claim to back it with evidence. If they can't back the claim, they shouldn't make it. If they make it, they should back it. If they can't, then they are talking nonsense and their credibility is shot.
If I said that evolution never happened, and you challenged me to back that claim with evidence, and I refused on the grounds that I can't produce evidence of something that didn't happen, would you find that acceptable? Would you think that it was okay for me to make such an evidence-free claim without it being considered nonsense?
"You're welcome."
To what? Your failure to properly answer my questions?
2
-
1
-
1
-
"The judges in Australia should state that if the government want to change the constitution they should conduct a referendum."
The constitution requires it, and the pollies know it. This is not about changing the constitution, but about ignoring a legal implication of the constitution.
"What I do know is that you are a common law country. Common law decisions in one common law country can be cited in another common law country."
They are not necessarily a legal precedent, however.
"I have cited an Australian decision in your top court which refers to the British Common law regarding entry to property."
I don't know the case, but it's true that British Common Law from before Australian federation applies, unless the government has legislated otherwise. But British decisions based on Common Law since then are not legal precedents, I believe, although I guess they could be cited in support of a position.
"I haven't read your constitution. The fact that you have to ask me indicates that you haven't either. ... Thanks for asking your question. Now go and seek the answer to your question yourself and then spread the word."
FYI, I don't believe that there's anything in the constitution directly on this (and yes, I have read it, but haven't memorised it). However, what is there is provision for the federal government to enter into international treaties, and Sall Grover appears to be saying that as Australia entered such an agreement in which the definition of women is based on biology, then a law based on that treaty that allows men to call themselves women is, arguably, unconstitutional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paddopadderson9688
"It took 25 odd years to get into depravity without the bulwark of christian morality and world views"
It's a recent development of a process that's been going on a lot longer than that.
"no it began in the universities through collectivist, socialist and communists."
It began with deists and atheists, although yes, sometimes in the universities, attempting to marginalise Christianity, including with geological claims of deep time and of evolution, a process that is designed to explain the variety of life without God.
Sherwood Taylor was the Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, and said way back in 1949:
“… I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology [i.e. millions of years, denial of a world-wide flood, etc.] and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"If there's multiple definitions, ..."
What do you mean, "if"? Check a dictionary.
"...that would make religion subjective,..."
If that logic was correct, almost every other word would also be subjective, because, as I said, most words have multiple meanings.
"So therefore everything you say would be pointless."
That's nonsense. Rather, it means that you have to either (a) understand which meaning is meant from the context, or (b) clarify which meaning you are using.
"Are you blind to how society operates today?"
Nope.
"Do you not see the degeneracy of society right now?"
Yes, living in the West, I do see some. But I also see improvements in other places.
"All of this points to the decline of religion."
Again, which religion(s)? You can have a decline by more people becoming religious, if the religions concerned are bad ones, such as atheist ones. In fact, as I pointed out, Marxist views are very popular these days, and Marxism is responsible for much of that degeneracy.
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"athiesm and secularism is not religion."
I didn't say that atheism is. No more than theism is. But there are both theistic and atheistic religions, and I gave you examples and evidence of the latter, which you've not shown me to be wrong on, which means that you're just in denial. And for the record, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that atheism is a religion.
"most words do not have different definitions, "
So you didn't bother checking a dictionary? Take the first word in your sentence: 'most'. Oxford gives two definitions:
1) "the largest in number or amount", with an example being "Who do you think will get (the) most votes?"
2) "more than half of somebody/something; almost all of somebody/something", with an example being "Most of the people I had invited turned up."
And here's the second word in your sentence: "word". Merriam Webster gives twelve meanings of the noun, with some of those twelve having their own variants. The twelve meanings include the following:
2a: "a brief remark or conversation", as in "would like to have a word with you"
3: "ORDER, COMMAND", as in "don't move till I give the word "
5: "PROMISE, DECLARATION", as in "kept her word "
I expect that I could show multiple definitions for every word in that sentence of yours.
"You are just making up your definitions on the spot to strawman your arguments."
No, you are making up criticisms of me, rather than just address my actual arguments.
"if Marxism is more popular, what does that tell you?"
That that religion is growing.
"You can't make this up."
And I'm not. I can give evidence. But you're failing to do the same.
1