"I think the neck tie is becoming less popular in some parts of the country and in some professions, but I don't think it will ever go away completely. I also think a guy's personal appearance is not necessarily based on the type of…"
Atheists vs Christians study
Hi there. I'm a PhD student researching the personality differences between atheists and Christians. I'm currently in need of more male churchgoers to participate. If you fit this description and have about 20 minutes, please visit: http://www.godsurvey.org. Thanks.
Matt
Tags: atheism, atheist, personality, research, survey
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Settecase on -
I have a new blog post on why atheists can't really be sure of anything they believe. It might be helpful. Check it out at: http://dontforgettothink.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-to-show-evolution... and good luck with your research!
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on -
For what it is worth, EAAN has been pretty roundly refuted over the years. It is not a new argument, or a compelling one - and not because people don't understand or want to deal with logic - but because of flaws in Plantinga's argument (his argument only works under very carefully constructed situations, not reality).
And most of the rest of it rests in solipsism - which has its own attendant problems.
Also - yeesh - thread necro. I didn't notice the date on the OP - sorry.
-
Permalink Reply by Settecase on
-
Really? By whom? Have you read the debate between Dennett and Plantinga? It seems like EAAN is pretty sound. If it's not too much trouble, could you summarize the best argument against it? I would be very interested in knowing that!
Yes, I just realized how old the thread is too. Whoops.
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on
-
Arguing to uncertainty, for one, is a basic fallacy.
Also, he neglects to mention that even if his argument is sound, his metaphysical/supernaturalism has the same uncertainty worry. That is, his counter theory is equally flawed, by his own same argument.
Additionally, and more completely, Paul Draper has a good argument here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/naturalism.htmlWith that said - this discussion is probably better held in the Great Debate - than on the main boards.
-
Permalink Reply by Settecase on
-
Liam,
Thanks, I'll check that out. However, I think you may be misunderstanding what Plantinga is saying. He's not saying we can't trust our truth-seeking faculties. He is not arguing to uncertainty. Quite to the contrary, he is saying that we can trust our faculties, that they do fulfill their apparent purpose of seeking the truth, and therefore, because of the (still un-refuted) E. A. A. N., naturalism is not the best explanation.
If the naturalism hypothesis were veridical, then we could never know it. As Churchland (certainly not a "creationist") has said, on naturalism "Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost."
Does that makes sense?
*Quick edit: Just to clarify one step further, Plantinga's argument is only susceptible to inscrutability if naturalism is true. Since we can trust our truth-seeking faculties (a fact vigorously defended by naturalists such as Dennett), this indicates that naturalism is not true. We would have to go to great lengths to deny both our common sense and the usefulness of the scientific method to affirm naturalism--something I doubt you or I would be willing to do.
-
Permalink Reply by Will on -
EAAN on Wikipedia. Did not read the whole thing; it's late. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
I was weirded out by the use of probability (!) in metaphysics. Lewis did a better job, I think -- but as I said, didn't read it all.
[/derail]
Latest Activity
Matt Eo replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Man Mints"I am a Tic-Tac guy. The right size and just enough flavor to pop one every hour or so. I always have a pack on my desk and coworkers are always asking for them."
Dallas the Phallus added a discussion to the group Philology: A Group for Verbivores
Sex Symbols
From the Grammarphobia blog.Q: In a recent radio appearance, you said the idea that “he” can refer to any human being – man or woman – was introduced in the 18th century by a female grammarian. I think you’re wrong. The concept of male as universal has been around much longer.A: If by “male as universal,” you mean using male pronouns (“he,” “him,” and “his”) for women as well as men, the idea did indeed begin in the 18th century.Before then – for two centuries, in fact – it was considered…See More
Andrew Bennett posted a discussionThe death of neck ties?
I heard that according to researches that the neck tie is expected to become obsolete in the next few decades. Because more and more men are dressing more casually these days thanks to Facebook and google where the CEO shows up in jeans and a hoodie. So is the neck tie really becoming obsolete or are men just not caring about his personal appearance?Please feel free to give your taken on this.See More
Chuck Knight replied to michael mckeown's discussion something for summer in the group Manly Hats!"What are you looking for, in terms of style?
Where I live, a "white" straw cowboy hat is very common. Affordable, too.
"
Chuck Knight commented on Steven C.'s group Exercise"Hello, Ivan. Welcome. And, thank you for the offer of assistance. I may have to take you up on your offer."
Ivan S replied to Brian Splash's discussion Progress shots in the group Exercise"I just need to lose some fat before I can share any progress pics. I've gained some muscle, but I don't look lean"
Ivan S commented on Steven C.'s group Exercise"I started working out a few years ago, but since 2011, I am taking it seriously. I've managed to gain 40+ pounds. I'm interesting in exchanging information to help each other out...anyone?"
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
