NGONGE;836183 wrote: :( I hope this doesn't mean Swansea stops playing attractive football!

Mario B;837623 wrote: ^ "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"! Indeed.

Lesson of this thread: don't pull out random statistics out of nowhere.

Remember what Tennyson said of soldiers after the Battle of Balaclava? Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die.

What do you guys mean by dual sim phones being no longer available? You can find them on Amazon for prices as low as £20.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not just get a dual sim phone?

Chimera;830122 wrote: I live in the wrong decade, in-fact, the wrong century. The 20th c. was the bomb! Give it sometime; the first decade of the 20th century was quite boring as well.

In the quarter-finals, Chelsea knocked out Benfica, who came second in their league, and whose name begins with B. In the semi-finals, Chelsea knocked out Barcelona, who came second in their league, and whose name begins with B. In the final...

@ Burahadeer, I think your first song is the Somali version of this Bollywood song: From the film Fida -- quite easily the most underrated bollywood film of the century.

Showqi;829293 wrote: Raxmad a classic song origin owned by Xasan Aadan Samatar Iyo Magool, maanay ahaayn? She says 'rucub, lulata, oo laaydhu aay ruxdoo...' or something like that, if I recall.

I hate when players get injuries. Some of them never return to their form. Essien at some point was probably the best midfielder in the world. Last night, his balls were all over the place. I hope this is just temporary. CFC's midfield was never the same without him.

So Mario has given up chasing the argument and now wants to know what I believe. Well, it's pretty simple for me, really: I've no belief in God (with Russellian type justification, as you might have gathered). You will have to be specific if you wish to know more.

Mario B;828302 wrote: Ah, the irony...last time I used a wiki link you mocked me and Raamsade was not best pleased, hence my caution. I object to your arrogant assumptions, it just makes you sound anal and pretentious. I did hint to you earlier on this thread about this tendency of yours!:eek: I wasn't mocking you, silly. I was pointing out how couple of guys in that thread complained about me using a wiki link yet ignored your one. In my opinion using Wikipedia as an expository source is harmless; only using it as a supporting source is the problem.

Mario B;828304 wrote: If I may get back to the issue, it seem me and you are going in circles. Given that I accept your atheist position and you accept my theist position i.e I am not here to prove the existence God, nor I am asking you to disprove the existence God, then the argument of whom the burden of proof lies with or Russells teapot arguement becomes redundant! On Occam's razor [if I remember correctly] my understanding of this logic is, in a situations of two explanation with regards to a proposition that are similar i.e one complex and another simple....Occam asks us to take the simple argurment with least assumptions. I dont know how it applies on our situation here when me and you are taking to opposite proposition. That wasn't the point. I was illustrating how requiring one to suspend judgement on whether God exists isn't practical. It's because of this impracticality and similar ones that we have invented the philosophic devices that I've mentioned. You completely ignored this and are now claiming that atheist's stance is one posited on belief. Bertrand Russell was one of the most influential atheists in the 20th century, and to describe his position -- as illustrated by the teapot analogy -- as one based on 'belief' is plainly ridiculous.

N.O.R.F;828063 wrote: In order for me to take you seriously it would be a good idea for you to address my WHOLE post rather than just the bits that you feel favour a counter argument. I talked about and gave you a definition of analytical thinking. I stated the research presented goes against that definition in that it equates analytical thinking with simply looking at pictures and statues and forming an opinion on belief! The point I was making about the professor who became a Muslim was that he was analytical. He actually analysed the source of Islam and made a decision. This is an example of analytical thinking in terms of trying to determine the existence of God by reading a source that states there is a God. Your frivolous attempt at undermining it is irrelevant. What the research presents, in my opinion, has nothing to do with analytical thinking. How can looking at pictures or reading italic or standard type face text be equated with analytical thinking and then go even further and conclude those doing so have more or less belief in God? The research is flawed. Call it defensive or sentimental as much as you like but my objection has a BASIS. More than what you have so far managed to conjure up in its defence. The question I ask you is, can a decision based on looking at a picture of something completely unrelated be considered analytical? Roll your sleeves up Ps, we will deal with the other issue another time (I don’t want to dilute this thread). I didn't really dwell on your thoughts about the research because you are entitled to that. However, I thought your objection was disappointing. It doesn't even seem you thought through it. Here is why. You ask how can looking at a picture can be equated with analytic thinking. Well, it isn't. The idea is that looking at The Thinker stimulated analytic thinking. This was tested on a different group of randomly selected participants in a separate test. This type stimuli response is actually well known in psychology; it's called Pavlovian conditioning. Look it up. So your objection not only obviously lacks the basics but it's also laughably arrogant. As for your convert friend, you rebuff my what I said about his conversion as irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'. It isn't. Say, for example, the guy actually converted to Christianity instead of Islam. Replacing the Koran with the Bible in his statement, we have: “You cannot simply read the Bible, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.” Thus he found himself in an interesting battle. “I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author knew me better than I knew myself.” It was as if the Author was reading his mind. Every night he would make up certain questions and objections, but would find the answer in his next readings as he continued his readings in the accepted order. “The Bible was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries.” He fought vigorously with objections and questions, but it was apparent that he was losing the battle. “I was being led, working my way into a corner that contained only one choice.” It lost nothing and gained nothing. That's why it's profoundly useless and vague. There is nothing analytic about it. As I said earlier, he tells us that the Koran vigorously challenged his thinking up to the point that he had to give up. But what exactly challenged him? If we wish to, how could we judge whether his conviction was justified? As I also said earlier, it seems to me you assume the validity of his exact reasoning (despite not knowing anything about it) just because you agree with his conclusion, thus falling for a cognitive bias. Come with a better objection to this than a mere dismissal of it being an irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'.

Come on, Mario. Just try addressing the bit below. (What you say on your last post very much depends on your objection to this). Garnaqsi;827843 wrote: Similarly then, in the absence of scientific method to determine whether proposition A [There is Loch Ness Monster] or proposition B [There is no Loch Ness Monster] is correct then any judgement that you and I make will be based on a leap of faith! Do you now see the problem with your argument? As I've explained to you earlier, suspending judgement on God's existence on this basis is epistemologically impractical. That's why we have Occam's razor , burden of proof , Russell's teapot and so on in philosophy. I'm disappointed to say most people in this forum use arguments that have been abandoned before the dawn of analytic philosphy . Your wikipedia cop-out is not working because the things I linked to are just philosophy 101. If you are interested in these debates, then really should know them (I only embed in the links because I don't assume much of the people on this board, rightly it seems).

Garnaqsi;827998 wrote: What exactly in our previous discussions show that I don't understand the basics of belief? What is it about faith that I'm apparently yet to comprehend? A tenner says he will not come up with any examples or quotes from our previous discussions. Any takers? No doubt there were no takers!

Chimera;828079 wrote: Red-bullist >> Alcoholist? Picture of an AA meeting? What I basically did is; I took a well known issue in western society and twisted it into a comical version of my own, which I then decided to post on the Troll, Shaah, Cakes and Sheeko topic accompanied by pictures. I did this because I wanted people to go ahahaha. Hahaha then! Clever. I didn't pay enough attention to the meeting to infer that it's an AA meeting.

Carafaat;828024 wrote: 18th of May 1991 Somalia was more stable then Somaliland. So your assumption that secession is based on chaos in south and stability in North, is therefor wrong. Was it, really? By the way, I'm not saying the secession is based on this. It's just that I think it can best be justified on this basis.

NGONGE;828019 wrote: I don't envy those that will have to mediate between the two sides when the time for talking starts. Poles apart. Reminds me of the song 'dhulkan kala fogaadiyo, labadeenan kala dheer, yaaysu soo dhoweeya'. I remember the song actually had something do with this very issue, but I can't find it anywhere!

NGONGE;828019 wrote: From your point of view it was (probably) not even justified when Somalia was still burning, saaxib. But this recent peace in Somalia probably gives you a chance to argue with a slightly stronger argument. Thing is though, those in SL don't even entertain such an argument. I don't envy those that will have to mediate between the two sides when the time for talking starts. Poles apart. On the contrary, I think the argument was somewhat justified when the south was burning. I'm afraid I can't think of any good cases for secession given a peaceful and stable south (provided there is some assurance that this will last, of course). I assume you can?

Xaaji Xunjuf;828015 wrote: Secession what secession? Somaliland's. Don't derail the thread; you know what I'm talking about.

With things looking good in the south, if lasting peace and stability is finally reached, on what basis can one argue for secession then? The most convincing argument for me was the sort of 'save at least half of a burning house' type, if you know what I mean.

Chimera;827921 wrote: Hi, my name is Chimera and I'm a Red-bullist: I don't get it?

N.O.R.F;827937 wrote: This professor used his usual analytical thought process to conclude that there is a God and that Islam was the right religion. In order for him to make such a conclusion (even if it was the opposite), it is required for him to read, think and analyse the sources of Islam (or even Christianity et al). . He probably did. However, he didn't clearly outline the process. He tells us that the Koran vigorously challenged his thinking up to the point that he had to give up. That's vague at best. What exactly challenged him? If we wish to, how could we judge whether his conviction was justified? I'm not saying it wasn't. It well could have been justified. But it seems to me you assume the validity of his exact reasoning (despite not knowing anything about it) just because you agree with his conclusion, thus falling for a cognitive bias. What is surprising (or maybe not so surprising) is that you, having previously stated you have used your own rational/analytical thinking to object to religion, fail to see the short-comings of this research. Or are you taking it as gospel? Suffice to say, if I have any objections to this research, it will surely be stronger than defensive and sentimental dismissal of it being just 'looking at pictures and statues'. I'm still trying to get hold of the original research paper, and I'll probably post what I think of it.