Bus campaign.

Glenjamin wrote:Umm, perhaps i was a little vague- commonly to take something as "gospel" is to understand it as an undeniable fact"- it's a figure of speech guy!

Wait, I’ve just come back to this. I must have misunderstood it the first time I read it, or maybe I’ve still misunderstood it. What it seems that you’re trying to say is that by using the word “gospel” before, you were meaning, as a figure of speech, “undeniable fact.” Then, when Tom said that Plato wasn’t gospel because Plato didn’t “preach,” there seems to be a misunderstanding in that you think he’s talking about something else.

Now, I can’t speak for Tom, but I’m quite sure he was talking about the same thing. He was saying that we don’t take Plato’s or Aristotle’s words as “undeniable fact,” not at all, never. Their works are to examined like any contemporary philosopher’s works, and that’s it.

Do I need to quote Indiana Jones again?

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

Ah, Indie. I would respect his words so much more if his fourth movie didn't suck a disgracefully copious amount of balls.

It was so bad...

So bad.

First they give it a name that nobody could possibly like.
Then they put in surving a nuclear blast inside a fridge, then they put in space aliens, then they put in the douchetron junior kid. I mean, what were they thinking?!!

An update: Apparantly it's, initially, receiving not such a nice welcome in lots of Canadian cities. Huh, who'd have thunk it?

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2009/02/24/8508281.html

Article wrote:The ad, which says “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” was rejected based on a clause in OC Transpo’s advertising policy, which bans ads that “might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to users of the transit system.”

Article wrote:It was approved in Toronto and Calgary, but rejected in Halifax, Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, B.C., London, and now Ottawa.

But then again, it's understandable, because they don't want to advertise complete nonsense, which these ads obviously are, as explained by several religious heads:

Article wrote:“I know if you believe in God, your life is much more enjoyable, but hey, everybody is entitled to their own opinion,” [Rabbi Arnold Fine] said.

Article wrote:“I know there are some people who feel there is no God but they’re not right,” [Ottawa Muslim Association Imam Khaled Alazhany] said.

Hmm,

That's for sure.

Stop that, Mr.Marnane.

I'll +1 that!

Going back to the whole "taking as gospel" thing...

2 things spring to mind, 1) it's over 1000 years between when they lived and the surviving copies of what they said- which from an Archaeological point of view, is a little while (understatement intended)- and yet people "Take as Gospel" that the recordings we have are accurate... Compared to say P66, which is only 100 years after, and the various other copies of Scriptural manuscript.

2) What do you mean he didn't preach- Plato argued that his world view was correct, which is (almost) a definition of preaching.

It is interesting to note that you even know about the “1000 years” or whatever, because I had no idea, and I’m into philosophy (very into), whereas you (it seems) are less so. This suggests to me that it is something that is specifically taught in proselytising school. Allow me to try and put and end this whole comparison idea.

It does not matter who/when/why Plato’s ideas were written (by). Not a bit. They could have been written by a ‘madman’ any amount of time ago, or by someone who was completely trying to mislead people into believing that it was written by Plato, or someone who just made up Plato as a fictional character. The reason it doesn’t matter the slightest bit is that nothing about those particular pieces of philosophy depend, in any way, upon anything to do with the actual nature of Plato. It’s difficult to say this any other way, as I feel I’ve already tried to explain this. Is anyone else having trouble understanding? Because if so, then it’s definitely my fault.

Philosophers, and Philosophy, works in precisely this way: they purposefully ignore all of that extraneous crap and just focus on the ideas. All the rest is history, and of concern to historians, and consequently subject to speculation as all history must be, by definition.

Point 2 I’ll leave to Tom. But I don’t think it has much relevance to the argument at hand...

Actually I heard about the time difference from the head of Antiquities (I think that's the department name, the guy in charge of old artifacts) at Maquarie Uni- not sure if he's a Christian or not... Please Andy- I don't attend a Proselytising school, I attend a theological college, my job is to be clear in what it is that i teach- rather than the vague ramblings of popular media.

Point 2 is in reference to a comment Tom made, that is all.

Glenjamin wrote:Actually I heard about the time difference from the head of Antiquities [...]

Yes, okay, that explains it.

Glenjamin wrote:Please Andy- I don't attend a Proselytising school, I attend a theological college

Yes, sorry if it sounded a little harsh. I added it for effect... you know how it is.

I just want the main point to be clearly stated, so that it can be understood.

Andy wrote: I just want the main point to be clearly stated, so that it can be understood.

As do I

Then we're in agreement: Nick won't be allowed near the forum again.

The question is 'what was the main point'...