Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 232 of 417 (26748)
12-16-2002 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by gene90
12-10-2002 9:21 PM


quote:
From my perspective, your outright dismissal of anything you don't have direct sensory experience with is unreasonable
Huh?
Is my dismissal of giant pink invisible unicorns unreasonable because I hanven't had any direct sensory experience of them?
If I HAD had direct sensory experience of said unicorns and STILL dismissed them, then THAT would be unreasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-10-2002 9:21 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:31 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 233 of 417 (26749)
12-16-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by gene90
12-11-2002 11:23 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
The comment was a response to gene's insinuations that athiesm is the easy way out.
quote:
It is. It makes moral values optional.
Bull. (Strawman)
Besides, moral values prescribed by religions change with the wind.
Slavery used to be morally OK. Owning women as chattel used to be morally OK. Burning people at the stake used to be morally OK. Having multiple wives used to be morally OK. Killing homosexuals used to be morally OK.
Some of these things are still considered morally OK in certain parts of the world. It all depends upon what religion one follows.
Religiously-based morality seems much more dangerous to me than humanistically-based morality because of this ability to dictate to large groups of people who will accept a moral code in it's entirety.
Think "crusades."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 11:23 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:34 PM nator has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 417 (26750)
12-16-2002 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
John goes out of his way to make his analogies extreme, as if belief in God is as extreme as a pet velociraptor (PE's analogy actually) or a 40 carot diamond.
You are going to stack my 40 carat diamond up against your God and conclude that my diamond is too extreme? Your god must be very small.
The fact is, gene, that it doesn't matter what you put in place of the diamond. You could use a stick of gum. Apparently you feel you need to avoid the issue. Why is that?
quote:
Think these out. Why is a pet velociraptor or a 40 carot diamond so extreme? Because both velociraptors and diamonds are physical, tangible entitities which are testable.
Extreme? 40 carat diamonds actually exist. The world record is 186 carats.
The fact that these things are testable is irrelevant. It is the claims made about them that is the key element. I chose a physical object to bring the example into the realm of experience.
quote:
If velociraptors were still around we would almost certainly know it. And in that case, the pet raptor would not be an extreme example. If we had nanotechnology, and I could have a kitchen countertop appliance produce a 40 carot diamond to my specifications anytime I wanted, then the diamond example would not be such a good analogy for him to use. But we know diamonds are not that common.
This is profoundly irrelevant. As I pointed out above, you can use anything in the example and it works. Use a gumball or a comic book, and the analogy works.
quote:
We don't know about the existance of God in such a way.
So, that God cannot be detected is somehow positive evidence for God? You haven't stated this outright but I am seeing hints of this concept.
quote:
God is like the money in the vault
So you held God in your hand, then walked up to the teller and deposited Him in heaven? Really, this is the worst you've presented. As I reformulated it, though, it is quite adequate but you haven't addressed that.
quote:
and the piece of art in the box, His existance or non-existance cannot be examined like either of the above.
By Jove!!!! You are claiming this as positive evidence.
quote:
The only really valid analogy he has produced is the Lego analogy, and even then he went out of his way to make it rather strange.
I went out of my way to make it track with the claims for the existence of God. That is why it is rather strange. Glad you have finally admitted it.
quote:
The fact of the matter is, that as Sagan said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Of course not, but nor is it evidence FOR. My beaf is that it is ridiculous to build arguments or beliefs based upon something for which there is no evidence. IGNORING the thing for which there is no evidence is not the same as proving it wrong or asserting the it doesn't exist. You seem to have a real mental block here.
quote:
You cannot go around assuming that something does not exist simply because it cannot be tested.
But you can go around pointing out that it is unreasonable to argue with something untestable as your premise. This is my point.
quote:
Radio waves and black holes are excellent real-word analogies, and they are discussed in science, no less.
What? Radio waves and black holes can't be tested? And no evidence, prior to their actually being discovered, lead to the conclusions that they exist?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:13 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:46 PM John has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 235 of 417 (26751)
12-16-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by gene90
12-11-2002 12:18 PM


quote:
...and you wrote an article entitled "The emancipation proclamation for pedophiles in which you advocate that the House is wrong in opposing a lowering of the age of consent. It's there for the analysis of anyone who would like, let them decide if you are a religious bigot and if you write articles that try to pass off pedophilia as tolerable.
Gene, you misrepresented what John wrote about in this article.
His point is that the US Congress denounced the results of a scientific study. They had no business doing that just because the results of that study touched a nerve.
Do you agree that this IS an inappropriate and bizzare thing for Congress to do, and do you agree that scientists should be able to study what they want to (within ethical limits) and that scientists should be free of censure by our government just because their results are unpopular?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 12:18 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by John, posted 12-16-2002 11:33 AM nator has not replied
 Message 242 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:14 PM nator has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 417 (26752)
12-16-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 3:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
But if I walk up to the door, knock, and it's opened up for me, I do not even have to touch the door knob. I can enter in and never even have had to worry about the mechanics of a latch.
Why is that relevant, funk?
quote:
Evidence of God has to be evidence of the spiritual affecting the physical, making some sort of impact of the physical.
So, in short, there is no evidence for God. Again, why believe?
quote:
Why would a kid make a claim to blocks that he knew did not exist?
Why did David Koresh claim to be Jesus? Why did Charles Manson believe he needed to start a race war? Why does the dalai lama believe he is the reincarnation of his predecessor? Belief and assertion are not indicators of truth.
quote:
Why would s/he hold to said claim under scrutiny?
You and gene are in a much better position to answer that than I.
quote:
There must be some reason for the claim.
This doesn't follow. There does not have to be a reason. I have a teenager in the house who makes stuff up for no good reason. He doesn't even know why he does it. There is verifiable mental disorders that could account for it. And most people simply believe what they are told as kids. But lets not forget the age-old staples-- power and money. Religion has an enormous amount of both.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:17 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 237 of 417 (26753)
12-16-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by funkmasterfreaky
12-11-2002 6:18 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
[B]
quote:
Why would God not leave physical evidence? This you've asserted but never explained? God heals the sick? hmm.... there ought to be evidence. You reduce your God to no more than a phantom.
quote:
I have your evidence though you will deny it and explain it away. A friend of mine shattered his hip snowboarding, this was the second season in a row he had done so. So he was back in traction in the hospital to have the same hip repaired again. The elders of the church came in to pray for him and the very next day when the doctors took more x-rays the hip was completely healed. Not even traces of the fractures, completely and painlessly healed.
I don't believe you.
Where is the JAMA paper that undoubtedly would have been front page news in every paper and news program in the world?
Surely such an amazing thing would have been shouted from the rooftops, right?
Could it be that the hip wasn't broken at all?
quote:
I was a counsellor at a bible camp one year, and our counsellors suddenly began to fall ill. Before we knew it we barely had enough staff to continue. We all got together for a prayer meeting, within an hour of this meeting counsellors who had been extremely sick started coming out of the cabins in perfect health.
Again, I don't believe you.
Whaere are the doctor's records? What illness did they have? (food poisoning can act like that) How many people were ill for how long, and did they all REALLY get well at the same time, and were they all REALLY in "perfect" health? Who evaluated their healt to determine if it was "perfect? How many times have people prayed and people's health haven't improved that quickly, or at all?
quote:
One winter when I was young I remember we had a propane furnace in the little trailer our family was living in. At the beggining of the winter when my dad checked the guage on the propane tank he found that it was nearly empty. My parents were in financial trouble at the time barely finding enough money to keep a few groceries in the cupboards. So unable to afford to fill the propane tank my father just didn't bother looking at the rest of the winter. It was one of the more brutal winters I recall being -40* celcius most of the winter. Our furnace kept on going and going. There is no way that the propane should even have lasted a month let alone the whole winter. Well like the woman and the oil that propane just kept flowing and our furnace kept running, ran all winter. Didn't run out until dad made enough money in the spring to buy some propane.
Um, maybe the gague was faulty. Maybe your dad or someone else got it filled and didn't tell anybody.
quote:
This is God caring for his faithful. Healing the sick, performing modern day miracles. I got lots more johnny if you want pages and pages of miraculous things I have seen God do.
Note these are not second hand stories, all personal experience.
Sorry, but none of these examples are convincing. They are all just personal anecdotes and are riddled with all kinds of bias.
You wanted to believe God did these things so you found reasons to believe and ignored all the other possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-11-2002 6:18 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 417 (26754)
12-16-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by nator
12-16-2002 11:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Gene, you misrepresented what John wrote about in this article.
Thank you, schraf.
At least gene has been man enough to drop the subject, without admitting the error.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 11:10 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:24 PM John has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 239 of 417 (26759)
12-16-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by John
12-13-2002 3:58 PM


quote:
The funny bit is that Gene can criticise an organization he dislikes, but refuses to allow the criticism of organizations he likes.
I have to agree.
Gene, you do have a tendency to reserve the right to criticize for yourself but object to others doing the same thing when they disagree with you.
You did exactly that with Zhimbo in the "state-sponsored terrorism" thread.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by John, posted 12-13-2002 3:58 PM John has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 240 of 417 (26763)
12-16-2002 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by gene90
12-13-2002 6:24 PM


quote:
You never answered my question. If I attacked the Church of Satan or the KKK, would you object?
quote:
I see something evil about the KKK but not Christianity.The KKK has a political mandate, the church does not.
Holy cow, are you actually saying this?
Christians most certainly have a political mandate, pushed by many of their churces.
The Republican party wouldn't kowtow to their issues so readily otherwise.
quote:
If you hate minorities you join the KKK.
You have to hate most other religions besides Protestant Christianity, too, to be in the KKK.
The people who join the KKK often say they are doing so because they want to promote the white race.
quote:
If you believe in God you join a church.
...or go to temple (be it Jewish, Hindu, etc.) or a mosque, or you believe in god on your own without organized religion, or whatever.
quote:
There is some difference there, but you don't see it, and your past comments equating the KKK with Christianity have, as far as I'm concerned, permanently destroyed your credibility.
...with you, perhaps, but I can see haw some comparisons could be made.
I mean, the KKK does claim to be Christian, and many Christian churches have advocated racism, including your own denomination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 6:24 PM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 241 of 417 (26764)
12-16-2002 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by nator
12-16-2002 10:48 AM


quote:
But one of your churche's main activities is sending missionaries all over the world to try to convince people of other religions to convert to Mormonism!
One of the problems with being LDS is that I take a lot of heat for it. Turns out that quite a few participants seem to have an axe to grind with "Mormons" and Schrafinator seems to be one of them. I wonder if I should have just allowed her to make offensive comments about my church and never admit to being a "Mormon"? Probably.
Schrafinator: if you reread my post you will see that I said that I personally do not spend time trying to convert anyone of different religions. When I serve my mission that will change, though whether I spend whether my time with non-Christians will depend on where in the world I am assigned. And then I will be attempting to teach by the Holy Spirit, which is impossible to do through the Internet.
I hope that after a two year absence this board will (1) still be here and (2) participation will still be worthwhile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 10:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:03 PM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 242 of 417 (26765)
12-16-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by nator
12-16-2002 11:10 AM


quote:
Do you agree that this IS an inappropriate and bizzare thing for Congress to do
No I certainly do not. If the results of a scientific survey implied that we should institute forced sterilization of people with poor genes, would it be inappropriate for Congress to dismiss those results? You bet it would!
Define what is and is not 'ethical' while you're at it. You speak as if everyone could agree on what is ethical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 11:10 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:22 PM gene90 has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 243 of 417 (26766)
12-16-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by gene90
12-13-2002 6:50 PM


quote:
Which of these is most consistent with the opposition here? (And I'm not limiting myself to one participant.) Now if one in particular is an agnostic, why is he so convinced that Christianity is invalid?
I am agnostic and this is the definition I most ascribe to:
quote:
agnostic: (1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable
It's not that I think Christianity is less valid than any other religion, but all religions are invalid.
We don't know. That's the end of it.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 6:50 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:26 PM nator has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 244 of 417 (26767)
12-16-2002 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by John
12-16-2002 11:33 AM


quote:
At least gene has been man enough to drop the subject, without admitting the error.
Actually John, I was willing to let it go as it distracted from the point at hand. However, if you and Allison prefer to continue talking about it, I am perfectly willing to bring the subject back up.
Look, John is mad because Congress ignored a suggestion to legalize pedophilia. He wrote about it. Therefore he is encouraging pedophilia. The title of the article is, "Emancipation proclamation for pedophiles".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by John, posted 12-16-2002 11:33 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by John, posted 12-16-2002 12:30 PM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 245 of 417 (26768)
12-16-2002 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by nator
12-16-2002 12:16 PM


quote:
It's not that I think Christianity is less valid than any other religion, but all religions are invalid.
How do you know that all religions are invalid? This is making more assumptions than merely claiming that Christianity is invalid.
quote:
We don't know.
That's exactly my point. By definition, you don't know. So how do you know that any religion is invalid? You defeat your own argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 12:16 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:25 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 417 (26770)
12-16-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Look, John is mad because Congress ignored a suggestion to legalize pedophilia. He wrote about it. Therefore he is encouraging pedophilia. The title of the article is, "Emancipation proclamation for pedophiles".
Have you no shame? Every point you made has been addressed, yet you repeat the same garbage yet again.
1) There was no suggestion to legalize pedophilia. You can't get even this much straight.
2) There was a legitimate study indicating that the effects are not as traumatic as most imagine. Congress, based on nothing but knee-jerk emotion and public opinion posturing, condemned a LEGITIMATE STUDY. Hello, gene, this is censorship of information!!!!!!
3) Wow. I wrote about it. Well damn me to hell.
4) I wrote to discourage censorship not to encourage pedophilia. That you can't see the difference is mind-bending.
5) The title of my article is nearly verbatum what the study was labelled by those who opposed it when it first came out a few years ago. The title is a reference to the study. But you knew this, because I have told you.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:24 PM gene90 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024