|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: As I recall, all your sources were either sites dedicated to atheism or ministries dedicated to opposing the LDS Church. Hardly unbiased sources. You said yourself that you could not find any LDS member sites that were critical of the church, and you used that as evidence of brainwashing or something similar. It could just mean there are a lot of happy customers but of course you didn't mention that possibility. Were you able to find middle ground perhaps the debate would have fared better, but you weren't able to find middle ground, were you? Everything was polarized. AND you rejected the official LDS history as unreliable. So I wasn't the only one rejecting sources.
quote: Hence a possible motive for axe-grinding. Oh, by the way: see my recent messages in the "homosexuality" thread, re: use of "so-called". [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: quote: NO, that is NOT what happened. The implications of the study were not denounced. The FINDINGS OF THE STUDY were denounced. ...as if by denouncing them Congress somehow thought that they could make the study any less valid. Scientific findings are what they are, regardless of who denounces them. You believe that Government has the right to denounce unpopular scientific findings REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF SAID RESULTS. That's kind of like denouncing scientific findings because they disagree with the Bible. That is scary, Gene, that you would approve of such Fasist activities.
[QUOTE]Define what is and is not 'ethical' while you're at it. You speak as if everyone could agree on what is ethical. [/B][/QUOTE] There are general ethical guidelines which research institutions follow. I was not intending to define what is ethical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Like I said, gene. It isn't that hard then is it? It is funny though that I am the one who thinks that we ought to be able to accumulate enough statistical evidence for God to, if not prove it, at least bring it into the realm of rationality. While you insist it cannot be done. Why is that? Are you more afraid of the result than I? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Since we don't know, and probably can't know, then pretending to know is not a valid conclusion. Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know. Therefore, religion is not valid. Not any of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: To denounce something is to claim it has no validilty. Therefore the clause "regardless of the validity" is irrelevant. And you will notice that the APA even called in for independant analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: quote: That's the point. That is EXACTLY the point. You think that belief in God, a "thing not detectable with direct sensory experience" is reasonable. I replace God with ANYTHING else, and you will probably consider the analogy unreasonable. The problem is, the analogy is the same. The thought process is the same.
quote: No, because I can get all of my money out of the bank and hold it in my hands. Everyone else in the bank can see all of this money in my hands. I can hand it to the people and they can see and feel and smell it. Someone who had never seen money before could also see and touch it, even though they did not know what it is.
quote: I would remain agnostic, then, with regards to what is in the box. Like John says, however, what theists do is make all kinds of assumptions about what is inside the box and live their life based upon these assumptions.
[QUOTE]By the way your analogy contains an internal contradiction: invisible objects have no color. [/B][/QUOTE] How do you know that my invisible unicorns aren't pink if I say they are? You say that your God is male.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: The position of an agnostic is that there is insufficient information to make a decision. Therefore, it is impossible for an agnostic to claim that a religion is false, because they, by definition, do not know. So the agnostic does not know if there is a God or anything about God, yet they know that all religions are false, and all religions must be false, by definition? That is inconsistent. [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Like I said, John, it depends on how hard you want to not believe. And I'm not going to underestimate your opposition to the very idea there is a God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: quote: If they want to live within a social structure with other people, yes. There is no evidence, BTW, that Christians/religious people behave more morally that non-theists. In fact, there is evidence that certain kinds of behavior, like child molestation, is more common among fundamentalist Christians than among the general population.
quote: quote: No, simply the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The issue is who is claiming that the study has no validity. Scientist? Nope. Congress. This is inappropriate.
quote: So reword it. Congress has dismissed a properly done study not for scientific reasons, but due to political, religious and emotional implications and reactions. This is censorship. Period.
quote: Well, of course. I'd call for independant analysis too. THIS IS THE PROPER COURSE OF SCIENCE. And this isn't the issue. That Congress took the role of peer review board and then judge, jury, and executioner is the issue. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Couldn't help notice that you left this part of my message out: '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."'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: Nope. Therefore there is no logical support for disbelief in the unicorns, only pure agnosticism.[/QUOTE] There is no logical support for belief in the unicorns, either.
quote: But which view is more reasonable? The view that the unicorns are there, or that they are not there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: quote: Quite the contrary, I've been making analogies of my own. Money in the bank, the exhibit at the art museum... The problem with both our belief systems is that neither of us have evidence for or against our beliefs. Therefore your war against Christianity simply because it has no evidence is inconsistent. That's the only point I'm out to make.
quote: What happens to the money when it is outside the vault is irrelevant to the analogy. When it is in the vault you cannot detect it with your sensory capability. Does that necessarily mean it does not exist?
quote: But like the empty box theorists here you are arguing with us. Why?And what basis do you have to argue? quote: And non-theists do the same. John is sitting around arguing with me because he insists that my view of what is in the box is wrong.
quote: Because if it's pink it isn't invisible.
quote: Yeah. But some religions believe the primary god(s) are female. What's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: But they don't have to live in any social structure. Or they could design their own social structure. And even in the current US social structure we cannot agree on what is morally acceptable or not. And besides, if you can elude the law, theoretically an atheist can do whatever he wants. God's law cannot be eluded. Therefore the theist is obligated to follow morals or face justice, the atheist is merely encouraged to have morals and possibly face justice. Or the atheist can just move somewhere where the laws are different.
quote: Bit religious people generally have morals that non-theists do not.
quote: That could be a statistical fluke or cultural problem amongst a sect or in a geographic area where lots of fundamentalists happen to live. You can use statistics to support anything if you're creative enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Humanistically based morality is weaker, so that's why it's less dangerous? Interesting...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024