Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 263 of 417 (26789)
12-16-2002 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by nator
12-16-2002 1:03 PM


quote:
You rejected each of my source links as biased, yet refused to provide any information or sources critical of LDS which you would approve of.
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:
I also know that it has done damage to several families which I personally know.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:03 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:57 PM gene90 has replied

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


Message 264 of 417 (26791)
12-16-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:14 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
Do you agree that this IS an inappropriate and bizzare thing for Congress to do
quote:
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!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:14 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:30 PM nator has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 417 (26792)
12-16-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
It isn't all that hard then is it?
That could depend on how creative you are at hand-waving the alleged evidence away.
I contend that disbelief in God is non-falsifiable because any evidence of God, even a manifestation of God Himself, can be waved away. (To drugs, altered brain states, etc)
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:54 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:35 PM John has not replied

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


Message 266 of 417 (26793)
12-16-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:26 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:34 PM nator has replied
 Message 294 by Chara, posted 12-16-2002 2:48 PM nator has replied

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


Message 267 of 417 (26795)
12-16-2002 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by nator
12-16-2002 1:22 PM


quote:
You believe that Government has the right to denounce unpopular scientific findings REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF SAID RESULTS.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:22 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by John, posted 12-16-2002 1:39 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 309 by Zhimbo, posted 12-16-2002 4:27 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 268 of 417 (26796)
12-16-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:31 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
Is my dismissal of giant pink invisible unicorns unreasonable because I hanven't had any direct sensory experience of them?
quote:
This is one of those analogies I dislike. The problem with analogies dealing with things not detectable with direct sensory experience is that they can be as reasonable or as unreasonable as you make them.
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:
When my money is in the bank vault and I'm locked outside I don't have direct sensory verification of it either. Does that necessarily mean that the money does not exist?
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:
The museum patrons don't have direct sensory experience with the contents of the box, but that doesn't mean that the 'empty box' theorist necessarily has an advantage over the others (though perhaps he can make a convincing case by speculating upon motives of the artist).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:31 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:46 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 269 of 417 (26797)
12-16-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by nator
12-16-2002 1:25 PM


quote:
Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:25 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 5:41 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 270 of 417 (26798)
12-16-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by John
12-16-2002 1:23 PM


quote:
Like I said, gene. It isn't that hard then is it?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by John, posted 12-16-2002 1:23 PM John has not replied

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


Message 271 of 417 (26799)
12-16-2002 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:34 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
Bull. (Strawman)
quote:
Really? So, you are claiming that the atheist or agnostic is obligated to follow moral codes? How does that work?
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:
Besides, moral values prescribed by religions change with the wind.
quote:
Sour grapes.
No, simply the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:34 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:54 PM nator has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 417 (26800)
12-16-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
To denounce something is to claim it has no validilty.
The issue is who is claiming that the study has no validity. Scientist? Nope. Congress. This is inappropriate.
quote:
Therefore the clause "regardless of the validity" is irrelevant.
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:
And you will notice that the APA even called in for independant analysis.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:30 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 273 of 417 (26801)
12-16-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
Bull. (Strawman)
Really? So, you are claiming that the atheist or agnostic is obligated to follow moral codes? How does that work?
quote:
Besides, moral values prescribed by religions change with the wind.
Sour grapes.

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."'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:34 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:56 PM nator has not replied
 Message 278 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:56 PM nator has replied

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


Message 274 of 417 (26802)
12-16-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:39 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
Maybe you just can't see them. Can you prove that these unicorns aren't there?
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:
Therefore, it would be foolish to debate someone who believes in the unicorns for neither side has a claim to logic or evidence.
But which view is more reasonable? The view that the unicorns are there, or that they are not there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:39 PM gene90 has not replied

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


Message 275 of 417 (26803)
12-16-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by nator
12-16-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
You think that belief in God, a "thing not detectable with direct sensory experience" is reasonable.
quote:
I replace God with ANYTHING else, and you will probably consider the analogy unreasonable.
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:
No, because I can get all of my money out of the bank and hold it in my hands.
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:
I would remain agnostic, then, with regards to what is in the box.
But like the empty box theorists here you are arguing with us. Why?
And what basis do you have to argue?
quote:
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.
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:
How do you know that my invisible unicorns aren't pink if I say they are?
Because if it's pink it isn't invisible.
quote:
You say that your God is male.
Yeah. But some religions believe the primary god(s) are female. What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:34 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by John, posted 12-16-2002 2:01 PM gene90 has replied

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


Message 276 of 417 (26804)
12-16-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by nator
12-16-2002 1:38 PM


quote:
If they want to live within a social structure with other people, yes.
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:
There is no evidence, BTW, that Christians/religious people behave more morally that non-theists.
Bit religious people generally have morals that non-theists do not.
quote:
In fact, there is evidence that certain kinds of behavior, like child molestation, is more common among fundamentalist Christians than among the general population.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by John, posted 12-16-2002 2:12 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 291 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 2:34 PM gene90 has replied

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


Message 277 of 417 (26805)
12-16-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by nator
12-16-2002 1:39 PM


quote:
'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.
Humanistically based morality is weaker, so that's why it's less dangerous? Interesting...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 1:39 PM nator 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