homosexuality

quote:

---

And, seriously, how seriously do you expect to be taken when you refer to verifiable medical practice as if it were some kind of wish-fulfillment and ad hoc rationalization?

---

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm only claiming that your claim that soar treatment by the ancient Isrealites must have been from observation rather than revelation is a non-falsifiable position. If you would admit that it could have been from revelation (as I admit it could have been from observation) then I will be happy to drop the point.

quote:

---

Gene, it is very very irritating when you tell me what I'd do.

---

I'm simply extending your reasoning on the origin of the knowledge of soars to dove sacrifice.

quote:

---

We let athiests try it. We let Buddhists try it. And so on. You could build a convincing case, if the magic works.

---

As I said, you may or may not be able to prove that the rituals were valid. But the most you could ever prove was that Isrealite priests and rituals, along with a dove sacrifice, cured a disease. But how did the Israelites discover they could cure disease in that manner? Through observation or revelation? Maybe they just noticed that their priests had an ability that they (nor science in this hypothetical example) could explain. Or maybe God told them.My only point is that the claim that their rituals were derived from observation is unfalsifiable.

quote:

---

Pretty much anything COULD have happened.

---

That's reasonable. It's also kind of my point.To give a real world example.Once I was sitting around in a campside conversation about geology. A professor was recounting some of the more interesting experiences he had had teaching historical geology through the years. I mentioned something not terribly charitable about Young-Earth Creationism. Much to my surprise, my instructor, perhaps mildly hammered at the time, sharply rebuked me: (paraphrasing of course) I've seen similar attitudes time and again amongst the scientists I've been around, even when they are sober. You would think a professional geologist with years of experience would reject even the most remote possibility of Creationism, but this one drew the line with "no comment" when faced with the unfalsifiable. That's a scientific attitude. To agree with me would have been unscientific because I had no evidence, no way to test my assertion that the world was not created to look old, just like there would be no way to prove that the world wasn't made fifteen minutes ago and created to look old.

quote:

---

I'm talking about trying to determine what actually did happen.

---

But you can never determine what happened. An agnostic, by the definitions I have seen, does not have adequate information to judge the existance or non-existance of God. If you're of opinion that you can justify the belief that there is no God, that's atheism.

quote:

---

And, like I said, I really don't care.

---

So you will concede that?

quote:

---

can imagine a thousand unfalsifiable things, but that doesn't make any of them rational beliefs.

---

How do you (as an agnostic) claim to know what is "rational" and what is not?

quote:

---

You may as well pick one at random.

---

Including your own.

quote:

---

Until that time, the belief in one over the other or in any one of them at all, is silly.

---

Much as it is silly to claim that any one of them, or all of them are wrong.[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

So if chimpanzees do something, that must make it "natural", and therefore, "right"?Therefore if chimpanzee practice gay sex gay sex must be ok?Chimpanzees kill each other in turf fights all the time. I guess murder must be ok too then huh?Well chimpanzees are also known for cannibalizing infants of other tribes. I guess that means that I could start eating children and that would be ok as well?I think it is ridiculous to look to animals for moral guidance. I would think that after millions of years of evolution and the development of sentient thought we would look to philosophers or theologians or gods themselves rather than parasite-eaters for a definition of moral values. After all we have already been there, done that, and got tired of living in the tress. Or is this an unintended side-effect of the Theory of Evolution, that when we have placed men on the Moon and built cities and written poetry, we have gone beyond "humanizing" animals and are now looking to them for moral authority? Really now.[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Try to disentangle the inferences and construct something tangible.

---

What "inference"? Are you an agnostic or aren't you?

quote:

---

Oh, and when you do, try to address the points raised rather than select a few lines from which to launch petty little jabs

---

Sounds familiar.

quote:

---

I wish this forum had some form of 'post quality meter' which reflected the feeling of the people reading the threads-- a voting booth, so tho speak.

---

So if the public at large doesn't like my posts I must be wrong? Argument from authority. And what if you're the unpopular one? Would that mean I have defeated you?

quote:

---

How about? God is required for rational thought.

---

What is this? Agnostics by definition claim to not know if there is a God. Therefore by extension agnostics cannot know what is reasonable. To claim that a belief in a God is unreasonable requires *knowing* (or assuming) that there is no God.Where the heck are you getting "without God there can be no reason"? Atheists claim to know there is no God. I claim they are wrong but I cannot make the case that they do not claim to know what is reasonable because they think there is a reasonable side (theirs). Instead I have to work in different directions than I do with agnostics.Come on, it took less time for me to poke holes in your argument than it probably did for you to type up the idea. You can do better.[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-09-2003]

quote:

---

Are you that afraid of feedback?

---

No, I'm just pointing out that you're trying to use an argument from authority since you apparently have failed to substantiate your views.I want to know how you, as an agnostic, have enough information to determine was is "reasonable" and what is not. It is a simple question really. How about answering it instead of making quips about "popularity". Really now.Of course other's opinion of my posts don't bother me because it is only a function of what the masses believe. In an atheist forum I'd be quite unpopular, but in a forum stacked towards theism you would probably be on the losing end. Such a poll here would only tell us which side more lurkers were on. It would have no bearing on my arguments or the quality (or lack) thereof (Look at the debates Gish has had, and read the evolutionist primers on YEC debates for a classic example of how useless audience participation is in judging arguments). Plus it would be of no use to me; though I wonder why you bring it up....do you want an audience to pander to? It wouldn't surprise me that if you cannot answer simple questions about your views and if theists such as myself are outnumbered you would try to resort to popular opinion to "justify" your views if you cannot use reason. Of course, I am only speculating---you are welcome to debate substantively at any time. I believe we were discussing how agnostics define what is "reasonable" ?

quote:

---

The combined opinions of the readers of this board do not constitute truth, but those opinions may be worth considering.

---

"Worth considering", eh? Hmmmmmmm, what could that imply? Perhaps it could imply that maybe people the readership doesn't like should excuse themselves from posting? That unpopular ratings might serve as a sort of under-the-table censorship? Or am I speculating too much? After all, maybe somebody's ego needs to be fed. Again, just a thought...

quote:

---

Then you do claim that God is required for rational thought?

---

That would presuppose that I believe the agnostic worldview (that there is not enough information) is valid. Clearly I do not, therefore that is not my claim.

quote:

---

Santa == zero evidence. God == zero evidence.

---

So it is your belief that anything with zero evidence for it clearly does not exist? First of all that means you cannot be an agnostic by definition you cannot be an agnostic because you claim that the lack of evidence is a proof that there is no God, therefore you are actually an atheist (why you deny it continues to perplex me but I guess that's your problem. And don't tell me that you know your own beliefs better than I therefore you must be right; because it is merely an appeal to your own authority. You might be claiming that you're a wood duck but that doesn't mean I have to agree that you have feathers, lay eggs, and eat bread handouts from kids at the neighborhood pond). Second of all, as a famous astronomer liked to say to push his belief in undetected extraterrestrials somewhere out there in the universe, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Radio waves were not discovered until fairly recently in history but that doesn't mean that they suddenly appeared the day Faraday was born. If I make a deposit at the bank I may not be able to see the money in the vault but that doesn't mean that it necessarily ceased to exist. Yet there is still "no evidence".

quote:

---

I wish there were a laughter meter on the forum also. Just a thought.

---

Yet another appeal to mass authority, which you assume ridicules my posts. Wow, that sure is convincing.[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-12-2003]

quote:

---

Feed back is not an appeal to authority.

---

I bet. What purpose would feedback serve, except either to lend dubious support to one side? Therefore it is an argument from authority.But if it interests you, in past debates with you I have privately asked for the opinions of others through email, partly to see if I was missing some point you were pushing or had glossed over anything important. The response was completely neutral. Our exchange was interesting to outsiders (the person had already been quietly following the thread) but neither side had demonstrated any logical superiority, both arguments were equally credible and we were at an impasse.

quote:

---

an attitude shared by tyrants and fanatics throughout the ages.

---

Now explain this to me. If people on the board disagree with me, I must be wrong? Do you really want to bring this up? Even if that were not an argument from authority (which it is) you would be on the losing side. How many theists are there in the world? How many atheists and agnostics are there? If we tallied up the religious opinion of every human being on the planet, what percentage would agree with you that there is/are no gods?Of course, fortunately, their opinion does not make you wrong, nor does whatever opinion of people on the board make one of us wrong.

quote:

---

What does agnosticism have to do with the determination of what is reasonable?

---

Without information about the nature of God or existance or non-existance of God, which agnostics lack by definition, it is impossible to determine if any particular belief is "reasonable" or not. Therefore an "agnostic" that knows which religious beliefs are "reasonable" or contends that certain beliefs are not reasonable is an internal contradiction. To judge the validity of any belief you must know first (or at least claim to know) what is valid, or you must claim to know whether or not there is a God and what the nature of that God (if there is one) is. That precludes agnosticism.In the past you have misrepresented this to claim that I am stating that there must be a God for there to be rational thought. That is not a valid extension of my argument. An atheist, by definition, claims to know that there is no God, therefore an atheist may claim to know what is rational and declare that belief in God is irrational without internal contradiction. How the atheist arrives at that conclusion is more of a problem, but I'm not worried about that now because it is a part of atheism, by definition.

quote:

---

It is frightening that you do not care about the opinions of others.

---

Why? Should I base my belief system on what is popular? Should I say and think only what would please others? No I do not care about the opinion of others when it comes to my beliefs and opinions, because I am quite capable of making up my own mind. When I decide which direction to part my hair in the morning, should I take a public poll the night before?It is disturbing to me that you even suggest this. Non-theists often style themselves as "free thinkers". Are you leaving this behind?

quote:

---

Technically you are correct, but people tend to see things differently and those viewpoints can be enlightening.

---

This is a public forum. People with strong viewpoints can jump in on either side at any time. However I do not think anybody particularly cares or is interested. I don't see people standing in line waiting to throw in their hat.

quote:

---

That is why I care. What you are doing is insulating yourself.

---

Have you suddenly began persuing a political career? Come on, you have a spine too, you know that mass beliefs should have no bearing on one's opinion. Hence the phrase, "personal opinion", which is what I am touting here.

quote:

---

Yes, and desperately trying to justify your fear of feed back.

---

Again, this is an open forum with minimal censorship.However, I fear that you have decided that you won't win and you feel like you need to resort to mass authority to at least leave wtih some credibility. Hence, this sudden interest in others opinions.But then again, who's afraid of feedback? I suspect most lurkers are YECs, but do not post because the most active members are evos. I'm not a YEC but compared to you I am the next best thing. Feedback could possibly serve me well but it would not mean anything because it would just serve as a useless authority.Which brings me back to the question of why you want to obfuscate the topic with others opinions which are irrelevant.

quote:

---

Yes, if you ignore the bulk of physics.

---

The bulk of physics as it were before radio waves were discovered? Ok so even if you are right on this minor point the radio waves might have magically appeared before Faraday is born, but they weren't around in ancient Greece because there was no evidence for them. Right? Because no evidence = doesn't exist.