homosexuality

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
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.

---

It is this attitude that you are the final arbiter that makes me wish there were some form of feed back mechanism on the forum. You see, gene, you can and will stubbornly repeat yourself as well as misrepresent me-- this little bit above is yet another example of that-- and there is no real solution. Your cause is blinding you to the dead obvious.Feed back is not an appeal to authority. It is something smart people ask for when trying to work through a problem. Of course, you have made it clear that this is not something you want or would appreciate-- an attitude shared by tyrants and fanatics throughout the ages.Of course, if my posts were full of slander and misrepresentation I'd have a problem with feed back as well.I must admit that I can understand how you may think this was an appeal to authority until I clarified my reasons in my last post. That you continue with the 'appeal to authority' tack shows a profound lack of integrity.

quote:

---

I want to know how you, as an agnostic, have enough information to determine was is "reasonable" and what is not.

---

What does agnosticism have to do with the determination of what is reasonable? You make absolutely no sense.

quote:

---

How about answering it

---

Answering it? How does an agnostic make a determination of what is reasonable? I have given that answer more times than I remember. Do you think that pretending I haven't and continually asking is going to score points for you?Why don't you explain your reasons? I asked for clarification when you first brought this up and you did not provide any. Can you make an argument? Or do you feel that your assertions are sufficient?

quote:

---

instead of making quips about "popularity". Really now.

---

Yes, really now. The 'popularity quip' was yours. From your post 118:

quote:

---

Of course other's opinion of my posts don't bother me because it is only a function of what the masses believe.

---

It is frightening that you do not care about the opinions of others. Technically you are correct, but people tend to see things differently and those viewpoints can be enlightening. That is why I care. What you are doing is insulating yourself.

quote:

---

It would have no bearing on my arguments or the quality (or lack) thereof

---

Then you truly are insulating yourself.

quote:

---

Plus it would be of no use to me

---

Then you are a fool.

quote:

---

though I wonder why you bring it up....do you want an audience to pander to?

---

I have explained this.

quote:

---

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.

---

If there were an opinion meter on this site and it were stacked against me, I would be concerned and endeavor to find out why such was the case. That is called integrity and apparently you don't have any. It may be that people simply disagree out of sheer fanaticism, but perhaps not. I am not talking about logic here, but self-reflection.

quote:

---

Of course, I am only speculating---you are welcome to debate substantively at any time.

---

But sadly, until I agree with you I won't get credit for it. Denail is a powerful force and the force is strong with you.

quote:

---

I believe we were discussing how agnostics define what is "reasonable" ?

---

Actually, this line was started when you implied that agnostics CANNOT determine what is reasonable and you have yet to make an argument for that assertion.

quote:

---

"Worth considering", eh? Hmmmmmmm, what could that imply?

---

LOL.... exactly what it says. Paying attention to the people around you is not such a great evil. I imagine that most people figure this out pretty early on, or else grow up to be megalomaniacs.

quote:

---

Or am I speculating too much?

---

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

quote:

---

After all, maybe somebody's ego needs to be fed.

---

Some egos are much too well fed as it is. Listening to people is good medicine for that illness.

quote:

---

Again, just a thought...

---

More of a stab really.

quote:

---

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.

---

What?????? Your response does not remotely follow.God is required for rational thought. How exactly does this presume that you believe the agnostic worldview?That aside, your response indicates that you do not believe that God is required for rational thought. How then is it that an agnostic should have trouble determining what is reasonable?

quote:

---

So it is your belief that anything with zero evidence for it clearly does not exist?

---

It is clearly your intention to continue reciting your garbage. I said nothing about existence. It isn't about existence. It is about reasonable belief. And you seem quite averse to addressing that issue, instead prefering to perpetually divert the discussion to your straw man.

quote:

---

First of all that means you cannot be an agnostic ...

---

I've deleted a whole bunch of misguided ranting. I hope you don't mind. It has all been covered too many time to count anyway.

quote:

---

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".

---

ummm... nor does absense of evidence make a belief reasonable, no matter much as you would like it to do so. oh wait... That isn't what you claim? No matter. I claim you claim it so obviously you do.

quote:

---

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".

---

Yes, if you ignore the bulk of physics. I don't have a problem with inference and implication, apparently you do.

quote:

---

Yet another appeal to mass authority, which you assume ridicules my posts. Wow, that sure is convincing.

---

I just want the whole world laugh with me. Just spreading the joy.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I bet. What purpose would feedback serve, except either to lend dubious support to one side? Therefore it is an argument from authority.

---

... like talking to a brick wall.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then you understand the point of feed back, so drop the 'appeal to authority' farce.And yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that interests me.

quote:

---

Now explain this to me. If people on the board disagree with me, I must be wrong?

---

Nope. Didn't say that. This is your imagination. I have explained how I consider this, but then, you don't listen. This is the same point you brought up in your last post and the same point I addressed in my last post.

quote:

---

Even if that were not an argument from authority (which it is) you would be on the losing side.

---

Of course, this is not what I propose and you know that. Or, you would know that if you'd read my posts.

quote:

---

Of course, fortunately, their opinion does not make you wrong, nor does whatever opinion of people on the board make one of us wrong.

---

LOL.... thanks for that wisdom.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you keep saying, gene. WHY? You are not telling why this is so.

quote:

---

Therefore an "agnostic" that knows which religious beliefs are "reasonable" or contends that certain beliefs are not reasonable is an internal contradiction.

---

Until you come up with something better than an assertion, this is just smoke.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have told you how I determine what is valid. You have not directly addressed that issue, but keep returning to this insistence that rational thought must include a determination of whether God exists or not. It doesn't make sense. You base the idea of rationality on the idea of God and for no good reason that I can tell. Of course, it is hard to tell what you mean as you haven't given any reasons at all thus far.Equally curious is that the way you have it formulated, either an atheist or a theist can determine what is reasonable. Apparently they are each basing the determination on criteria different from that of the agnostic and perhaps different from each other as well, but you haven't bothered to explain what that criteria is.

quote:

---

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.

---

hmmm.... statements with question marks at the end are questions. Didn't realize that qualified as misrepresentation.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why does God have to enter into it at all? Why does one need to know the answer to this question in order to determine what is reasonable?

quote:

---

It is disturbing to me that you even suggest this. Non-theists often style themselves as "free thinkers". Are you leaving this behind?

---

What is the problem with asking for feed back? It is the only reason I post to this forum. Do I believe what people tell me? Nope, but it point out things I may have missed. Simple.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, I know. It is unfortunate.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know that in the past I have been well served by listening to people who disagree. Simple. I search out people who disagree. I look for people who diagree. My favorite people fight with me whenever they are around.

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL.... I am not at all worried about my credibility. Nor am I worried about your pronouncement that I won't win. I am quite convinced that you will never admit that I have won and won long ago, but that is different.

quote:

---

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.

---

Who is afraid? I am asking for it. You are objecting vehemently.

quote:

---

Feedback could possibly serve me well but it would not mean anything because it would just serve as a useless authority.

---

ah... the hubris!

quote:

---

Which brings me back to the question of why you want to obfuscate the topic with others opinions which are irrelevant.

---

Yes, other people are irrelevant aren't they gene?

quote:

---

Because no evidence = doesn't exist.

---

Except I have not said this. My formulation is "no evidence == no reason to believe and hence not reasonable" but I am sure you'll ignore that correction this time just like countless other times.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-13-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I think the point is that it is not REASONABLE to assume it exists without evidence.

---

Indeed that is the point, schraf. Gene can't seem to get his head around that. And rather than answer this directly he has started on the bizarre "agnostics can't determine what it reasonable" line of, dare I say, reasoning.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Actually you bring up a good point. The origin of the Santa Claus legend can be traced to an actual person -- St. Nicholas, bishop of a Turkish city called Myra during the 4th century AD. The legend of Kris Kringle is related and is a mangling of the German 'Kristkindl' or Christ child.

​

So Santa Claus does exist in a manner of speaking (although is not alive in our time) and his physical remains probably exist somewhere in Asia Minor. This illustrates an interesting point -- oral tradition is a powerful conveyor of knowledge that is often based in fact. Written word is even more powerful, allowing facts to pass nearly unmolested throughout the world and through time. Fascinating.

---

I too enjoy learning the origins of our myths, but this really is beside the point as far as this debate goes.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
No, it is germaine to the discussion. Santa Claus was held up as an example of pure myth, even though his existence appears to be based in actual history. My point is that not all old stories should be treated the same, because many old stories may have a basis in fact and may teach us something instructive. The decision to use our faculties for judicious (and if needed, subtle) discrimination is key if this discussion is to lead us anwhere except deeper into ignorance.

---

But I am really not talking about the old story, but about the mythical Santa Claus-- the guy who lives at the North Pole, has elves who make toys and flies through the air on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer.It doesn't really matter what you put into the blank. It can be something entirely made up.If you want to argue that the idea of God is a mythologized version of some old story, I'd agree. I'm sure it is. I doubt such a view is good for the faith though.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com