The problem is that you don't know the difference between scientific proof and metaphysical argument, and therefore don't actually understand what I am saying. I'm not being smart-arse, but you seriously are failing to grasp the point.
And I'm convinced it is you who doesn't grasp the point, but I've refrained from putting it so bluntly. I'm confident I can articulate your position. Are you equally confident in your ability to articulate mine? If so, let's try it. Short of comparing the size of our pee-pees (or in this case, Mensa cards) I don't see how else to come to an understanding.
Short of comparing the size of our pee-pees (or in this case, Mensa cards) I don't see how else to come to an understanding.
Have you ever seen the movie Wargames? "What a strange game! The only winning move is not to play."
|
The problem is that you don't know the difference between scientific proof and metaphysical argument, and therefore don't actually understand what I am saying. I'm not being smart-arse, but you seriously are failing to grasp the point.And I'm convinced it is you who doesn't grasp the point, but I've refrained from putting it so bluntly. I'm confident I can articulate your position. Are you equally confident in your ability to articulate mine? If so, let's try it. Short of comparing the size of our pee-pees (or in this case, Mensa cards) I don't see how else to come to an understanding.
If you think I'm impressed by MENSA cards (since they seem happy to let four year olds in there) I'm sorry, but your qualifications are not the issue, your arguments are. I'm still wating for you to engage with my arguments rather than repeat your rather tired assertion about burdens of proof. If you simply want to fall back on "I'm cleverer than you and I have a card to prove it", we are wasting our time. As to articulating your argument - why would I bother? It's wrong.
|
Moff, who is really trying to end discussion here? I'm the guy trying to inquire into why you hold the opinions you do in light of the difficulties I see with them. You response to this is just to declare you're not going to talk about it and it's offensive to ask. Is that the act of a person interested in honest discussion?
One of these days I really want to meet with you in person and pick each other's brains. The truth is that it is very difficult to see where you are coming from with a lot of your posts. You come across as rather dogmatic when in truth you probably aren't really that much.
The biggest problem with Occam's Razor and Russel's Teapot is that the ultimate conclusion is that the person who believes it (ie. religion or has religious beliefs) is therefore insane. Calling the other side "insane" isn't generally a good way to open up discussions about anything. And as I said, it ends up turning atheists into exactly the same thing that they say they have problems with other religions about. Which I find incredibly ironic.
Again, "disagreement" is not offensive. Telling me that I'm an idiot, or insane through an example that doesn't exactly fit is. (And, ironically, if you were actually trying to be more offensive, I would probably be less offended because I would just write you off.) Also it's the difference between saying "you're wrong" as opposed to "I disagree with you". Those two arguments cannot prove right or wrong. Insisting that it does doesn't make it true.
I think that the other point with me is that I've been down this path MANY times. Doing so again is bordering on the (truly) insane -- doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
There are some things that I would love to discuss with you on. If you care to continue discussing this stuff (I really don't see that here is the place), shoot me an email at moffrimmer (at) pcibroadband.com.
For what it's worth, I really do value what you say -- even though I don't always agree with it.
|
So you're saying that, irrespective of who would win a debate, it isn't worth it if someone walks away with hurt feelings? That is a...different way of thinking about it, but I will consider what you've said carefully.
I think the question is - why the debate? What pragmatic purpose is it serving? Nothing is to be gained, but a good deal (in relationships, goodwill, etc) stands to be lost.
If you think I'm impressed by MENSA cards (since they seem happy to let four year olds in there) I'm sorry, but your qualifications are not the issue, your arguments are. I'm still wating for you to engage with my arguments rather than repeat your rather tired assertion about burdens of proof. If you simply want to fall back on "I'm cleverer than you and I have a card to prove it", we are wasting our time.
Actually, you already fell back on that when you alledged that I was unable to grasp your point. I merely asked that you extend to me the same courtesy I extended to you; that is, to assume the problem was one of communication, not intelligence.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that God lies outside them realm of logic. That He is inherently unprovable, and to even try to prove his existence is to miss the point entirely. Further Atheism is equally unprovable, which is relevant because where the "burden of proof" lies is simply a matter of perspective.
Am I on the right track?
Edit: Age is not a factor in IQ. If measured correctly, it should remain relatively constant thoroughout life. Of course, four might be a little young to take an accurate measurement, but five or six certainly wouldn't be.
So you're saying that, irrespective of who would win a debate, it isn't worth it if someone walks away with hurt feelings? That is a...different way of thinking about it, but I will consider what you've said carefully.I think the question is - why the debate? What pragmatic purpose is it serving? Nothing is to be gained, but a good deal (in relationships, goodwill, etc) stands to be lost.
On some level I feel that truth has inherent value, and that spreading the truth is never a bad thing. That if we all just decide that the truth is less important that hurting each other's feelings, that we've lost something somehow. But as I indicated earlier, I need to give this further thought.
Eugenics is an ideology. It has more in common with a religion than it does with atheism.
Ideology: 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.Please explain how atheism does not fit the first definition.
Atheism isn't a body of ideas.
It is a single conclusion about the world.
It can certainly be part of an ideology, such as secular humanism, but alone, it is not an ideology.
The problem is that you don't know the difference between scientific proof and metaphysical argument, and therefore don't actually understand what I am saying. I'm not being smart-arse, but you seriously are failing to grasp the point.And I'm convinced it is you who doesn't grasp the point, but I've refrained from putting it so bluntly. I'm confident I can articulate your position. Are you equally confident in your ability to articulate mine? If so, let's try it. Short of comparing the size of our pee-pees (or in this case, Mensa cards) I don't see how else to come to an understanding.
Ours is the only logical answer!
You watch a lot of Southpark, don't you?
|
|
Aborigines don't use a stick. they just walk and stop and say, "here"...I suspect they use that tiny piece of magnetite in their head to detect the EMF field of the waterPigeons actually do precipitate bits of magnitite in their skulls, adjacent to the visual cortex. They can certainly sense the Earth's magnetic field, and might even be able to see it -- how cool is that!
So do humans...
=D
|
|
I'd have to ask you to justify the presence of the qualifier "from my point of view" or logically justify its inclusion.
Otherwise, I'm pleased, but I could have done without being called childish ("Maybe now you can tell all your friends"). You should also work on not getting upset when you are held accountable for the logical corollaries of your statements, or when your misdirection tactics prove ineffective.
Because "Pinky" wasn't childish at all...
I'm not sure which "statement" I made of which I needed to be held accountable for the logical corollary on. My original question is why does the believer need to provide the "proof"? I feel that the "proof" needs to come from the person who needs to know one way or the other. If you need to have proof of "Pinky's" existence then prove it. If you don't, then what difference does it make?
You never answered that, though.
You watch a lot of Southpark, don't you?
Ours is the only logical answer!
They are all wrong, it should clearly be brights. *Shudders*
You watch a lot of Southpark, don't you?
Ours is the only logical answer!
=D
Anyone interested in humorous commentaries on social and religious issues should. It is quite entertaining.
Well, not all ideas have equal worth - the existence of unverifiable trolls is pretty lame, has no bearing on the broader world and is simply a straw man argument. Yeah, it's metaphysics, yeah, it's unverifiable, but I doubt you are going to start a world religion with it.
Scientology.
[http://anthropology.net/2006/11/21/the-tiny-magnetite-compass-in-the-human-nose/]So do humans[/url]...
=D
Linkified...
Because "Pinky" wasn't childish at all...
I have no doubt that you won't believe this, but to me, Pinky is no more childish than god.
I'm not sure which "statement" I made of which I needed to be held accountable for the logical corollary on. My original question is why does the believer need to provide the "proof"? I feel that the "proof" needs to come from the person who needs to know one way or the other. If you need to have proof of "Pinky's" existence then prove it. If you don't, then what difference does it make?You never answered that, though.
As an individual believer, you don't "have" to prove anything. I'm fine with that. But it doesn't stop there. The religious often expect, no, demand, that everyone take their beliefs seriously. The fact that you found Pinky childish and insulting demonstrates that.
Further, religions are always trying to shape government policy. They control the flow of information, birth control, government funding, etc. Is it too much to ask that their motivation be grounded in logic? Can you honestly say that you'd be comfortable with millions of people actively trying to shape society based on their belief in Pinky? What if government funding were diverted from potentially life-saving research because that research offended "the laws of pinky?" Would you ask that we apply a little logic before we go along with that?
Aborigines don't use a stick. they just walk and stop and say, "here"...I suspect they use that tiny piece of magnetite in their head to detect the EMF field of the waterPigeons actually do precipitate bits of magnitite in their skulls, adjacent to the visual cortex. They can certainly sense the Earth's magnetic field, and might even be able to see it -- how cool is that!
[http://anthropology.net/2006/11/21/the-tiny-magnetite-compass-in-the-human-nose/]So do humans[/url]...
=D
This is probably a net urban legend. Searching for this work in scientific periodic databases leads to nothing. The existing accounts of humans being able to navigate due to EMF detection were shown to be unreproducible. Of course, the fact that this story is not right does not make it impossible that we can detect, by some means, EMFs.
*edited* - was a bit misleading in the way I wrote it!
Is it too much to ask that their motivation be grounded in logic?
The results of logic is only as good as the assumptions that it is based on.
My nose has been broken several times, and my sense of direction is notoriously poor... coincidence? Or Xaaon's article at work? Or have I simply been touched by the Hand of God, or by FSM's noodly appendage? Who's to say?
|
|
Religious often expect, no, demand, that everyone take their beliefs seriously.
And you are in turn demanding that the religious should not be taken seriously. The difference between the two is staggering.
Further, religions are always trying to shape government policy. They control the flow of information, birth control, government funding, etc. Is it too much to ask that their motivation be grounded in logic? Can you honestly say that you'd be comfortable with millions of people actively trying to shape society based on their belief in Pinky? I sincerely doubt it.
People will ALWAYS do their best to shape government and laws the way that they feel is best -- religious or otherwise. That argument has much less to do with religion than with human nature.
And "logic" -- A person can have an abortion right up until birth, but if they give birth - even prematurely - and then decide to kill the baby, that's wrong. I'm not sure I'm seeing the "logic" there.
I'm not saying that the "religious right" is right. Just that the opposing side isn't always about "logic" either.
1. That's on anthropology.net, not exactly a fringe site.
Yet, the few accounts of human navigation by EMFs that can be found in scientific databases were shown to be unreproducible. To my knowledge.
2. If people can't detect EMF fields why are some people hyper-sensitive to EMF radiation?
Now you got my attention. Are there any references, I am curious about this.
|
I'd have to ask you to justify the presence of the qualifier "from my point of view" or logically justify its inclusion.
Otherwise, I'm pleased, but I could have done without being called childish ("Maybe now you can tell all your friends"). You should also work on not getting upset when you are held accountable for the logical corollaries of your statements, or when your misdirection tactics prove ineffective.
Because "Pinky" wasn't childish at all...
I'm not sure which "statement" I made of which I needed to be held accountable for the logical corollary on. My original question is why does the believer need to provide the "proof"? I feel that the "proof" needs to come from the person who needs to know one way or the other. If you need to have proof of "Pinky's" existence then prove it. If you don't, then what difference does it make?
You never answered that, though.
Moff,
Partly this is a problem of you becoming the de facto representative of the rather extreme wing of Christianity as you're one of the few Christians actively engaging in the argument.Bugleyman and Samnell and ZN are all addressing you, but are really talking to the "The Bible is 100% literally true" subset of the religion. The ones who insist that the Bible is true because the bible is the word of God and so must be true. These people insist that we must believe them without providing anything to back up their claim. If your beliefs bring you happiness and comfort, then good for you. The problem comes when people on either side try to say that because their bedliefs work for them, everyone else has to agree. This is a problem for all religions and atheism and pretty much every cause known to man (and probably the ones we don't know of yet).
In other words, if you want to impose something on me, you'd damn well better be able to answer my questions about why. You haven't tried to do any such thing, so we're good, but the people who want to say science is a religion or there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the like, them I have more of an issue with.
Making the claim that something is imaginary (or just imaginary as...), whilst knowing that it is very real to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.
|
|
Bugleyman and Samnell and ZN are all addressing you, but are really talking to the "The Bible is 100% literally true" subset of the religion. The ones who insist that the Bible is true because the bible is the word of God and so must be true. These people insist that we must believe them without providing anything to back up their claim.
And, since they're also the ones with complete Chick Tracts collections, Jesus shaped oil stains in their driveways and Pat Robertson autographed guillotines in their back yards, the chances of them posting here are about the same chance of me getting freaky with Liv Tyler, Megan Fox and Kobe Tai in a tub of Jello ten minutes from now...
:)
|
|
1. That's on anthropology.net, not exactly a fringe site.
Yet, the few accounts of human navigation by EMFs that can be found in scientific databases were shown to be unreproducible. To my knowledge.
Now you got my attention. Are there any references, I am curious about this.
2. If people can't detect EMF fields why are some people hyper-sensitive to EMF radiation?
Wiki and it has lots of article references, so it should be fairly accurate
Inability to navigate via the magnetite in people who have no idea what they're doing is exactly what I was talking about with modern man losing his connection to the primal...why is it the aborigine can divine water without a divining rod in the outback?
If you don't use your eyes what happens to them? look at blind cave creatures... If you lie in bed in a coma for 3 years your muscles atrophy...
Some people have excellent sense of direction...is that why?
Opinions are not entitled to greater deference because they are dearly held. Quite the opposite, those are the ones that should receive the most aggressive and probing questioning.
I can't say I agree with that. Generally a dearly held belief is not likely to change, one might as well be tactful when making it clear that one does not agree with the belief.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.
Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
why is it the aborigine can divine water without a divining rod in the outback?
I answered that one. Go anywhere. Dig deep enough, and more likely than not you'll hit water. Amazing!
I'm not saying that the "religious right" is right. Just that the opposing side isn't always about "logic" either.
Of course not. But I'd demand proof of the tenets of their philosphy, too. Atheists running around trying to shut down churchs can kiss my ass.
Religion as a lot to say about how things should be done, all of which flow from one central idea (God is real) that is totally unprovable. To me, it really is no less silly than a "cult of Pinky" calling the shots.
My nose has been broken several times, and my sense of direction is notoriously poor... coincidence? Or Xaaon's article at work? Or have I simply been touched by the Hand of God, or by FSM's noodly appendage? Who's to say?
Well, I have never broken my nose and my direction sense is also lousy! :)
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
Thank you. I have no idea why this is viewed differently.
Holds just as true. Santa rocks!
I don't feel the need to push my beliefs on anyone.
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
|
Making the claim that something is imaginary (or just imaginary as...), whilst knowing that it is very real to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.
Considering the way such 'imaginary' friends can manifest, I've realized what is real for one can be real for more than one, so while my religion may be different from yours, I would not dare try to prove your belief wrong.
1. That's on anthropology.net, not exactly a fringe site.
Yet, the few accounts of human navigation by EMFs that can be found in scientific databases were shown to be unreproducible. To my knowledge.
Now you got my attention. Are there any references, I am curious about this.
2. If people can't detect EMF fields why are some people hyper-sensitive to EMF radiation?Wiki and it has lots of article references, so it should be fairly accurate
Thanks for the link Xaaon! However, the wikipedia article clearly states that most of the works investigating this effect seem to show that people who claim to have this problem present the same symptoms whether they are submitted to real EMFs or to bogus ones. It might be psychological, I don't know, need more evidence :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Holds just as true. Santa rocks!
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
But then, isn't everything potentially baiting and hostile? I can't say something is imaginary if I know you think it's real, and I can't say something is real if I know you think it's imaginary. So the only topics we can discuss without offending each other are those upon which we already agree? Seems like a lot would be lost for the sake of not offending the other...
(which, honestly, leads me to believe I shouldn't be offended by the "you're going to hell" statement from the OP. Who cares what that person thinks about my likely post-life adventures.)
|
|
Thank you. I have no idea why this is viewed differently.How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
Perhaps because I'm not doing this?
Simply put, in one case I'm telling you what I believe. In the other case I'm telling you what you believe.
I guess that I don't understand why you think that this is the same thing.
|
|
Holds just as true. Santa rocks!
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
But then, isn't everything potentially baiting and hostile? I can't say something is imaginary if I know you think it's real, and I can't say something is real if I know you think it's imaginary. So the only topics we can discuss without offending each other are those upon which we already agree? Seems like a lot would be lost for the sake of not offending the other...
(which, honestly, leads me to believe I shouldn't be offended by the "you're going to hell" statement from the OP. Who cares what that person thinks about my likely post-life adventures.)
Just curious, you do know that was blood you signed your name with when you took the Bar exam, right? I'm pretty sure your "post-life adventures" have already been booked on Priceline.com.
;)
Holds just as true. Santa rocks!
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
But then, isn't everything potentially baiting and hostile? I can't say something is imaginary if I know you think it's real, and I can't say something is real if I know you think it's imaginary. So the only topics we can discuss without offending each other are those upon which we already agree? Seems like a lot would be lost for the sake of not offending the other...
(which, honestly, leads me to believe I shouldn't be offended by the "you're going to hell" statement from the OP. Who cares what that person thinks about my likely post-life adventures.)
Not really. It only takes on the intent when a comparison such as the one given is made. An intentional comparison of Pinky the troll to God. Simply saying 'I believe God is imaginary' is one thing, the 2nd demeans the others' belief. Real life words, not theoretical example.
I must say that I never tried to convince anyone to abandon his belief in a god. As was already pointed out by others, no rational argument or evidence can be brought forth in evidence for or against its existence.
The discussions usually occur following this kind of script:
"But why don't you believe in god ?"
< express my reasons >
"But there are these evidences for his existence ->(evidences) ?"
At which point, following what I said in the first paragraph, I proceed to explain why such evidences are not really evidences for his existence. That by its very definition, god's existence cannot be determined or refuted by experience and evidence alone.
"But how do you explain this ? ->(anecdote or moral conundrum) "
And here is the tricky part. The person agreed to enter a rational debate concerning the existence of god and is presenting anecdotes, bible passages, stuff like that to prove that he exists. Were this any other subject, anyone can agree that, should I think the other person's arguments are flawed, I could as well show her why I think so. However it seems that it is rude to engage in the very discussion the person is inviting you to come!. It is as if a religious discussion must involve the religious person telling you things you do not agree while you smile back! Why can't people discuss it like any other subject ?
I'm not saying that the "religious right" is right. Just that the opposing side isn't always about "logic" either.Of course not. But I'd demand proof of the tenets of their philosphy, too. Atheists running around trying to shut down churchs can kiss my ass.
Religion as a lot to say about how things should be done, all of which flow from one central idea (God is real) that is totally unprovable. To me, it really is no less silly than a "cult of Pinky" calling the shots.
But atheist who try to do such things are infinitely rarer than 'concerned christian mums', who wish to ban books. And frankly they can kiss my arse too.
I want people to turn away from what I see as a crutch, but i'd never prevent them from believing in it.
The cult of pinky, or the flying spagetti monster, or the celestial tea pot are all just as reasonable ideas, in my mind, as gods.
|
|
Which is why I make no choice, I do not rule out the possibility of a God, or gods, or of even if Intelligent Design...I do believe that Evolution has merit and I believe that time definitely go back beyond 6000BC, I can see the bones in the fossil record, thus I see dinosaurs...
I however don't like engaging in discussions with fanatical people...
Fanatacism is bad...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not really. It only takes on the intent when a comparison such as the one given is made. An intentional comparison of Pinky the troll to God. Simply saying 'I believe God is imaginary' is one thing, the 2nd demeans the others' belief. Real life words, not theoretical example.
Okay, that I can see.
Sheesh, wtf is my problem anyway? I'm taking on a tangential theoretical issue in an argument about a theoretical issue. ;-)
For what it's worth (and not particularly directed at you Emperor7), as much as I am a fan of logic and reasoning, concepts in which I put a lot of stock and, yes, even some faith, just as I have a hard time imagining a single absolute god, I also have a hard time imagining a single absolute logical conclusion to any particular complex question.
Not really. It only takes on the intent when a comparison such as the one given is made. An intentional comparison of Pinky the troll to God. Simply saying 'I believe God is imaginary' is one thing, the 2nd demeans the others' belief. Real life words, not theoretical example.Holds just as true. Santa rocks!
How about the reverse?
Making the claim that something is real, whilst knowing that it is imaginary to the other person, is simply baiting and hostile. And show that any responses given would be viewed within that same POV.Or, put otherwise, is it offensive if I say that I believe Santa Claus is real when I know most everyone else believes he is imaginary?
But then, isn't everything potentially baiting and hostile? I can't say something is imaginary if I know you think it's real, and I can't say something is real if I know you think it's imaginary. So the only topics we can discuss without offending each other are those upon which we already agree? Seems like a lot would be lost for the sake of not offending the other...
(which, honestly, leads me to believe I shouldn't be offended by the "you're going to hell" statement from the OP. Who cares what that person thinks about my likely post-life adventures.)
What exactly makes god any more reasonable an idea than the flying spagetti monster?
What exactly makes god any more reasonable an idea than the flying spagetti monster?
We've been down this road already. I issued the same challenge. After a little game of three-card monte, the answer remained "nothing," but I was called childish for my trouble. I also learned that it is passive-aggressive and insulting to make such comparisons, and therefore I am a worthless, insensitive bastard.
I issue this warning lest you suffer the same fate.
Edit: Oh, and even though religion demands being taken seriously (hello there, equal time for "Intelligent Design"), the rules of logic need not apply.
What exactly makes god any more reasonable an idea than the flying spagetti monster?We've been down this road already. I issued the same challenge. The answer, after an extended shell game in which several people got offended, was "nothing." I did learn that it is apparently passive-aggressive and insulting to draw such comparisons, and therefore I am a worthless, insensitive bastard.
I issue this warning lest you suffer the same fate.
I am sorry, but why then, is it disrespectful. It might just be me, but i really cant see how it is disrespectful.