Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Étienne d'Angleterre on June 03, 2016, 07:25:51 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/parents-prayed-for-two-hours-as-their-son-lay-dying-before-calling-ambulance/ar-BBtP4Tx?ocid=spartandhp
-
That's an appalling thing.
But I'm not sure what you are asking.
-
That's an appalling thing.
But I'm not sure what you are asking.
Well, apparently they prayed. Why wouldn't God answer?
-
A more valid question might be, why didn't God remove the poor boy from that atrocious situation in the first place?
-
The boy had apparently been diagnosed Type 1 diabetic some years ago but his parents refused to believe the diagnosis and refused to administer insulin or allow him to self-administer it.
The boy had been taken into care on several occassions but each time, after his parents had attended education classes in how to treat his disease, he was returned.
The State/Province Government eventually obtained a Court Order to remove the boy from his parents but when the police arrived at their home they had fled to another State/Province where he died with a blood sugar level of less than 1.4 - the recommended minimum safe level is 4.0.
It is because they withheld his medication that they are being charged with first degree (premeditated) murder.
-
What evil scum those people are!
-
A more valid question might be, why didn't God remove the poor boy from that atrocious situation in the first place?
Ah, he has previous form in not removing children from harm's way.
In one well known example, instead of saving children from being sacrificed to one of his rivals, the Bible god arranges it so that the children get eaten by their parents.
-
If you think prayer might help, pray, but ensure you have medical attention as well for when god decides not to come through as is more often the case. Prayer is like touching wood, and no more effective, imo.
-
Pathetic!
ippy
-
People who thank god when someone is cured of their ailments, should be asking themselves when they don't blame it when a person isn't cured, and also why it so often stays its hand in such as despicable way? Now I wait for the excuses!
-
What evil scum those people are!
No, I think that they are merely stupid and deluded. The evil scum are the ones that persuaded them that prayer is a valid response to life threatening illness.
-
It provides an intriguing alternative interpretation of:
Suffer the little children to come unto me.
-
No, I think that they are merely stupid and deluded. The evil scum are the ones that persuaded them that prayer is a valid response to life threatening illness.
Yes, I agree. But in all fairness I think they, too, believe it, despite the contrary evidence.
-
No, I think that they are merely stupid and deluded. The evil scum are the ones that persuaded them that prayer is a valid response to life threatening illness.
The problem is that there are occasions when medical science states that a person has no hope of recovery, yet recover they do. Are we to take it that medical science isn't to be trusted?
-
Well, apparently they prayed. Why wouldn't God answer?
Well, apparently there are people called doctors, nurses and paramedics who God would have been abe to answer through had the parents called in the first place. To use this as an argument that prayer doesn't work is a pretty poor argument. If the details of the case, as outlined in the article, are correct, then the use of such a story is even less valid in regard to the validity of prayer. It can be argued that their long-term treatment of the boy was both contrary to what I assume would have been the aim of their prayers and - perhaps more importantly - very unChristian in the first place.
-
A more valid question might be, why didn't God remove the poor boy from that atrocious situation in the first place?
As has been pointed out in the past, God works through people. Do we actually know the full details of the situation? Was the house ever visited by social workers? Did the parents ever allow people to visit the house, and consequently, did anyone actually see the state the boy was in? Unfortunately, the detail in this particular report doesn't cover all the bases. If the detail given is correct I, as a Christian, would agree with the suggestion that they be found guilty of 1st degree murder.
-
People who thank god when someone is cured of their ailments, should be asking themselves when they don't blame it when a person isn't cured, and also why it so often stays its hand in such as despicable way? Now I wait for the excuses!
I think that you misunderstand what many people pray for, Floo. Whilst some will pray, exclusively, for healing (and often from selfish motives) most will pray that God will do what is best for the person concerned. That might be a full recovery, it might be death, it might be for somewhere in between. At the same time, healing can take a whole range of aspects. It can be physical, it can be mental; it can have to do with the attitude of the sick person towards themselves or towards others - ie who is to blame for the situation they find themselves in; it can be to do with how they have treated themselves or how others have treated them, etc.
Prayer is seldom as simplistic as you, and most prayer-research, like to make out.
-
There is no evidence any god is on the other end of the prayer phone line.
-
There is no evidence any god is on the other end of the prayer phone line.
Evidence for this claim, please, Floo.
-
Just to note that, in an interview with today's Sunday Telegraph, prospective Tory leader and Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom tells us she's a "very committed Christian" who prays "a lot".
Oh great. And there was me thinking things couldn't get much worse. Imagine the scene: Trump and Putin squaring off, the world in mortal danger and UN Security Council member and nuclear power the UK has to decide how to respond. A calm head, deep understanding of the issues and exceptional judgment are essential here, and where's a our putative leader at this critical time?
Yup, on her knees praying to her imaginary friend for her orders.
Terrific eh?
-
Evidence for this claim, please, Floo.
Ooh, and our Hope collapses yet again back into his favourite negative proof fallacy.
Just like old times here again innit?
-
Ooh, and our Hope collapses yet again back into his favourite negative proof fallacy.
Just like old times here again innit?
Sorry, bhs; Floo made a statement. I have asked for evidence in support of that statement. That is not the NPF. Incidentally, I have provided evidence earlier in the thread for why a belief in the efficacy of prayer is logical and reasonable.
-
Prayer is seldom as simplistic as you, and most prayer-research, like to make out.
In what ways are the methods adopted by researchers studying prayer inadequate: presumably you have critiqued these studies to be able to say this, so what are these researchers missing (methodologically speaking)?
-
Evidence for this claim, please, Floo.
Hope, as you have been told so often, you are the one who has to provide evidence for your assertions of the less than credible. The default position must be scepticism until verifiable evidence is obtained.
If I said I had seen a unicorn in my garden, for instance, you could then ask for proof.
-
Hope, as you have been told so often, you are the one who has to provide evidence for your assertions of the less than credible. The default position must be scepticism until verifiable evidence is obtained.
No, all I have to do is provide evidence that indicates that my assertions aren't ridiculous, illogical and unreasonable.
The same applies to Floo and others.
Furthermore, when one refers to verifiability, one has to assume that the means by which we verify claims are actually able to test every possible option. It is clear that science isn't able to verify non-natural events and issues, despite the fact that life includes such things. In other words, the scientific method isn't the only, let alone necessarily the best means of verifying things.
-
In what ways are the methods adopted by researchers studying prayer inadequate: presumably you have critiqued these studies to be able to say this, so what are these researchers missing (methodologically speaking)?
OK, I have read a number of the studies and reports - but none have ever actually specified what the prayer requests being 'tested' actually were. They generally refer to 'prayers for healing' but, as I've previously pointed out, many such prayers include a variety of levels and forms of healing within them.
-
Hope you have NEVER provided any evidence, only assertions and more assertions!
-
OK, I have read a number of the studies and reports - but none have ever actually specified what the prayer requests being 'tested' actually were. They generally refer to 'prayers for healing' but, as I've previously pointed out, many such prayers include a variety of levels and forms of healing within them.
So you see an issue involving the categorisation of prayer which, if your concerns are justified, implies two things: first that there are established categoristions of prayer (reflecting these 'levels and forms' you mention) which have been established via research that meets academic standards and, second, that the researchers in the studies you refer to didn't use an established catergorisation.
So which is it?
-
The problem is that there are occasions when medical science states that a person has no hope of recovery, yet recover they do.
The clue is in the word "science". You can never be 100% certain of anything, but medical science is more often right than not and it undeniably saves lives. It would have done in this case, given the chance.
Are we to take it that medical science isn't to be trusted?
Is anybody saying that?
-
No, all I have to do is provide evidence that indicates that my assertions aren't ridiculous, illogical and unreasonable.
The same applies to Floo and others.
Furthermore, when one refers to verifiability, one has to assume that the means by which we verify claims are actually able to test every possible option. It is clear that science isn't able to verify non-natural events and issues, despite the fact that life includes such things. In other words, the scientific method isn't the only, let alone necessarily the best means of verifying things.
Hope
You make me physically sick!
You will say absolutely anything to exonerate your God from blame orresponsibility for NOT doing what he promised his followers.
ASK AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN UNTO YOU - Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find ... "
Moderator: content removed: Moderated content replaced by - Not very good at keeping his promies is he?
your religion stinks and your God even more so!
As a human being you are sadly lacking in any kind of humanity - your God takes absolute precedence over everything and everybody. You care more for your God and his IMAGE than you care for humanity or the suffering of a young child at the hands of your religious beliefs and those who share them.
-
You will say absolutely anything to exonerate your God from blame orresponsibility for NOT doing what he promised his followers.
To be fair, Hope's god has the handicap of being imaginary. That is a pretty good excuse not to be able to do anything.
-
Before anyone has a real go at me for my post above - I am only remaining on this forum until I get resolution of a matter which is in hand and ongoing.
As soon as that resolution is reached I am, much, I am, sure, to the relief of most who are posting on here, leaving the forum.
Some of you I will miss, Shaker and Gordon among them, others I will miss like a very bad case of eczema and haemorrhoids occurring at the same time as a visit from my mother-in-law. Mentioning no names!
-
Furthermore, when one refers to verifiability, one has to assume that the means by which we verify claims are actually able to test every possible option.
You once again display your utter ignorance of research methods: for anything to be a 'possible option' implies a appropriate methodology within which evidence can be collected and evaluated, which is where validity and reliability come in (as part of the method). A proposal of 'x' without an appropriate methodology isn't a 'possible option' if there is no methodological basis to evaluate it: it is just white noise.
Before you come lumbering in with your usual claim that science is not the only method, you often been asked to propose an alternative method that will stand scrutiny - how is that progressing?
It is clear that science isn't able to verify non-natural events and issues, despite the fact that life includes such things.
Explain how you would even know, never mind 'verify', something non-natural: what does this non-naturalism involve in order for you to apprehend its presence or action? You claim 'the fact that life includes such things' - so whatever these things are just choose one and set out the details.
In other words, the scientific method isn't the only, let alone necessarily the best means of verifying things.
Right on cue - here it is! So if science isn't the only approach to verification, as you say, then what alternatives are there?
-
You once again display your utter ignorance of research methods: for anything to be a 'possible option' implies a appropriate methodology within which evidence can be collected and evaluated, which is where validity and reliability come in (as part of the method). A proposal of 'x' without an appropriate methodology isn't a 'possible option' if there is no methodological basis to evaluate it: it is just white noise.
Before you come lumbering in with your usual claim that science is not the only method, you often been asked to propose an alternative method that will stand scrutiny - how is that progressing?
Explain how you would even know, never mind 'verify', something non-natural: what does this non-naturalism involve in order for you to apprehend its presence or action? You claim 'the fact that life includes such things' - so whatever these things are just choose one and set out the details.
Right on cue - here it is! So if science isn't the only approach to verification, as you say, then what alternatives are there?
Gordon
Why do you and others keep trying to explain to Hope the many errors in his arguments? Why waste the time?
You know as well as I do that he will not give an inch, he cannot understand that his arguments are to rational argument what Stalin was to Conservative politics, what Christine Keeler was to Catholic moral values, and what Donald Trump is to sanity!
It is like trying to convince Victoria Beckham that to smile will not crack her face into a thousand pieces - which would, on balance, be an improvement.
-
As has been pointed out in the past, God works through people.
He was working through the parents then............ :-\
-
He was working through the parents then............ :-\
. . . unfortunately that possibility does not fit into Hope's view of the situation, because the boy died, God MUST have been working through the Doctors in order the "his will be done".
If he had been working through the parents the boy would have lived as they requested in their prayers!
-
Hope,
Sorry, bhs; Floo made a statement. I have asked for evidence in support of that statement. That is not the NPF.
Nope. The statement was that there is no evidence for the claims you (and some others) make for the efficacy of prayer. That's a true statement, just as "there is no evidence for an orbiting teapot" is a true statement. That's not to say that, at some future time, evidence for either necessarily cannot emerge but it is to say that in each case there's been none so far.
Incidentally, I have provided evidence earlier in the thread for why a belief in the efficacy of prayer is logical and reasonable.
No you haven't.
-
Hope,
No, all I have to do is provide evidence that indicates that my assertions aren't ridiculous, illogical and unreasonable.
Then, finally, why not at least attempt to do so?
The same applies to Floo and others.
Which isn't a problem. The "evidence" or, more properly, the logic is that there's no reason to think there to be a god because no such reasoning has ever been produced in a cogent, coherent, or logically sound manner.
Furthermore, when one refers to verifiability, one has to assume that the means by which we verify claims are actually able to test every possible option. It is clear that science isn't able to verify non-natural events and issues, despite the fact that life includes such things. In other words, the scientific method isn't the only, let alone necessarily the best means of verifying things.
Your problem here isn't that "science isn't able to verify non-natural events and issues", but rather that you need to demonstrate that there are "non-natural events and issues" to be verified in the first place. You have in other words just committed the reification fallacy again.
You may think that the scientific method isn't the only or the best means of verifying everything, but you have all your work ahead of you still to propose a method of any kind to use in its place.
-
Hope,
I think that you misunderstand what many people pray for, Floo. Whilst some will pray, exclusively, for healing (and often from selfish motives) most will pray that God will do what is best for the person concerned. That might be a full recovery, it might be death, it might be for somewhere in between. At the same time, healing can take a whole range of aspects. It can be physical, it can be mental; it can have to do with the attitude of the sick person towards themselves or towards others - ie who is to blame for the situation they find themselves in; it can be to do with how they have treated themselves or how others have treated them, etc.
Prayer is seldom as simplistic as you, and most prayer-research, like to make out.
Nope. All that means is that, no matter what happens, it happened "because God knew best". That's called casuistry - you're dressing up the outcome that's exactly the one you'd expect to see if there was no god at all by claiming it all to be a divine plan beyond our ken.
And yes, prayer is "simplistic" inasmuch as the results are just as you'd expect them to be if there was no praying done at all. Pointing to personal anecdotes and trying to draw general conclusions from them doesn't work because your sample size is too small and because you just ignore or dress up the prayers that don't work (see above). If you want to demonstrate the supposed efficacy of prayer you need sample sizes that are statistically meaningful and you need to deal with the silent evidence problem of failures.
-
Hope,
The problem is that there are occasions when medical science states that a person has no hope of recovery, yet recover they do. Are we to take it that medical science isn't to be trusted?
No. What we are to think though is that you've constructed a straw man version of science, which actually claims neither omniscience nor infallibility. Of course there are things that science doesn't understand - that's why people still do it. And of course it gets things wrong sometimes - especially medical science given the complexity of the multiple and interacting systems of the human body. Neither fact though gives you licence to describe some phenomena as "supernatural" and to drop in your personal faith beliefs as the explanations for them.
You are in other words back into, "it must be Thor then" territory.
-
I At the same time, healing can take a whole range of aspects. It can be physical, it can be mental; it can have to do with the attitude of the sick person towards themselves or towards others - ie who is to blame for the situation they find themselves in; it can be to do with how they have treated themselves or how others have treated them, etc.
More fundamental contradictions in the various positions you hold.
When we discussed a while ago about God commanding genocide, I asked you why he could not have found a more peaceful means of settling the situation rather than the wholesale slaughter of tribes.
I suggested that he might change the minds of the people who might perpetrate atrocities. You rejected this idea on the grounds that it would violate free-will and make people robots.
Yet recently you have suggested that God could have had a hand in determining the recent referendum vote. And above you also suggest that he can change the attitudes of people in order to obtain a certain outcome.
For me it clearly shows that if God can change minds and attitudes then he committed/ordered genocide in the past. If he can't change minds then he can't have had a say in the referendum or in the healing that you refer to.
Which is it?
-
Stephen,
More fundamental contradictions in the various positions you hold.
Well, yes. That's what happens when you step off the firm ground of logical thinking and onto well, what? Wishful thinking? Personal opinion? Hope even?
That's the odd thing about Hope. If he'd just stop pretending that there's any sort of reasoning to support him and instead said something like, "look, I can't support these contentions in any way but I really, really think and hope they're true nonetheless" then we'd all say "fair enough" and leave him to it. The moment though he tries to hide under the cloak of rationalism, it all comes falling down around his ears as you've pointed out.
-
Through my working life I've had to deal with all kinds of people, people of all sorts, holding all sorts of jobs, professions etc, including teachers, I've got teachers in my own family, now of all the professions I've had to deal with, teachers it seems to me that a considerable amount of them, not all, have this mistaken idea that now they they have acquired their teaching degree and at the same time by some miraculous piece of fate they have also acquired the entire knowledge of the universe; you don't need to look very far on the forum to find an example of this phenomenon.
ippy
-
Just to note that, in an interview with today's Sunday Telegraph, prospective Tory leader and Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom tells us she's a "very committed Christian" who prays "a lot".
Oh great. And there was me thinking things couldn't get much worse. Imagine the scene: Trump and Putin squaring off, the world in mortal danger and UN Security Council member and nuclear power the UK has to decide how to respond. A calm head, deep understanding of the issues and exceptional judgment are essential here, and where's a our putative leader at this critical time?
Yup, on her knees praying to her imaginary friend for her orders.
Terrific eh?
Are you talking about Tony Blair?
Tony Blair !!!
-
John,
Are you talking about Tony Blair?
No. As I said, the i'view was with Andrea Leadsom.
-
I know you were but the situation seems similar to the Bush / Blair pray in before the Gulf war.
I expect a politician to have the skill to weigh up facts before deciding what to do. To kneel and pray to God to be told what to do seems like a cop out to me. When incorrect decisions go bad they can simply claim "God told me to do it, so there". Unacceptable!
-
john,
I know you were but the situation seems similar to the Bush / Blair pray in before the Gulf war.
I expect a politician to have the skill to weigh up facts before deciding what to do. To kneel and pray to God to be told what to do seems like a cop out to me. When incorrect decisions go bad they can simply claim "God told me to do it, so there". Unacceptable!
Quite so. I think TB's enthusiastic support for faith schools could well be one of the more damning aspects of his legacy.
-
His kids went to the Oratory from what I remember and that's probably his idea of a faith school, or was. I expect he knows different now. Indeed, when I first heard talk about 'faith schools' I assumed they were like the innocuous girls' convent school in Bromley, the 'Christ the King' comprehensive sixth form college at Sidcup and the CofE primary near where my mum lived. I was naive and, of course, quite wrong. A faith school is often a place where very narrow views are indoctrinated into kids, evolution didn't happen, anyone on the outside is spawn of the devil, goodness knows what else. Scary. I know I exaggerate here but all sorts go on behind closed doors, despite OFSTED.
-
Explain how you would even know, never mind 'verify', something non-natural: what does this non-naturalism involve in order for you to apprehend its presence or action? You claim 'the fact that life includes such things' - so whatever these things are just choose one and set out the details.
iirc they include:
1) Speed limits.
2) Right and wrong.
We have yet to be shown how he knows these things to be non-natural.
I think part of the problem is that Hope seems to define as non-natural any aspect of life that isn't within the remit of science.
He is of course wrong in that in both the above examples the debate can be informed by application of science.
-
To use this as an argument that prayer doesn't work is a pretty poor argument.
I didn't use it as an argument that prayer doesn't work, although that is one explanation.
-
As has been pointed out in the past, God works through people.
So has does this work in the case of surgeons who have given up on patients who have then recovered as you like point out?
Did they performed some procedure that they wouldn't normally have considered if prayers had not been said?
I mean did they turn up at the hospital one day and say "I wouldn't normally do this to a terminally ill patient but I have a strange desire to do it now" ?
-
Hope,
As has been pointed out in the past, God works through people.
Just to note that "pointed out" implies that something is actually verifiably true. What you meant to say there I think was something like "asserted" or "claimed".
-
Brownie,
His kids went to the Oratory from what I remember and that's probably his idea of a faith school, or was. I expect he knows different now. Indeed, when I first heard talk about 'faith schools' I assumed they were like the innocuous girls' convent school in Bromley, the 'Christ the King' comprehensive sixth form college at Sidcup and the CofE primary near where my mum lived. I was naive and, of course, quite wrong. A faith school is often a place where very narrow views are indoctrinated into kids, evolution didn't happen, anyone on the outside is spawn of the devil, goodness knows what else. Scary. I know I exaggerate here but all sorts go on behind closed doors, despite OFSTED.
It'd be wrong to tarnish them all with the same brush I think - presumably there are degrees of religiosity between them - but yes, a faith school is a very different set up to a school that happens to have "St." in front of its name. Clearly teaching nonsense to children is a bad idea, but they foster too a "now let's be all inclusive, but we really know don't we children that we're right, the chosen ones whereas those heathens over there, well, you know bless 'em they do their best but they're never going to get the rewards coming our way in the hereafter now are they?" type attitude that's bad for society as a whole, and for that matter for the pupils who believe it.
That's why I think they're one of the crappier parts of TB's legacy.
-
Brownie,
It'd be wrong to tarnish them all with the same brush I think - presumably there are degrees of religiosity between them - but yes, a faith school is a very different set up to a school that happens to have "St." in front of its name. Clearly teaching nonsense to children is a bad idea, but they foster too a "now let's be all inclusive, but we really know don't we children that we're right, the chosen ones whereas those heathens over there, well, you know bless 'em they do their best but they're never going to get the rewards coming our way in the hereafter now are they?" type attitude that's bad for society as a whole, and for that matter for the pupils who believe it.
That's why I think they're one of the crappier parts of TB's legacy.
TB is, after all, a convert to Catholicism and thus appears to suffer from the rather higher level of fanaticism of the convert, whether it be to Catholicism or non-smoking. Converts seem to be far more veherment in their attachment to and support of whatever they convert to than those brought up with the subject
-
That's true of some Owlswing though he had been around Catholicism all his married life and I would think Cherie is fairly mainstream.
My idea of a fanatical convert is one who embraces all the "frills" of Catholicism, eg shrines, relics, Opus Dei, penance. I am a convert too, a very long time ago, but now lapsed though I still retain an affection for the fairly liberal, post-Vat ll Church that I joined. However I came across others who wanted to be more Catholic than established Catholics:) like the types of convert described above (& found them disconcerting and rather embarrassing to be honest).
I wouldn't have put Tony Blair in that category but I suppose we don't know much about his personal faith, it is his private business after all, so you may be right.
(Nice to see you still here btw, hope you stay because you see things from different angles to many of us; no flattery intended, just how I view your posts.)
-
His kids went to the Oratory from what I remember and that's probably his idea of a faith school, or was. I expect he knows different now. Indeed, when I first heard talk about 'faith schools' I assumed they were like the innocuous girls' convent school in Bromley, the 'Christ the King' comprehensive sixth form college at Sidcup and the CofE primary near where my mum lived. I was naive and, of course, quite wrong. A faith school is often a place where very narrow views are indoctrinated into kids, evolution didn't happen, anyone on the outside is spawn of the devil, goodness knows what else. Scary. I know I exaggerate here but all sorts go on behind closed doors, despite OFSTED.
If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
-
If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?
No - it would be a good thing to encourage children to question.
So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
Based on well-founded knowledge regarding evolution this would be a bad thing, since creationism is nonsense and no competent teacher would teach it: an incompetent teacher might, which is why we need to keep these teachers away from the education of our children.
I suspect most parents would share my view.
-
If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
Children should be taught to question everything. We brought our kids up to do that.
-
That's true of some Owlswing though he had been around Catholicism all his married life and I would think Cherie is fairly mainstream.
My idea of a fanatical convert is one who embraces all the "frills" of Catholicism, eg shrines, relics, Opus Dei, penance. I am a convert too, a very long time ago, but now lapsed though I still retain an affection for the fairly liberal, post-Vat ll Church that I joined. However I came across others who wanted to be more Catholic than established Catholics:) like the types of convert described above (& found them disconcerting and rather embarrassing to be honest).
I wouldn't have put Tony Blair in that category but I suppose we don't know much about his personal faith, it is his private business after all, so you may be right.
(Nice to see you still here btw, hope you stay because you see things from different angles to many of us; no flattery intended, just how I view your posts.)
O K DA
I did not say ALL converts - but is certainly a symptom of MANY converts!
-
If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
Some people could read posts on this forum and assume that some posters have passed from ignorance to stupidity without passing through intelligence.
-
No - it would be a good thing to encourage children to question.
Based on well-founded knowledge regarding evolution this would be a bad thing, since creationism is nonsense and no competent teacher would teach it: an incompetent teacher might, which is why we need to keep these teachers away from the education of our children.
I suspect most parents would share my view.
Totally agreed!
This is why teachers of Creationism are not employed as such if they are circumcised - they have to be complete pricks!
-
Some people could read posts on this forum and assume that some posters have passed from ignorance to stupidity without passing through intelligence.
:-[
------------------
Spud: "If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?"
No, children should challenge everything they are taught. However there are undoubtedly some teachers who would teach creationism as fact. I knew some, a few years ago, actually. One taught biology and gave it up because the National Curriculum required evolution to be taught. The other two did not teach biology so carried on, not mentioning their personal beliefs in class, but had they been required to do so they'd have had no hesitation.
-
Spud,
If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?
No. Children should be taught to question everything, just as you too should question your belief in creationism. Sceptical enquiry is a good and useful thing in all fields.
So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
Yes they might conclude that, but only if they'd been comprehensively and persuasively lied to about the facts of evolution and flight.
Questioning and being lied to are not however the same thing.
-
If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
Spud,
First of all, evolution is a part of science and therefore discussion of aerodynamics, bird flight, the anatomy of a wing and its evolutionary origins would be part of science lessons. Within that format, it might be quite sensible and appropriate to refer to such things as punctuated equilibrium or aspects of Lamarckism. Questioning should of course be encouraged, and evidence and argument should be presented.
However, the idea that birds were simply created(presumably by some sort of 'god') would be an adulteration of any science lesson as this would not involve any scientific approach whatever. The only way in which it could be presented within a science lesson, I suggest, would be to discuss how people approached such questions in the absence or ignorance of scientific knowledge.
The proper place to approach such subjects in this way, however, would be within Religious Education lessons which should, of course, deal with a whole range of religions and religious ideas, and where questioning should, indeed, be the order of the day.
-
:-[
------------------
Spud: "If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?"
No, children should challenge everything they are taught. However there are undoubtedly some teachers who would teach creationism as fact. I knew some, a few years ago, actually. One taught biology and gave it up because the National Curriculum required evolution to be taught. The other two did not teach biology so carried on, not mentioning their personal beliefs in class, but had they been required to do so they'd have had no hesitation.
OK DA
-
D'accord.
(I am praying for some things atm without a lot of hope, I feel a bit depressed and resigned actually but have asked for prayers from others who have more confidence. Will let you know if things change.)
-
Brownie,
(I am praying for some things atm without a lot of hope, I feel a bit depressed and resigned actually but have asked for prayers from others who have more confidence. Will let you know if things change.)
I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way. Just out of interest though, if things do change as you'd like them to what conclusion would you draw about role of prayer?
-
Brownie,
I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way. Just out of interest though, if things do change as you'd like them to what conclusion would you draw about role of prayer?
Brownie
Ditto the above from me!
-
D'accord.
(I am praying for some things atm without a lot of hope, I feel a bit depressed and resigned actually but have asked for prayers from others who have more confidence. Will let you know if things change.)
Don't worry. Things will change, they always do!
-
Don't worry. Things will change, they always do!
Yeah - and not always for the better! Dammit!
-
BR,
Don't worry. Things will change, they always do!
Indeed, but the problem is that - for the Hopes of this world - if they change as he wants them to then that's God exercising his beneficence, and if they don't, well, God knows best in any case.
And the trouble with that of course is that it's indistinguishable from there being no God at all.
-
Brownie,
I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way. Just out of interest though, if things do change as you'd like them to what conclusion would you draw about role of prayer?
Let's wait and see. I am certainly very grateful for prayers and mindful of the Biblical story of the sick man lowered through the roof so that Jesus could see him; Jesus took note of the prayers of those who helped the man, we don't hear of the man's prayers.
However I do apologise for mentioning something personal on this thread. It seemed relevant but I know it can be annoying when a subject is being discussed and a poster jumps in with "I". Best to keep things general. Still I'm not going to delete it, no point in that now.
Thanks.
-
Hi Brownie,
Let's wait and see. I am certainly very grateful for prayers and mindful of the Biblical story of the sick man lowered through the roof so that Jesus could see him; Jesus took note of the prayers of those who helped the man, we don't hear of the man's prayers.
However I do apologise for mentioning something personal on this thread. It seemed relevant but I know it can be annoying when a subject is being discussed and a poster jumps in with "I". Best to keep things general. Still I'm not going to delete it, no point in that now.
Thanks.
No need to apologise, and you didn't mention something personal in any case - just that you were concerned about something.
The question though doesn't relate to that "something" specifically, and nor for that matter to waiting to see what happens. Rather I was interested to know what conclusion you would draw about the effect of prayer if the things prayed for happened, and indeed if they did not.
-
BR,
Indeed, but the problem is that - for the Hopes of this world - if they change as he wants them to then that's God exercising his beneficence, and if they don't, well, God knows best in any case.
And the trouble with that of course is that it's indistinguishable from there being no God at all.
Exactly.
-
So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.
Except that they wouldn't if they were presented the evidence honestly and they studied it with an open mind.
-
Let's wait and see.
As others have said, I am sorry to hear that you feel depressed at the moment. I hope you feel better soon. Also, if you feel low for a while I wouldn't hesitate to talk to someone experienced in the field. I did and don't regret it for a moment.
To echo and build on the comments of bhs has already made though I am interested in why you say "let's wait and see". Either things will turn out for the better or they won't, surely that is sufficient for you to already form a view on what conclusions you will draw?
-
Spud,
First of all, evolution is a part of science and therefore discussion of aerodynamics, bird flight, the anatomy of a wing and its evolutionary origins would be part of science lessons. Within that format, it might be quite sensible and appropriate to refer to such things as punctuated equilibrium or aspects of Lamarckism. Questioning should of course be encouraged, and evidence and argument should be presented.
However, the idea that birds were simply created(presumably by some sort of 'god') would be an adulteration of any science lesson as this would not involve any scientific approach whatever. The only way in which it could be presented within a science lesson, I suggest, would be to discuss how people approached such questions in the absence or ignorance of scientific knowledge.
The proper place to approach such subjects in this way, however, would be within Religious Education lessons which should, of course, deal with a whole range of religions and religious ideas, and where questioning should, indeed, be the order of the day.
As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education. But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo, and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory - at least there is then another authority to turn to when science fails to answer the questions. Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.
I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.
-
As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education. But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo, and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory - at least there is then another authority to turn to when science fails to answer the questions. Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.
I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.
I really didn't think there was anyone on the forum more ignorant about evolution than - tw-it, well done spud.
ippy
-
Spud,
As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education.
Not true. There's a very good fossil record for evidence and the physics is well-understood too.
But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo,...
Then your opinion is wrong because that's exactly what the evidence tells us. Some palaeontologists would go as far as to say that in some respects modern birds are dinosaurs.
... and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory -
Then you'd suggest wrongly because there is no uncertainty of the type you describe, and because "intelligent" design offers no testable hypotheses of its own to consider. It's just religious faith, which is why it has no place in science classes.
...at least there is then another authority to turn to...
Just guessing about something isn't an "authority".
...when science fails to answer the questions.
When science fails to answer something that just leaves a "don't know". For another explanation to be considered requires a method to test the claim, which is why ID falls at the first hurdle.
Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.
Actually it asserts rather than addresses, and it offers lots of speculations about that of which your particular god is just one.
I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.
Then you're not looking hard enough.
-
Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over....
Fighting for equality is always worth it.
-
Dear BHS,
Have you seen Hope around recently? He doesn't seem to be around to address the questions put to him.
-
Hi Stephen,
Have you seen Hope around recently? He doesn't seem to be around to address the questions put to him.
Nope, but nor do I expect to for a bit. The Hope playbook goes something like:
1. Make some logically bad arguments.
2. Be corrected on them.
3. Ignore the corrections for a while.
4. Reappear later on to claim that you've addressed the corrections even though no-one can find where you did that.
5. Repeat Step 1.
And so it goes :(
-
Without checking, I am sure Hope was posting on the forum last night. Depending on what else he has to do, he'll probably be back on tonight or tomorrow.
-
Without checking, I am sure Hope was posting on the forum last night. Depending on what else he has to do, he'll probably be back on tonight or tomorrow.
Do you not find it strange that he doesn't seem to want to address the questions asked?
Or do you think he will do that tonight or tomorrow?
-
As long as attention is drawn to the questions about bird flight which evolution theory has not yet answered, then you will have honest education. But to teach as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs would be dishonest, imo, and I'd suggest that looking at the facts from an intelligent design perspective would be the honest way to balance the uncertainty of evolution theory - at least there is then another authority to turn to when science fails to answer the questions. Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.
I am open to evolution over millions of years, by the way, but I don't see enough evidence to say yes that is the answer. Like the redefinition of marriage, the debate has caused serious conflict though and in a way is not worth fighting over; I can see the same thing happening with Brexit.
Spud,
There are at least two main reasons given for the origins of bird flight, both evolutionary in nature, which could certainly be discussed honestly within a science lesson. As far as I know there is no scientific non evolutionary reason for bird flight.
The general and overwhelming scientific consensus as to the evolution of birds is that they evolved from a group of dinosaurs in the Mesozoic era, for which there is a great deal of fossil evidence. It is also true that a few scientists still hold to the opinion that birds evolved from other types of reptiles. Again, I don't see this as a problem at all. The scientific merits and evidence for both sides can be discussed and debated quite properly within a science lesson.
Your idea however that the idea of evolution is uncertain is not one held by science and hence is not really a valid area for a science lesson. Furthermore, it would be entirely dishonest to discuss intelligent design within a science lesson because there is no scientific evidence at all which can ascertain this and therefore give it any authoritative basis whatever. It is purely surmise, usually backed by certain religious ideas, which have no place at all within science lessons.
Now, if you would wish to introduce discussion and debate on whether there is such a thing as 'intelligent design' within an RE lesson, I have no problem, as long as a broad range of religious ideas are also given due airing, and as long as the teacher does not seek, in any way, to influence or direct the student towards any particular religious or non religious standpoint.
-
Religious education addresses who the designer is, assuming we already believe in I.D.
Your confirmation bias is getting in the way of your ability to reason, again.
-
Do you not find it strange that he doesn't seem to want to address the questions asked?
I have no idea what Hope wants.
Or do you think he will do that tonight or tomorrow?
You'll have to ask him ;).
-
Fighting for equality is always worth it.
Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.
-
Spud,
There are at least two main reasons given for the origins of bird flight, both evolutionary in nature, which could certainly be discussed honestly within a science lesson. As far as I know there is no scientific non evolutionary reason for bird flight.
Is it known how feathers, which have a complex structure and grow out of individual follicles and are shed individually, could have formed from simple-structured reptilian scales, which are folds of skin and are shed en mass in sheets? Until it is, then no, there is no evolutionary explanation for bird flight.
-
Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.
No, it's based on the actual fact of loving the person they do.
(much edited to remove some words that might have been modded)
-
No, it's based on the actual fact of loving the person they do.
(much edited to remove some words that might have been modded)
NS
Your ability to remain calm in the face of severe provocation is to be loudly applauded!
-
Is it known how feathers, which have a complex structure and grow out of individual follicles and are shed individually, could have formed from simple-structured reptilian scales, which are folds of skin and are shed en mass in sheets? Until it is, then no, there is no evolutionary explanation for bird flight.
What to evolutionary biologists say on this matter, Spud: scientists that is, who have published their work in academic science journals?
-
What to evolutionary biologists say on this matter, Spud: scientists that is, who have published their work in academic science journals?
Come on Gordon! Such learned men and learned journals have no credibility when stacked against the unquestionable authority of the Bible.
Surely you are aware of this - shame on you for questioning Spud's Biblical authority. Go and stand in the Naughty Corner for the next 50 years!
-
Spud,
Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.
Equality means enjoying the same rights as everyone else regardless of sexual orientation as it actually is, not conditional on sexual orientation as you'd prefer it to be.
-
Is it known how feathers, which have a complex structure and grow out of individual follicles and are shed individually, could have formed from simple-structured reptilian scales, which are folds of skin and are shed en mass in sheets? Until it is, then no, there is no evolutionary explanation for bird flight.
I think that you are confusing the evolutionary explanations for bird flight, which I assumed you were talking about, with the evolutionary explanation for how feathers developed. There is overwhelming fossil evidence that feathers were present in certain early dinosaurs. The only question is how did they develop. I suggest that your idea that feathers developed from scales is only one suggestion. Why not expand your knowledge and see what reputable scientists have to say on the matter?
I repeat, "As far as I know there is no scientific non evolutionary reason for bird flight."
-
I think there are feathered flightless dinosaurs, suggesting an insulation function. Oh really, when ID people start talking about the inadequacies of evolution, I have to laugh. This is trash talk.
I was thinking about convergence in relation to flight, e.g. birds, insects, bats. Oh I forgot God done it.
-
Homosexuals already had equality, because they have always been permitted to marry someone of the opposite sex. The assertion that they did not have equality is based on the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the opposite sex.
Really.
Let me turn it round for you:
Homosexuals didn't have equality, because they were not permitted to marry someone of the same sex. The assertion that they did have equality is based upon the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the same sex.
-
Really.
Let me turn it round for you:
Homosexuals didn't have equality, because they were not permitted to marry someone of the same sex. The assertion that they did have equality is based upon the false assumption that they will never be able to love someone of the same sex.
Can I make a suggestion?
Go to Jerusalem and tell it to the Wailing Wall; you will get a far more intelligent and well thought out response.
-
Just had some very good news re my daughter's exam grades. Which god should I thank I wonder? The Christian one talks a good story but there's some pretty iffy stuff in His early works in particular, and I'm not feeling it for the Muslim one. Some of the Norse gods are quite funky, ditto the Roman ones. I'm quite drawn to the Egyptian goddess Taweret too - the body of a pregnant woman, the head of a hippopotamus, the tail of a crocodile, and the arms and legs of a lion. Cool eh?
Any help gratefully received please.
Of course, I could always credit my daughter what with staying up 'til midnight working these past two years but hey, gods are so much more thrilling don't you think?
-
I wonder if anyone else saw the programme, "Just call me Martina", on BBC1 a few nights ago (and I note it is repeated tonight at 11.40pm)?
Martina Navratilova married her partner of six years about eighteen months ago. In the programme she talked about the prejudice she had faced when she was a young tennis player, all the adverse publicity and how some felt she wasn't a person you would allow to be around your daughters because she was a "pervert".
I was extremely moved by the programme because I remember very well how people talked about her, maybe thirty five years ago, calling her "ugly" and "a man". Yet she did nothing wrong, no-one knew anything about her private life then, she was young and seemed pleasant and gracious. I always admired her and found the remarks very unpleasant, they made me feel uncomfortable. Goodness knows how uncomfortable they made her feel!
She is a strong woman but admitted to how hurt she was at that time. She talked about being married and how important it was for her and her partner to be married, said it was so good, a relief, to be able to say, "I'm me, this is how I am. I'm married like everyone else". The legalisation of gay marriage was certainly a milestone (it is not legal in every state of America, Martina married in New York but could not have married in Florida, where they live).
Hearing Martina talk about what it meant to her brought it home to me how ridiculous, cruel even, society has been for years discriminating against gay couples like her and her partner. Using religion to back up personal prejudices is risible, the same old is routinely trotted out. Thankfully there are many people of faith who do not interpret the Bible so literally and feel quite differently; there are also those who are beginning to change their minds which isn't easy after years of being entrenched in a way of thinking. It takes courage to step out from the secure walls they've relied on for so long but it's happening.
It was a heartening programme.
(Naturally for me, afterwards, I thought, "I hope it lasts" :D, but I would have thought that about a heterosexual couple getting married.)
(Pleased to hear about your daughter's exam grades bluehillside, excellent news.)
-
Brownie,
Didn't see the programme, but I concur with the sentiment.
(Pleased to hear about your daughter's exam grades bluehillside, excellent news.)
Thank you. I don't want to be showy-offy (who me?) but actually she did bloody amazingly so we're all a bit knocked sideways by it just now :)
-
You are not being show-offy, it is quite natural to want to share such good news. Good for her!
-
Brownie,
You are not being show-offy, it is quite natural to want to share such good news. Good for her!
Actually I probably am, but thank you anyway. She was in tears after some of the exams (she did the International Baccalaureate rather than "A" levels) because of how badly she thought they'd gone, but it turns out she scored a mathematically perfect result - hence our being so (pleasantly) surprised.
Anyways, Taweret I reckon. Definitely Taweret. Does anyone know the drill re the appropriate propitiations and rituals? Will I need to slaughter a domestic animal by way of thanks perhaps?
-
Brownie,
Actually I probably am, but thank you anyway. She was in tears after some of the exams (she did the International Baccalaureate rather than "A" levels) because of how badly she thought they'd gone, but it turns out she scored a mathematically perfect result - hence our being so (pleasantly) surprised.
Anyways, Taweret I reckon. Definitely Taweret. Does anyone know the drill re the appropriate propitiations and rituals? Will I need to slaughter a domestic animal by way of thanks perhaps?
[/quote
(Ah, I see from wikipedia that Taweret is an Egyptian god!)
Many congratulations to your daughter - that is a great achievement.
-
Brownie,
Actually I probably am, but thank you anyway. She was in tears after some of the exams (she did the International Baccalaureate rather than "A" levels) because of how badly she thought they'd gone, but it turns out she scored a mathematically perfect result - hence our being so (pleasantly) surprised.
Anyways, Taweret I reckon. Definitely Taweret. Does anyone know the drill re the appropriate propitiations and rituals? Will I need to slaughter a domestic animal by way of thanks perhaps?
Happy news indeed! Well done to her.
-
Bluehillside, Taweret is an Egyptian goddess, patron of women, childbirth, fertility.
She also only let her husband out at night.
Best just to be generally thankful for a good outcome for your daughter and give her lots of congrats.
-
Just had some very good news re my daughter's exam grades. Which god should I thank I wonder? The Christian one talks a good story but there's some pretty iffy stuff in His early works in particular, and I'm not feeling it for the Muslim one. Some of the Norse gods are quite funky, ditto the Roman ones. I'm quite drawn to the Egyptian goddess Taweret too - the body of a pregnant woman, the head of a hippopotamus, the tail of a crocodile, and the arms and legs of a lion. Cool eh?
Any help gratefully received please.
Of course, I could always credit my daughter what with staying up 'til midnight working these past two years but hey, gods are so much more thrilling don't you think?
I personally would go with your last option unless your daughter tells you which God, if any, she prayed to. Please pass on my congratulations!
-
Hey Susan and Owls and Brownie,
Thank you all for your kind comments. Yes, I'll allow her to pick her own god/dess to thank I think.
Reminds me of the Chilean miners who were rescued after an unfeasible amount of time from the mineshaft collapse and promptly thanked God for saving them, apparently oblivious to the notion that the same God would presumably have been responsible for getting them in the jam in the first place. Maybe we should name the phenomenon "Hope-ism": "Against the expectations of the doctors Mrs Jenkins got better because God answered some prayers, yet funnily enough the same God was relaxed about her getting the affliction in the first place".
Oh well.
-
Hey Susan and Owls and Brownie,
Thank you all for your kind comments. Yes, I'll allow her to pick her own god/dess to thank I think.
Reminds me of the Chilean miners who were rescued after an unfeasible amount of time from the mineshaft collapse and promptly thanked God for saving them, apparently oblivious to the notion that the same God would presumably have been responsible for getting them in the jam in the first place. Maybe we should name the phenomenon "Hope-ism": "Against the expectations of the doctors Mrs Jenkins got better because God answered some prayers, yet funnily enough the same God was relaxed about her getting the affliction in the first place".
Oh well.
OOOOO - you are naughty, but I like you!
-
Hey Susan and Owls and Brownie,
Thank you all for your kind comments. Yes, I'll allow her to pick her own god/dess to thank I think.
Reminds me of the Chilean miners who were rescued after an unfeasible amount of time from the mineshaft collapse and promptly thanked God for saving them, apparently oblivious to the notion that the same God would presumably have been responsible for getting them in the jam in the first place. Maybe we should name the phenomenon "Hope-ism": "Against the expectations of the doctors Mrs Jenkins got better because God answered some prayers, yet funnily enough the same God was relaxed about her getting the affliction in the first place".
Oh well.
How dare you use common sense and logical thought on a Christian forum!
You are taking advantage of crippled opponents. Shame on you!
-
How dare you use common sense and logical thought on a Christian forum!
You are taking advantage of crippled opponents. Shame on you!
Hi Len I've just exchanged contracts on my house move and I completely forgot to thank a god of any kind for it all going through so smoothly, do you think it'll all be O K?
I'm all worried now thanks to Blue.
By the way good result Blue, I'm pleased for you.
ippy
-
Hi Len I've just exchanged contracts on my house move and I completely forgot to thank a god of any kind for it all going through so smoothly, do you think it'll all be O K?
I'm all worried now thanks to Blue.
ippy
You are doomed unless you repent forthwith. Fifthwith is too late.
-
Brownie,
Actually I probably am, but thank you anyway. She was in tears after some of the exams (she did the International Baccalaureate rather than "A" levels) because of how badly she thought they'd gone, but it turns out she scored a mathematically perfect result - hence our being so (pleasantly) surprised.
Good news indeed, blue. Interesting to hear about the International Bacc. choice. I wonder if those depend so much on multiple-choice answers, as many of our A levels seem to be these days (or am I wrong?).
What proportion of nature or nurture was there to influence her results, do you think?
-
Hi ipster,
Hi Len I've just exchanged contracts on my house move and I completely forgot to thank a god of any kind for it all going through so smoothly, do you think it'll all be O K?
Is there a patron saint for estate agents maybe?
I'm all worried now thanks to Blue.
By the way good result Blue, I'm pleased for you.
Sorry about that, and thanks for the kind comment.
-
Hi Dicky,
Good news indeed, blue. Interesting to hear about the International Bacc. choice. I wonder if those depend so much on multiple-choice answers, as many of our A levels seem to these days (or am I wrong?).
What proportion of nature or nurture was there to influence her results, do you think?
Thank you. Actually, there's no multiple choice at all (at least not in the subjects she took in any case). It's all essays and written answers, including an extended essay written outside the exam hall and a large section on theory of knowledge (TOK) which is a very good thing I think. You have to pick three "higher" subjects and two "lower' ones, but the available choices force you to take a science, maths, English, a foreign language, a humanities etc so you can't narrow down as quickly as you can for "A" levels. It's not for everyone therefore, but the consensus seems to be that you get a better education in the round with IB - I know that quite a few schools are converting to it for that reason, though the unis have been slow to recognise is as much as they should.
Incidentally, of the 150,000 worldwide who took it this year only 146 scored the max 45 points so we're feeling very proud of her right now.
Whose genes? Ask her Mum!
PS She's looked at the individual marks now for each subject, and thinks one of them should have been higher in % terms even though it was high enough for the max score of seven points. She's just asked me whether she should ask for a re-mark for that one. Good grief!
-
How dare you use common sense and logical thought on a Christian forum!
You are taking advantage of crippled opponents. Shame on you!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Len I've just exchanged contracts on my house move and I completely forgot to thank a god of any kind for it all going through so smoothly, do you think it'll all be O K?
I'm all worried now thanks to Blue.
By the way good result Blue, I'm pleased for you.
ippy
Ippy, here is a book for you 8):
https://www.amazon.com/St-Joseph-Real-Estate-Agent/dp/1569553610
-
Brownie,
https://www.amazon.com/St-Joseph-Real-Estate-Agent/dp/1569553610
Perfect!
-
I bet these idiots are praying like mad their $100 million will produce results! :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/noahs-ark-replica-unveiled-in-kentucky-amid-anger-at-scientifica/
-
I bet these idiots are praying like mad their $100 million will produce results! :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/noahs-ark-replica-unveiled-in-kentucky-amid-anger-at-scientifica/
It would be almost funny if it wasn't so very sick!
-
Most won't take this seriously. Those that do are people who already believe in a literal Noah's Ark and we can't do much about them. It just looks like a bit of fun, I think the people involved in the project will be disappointed that they can't teach those who aren't already initiated. What a lot of money! Not public money though so that doesn't matter.
I wonder if there are sound effects?
-
Most won't take this seriously. Those that do are people who already believe in a literal Noah's Ark and we can't do much about them. It just looks like a bit of fun, I think the people involved in the project will be disappointed that they can't teach those who aren't already initiated. What a lot of money! Not public money though so that doesn't matter.
I wonder if there are sound effects?
Not public money?
Yes it was, it was all collected from the public!
From some of the gullible 30plus % of Americans who believe that Genesis is fact!
-
I missed that bit Owlswing. Idiots. However I was thinking more of government money, grants etc.
-
Brownie,
Most won't take this seriously. Those that do are people who already believe in a literal Noah's Ark and we can't do much about them. It just looks like a bit of fun, I think the people involved in the project will be disappointed that they can't teach those who aren't already initiated. What a lot of money! Not public money though so that doesn't matter.
I wonder if there are sound effects?
I'm not so sanguine about it. Families will go there, school kids will be bussed in etc and the scale and impressiveness of the facility will only help legitimise the lies it's peddling. Picture the poor biology teacher trying to teach the science only to have a pupil put her hand up with a, "But Miss, I know you're wrong because I've been to a museum where they told us the proper facts. They had dinosaurs and everything!"
OK, so it makes Kentucky a laughing stock and maybe it'll encourage investment to go elsewhere but it's still bad news I think.
-
Brownie,
I'm not so sanguine about it. Families will go there, school kids will be bussed in etc and the scale and impressiveness of the facility will only help legitimise the lies it's peddling. Picture the poor biology teacher trying to teach the science only to have a pupil put her hand up with a, "But Miss, I know you're wrong because I've been to a museum where they told us the proper facts. They had dinosaurs and everything!"
OK, so it makes Kentucky a laughing stock and maybe it'll encourage investment to go elsewhere but it's still bad news I think.
The Americans seemed more gullible that most of us Brits where religion is concerned!
-
It certainly seems that way floo, at least in parts of the USA. They seem generally more religious than the Brits which is evidenced by their politicians who seem compelled to align themselves with some sort of church. Over here, if a politician says they have a faith we - including those of faith - tend to think, "Oh well, that's their business, now let's get on with the job". If they make a big deal out of their faith they disappear from public view quick!
We and the USA inhabit different worlds.
We have a Muslim mayor in London though, replaced Boris :D! Good man, a real Londoner. http://www.sadiq.london/
-
Not public money?
Yes it was, it was all collected from the public!
From some of the gullible 30plus % of Americans who believe that Genesis is fact!
And sadly, money that could have been spent on a good cause rather than just promoting bullshit.
-
Or shoes and handbags, Len. They are essentials!
-
And sadly, money that could have been spent on a good cause rather than just promoting bullshit.
I agree, it is a criminal waste of money when people are starving in this world!
-
I missed that bit Owlswing. Idiots. However I was thinking more of government money, grants etc.
I know what you meant, but it seems the bloke didn't need any from such sources - there are enough mugs around to negate the necessity!
-
Brownie,
I'm not so sanguine about it. Families will go there, school kids will be bussed in etc and the scale and impressiveness of the facility will only help legitimise the lies it's peddling. Picture the poor biology teacher trying to teach the science only to have a pupil put her hand up with a, "But Miss, I know you're wrong because I've been to a museum where they told us the proper facts. They had dinosaurs and everything!"
OK, so it makes Kentucky a laughing stock and maybe it'll encourage investment to go elsewhere but it's still bad news I think.
Yeah - it makes Kentucky a laughing stock but only outside the U Sof A!
-
Owls,
Yeah - it makes Kentucky a laughing stock but only outside the U Sof A!
Not so sure about that. That it's in Kentucky is probably fairly significant - not sure that it'd gain anything like the traction in, say, Washington State, California, New York State etc.
Mind you, wouldn't it be great if someone could find the funds to put up a 100 metre tall face palm emoji right next door... :)
-
Owls,
Not so sure about that. That it's in Kentucky is probably fairly significant - not sure that it'd gain anything like the traction in, say, Washington State, California, New York State etc.
Mind you, wouldn't it be great if someone could find the funds to put up a 100 metre tall face palm emoji right next door... :)
;D ;D 8) 8) 8)
-
Hi ipster,
Is there a patron saint for estate agents maybe?
Sorry about that, and thanks for the kind comment.
I think my working partner's children went to the same school, I believe that school is nearby to the A 12, his children have all been very successful, I mean really successful, but not as good looking as my lot.
Ippy
-
You are doomed unless you repent forthwith. Fifthwith is too late.
I was just thinking you must be right Len the house number is a way bit further on than five, oh dear.
Are you any good at packing?
ippy
-
Or shoes and handbags, Len. They are essentials!
I can work out shoes because of the way so I'm told about the way our brains are laid out, brain mapping, the bit of the brain that deals with the feet is right next door to the bit of the brain that deals with the genitals, so the female shoes obsession, well yes.
Now handbags? Could the connection with having matching the shoes be the reason; I don't know? A bit tenuous?
Something that needs looking into more closely, so a friend of mine said, a close friend.
The brain mapping bit is true, I like to read about and listen to anything about neurology and manage to understand some of it from time to time; understanding some of the info about brain mapping is one of the easier bits to pick up and retain.
ippy
-
Especially if you have an EEG, a PET, a CAT and MRI. If you have MRI with gadolinium enhancement you may find out more than you wanted to.
-
Floo, Brownie
this thread is showing distinct signs of a Glitter Room ancestry!
-
Floo, Brownie
this thread is showing distinct signs of a Glitter Room ancestry!
Ehhhhhhhhh?
-
The Americans seemed more gullible that most of us Brits where religion is concerned!
Let us not be complacent about this, Floo. This disease affects this country, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark_Zoo_Farm
-
Ehhhhhhhhh?
On the old Beeb R&E board ertain comments were made that were judged to be a tad infantile and a cerrtain poster (fpd) made schoolmistressish comment back about miscreants being shut in the room used to store such Blue Peter-type supplies as the Sacred Olive Crayoin and jars of glitter, the sticky back plastic. empty washing-up-liquid jars etc.
The size of the room gradually increased due to the necessity to store such essentials as RR's ego, another poster's stupidity, and one Friday oit was suggested that the denizens of the Pagan Topic grab a few beers and a couple of bottles of mead and spend the evening in convivial chat, some friendly boozoing an generally tidy up "the Glitter Room", which had become a place to see just how "off-Pagan-Topic" posts could get before the Beeb Modded the thread.
By the time the Beeb shut down te message boards the Glitter Room had grown to a several hundred acre site with its own fullsize stone replica of Stonehenge, a lake, a moat complete with alligators and crocodiles, a cellar that stretched into n-space so that if we wanted a bottle of Napoleon brandy we just took a couple of bottles of mead that the nuns from the convent on the other side of the wood just outside the walls made for us and walked to see the man and do a swap.
The thread was over 1500 posts long when the Beeb shut down.
-
Spud,
Equality means enjoying the same rights as everyone else regardless of sexual orientation as it actually is, not conditional on sexual orientation as you'd prefer it to be.
Why would I prefer it to be conditional on sexual orientation, blue?
-
You would be able to answer that best, Spud.
-
Spud,
Why would I prefer it to be conditional on sexual orientation, blue?
Presumably because your interpretation of your religious faith tells you so. Whatever the reason though, approving of marriage for heterosexual couples but not for homosexual couples isn’t, by definition, equality.
-
From my observation, some of the other Christian posters, or one regular poster anyway, would be really nice, interesting and reasonable, were it not for the obsession with sexual orientation. It is a stumbling block, yet there are many prominent Christians, by whom I mean people we have all heard of, out there in the real world who are beginning to change their minds on this subject and actually talk about how conflicted they feel. That's something I find very encouraging.
-
From my observation, some of the other Christian posters, or one regular poster anyway, would be really nice, interesting and reasonable, were it not for the obsession with sexual orientation. It is a stumbling block, yet there are many prominent Christians, by whom I mean people we have all heard of, out there in the real world who are beginning to change their minds on this subject and actually talk about how conflicted they feel. That's something I find very encouraging.
Yes indeed! Gradually they are realising that many of the Bible authors made the mistake of interpreting their own ideas as those of "God". It can only get better, I'm sure.
-
Indeed it can Len.
-
Especially if you have an EEG, a PET, a CAT and MRI. If you have MRI with gadolinium enhancement you may find out more than you wanted to.
I've got a SOSS Brownie, would that be any good?
ippy
-
Smooth, streamlined, strong, secure and stable - hmmmmmmmmmm. Stop boasting ippy, you'll cause me to be unhinged.
-
Spud,
Presumably because your interpretation of your religious faith tells you so. Whatever the reason though, approving of marriage for heterosexual couples but not for homosexual couples isn’t, by definition, equality.
It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise.
-
Maybe god didn't say anything at all about homosexuals, or anything else for that matter, as it probably doesn't exist.
-
It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise.
This is just legislating to validate your own prejudices. If you felt 'wronged' rather than disappointed, that is something for you to deal with. But rather than deal with your own issues you would rather force the rest of humanity to accept your prejudices. I think you should man up; live and let live.
-
What you have said, Spud, goes some way towards explaining your attitudes. You've been in a dark place and it is difficult for you to completely leave it behind. You're not alone there, many have prejudices based on their own traumatic experiences, which doesn't make them right of course but a little more understandable.
I hope you have found happiness since.
-
I once had a chap working for me whose wife left him for another woman, he was gutted and felt this was far worse than if she had left for another man.
I think he felt that his colleagues would feel it was because he was an inadequate man. As it evolved his colleagues were supportive. And he got to keep the kids. Yes unusually perhaps his wife left the kids behind.
-
I too know someone (not well), related to my husband, whose wife left him for another woman, actually kicked him out and stayed in the marital home. She had brought her lover to live with her in the house while he was still there. The woman was someone known to them both, a relative of hers by marriage.
He tried to commit suicide, the Samaritans intervened and stopped him before it was too late. It was a cry for help really.
He left the house and managed to build a new life for himself. They shared the children who grew up fine. It was a very sad business at the time. Same thing happens with heterosexual marriages of course though I doubt a man or a woman would bring their new partner to live with them in the home with their spouse. At least not in recent times, it did happen in far gone days.
These things leave scars. It's not unusual for someone who has had a traumatic experience with a member of a particular group, could be ethnic, to mistrust that group afterwards. It can take a lot of time to rebuild trust.
-
Maybe god didn't say anything at all about homosexuals, or anything else for that matter, as it probably doesn't exist.
Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo. He said that they are no less human than anyone else. I realise that your pre-conceived ideas may suggest otherwise, he says much the same about those who quarrel, are jealous, are poor or rich, are fornicators or are philanthropists, ... . Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.
-
Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo. He said that they are no less human than anyone else. I realise that your pre-conceived ideas may suggest otherwise, he says much the same about those who quarrel, are jealous, are poor or rich, are fornicators or are philanthropists, ... . Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.
As has been said so many times, there is no verifiable evidence god exists, let alone has ever said anything. Humans are good at putting words into its mouth.
-
Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo. He said that they are no less human than anyone else. I realise that your pre-conceived ideas may suggest otherwise, he says much the same about those who quarrel, are jealous, are poor or rich, are fornicators or are philanthropists, ... . Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.
He also says that a human can own another as a slave to be kept as property.
You can beat these slaves so badly that they die, as long as it's a few days after the beating.
So not all equal.
-
Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.
Super - so if all humans all are of equal value there should be no problem with them having equal rights: yes?
-
Super - so if all humans all are of equal value there should be no problem with them having equal rights: yes?
All human beings are equal; all actions aren't - otherwise we wouldn't have a differentiation between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions. By the way, Gordon, you are so transparent!! ;)
-
As has been said so many times, there is no verifiable evidence god exists, let alone has ever said anything. Humans are good at putting words into its mouth.
Oddly enough, you seem to be very good at doing just that, Floo - or the equivalent in terms of actions.
-
All human beings are equal; all actions aren't - otherwise we wouldn't have a differentiation between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions. By the way, Gordon, you are so transparent!! ;)
I didn't mention actions: you've added this condition, and then you added a further one involving value judgment.
You noted equality of value and I them noted that presumably this would extend to rights. For example, were I unmarried then here in the UK I'd have the right to marry an unmarried person of either gender and whether or not I acted to do so and irrespective of the opinions of others doesn't remove my rights.
So, in digressing you've avoided my question to you regarding whether equal value should mean equal rights - which you forgot to answer.
-
I didn't mention actions: you've added this condition, and then you added a further one involving value judgment.
Sorry, Gordon, but you did mention actions. The concept of human rights includes actions and that is made very clear by the context of what Jesus taught in the Gospels. So, a human being is of equal value to any other human being; however, not every action is of equal value.
-
Sorry, Gordon, but you did mention actions. The concept of human rights includes actions and that is made very clear by the context of what Jesus taught in the Gospels. So, a human being is of equal value to any other human being; however, not every action is of equal value.
Nonsense - I have the right to legally marry by default without taking any action, so what Jesus allegedly 'taught' is wrong, and in any event is irrelevant since what the gospels 'teach', or more accurately say, isn't relevant or binding. Sounds like you have added the argument from authority to your list of go to fallacies.
-
All human beings are equal; all actions aren't - otherwise we wouldn't have a differentiation between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions. By the way, Gordon, you are so transparent!! ;)
Being a homosexual is a state of being, as in 'human being', it is not a state of doing. If we have a notion of universal human rights then it should apply universally and not discriminate on fault lines such as gender, race or sexual orientation.
-
Being a homosexual is a state of being, as in 'human being', it is not a state of doing. If we have a notion of universal human rights then it should apply universally and not discriminate on fault lines such as gender, race or sexual orientation.
Sorry torri, its both. In exactly the same way that people have the potential to be jealous, to lie, to get angry, to defraud, to murder, etc.; everyone is also in a position to hold back from the commission of that potential.
-
Nonsense - I have the right to legally marry by default without taking any action, so what Jesus allegedly 'taught' is wrong, and in any event is irrelevant since what the gospels 'teach', or more accurately say, isn't relevant or binding. Sounds like you have added the argument from authority to your list of go to fallacies.
Sorry, Gordon, there are generally a whole host of actions that precede marriage.
-
He also says that a human can own another as a slave to be kept as property.
The context of this is within that of hostilities - which is very different from the 'kidnapping' of individuals for the purpose of putting them to work.
You can beat these slaves so badly that they die, as long as it's a few days after the beating.
Reference, please.
-
The context of this is within that of hostilities - which is very different from the 'kidnapping' of individuals for the purpose of putting them to work.
Reference, please.
Exodus 20:21
20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…
Exodus 21:21
-
Sorry, Gordon, there are generally a whole host of actions that precede marriage.
More downright nonsense, or you aren't thinking this through: the right to be legally married is a given (here in the UK) and exists independently of any actions an individual takes towards marriage.
Therefore anyone who meets the legal requirements to marry (here in the UK) has the right to do so even if, like my younger daughter, they have no current intentions to marry and are taking no current actions whatsoever directed towards becoming married.
You are, quite simply, wrong again.
-
It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise.
Ever heard that saying that ends, time to stop digging?
ippy
PS that saying would go for Hope as well as you Spud, your regressive views reflect the long obsolete and spiteful beliefs of those ignorant bronze age peasants, probably no more than sheep herders, that wrote that most unpleasant and distasteful book you insist on quoting from.
Where's the humanity gone in this nonsense the pair of you keep on belching out of your mouths, it's a very good job these beliefs are, at least here in the UK, well on their way out and hopefully people like you two as well.
ippy
-
Smooth, streamlined, strong, secure and stable - hmmmmmmmmmm. Stop boasting ippy, you'll cause me to be unhinged.
Silly old sod syndrome.
ippy
-
Hope,
Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo....
Just to note that you made a string of logical errors earlier in this thread that I took the time to rebut. You just ignored those rebuttals, went quiet for a bit, and have now returned to repeat one of them - the reification fallacy - with presumably the others to follow.
What exactly is your point in being here if you refuse point blank to learn from your mistakes?
-
Hope,
Sorry torri, its both. In exactly the same way that people have the potential to be jealous, to lie, to get angry, to defraud, to murder, etc.; everyone is also in a position to hold back from the commission of that potential.
But in the example of what some consenting adults do together in private, why the fuck should they?
What possible business is it of yours or anyone else to presume to sit in judgment on such activities?
The only "sin" here is your bigotry. Contemptible. Utterly contemptible.
-
Hope,
A while back I posted this in reply to Stephen:
Nope, but nor do I expect to for a bit. The Hope playbook goes something like:
1. Make some logically bad arguments.
2. Be corrected on them.
3. Ignore the corrections for a while.
4. Reappear later on to claim that you've addressed the corrections even though no-one can find where you did that.
5. Repeat Step 1.
And so it goes :(
Is there anything about that that's not the case?
How do you feel about that?
-
More downright nonsense, or you aren't thinking this through: the right to be legally married is a given (here in the UK) and exists independently of any actions an individual takes towards marriage.
Therefore anyone who meets the legal requirements to marry (here in the UK) has the right to do so even if, like my younger daughter, they have no current intentions to marry and are taking no current actions whatsoever directed towards becoming married.
You are, quite simply, wrong again.
Correct, we all have the right to be married but do we have the right to redefine what marriage is?
-
Laws are forever being redefined, Spud. We only have to look back through history. Even in my lifetime some have been redefined or completely changed. There is no reason at all why marriage cannot be redefined and that has happened. Why not just put your personal feelings aside and accept it, nobody says you have to like it, that is your business, but it is probably here to stay. There are plenty more important issues to be concerned with. You can live your life without being inconvenienced by this particular change in the law.
-
Correct, we all have the right to be married but do we have the right to redefine what marriage is?
Yes we do: marriage is a social/legal convention that is whatever we decide it is. As such it isn't static or uniform over time or across cultures, as has been demonstrated by notable changes recently.
-
Sorry torri, its both. In exactly the same way that people have the potential to be jealous, to lie, to get angry, to defraud, to murder, etc.; everyone is also in a position to hold back from the commission of that potential.
What you do flows from what you are and individuals by and large are not the architects of their own being. I fail to see the justification for in effect punishing entire vertical sectors of society for being what they are; in what way does arguing in favour of discriminatory practices that condemn segments of society to diminished rights augur for a happier world ?
-
What you do flows from what you are and individuals by and large are not the architects of their own being. I fail to see the justification for in effect punishing entire vertical sectors of society for being what they are; in what way does arguing in favour of discriminatory practices that condemn segments of society to diminished rights augur for a happier world ?
Spud and Hope do not care about a "happier world"; they are only intersted in seeing the "laws" of their God being followed so that THEY can be happy.
-
Oddly enough, you seem to be very good at doing just that, Floo - or the equivalent in terms of actions.
Really and what words have I put into its mouth?
-
He did say:"...the equivalent in terms of actions.", floo.
Good morning btw, aren't we early today? I was up at the crack of dawn but not properly awake yet.
-
He did say:"...the equivalent in terms of actions.", floo.
Good morning btw, aren't we early today? I was up at the crack of dawn but not properly awake yet.
This is about the usual time for me, my computer goes on after 8am daily. I have already had my two walks of the day. I get up at 6.15am, but usually in bed before 9pm.
-
Hope,
A while back I posted this in reply to Stephen:
Is there anything about that that's not the case?
How do you feel about that?
In particular he doesn't seem to want to go anywhere near replies #40 and #50.
I have raised the issues with his position on a previous thread but not even an attempt at a reply has been made.
-
Spud,
Correct, we all have the right to be married but do we have the right to redefine what marriage is?
If by "we" you mean "society", then yes of course. Societal norms about slavery, votes for women etc have changed completely in the past, and there's no reason to treat marriage as a special case. Marriage only for heterosexuals doesn't exist as an objective rule of nature like gravity or magnetism - it's just another social convention that can be changed if enough people want it to be.
-
Thanks blue and brown for being nice. I have more to say in answer to your replies, but a bit too busy to sit and write thoughtfully,.but will do so asap.
-
Spud,
Thanks blue and brown for being nice. I have more to say in answer to your replies, but a bit too busy to sit and write thoughtfully,.but will do so asap.
By all means do, but I'd also suggest that it's a bad idea to cling to a mistake because you've invested heavily in making it. Either you think that societies that practice equality are better than those that don't, or you do not. And if you do, there's nothing else to discuss about the desirability of gay marriage.
-
This is just legislating to validate your own prejudices. If you felt 'wronged' rather than disappointed, that is something for you to deal with. But rather than deal with your own issues you would rather force the rest of humanity to accept your prejudices. I think you should man up; live and let live.
Indeed, and as with divorce, we have to let people do what they want to do. But that means a trend towards disorder, since divorce has negative consequences for the family and society. Not in all cultures, since divorce is rare in some.
-
Indeed, and as with divorce, we have to let people do what they want to do. But that means a trend towards disorder, since divorce has negative consequences for the family and society. Not in all cultures, since divorce is rare in some.
Far better to divorce than stay in an unhappy marriage that is for sure. I remember begging my parents to divorce when I was about 15, as they never got on at all. They stuck it out for 58 turbulent years, but it would have been far better for all of us if they had called it a day, imo.
-
Indeed, and as with divorce, we have to let people do what they want to do. But that means a trend towards disorder, since divorce has negative consequences for the family and society. Not in all cultures, since divorce is rare in some.
There can also be negative consequences arising from forcing people to stay together when their relationship is irrevocably broken; such decisions are deeply personal and I don't see that the State should be interfering in such messy personal circumstances beyond offering means of support and facilitation towards optimal outcomes whatever they may be.
-
Yes we do: marriage is a social/legal convention that is whatever we decide it is. As such it isn't static or uniform over time or across cultures, as has been demonstrated by notable changes recently.
quote from bluehillside:
Marriage only for heterosexuals doesn't exist as an objective rule of nature like gravity or magnetism - it's just another social convention that can be changed if enough people want it to be.
What I wanted to say is that a fundamental purpose of marriage, as well as for the companionship it promotes, is to bind a man and a woman together for life so that their offspring will have the best possible upbringing. Now someone will say what about infertile couples etc. But the principle still stands, in the same way that incest is still incest whether a woman is able to conceive or is infertile.
So the result of including people of the same sex in the institution of marriage is that there is now no institution which has for all its participants the above principle in view, that is, to tie a child to both of its biological parents. This can only increase disorder in society, and is why civil partnerships are the best option for people who want the legal rights associated with marriage.
-
I'll throw this in as a follow up to my previous post: The reason I think I felt it was unjust for a woman I liked to prefer another woman is that she was committing an offence against the principle of a woman giving a man not only the necessary help he needs, and being given back the help she needs in life, but also the gift of procreation, which she withheld from not just me but the whole of society.
-
quote from bluehillside:
What I wanted to say is that a fundamental purpose of marriage, as well as for the companionship it promotes, is to bind a man and a woman together for life so that their offspring will have the best possible upbringing.
That is one opinion. Others are available.
-
Far better to divorce than stay in an unhappy marriage that is for sure. I remember begging my parents to divorce when I was about 15, as they never got on at all. They stuck it out for 58 turbulent years, but it would have been far better for all of us if they had called it a day, imo.
The Bible would say it is better for a couple to separate with a view to reconciliation, but that's another matter.
-
That is one opinion. Others are available.
As well as for companionship, it is the historical basis on which marriage law is founded, if I am not mistaken.
-
As well as for companionship, it is the historical basis on which marriage law is founded, if I am not mistaken.
If you want companionship you should get a cat.
You make it sounds like some form of minor add-on. For many people who are married, children have nothing to do with it. Why do you wish to force your interpretation on them. Should they not have been allowed to marry in your view?
-
Spud,
What I wanted to say is that a fundamental purpose of marriage, as well as for the companionship it promotes, is to bind a man and a woman together for life so that their offspring will have the best possible upbringing. Now someone will say what about infertile couples etc. But the principle still stands, in the same way that incest is still incest whether a woman is able to conceive or is infertile.
So the result of including people of the same sex in the institution of marriage is that there is now no institution which has for all its participants the above principle in view, that is, to tie a child to both of its biological parents. This can only increase disorder in society, and is why civil partnerships are the best option for people who want the legal rights associated with marriage.
You're very confused.
First, "fundamental purposes" can change. Slavery and disenfranchising women were once fundamental purposes for some, but like any other social conventions they were changeable. There's no reason in principle to treat marriage differently.
Second, there's no reason to think that same sex couples cannot provide "the best possible upbringing". Better for example that a caring and involved same sex couple raise a child than that an indifferent and disconnected heterosexual couple do it.
Third, including same sex couples in the convention of marriage makes no difference whatever to the principle that children deserve the best possible upbringings. The only possible difference is a positive one - by showing children that their families are not inferior or less deserving of respect than any other. The sexual orientation of the parents is in other words irrelevant whereas other issues that have nothing to do with that matter a great deal.
Fourth, opening up the strengths of marriage to any couples who love each other and wish to commit can only strengthen order in society, not diminish it.
-
Spud,
I'll throw this in as a follow up to my previous post: The reason I think I felt it was unjust for a woman I liked to prefer another woman is that she was committing an offence against the principle of a woman giving a man not only the necessary help he needs, and being given back the help she needs in life, but also the gift of procreation, which she withheld from not just me but the whole of society.
And your confusion continues.
First, there is no such principle. It's just a belief you happen to have, and an unwarranted one at that.
Second, there are plenty of people to procreate - too many some would say - and she didn't "withhold" anything. Her sexual orientation wasn't a choice, and for all you knew she may in any case have wanted to conceive later on by other means.
-
What I wanted to say is that a fundamental purpose of marriage, as well as for the companionship it promotes, is to bind a man and a woman together for life so that their offspring will have the best possible upbringing.
Whose prescription is this? I don't recall when I got married (in 1974, before my 22nd birthday) even discussing children with Mrs G (to whom I am still married). I can't understand your need to be so formulaic about marriage.
Now someone will say what about infertile couples etc. But the principle still stands, in the same way that incest is still incest whether a woman is able to conceive or is infertile.
I think you are doubly wrong here: first on the 'principle' you seem attached to, and second that marriage has some parallel with incest.
So the result of including people of the same sex in the institution of marriage is that there is now no institution which has for all its participants the above principle in view, that is, to tie a child to both of its biological parents.
Nope: the 'institution' as you'd prefer to define simply isn't what you'd like it to be: reality is rather different, just as people are different.
While children are important to those that want or already have them, or would like in future or perhaps they can't or simply don't want to be parents: so children aren't essentially important to everyone who is married. In addition, children grow up to be adults: my three children are aged 35, 32 and 27 but I'm still married to their mother (and hope to be for some time yet). Marriage is what people want it to be, and what they make of it, and it isn't bound by your prescriptive approach.
This can only increase disorder in society, and is why civil partnerships are the best option for people who want the legal rights associated with marriage.
If people want marriage then that is what they should have - it is their decision (if they meet the legal requirements).
-
Spud,
Just out of interest, how would you explain to this young man that he hadn't had the best possible upbringing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
-
I'll throw this in as a follow up to my previous post: The reason I think I felt it was unjust for a woman I liked to prefer another woman is that she was committing an offence against the principle of a woman giving a man not only the necessary help he needs, and being given back the help she needs in life, but also the gift of procreation, which she withheld from not just me but the whole of society.
What a ludicrous position! You are stating here that any woman who decides to abstain from heterosexual marriage and, indeed, any procreative sexual relations within such a marriage, is withholding this 'gift' of procreation' from 'the whole of society', In other words, by not so doing, she is committing an offence according to you. How sad then for those women who decide to remain celibate, as they are also condemned in your eyes.
I would assume that to be consistent this also should apply to men. At least that is where your argument leads. This could be a problem, you realise, if you accept the traditional view of Jesus, as not marrying and remaining celibate throughout his life.
Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?
-
The Bible would say it is better for a couple to separate with a view to reconciliation, but that's another matter.
I don't care what the Bible has to say on the matter, some of its advice is far from sensible!
-
enki: Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?
Yes!
However, Spud, nobody is forcing you to dwell on the idea of a same sex couple being intimate. It's unhealthy to dwell on the details of other peoples' sex lives anyway, most of us outgrow even being curious when we are still young.
You could, however, dwell on the fact that the vast majority of couples in the world are heterosexual and most of those will produce children, so a small minority not procreating will make little difference.
-
What a ludicrous position! You are stating here that any woman who decides to abstain from heterosexual marriage and, indeed, any procreative sexual relations within such a marriage, is withholding this 'gift' of procreation' from 'the whole of society', In other words, by not so doing, she is committing an offence according to you. How sad then for those women who decide to remain celibate, as they are also condemned in your eyes.
So are all the "Brides of Christ" are breaking God's rules?
-
enki: Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?
Yes!
However, Spud, nobody is forcing you to dwell on the idea of a same sex couple being intimate. It's unhealthy to dwell on the details of other peoples' sex lives anyway, most of us outgrow even being curious when we are still young.
You could, however, dwell on the fact that the vast majority of couples in the world are heterosexual and most of those will produce children, so a small minority not procreating will make little difference.
Given our population explosion it is probably a good idea that we have some non-procreating people.
And also consider that gays outperform straights generally across a wide range of performance indicators, and maybe not raising kids frees up their generally superior intellect for the broader benefit of society as a whole. We do well to remember H Sapiens is a social species and in many other such species roles are demarcated to optimise the wellbeing of the species as a whole rather than the individuals and perhaps the consistency of the gay population percentage in humans across time and across cultures suggests that this might be a selected optimal level for humanity. In other words it is time to stop persecuting them and recognise the unique contribution they make to our world.
-
What a ludicrous position! You are stating here that any woman who decides to abstain from heterosexual marriage and, indeed, any procreative sexual relations within such a marriage, is withholding this 'gift' of procreation' from 'the whole of society', In other words, by not so doing, she is committing an offence according to you. How sad then for those women who decide to remain celibate, as they are also condemned in your eyes.
I would assume that to be consistent this also should apply to men. At least that is where your argument leads. This could be a problem, you realise, if you accept the traditional view of Jesus, as not marrying and remaining celibate throughout his life.
Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?
Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.
-
However, Spud, nobody is forcing you to dwell on the idea of a same sex couple being intimate.
Except when it happens on the six o'clock news...
-
Spud,
Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.
That's called the genetic fallacy - a basic error of irrelevance. There are lots of "biological purposes" for sex, of which procreation is only one. Would you condemn sex between infertile heterosexual couples too for the same reason, or do you confine your prejudice just to one type of non-procreative sexual activity? Same gender sex occurs in lots of other species too by the way - though presumably you wouldn't think those species to be immoral.
It might "seem like an offense" to you, but you have no logical argument to support you. You should consider too that gay people are gay people - same sex marriage won't increase the incidence of homosexuality in a population, and same sex partners in marriages can only serves to strengthen society by reinforcing the practice of equality over discrimination.
-
Except when it happens on the six o'clock news...
I think you are Farmer's best sock puppet, maybe to the extent of being somewhat jizz stained
-
Spud,
Except when it happens on the six o'clock news...
There is nether heterosexual nor homosexual sex on the six o'clock news. At least there isn't on any channels to which I have access.
-
NS,
I think you are Farmer's best sock puppet, maybe to the extent of being somewhat jizz stained
Delightful image.
-
I had to google "Jizz". :o
-
Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.
1) I don't agree that sex has a biological purpose for the opposite sex. Most intercourse that occurs does not have procreation in mind. Most procreation that occurs in nature is done asexually anyway.
2)Why is it an offense to the opposite sex. I have a male relation who is gay.What offence to women has he caused? Why are you so upset about it? You seem to be upset because a girlfriend ran of with another woman. Well I wouldn't beat myself up about that, you are a bloke, you can't help that. If she had ran of with an other man I could understand it because it could be taken (probably wrongly) about your male qualities. However, she wanted someone with female qualities (and parts presumably). You don't have the anatomy of a female so I would give myself a break if I were you. Seriously, would buy you a pint and give you a slap on the back if I could. Don't take it out on gay people as a whole though.
-
I had to google "Jizz". :o
I hope you didn't do it at work!
-
Brownie,
I had to google "Jizz".
Any regrets?
-
Interesting as all this is, it is a bit off topic. I notice Hope is online so will we get and answer to my replies #40 and # 50 and to the recent ones of BHS?
-
Stephen,
Interesting as all this is, it is a bit off topic. I notice Hope is online so will we get and answer to my replies #40 and # 50 and to the recent ones of BHS?
He never will - addressing his mistakes and correcting them would entail learning something, and that would never do. Shame really - for all I know he may actually have something to say that's worth listening to, but for now it's so buried in fallacy atop fallacy that we'll never find out.
-
I think you are Farmer's best sock puppet, maybe to the extent of being somewhat jizz stained
Still Nowhere Near Sane, I see?
-
Brownie,
I had to google "Jizz".
Maybe you should have tried the Bible instead:
"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
Ezekiel 23:19-20 New International Version
-
Spud,
There is nether heterosexual nor homosexual sex on the six o'clock news. At least there isn't on any channels to which I have access.
There is snogging though...
-
Spud,
There is snogging though...
On the six o'clock news? Unlikely, but even if there is - so what? Why does it bother you so much?
-
Still Nowhere Near Sane, I see?
Given your comments on gays being disordered, I 'll take that as a compliment
-
Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.
Ah, so now you are deciding to impose conditions on your original all encompassing statement that abstinence from procreative sex an offence, on the grounds that it's only if if it takes place contrary to its biological purpose that it becomes some sort of offence in your eyes. Why didn't you say that in the first place?
The problems associated with this particular clarification of your statement have been ably demonstrated by Blue and Stephen, making your argument seem yet more convoluted and forced.
Of course you're entitled to your feeling that it 'seems like an offense' but this feeling of yours doesn't necessarily apply to others, does it? And if it causes no harm, and indeed gives pleasure, then get over it and accept that others may quite legitimately hold the contrary view, and, if they are so inclined that they are drawn lovingly towards a member of the sames sex, indulge in that pleasure.
-
and whose emission was like that of horses."
A bit like your output on this forum.
-
A bit like your output on this forum.
Just as your output on this forum comes from the horses other rear-end orifice!
-
Just as your output on this forum comes from the horses other rear-end orifice!
Touche..........
-
Interesting as all this is, it is a bit off topic. I notice Hope is online so will we get and answer to my replies #40 and # 50 and to the recent ones of BHS?
Stephen, I am aware that I hadn't addressed a number of posts earlier in this thread - not least because I have a life to live that doesn't involve my being here all the time. However, I've read your two posts referred to above and here is my take on both.
(#40)
More fundamental contradictions in the various positions you hold.
When we discussed a while ago about God commanding genocide, ...
Yet recently you have suggested that God could have had a hand in determining the recent referendum vote.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. If you are referring to a post that I think you are referring to (and I certainly don't intend to search though all the referendum threads to find it), I was careful not to suggest that.
And above you also suggest that he can change the attitudes of people in order to obtain a certain outcome.
Not sure how you get to this conclusion. After all, I was pointing out how healing can be more than merely physical. There is nothing to do with changing "the attitudes of people in order to obtain a certain outcome" - that's something you have added yourself. Generally - as Jesus points out in Luke's Gospel - someone approaches a doctor because they appreciate that they are 'ill' in some way. In other words, they want to change; a doctor empowers them to do that, be it by themselves or with help from 3rd parties such as surgeons or other medics.
For me it clearly shows that if God can change minds and attitudes then he committed/ordered genocide in the past. If he can't change minds then he can't have had a say in the referendum or in the healing that you refer to.
You're entitled to that view, but if you are basing it on the rather flimsy arguments you've listed here, perhaps you need to rethink.
(#50)
So has does this work in the case of surgeons who have given up on patients who have then recovered as you like point out?
Did they performed some procedure that they wouldn't normally have considered if prayers had not been said?
I mean did they turn up at the hospital one day and say "I wouldn't normally do this to a terminally ill patient but I have a strange desire to do it now" ?
That's a very interesting set of questions. I would suggest that, in some cases, the surgeons/medics have done no more than their original intention, and left the patient alone - and the prayers of people have had an impact. In other cases, and I can think of at least a couple of these, the medics have decided to try something that they had previously dismissed or have had other medics (sometimes many miles away) suggest they try, because the situation has been shared with other people - some of whom could be surgeons themselves or who have been able to talk with surgeons they know. I can think of one operation my wife helped with in Nepal where the British surgeon was talked through the procedure by a surgeon in the States using Skype!! Said US surgeon had been approached by someone whose family were praying for the situation. As I have said elsewhere, one might be the answer - or at least part of the answer - to one's own prayers. Regarding the "I wouldn't normally do this to a terminally ill patient but I have a strange desire to do it now" issue, I have been told by sureons and other doctors that they have had a 'revelation' whilst thinking about the case, perhaps as a result of reading an article in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal, and wondered whether the process described could be the answer; a procedure they'd never performed before but which was clearly enough outlined to perform having spoken to the author or whatever for clarification.
Rather than me casting about and guessing which "recent ones of BHS" you are referring to, perhaps you could give me the post numbers as you did for yours.
-
Hope,
Rather than me casting about and guessing which "recent ones of BHS" you are referring to, perhaps you could give me the post numbers as you did for yours.
Replies 36 - 39 inc for starters.
-
Hope,
- and the prayers of people have had an impact.
What makes you think that praying had any effect at all?
-
Hope,
What makes you think that praying had any effect at all?
Blue, you must know the answer Hope will be most likely to offer you on this one.
ippy
-
After all, I was pointing out how healing can be more than merely physical.
How exactly: what mechanism is 'more than merely physical'?
There is nothing to do with changing "the attitudes of people in order to obtain a certain outcome" - that's something you have added yourself. Generally - as Jesus points out in Luke's Gospel - someone approaches a doctor because they appreciate that they are 'ill' in some way. In other words, they want to change; a doctor empowers them to do that, be it by themselves or with help from 3rd parties such as surgeons or other medics.
I doubt that the alleged views of Jesus are relevant to medicine in the 21st century. While in some cases people may want to change, say, their health related behaviour (smoking, diet etc) people also consult medical doctors because they need specialist advice and possibly specialised treatment that is different to, say, just having a positive outlook, which although useful will be of limited value in, say, the treatment of endocrine disorders.
I would suggest that, in some cases, the surgeons/medics have done no more than their original intention, and left the patient alone - and the prayers of people have had an impact. In other cases, and I can think of at least a couple of these, the medics have decided to try something that they had previously dismissed or have had other medics (sometimes many miles away) suggest they try, because the situation has been shared with other people - some of whom could be surgeons themselves or who have been able to talk with surgeons they know. I can think of one operation my wife helped with in Nepal where the British surgeon was talked through the procedure by a surgeon in the States using Skype!! Said US surgeon had been approached by someone whose family were praying for the situation. As I have said elsewhere, one might be the answer - or at least part of the answer - to one's own prayers. Regarding the "I wouldn't normally do this to a terminally ill patient but I have a strange desire to do it now" issue, I have been told by sureons and other doctors that they have had a 'revelation' whilst thinking about the case, perhaps as a result of reading an article in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal, and wondered whether the process described could be the answer; a procedure they'd never performed before but which was clearly enough outlined to perform having spoken to the author or whatever for clarification.
It is clear from this amateur anecdotal ramble that you really don't have a clue how medicine operates: the above, given its insightless simplicity, reads more like 'Topsy and Tim Visit the Doctor'.
While it is the case that specialist medics tend to focus on patients who have problems that fit their specialism, and that they do so is the result of preceding clinical assessment that these days often involve tests and the consideration of differential diagnoses, this does not mean that there is only one treatment option, especially where there are several clinical aspects to consider in any one patient and that patients don't always respond in the same way to the same treatment(s).
In my experience, in various clinical areas during a long NHS career, and while I have seen examples of medics choosing different options within appropriate treatment regimes, asking other specialists to give an opinion or referring to the published medical science in considering a range treatment options - and no doubt in remote areas this may involve remote consultation between suitably qualified professionals (the Flying Doctor service in Australia for example) - in routine treatment (as opposed to clinical research) I have never encountered a 'lets try this and see what happens' approach where the 'this' is unjustified by any presenting diagnostic evidence. Intervention on a whim like this may well be seen as unethical, and would be a quick way to becoming an ex-medic.
I have also sat through many mortality/case reviews, where the specifics of a death or on-going response to treatment are reviewed so that any cavalier or unjustified interventions would be picked up. Such reviews are used for both teaching and assessing the standard of care given, and where references to recent or relevant published research may well be made. I can't recall single occasion when a medic (and I worked with quite a few) ever referred to miracles or prayers as a possible explanation.
Since I suspect I have the advantage of you in terms direct practical experience I feel justified in saying that you are doing the medical profession, and related professions, a disservice if all you can offer is non-specific anecdote involving isolated examples in which you cite anonymous 'sureons [sic] and other doctors': you quite clearly don't know what you are talking about!
-
Stephen, I am aware that I hadn't addressed a number of posts earlier in this thread - not least because I have a life to live that doesn't involve my being here all the time. However, I've read your two posts referred to above and here is my take on both.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. If you are referring to a post that I think you are referring to (and I certainly don't intend to search though all the referendum threads to find it), I was careful not to suggest that.
Not careful enough.
As I said, conversations I had with folk in the church suggested that a large majority were for Scotland to remain in the UK (albeit the fact that we had no say in the matter). If they prayed for that outcome, then I'd say that there was a favourable one.
Not sure how you get to this conclusion. After all, I was pointing out how healing can be more than merely physical. There is nothing to do with changing "the attitudes of people in order to obtain a certain outcome" - that's something you have added yourself.
It clearly follows.
If God answers prayers he must change the natural order of the world in order to obtain that outcome. That's what an answer to prayer is, getting an outcome.
You have clearly stated that prayer can change the attitude of people.
This is clear in the last part of your reply which I have not bothered quoting.
Either it's just people doing what people do when faced with a problem i.e. consulting others and prayer had no effect, or God has somehow altered the minds and though processes of those people.
Therefore, why not change the attitude of people who wish to commit a crime?
-
I missed that bit Owlswing. Idiots. However I was thinking more of government money, grants etc.
Apart from eighteen lovely million of Kentucky tax dollars in tax breaks.
-
Regarding the "I wouldn't normally do this to a terminally ill patient but I have a strange desire to do it now" issue, I have been told by sureons and other doctors that they have had a 'revelation' whilst thinking about the case, perhaps as a result of reading an article in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal, and wondered whether the process described could be the answer; a procedure they'd never performed before but which was clearly enough outlined to perform having spoken to the author or whatever for clarification.
What is referred to as a 'revelation' here, might just be 'making a connection', it is something that minds do all the time without any need for supernatural intervention. Once, we could have been forgiven for thinking that novel insights might be evidence for God; novel thoughts and ideas seem to spring from nowhere into mind, so where else could they have come from ? But then Freud came along and gave us the subconscious mind and now we understand that the vast majority of our minds lie below conscious awareness, and that is the source of all that apparent novelty. And after all, if there is a supernatural God intent on healing a sick individual he would use his powers to directly heal that individual, rather than using his powers to intervene in the neural pathways of a third party - that route would leave the patient still at risk, the surgeon, being human, might still get it wrong even if he received the idea correctly. This is a notion of an incompetent God, but even an incompetent but well-intentioned God is not so awful as a capricious God, making ad hoc piecemeal interventions in response to some supplications whilst ignoring others.
-
What is referred to as a 'revelation' here, might just be 'making a connection', it is something that minds do all the time without any need for supernatural intervention. Once, we could have been forgiven for thinking that novel insights might be evidence for God; novel thoughts and ideas seem to spring from nowhere into mind, so where else could they have come from ? But then Freud came along and gave us the subconscious mind and now we understand that the vast majority of our minds lie below conscious awareness, and that is the source of all that apparent novelty. And after all, if there is a supernatural God intent on healing a sick individual he would use his powers to directly heal that individual, rather than using his powers to intervene in the neural pathways of a third party - that route would leave the patient still at risk, the surgeon, being human, might still get it wrong even if he received the idea correctly. This is a notion of an incompetent God, but even an incompetent but well-intentioned God is not so awful as a capricious God, making ad hoc piecemeal interventions in response to some supplications whilst ignoring others.
It's ironic, isn't it, that when we say a benevolent god could make the World a better even by just stopping rapists from committing rape, we are told he cannot interfere with the rapist's free will but when it comes to surgeons he seems to be quite happy manipulating them.
-
It's ironic, isn't it, that when we say a benevolent god could make the World a better even by just stopping rapists from committing rape, we are told he cannot interfere with the rapist's free will but when it comes to surgeons he seems to be quite happy manipulating them.
Exactly the point!
I don't know if he can't see it or that he won't see it.
-
Exactly the point!
I don't know if he can't see it or that he won't see it.
Odds on its the latter!
-
Stephen,
Exactly the point!
I don't know if he can't see it or that he won't see it.
It really is the most awful contradictory mess this "prayer works" schtick isn't it.
We're asked to believe in a God who's omnibenevolent, yet gives cancer to babies.
We're asked to believe that this God is omnipotent, yet sits on his hands as tsunamis rush towards villages of innocent people.
And we're asked to believe this same god is omniscient, yet apparently will change his mind occasionally provided people who believe in him offer up the correct prayers. Only instead of just fixing the problem direct, we're asked to believe too that he does so in a more circumlocutory way by entrusting surgeons to do the job for him.
And the evidence for this remarkable claim that these prayers actually work? The bad reasoning of anecdotal stories that just ignore the fails and try to draw general conclusions from the occasional positive correlations oblivious to the notion that occasional positive correlations is exactly what you'd expect to see with no god present at all.
The odd thing about those who peddle this nonsense is that they wouldn't accept in other areas of their lives. If, say, Hope was diagnosed with a serious illness (heaven forbid) and his doctor said, "Good news Hope. We have this medicine that we've tested on one person and that person got better so, um, never mind that the other 99 died ten minutes after taking it, there you go - just pop this pill then" I suspect you'd get a fairly dusty answer. Yet with apparently a straight face he tells us that the doctors had given up on Mrs Jenkins, he and a few pals prayed for her and she go better and so - ta-daaaa! - prayer works then.
It's the thinking of a ten-year-old, but from an adult it's weird.
-
Stephen,
It really is the most awful contradictory mess this "prayer works" schtick isn't it.
We're asked to believe in a God who's omnibenevolent, yet gives cancer to babies.
We're asked to believe that this God is omnipotent, yet sits on his hands as tsunamis rush towards villages of innocent people.
And we're asked to believe this same god is omniscient, yet apparently will change his mind occasionally provided people who believe in him offer up the correct prayers. Only instead of just fixing the problem direct, we're asked to believe too that he does so in a more circumlocutory way by entrusting surgeons to do the job for him.
And the evidence for this remarkable claim that these prayers actually work? The bad reasoning of anecdotal stories that just ignore the fails and try to draw general conclusions from the occasional positive correlations oblivious to the notion that occasional positive correlations is exactly what you'd expect to see with no god present at all.
The odd thing about those who peddle this nonsense is that they wouldn't accept in other areas of their lives. If, say, Hope was diagnosed with a serious illness (heaven forbid) and his doctor said, "Good news Hope. We have this medicine that we've tested on one person and that person got better so, um, never mind that the other 99 died ten minutes after taking it, there you go - just pop this pill then" I suspect you'd get a fairly dusty answer. Yet with apparently a straight face he tells us that the doctors had given up on Mrs Jenkins, he and a few pals prayed for her and she go better and so - ta-daaaa! - prayer works then.
It's the thinking of a ten-year-old, but from an adult it's weird.
Any evidence that God gives cancer to babies? That can be theological reasoning or scientific.
-
Vlad,
Any evidence that God gives cancer to babies? That can be theological reasoning or scientific.
There can't be evidence for that as there's no evidence for this supposed God in the first place. We're asked to believe though that this god is in everything, so presumably that would include cancers too.
-
Vlad,
There can't be evidence for that as there's no evidence for this supposed God in the first place. We're asked to believe though that this god is in everything, so presumably that would include cancers too.
Well I did ask for theology and you have kindly provided some by dint of your statement that God is ''in'' stuff.
Now this can mean lots of things can't it, from a non material something infusing something to being behind things in a bad way.
Sorry about the questions but how do you interpret the ''in-ness'' of God?
-
That can be theological reasoning or scientific.
What is 'theological reasoning'?
-
Gordon,
What is 'theological reasoning'?
Guessing.
-
Any evidence that God gives cancer to babies? That can be theological reasoning or scientific.
Well using logic it is easy.
Any initiator of the universe who is 3*Omni is responsible for everything that happens after that point.
Let's take an easier example.
-Let us say that you knew of a child who was being abused. You knew so with certainty.
-You knew with certainty what you could do to stop it.
-You knew with certainty that no harm could come to you.
-(optional point to keep on topic and to further highlight Hope's position) You could influence the thinking of the abuser.
And then you did nothing.
In my book you would be guilty of child abuse. What say you?
Of course the certainty bit does not apply to humans but it does to God.
To stop us going around in circles you could perhaps pick up from where we left off previously.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10963.msg610640#msg610640
You were on a flyer and didn't really seem to address the points raised.
-
Stephen,
It really is the most awful contradictory mess this "prayer works" schtick isn't it.
We're asked to believe in a God who's omnibenevolent, yet gives cancer to babies.
We're asked to believe that this God is omnipotent, yet sits on his hands as tsunamis rush towards villages of innocent people.
And we're asked to believe this same god is omniscient, yet apparently will change his mind occasionally provided people who believe in him offer up the correct prayers. Only instead of just fixing the problem direct, we're asked to believe too that he does so in a more circumlocutory way by entrusting surgeons to do the job for him.
And the evidence for this remarkable claim that these prayers actually work? The bad reasoning of anecdotal stories that just ignore the fails and try to draw general conclusions from the occasional positive correlations oblivious to the notion that occasional positive correlations is exactly what you'd expect to see with no god present at all.
The odd thing about those who peddle this nonsense is that they wouldn't accept in other areas of their lives. If, say, Hope was diagnosed with a serious illness (heaven forbid) and his doctor said, "Good news Hope. We have this medicine that we've tested on one person and that person got better so, um, never mind that the other 99 died ten minutes after taking it, there you go - just pop this pill then" I suspect you'd get a fairly dusty answer. Yet with apparently a straight face he tells us that the doctors had given up on Mrs Jenkins, he and a few pals prayed for her and she go better and so - ta-daaaa! - prayer works then.
It's the thinking of a ten-year-old, but from an adult it's weird.
It's worse than that (hard to imagine I know) to me though. It's the fact that he can't see that his defence of God in one argument, God not interfering with peoples minds to stop bad things, is completely contradicted by his argument that God works through people in order to deliver healing. It is unbelievable.
-
It's worse than that (hard to imagine I know) to me though. It's the fact that he can't see that his defence of God in one argument, God not interfering with peoples minds to stop bad things, is completely contradicted by his argument that God works through people in order to deliver healing. It is unbelievable.
Not for gullible minds it isn't! ;)
-
How exactly: what mechanism is 'more than merely physical'?
OK, for one thing, there is mental ill-health - which of course tends (as we now know) needs different approaches and methods to deal with.
I doubt that the alleged views of Jesus are relevant to medicine in the 21st century. While in some cases people may want to change, say, their health related behaviour (smoking, diet etc) people also consult medical doctors because they need specialist advice and possibly specialised treatment that is different to, say, just having a positive outlook, which although useful will be of limited value in, say, the treatment of endocrine disorders.
Well, as a Christian I believe that humans are endowed with the ability to acheive a variety of things without which humanity can't survive. Perhaps the most important of these is our mind. Each of us have different abilities which other people rely upon - be that an ability to teach, to heal through medical knowledge, to build and construct, to organise and facilitate, etc. I appreciate that you probably don't view life in such terms, but then that indicates how different our outlooks on life are. I believe that science has a role to play in that life, but it isn't the be-all and end-all that some would like it to be.
It is clear from this amateur anecdotal ramble that you really don't have a clue how medicine operates: the above, given its insightless simplicity, reads more like 'Topsy and Tim Visit the Doctor'.
Gordon, there are many medics who don't see life in your rather limited one. Whilst they don't go around being rude about yours, they believe that it is lacking something.
In my experience, in various clinical areas during a long NHS career, and while I have seen examples of medics choosing different options within appropriate treatment regimes, asking other specialists to give an opinion or referring to the published medical science in considering a range treatment options - and no doubt in remote areas this may involve remote consultation between suitably qualified professionals (the Flying Doctor service in Australia for example) - in routine treatment (as opposed to clinical research) I have never encountered a 'lets try this and see what happens' approach where the 'this' is unjustified by any presenting diagnostic evidence. Intervention on a whim like this may well be seen as unethical, and would be a quick way to becoming an ex-medic.
And this wonderful representation of my post is just that, a representation and 'wonderful'. At no point in the post you are respoinding to - or any other - for that matter, have I suggested "unjustified by any presenting diagnostic evidence". What I said was that doctors I have known have been presented with diagnostic evidence that they have never experienced before and, coincidentally(?), been reading about at the same time. As with your 'flying doctor' example they have therefore asked advice and help from the authors of what thay have been reading - or perhaps other doctors they believe to have the experience needed to carry out a treatment in difficult circumstances.
Since I suspect I have the advantage of you in terms direct practical experience I feel justified in saying that you are doing the medical profession, and related professions, a disservice if all you can offer is non-specific anecdote involving isolated examples in which you cite anonymous 'sureons [sic] and other doctors': you quite clearly don't know what you are talking about!
Whilst, as an English teacher, I have never attended a surgical procedure or associated process, I have a wife who used to have an important role in the theatre at Western Regional Hospital in Pokhara in Nepal, including the training of both ex-pat and Nepalese medics in the use of a particular surgical system (Rikers - I believe it was called). She was involved in a number of operations which would have been thought twice about here in the UK because of their complexity, including some where the surgeons - experts in their own fields - had to call in assistance from similar experts in places outside of Nepal - via Skype, and even the telephone.
I would suggest that your very comments above point to your lack of experience outside of our own NHS.
-
Hope,
What I said was that doctors I have known have been presented with diagnostic evidence that they have never experienced before and, coincidentally(?), been reading about at the same time.
And how often have these doctors been presented with diagnostic evidence that they have never experienced before and not been reading about it at the same time?
You really are a sucker for the silent evidence fallacy aren't you.
Fine. If you get a letter from a Baltimore stockbroker though, can I suggest that you exercise a little more caution?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/13/how-not-to-be-wrong-hidden-maths-jordan-ellenberg-review
-
OK, for one thing, there is mental ill-health - which of course tends (as we now know) needs different approaches and methods to deal with.
So what? That those providing mental health services use the appropriate interventions is routine - I can't see you have a point here.
Well, as a Christian I believe that humans are endowed with the ability to acheive a variety of things without which humanity can't survive. Perhaps the most important of these is our mind. Each of us have different abilities which other people rely upon - be that an ability to teach, to heal through medical knowledge, to build and construct, to organise and facilitate, etc. I appreciate that you probably don't view life in such terms, but then that indicates how different our outlooks on life are. I believe that science has a role to play in that life, but it isn't the be-all and end-all that some would like it to be.
All you are saying here is that people are different: again, so what! You can certainly believe what you like, Christian or otherwise, but you don't get to choose your own facts, so if you have some facts that are beyond the realms of science then do tell us more, and if they really are beyond science tell us how you identified them in the first place.
Gordon, there are many medics who don't see life in your rather limited one. Whilst they don't go around being rude about yours, they believe that it is lacking something.
Are there? How do you know what they think about my life, since from what you say it seems they know what I lack? This sounds like more of your anecdotal waffle.
And this wonderful representation of my post is just that, a representation and 'wonderful'. At no point in the post you are respoinding to - or any other - for that matter, have I suggested "unjustified by any presenting diagnostic evidence". What I said was that doctors I have known have been presented with diagnostic evidence that they have never experienced before and, coincidentally(?), been reading about at the same time. As with your 'flying doctor' example they have therefore asked advice and help from the authors of what thay have been reading - or perhaps other doctors they believe to have the experience needed to carry out a treatment in difficult circumstances.
More simplistic anecdote, just like your earlier posts when you stray into stuff you don't know about, and I'll just ignore the 'coincidence' woo you've thrown in. It is clear that you know little of medical services in reality, and that you seem inclined to reveal your limited understanding by anecdotally citing isolated cases that have no checkable provenance, along with anonymous medics, and where you to seem interpret variations in both treatments and how individuals respond as being an indication of some divine influence - given your lack of knowledge I'd also be concerned that your interpretation of what you've been told is flawed. Epidemiology clearly isn't your strong point either, since for these isolated cases you claim do so surprisingly well there are probably similar cases who don't, and that you don't know about.
-
Whilst, as an English teacher, I have never attended a surgical procedure or associated process, I have a wife who used to have an important role in the theatre at Western Regional Hospital in Pokhara in Nepal, including the training of both ex-pat and Nepalese medics in the use of a particular surgical system (Rikers - I believe it was called). She was involved in a number of operations which would have been thought twice about here in the UK because of their complexity, including some where the surgeons - experts in their own fields - had to call in assistance from similar experts in places outside of Nepal - via Skype, and even the telephone.
So what? I don't know what 'thought twice about' means in this context, but surgery/treatment goes on every day and specialist skills will be called upon when they are needed, and of course there are many specialist services dealing with specific and often complex issues. None of this is any way remarkable though - that medics and other professionals share knowledge and seek access those with specialist skill is just routine for crying out loud.
I would suggest that your very comments above point to your lack of experience outside of our own NHS.
The issue here though is your lack of relevant experience since it is you who are making simplistic comments, and in that respect I do think I have the advantage of you by dint of my career history.
By the way medical knowledge is fairly generic, and those trained in accredited establishments in many other parts of the world are no less knowledgeable than those trained here (and course medics trained overseas can and do work in our NHS): they have access to the same knowledge, new research and clinical services in which to gain experience. That facilities elsewhere may vary, so that access to specialist skills and equipment is more problematic and where local medics have fewer options in terms of referring cases is a different matter entirely - I suspect you are confusing the two.
-
Ah, so now you are deciding to impose conditions on your original all encompassing statement that abstinence from procreative sex an offence,
My original statement wasn't intended to imply that abstinence from procreative sex is an offence. Please note that I also mentioned the way in which men and women compliment each other, which is not dependent on their having children. The offence, which may not be deliberate but is still an offence, is in the rejection of the natural order for a sexual relationship to take, which is one man + one woman for life.
-
My original statement wasn't intended to imply that abstinence from procreative sex is an offence. Please note that I also mentioned the way in which men and women compliment each other, which is not dependent on their having children. The offence, which may not be deliberate but is still an offence, is in the rejection of the natural order for a sexual relationship to take, which is one man + one woman for life.
Who says it is an offence, and on what basis should we believe them to be correct?
-
Who says it is an offence, ...
People who are unable to think for themselves and just follow instructions.
...and on what basis should we believe them to be correct?
We shouldn't, because they aren't correct. They are seriously misled.
-
My original statement wasn't intended to imply that abstinence from procreative sex is an offence. Please note that I also mentioned the way in which men and women compliment each other, which is not dependent on their having children. The offence, which may not be deliberate but is still an offence, is in the rejection of the natural order for a sexual relationship to take, which is one man + one woman for life.
Who is to say what the 'natural order' is and how can we differentiate between natural order and cultural norm ? Homosexuality is part of the natural order - it occurs at a persistent consistent level across cultures and across times and occurs in many mammal species so it probably is a phenomenon selected by nature. I'm not sure pair bonding for life is natural with humans, as studies show that attraction starts to wane after a couple of years and many people end up staying together against their natural instincts due to cultural and social expectations. I'm not sure monogamy is natural in humans - sexual dimorphism, particularly the fact that males are larger than females is often an indicator that polygamy, with males having hareems, is our natural option. Maybe what you see as natural is not natural at all, but really just our current cultural zeitgeist.
-
We are still waiting for an answer to the contradictory positions Hope has taken then.
Could be a long wait.
-
Who says it is an offence, and on what basis should we believe them to be correct?
Well there are natural (edit: logical?) boundaries that determine who is a suitable spouse. A man can't marry his sister, even if she is too old for the danger of having children with genetic disorders to apply. It doesn't need anyone to say it is an offense, it just is.
-
Who is to say what the 'natural order' is and how can we differentiate between natural order and cultural norm ? Homosexuality is part of the natural order - it occurs at a persistent consistent level across cultures and across times and occurs in many mammal species so it probably is a phenomenon selected by nature.
True, but who is to say it is not akin to an asymptomatic pathology in nature?
-
We're asked to believe in a God who's omnibenevolent, yet gives cancer to babies.
We're asked to believe that this God is omnipotent, yet sits on his hands as tsunamis rush towards villages of innocent people.
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
-
What is 'theological reasoning'?
It's pretending imaginary things are real and then making up sophisticated nonsense to hide their non-existence.
-
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
Do you realise how horrible that would be? You're claiming that an innocent person can be murdered to "teach a lesson" to other people. Are you crazy?
-
Spud,
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
Probably one of the most deranged and morally contemptible posts we've had here for a while.
Then your god would be a sociopath. Odd too don't you think that the people who need to "realize their sin and (are in) need of salvation" also happen to live together in villages that happen to be in the path of tsunamis and the like, whereas those in, say, tsunami-free Leicester presumably then live blameless lives.
-
Do you realise how horrible that would be? You're claiming that an innocent person can be murdered to "teach a lesson" to other people. Are you crazy?
It is exactly what happened at the cross. What about Joseph, then. He suffered so that people would be saved from the seven year famine, as well as coming to know God.
-
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
Sick and then some, if that were true!
-
It is exactly what happened at the cross.
It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.
And for the record, I'm not the kind of snivelling weasel that would let another person take the punishment for my crimes, whether he is God or not.
What about Joseph, then. He suffered so that people would be saved from the seven year famine, as well as coming to know God.
We are talking about murdering somebody to teach another person a lesson. If you can't see the moral repugnancy of that act, you really need to lie down and take a long hard look at yourself.
-
It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.
And for the record, I'm not the kind of snivelling weasel that would let another person take the punishment for my crimes, whether he is God or not.
We are talking about murdering somebody to teach another person a lesson. If you can't see the moral repugnancy of that act, you really need to lie down and take a long hard look at yourself.
I agree.
-
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
So we have got this whole penal reform thing wrong then ? Instead of focussing on rehabilitation rather than punishment of offenders we should just kidnap their children and torture them to death. That would reduce crime levels and bring criminals to their senses. I don't see myself signing up to become a follower of this god any time soon.
-
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
The parents prayed to him to save their child and his answer was to allow the child to die to teach them lesson!
I cannot find words that the Moderators will allow to remain on this Forum to express my opinion of this God or of your attitude Spud, you are beyond reprehensible and that is the most I can say without the risk of being censored.
-
The parents prayed to him to save their child and his answer was to allow the child to die to teach them lesson!
I cannot find words that the Moderators will allow to remain on this Forum to express my opinion of this God or of your attitude Spud, you are beyond reprehensible and that is the most I can say without the risk pf being censored.
It is indeed a strange, bizarre and unsettling opinion. How some people actually square the circle they enclose themselves in is a complete and utter mystery to me.
-
In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.
Blimey.
You made this post nearly three hours ago. If you had a time machine and could travel back three hours would you still post that comment, now that you have had time to reflect on it?
-
It was an ill-thought-out, insensitive, crass comment and I doubt Spud would have made it had he thought about it. At least I hope not. The test is, would he actually say that to someone who had lost a child? Sometimes I think Spud must be about 12, only a kid would make such tactless statements.
-
Hope the following was a part of the response you've had from Gordon, post 248 on this thread:
"All you are saying here is that people are different: again, so what! You can certainly believe what you like, Christian or otherwise, but you don't get to choose your own facts, so if you have some facts that are beyond the realms of science then do tell us more, and if they really are beyond science tell us how you identified them in the first place".
When it comes to the root of your strange beliefs it's at this and exactly similar points, your arguments fall flat on their face; this is always the point where you're unable to give any form of a sensible answer so you duck out and appear elsewhere a few days later.
I don't suppose there's any chance of an answer to the underlined part of this post? It could become a new branch of science, had you thought of that Hope?
ippy
-
It is indeed a strange, bizarre and unsettling opinion. How some people actually square the circle they enclose themselves in is a complete and utter mystery to me.
Yes, it is genuinely baffling. I suppose it's a bit like the defence of the genocides in the OT - if it's in the Bible it must be good and true. But then there's a bypass of morality, so that such Christians appear to be defending murder and cruelty, and at the same time, condemning gays! I've no idea how that works in their own inner world - cognitive dissonance, I guess. It makes Christianity seem very attractive, of course.
-
Hope, Vlad et al.
Have you seen the mod board suggestion by me?
Happy to engage. What say you?
-
It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.
The parents prayed to him to save their child and his answer was to allow the child to die to teach them lesson!
I cannot find words that the Moderators will allow to remain on this Forum to express my opinion of this God or of your attitude Spud, you are beyond reprehensible and that is the most I can say without the risk of being censored.
It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.
I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
-
It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.
I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
Let's say you are God. You were faced with this situation. What would you have done?
Why not punish the parents and save the child?
-
It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.
I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
You have just proved yourself beneath contempt!
-
I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
Sounds like divine favouritism to me: it surprises me that anyone these days would take such passages seriously.
-
Let's say you are God. You were faced with this situation. What would you have done?
Why not punish the parents and save the child?
Spud. Any chance of an answer?
-
Hope the following was a part of the response you've had from Gordon, post 248 on this thread:
"All you are saying here is that people are different: again, so what! You can certainly believe what you like, Christian or otherwise, but you don't get to choose your own facts, so if you have some facts that are beyond the realms of science then do tell us more, and if they really are beyond science tell us how you identified them in the first place".
ippy (and Gordon), society relies heavily on the concept of right and wrong - and several times people here have made it very clear that science doesn't deal with right and wrong. There are a number of ideas within this aspect of life that are either totally global or largely global. If, as we are told, science doesn't deal with the idea, are we to understand that the concept doesn't actually exist? That its just a mirage?
As for choosing my own facts, it would seem (to me) to be others dismissing the facts they don't like.
When it comes to the root of your strange beliefs it's at this and exactly similar points, your arguments fall flat on their face; this is always the point where you're unable to give any form of a sensible answer so you duck out and appear elsewhere a few days later.
Of course they fall flat on their face (in your view); you don't like them so you choose to dismiss them without providing any good reason for doing so. ;)
I don't suppose there's any chance of an answer to the underlined part of this post? It could become a new branch of science, had you thought of that Hope?
As I and others have previously pointed out, since science doesn't deal with the issue I've highlighted, it won't be able to be a new branch of that subject.
-
Sounds like divine favouritism to me: it surprises me that anyone these days would take such passages seriously.
So, is a parent's statement that if a child does as they are told/are asked they will get certain rewards, favouritism? Remember the passage from 2 Chronicles 7:14
... if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Is that favouritism?
-
Hope,
As you're here with more daftness - science is a branch of logic, and logic does at least to some degree "do" right and wrong, albeit that it's not a field with absolutes or definitives. Why on earth you'd think that your alternative - religious faith - has anything useful to say on the matter is anyone's guess, but possibly if ever you manage to propose a method to test your claims we'll find out.
In the meantime though, you may recall that I rebutted various of your errors in reasoning in posts 36-39 inclusive, and that in your Reply 226 to Stephen you asked which of my posts you'd ignored. Predictably, I see that you've ignored them again even though in Reply 227 I took the time to provide the answer you asked for.
As you seem to be determined not to learn from your mistakes, what exactly do you hope to achieve by returning here only to repeat them?
-
Hope,
As you're here with more daftness - science is a branch of logic, and logic does at least to some degree "do" right and wrong, albeit that it's not a field with absolutes or definitives. Why on earth you'd think that your alternative - religious faith - has anything useful to say on the matter is anyone's guess, but possibly if ever you manage to propose a method to test your claims we'll find out.
In the meantime though, you may recall that I rebutted various of your errors in reasoning in posts 36-39 inclusive, and that in your Reply 226 to Stephen you asked which of my posts you'd ignored. Predictably, I see that you've ignored them again even though in Reply 227 I took the time to provide the answer you asked for.
As you seem to be determined not to learn from your mistakes, what exactly do you hope to achieve by returning here only to repeat them?
Science does not do morality. On that Hope is correct
-
Science does not do morality. On that Hope is correct
Morality is nothing more than a human concept and does not exist outside the human mind.
-
Morality is nothing more than a human concept and does not exist outside the human mind.
Yes, I agree.
-
ippy (and Gordon), society relies heavily on the concept of right and wrong - and several times people here have made it very clear that science doesn't deal with right and wrong.
'Heavily' is possibly over-egging the pudding since value judgments aren't just conceptual: one can use both experience and reasoning to come to value judgments although these judgments are essentially subjective in nature: opinion if you will, but informed opinion.
There are a number of ideas within this aspect of life that are either totally global or largely global. If, as we are told, science doesn't deal with the idea, are we to understand that the concept doesn't actually exist? That its just a mirage?
You are over-reaching again with yet another straw man: who here has suggested than science can't consider matters of conduct, such as the factual precursors or consequences of personal or group conduct?
As for choosing my own facts, it would seem (to me) to be others dismissing the facts they don't like.
What facts? You've yet to offer any.
Of course they fall flat on their face (in your view); you don't like them so you choose to dismiss them without providing any good reason for doing so. ;)
Again, what facts?
As I and others have previously pointed out, since science doesn't deal with the issue I've highlighted, it won't be able to be a new branch of that subject.
Nobody is claiming that science 'does' morality, but you do assert facts that you've yet to demonstrate.
-
NS,
Science does not do morality. On that Hope is correct
Yes, but he implies that as science cannot then the path is clear for his approach or religious faith to do so. This is clearly nonsense: religion offers no method to distinguish its moral claims from just guessing, and a branch of logic that's different from science - ie, applied ethics - does "do" morality.
-
NS,
Yes, but he implies that as science cannot then the path is clear for his approach or religious faith to do so. This is clearly nonsense: religion offers no method to distinguish its moral claims from just guessing, and a branch of logic that's different from science - ie, applied ethics - does "do" morality.
we've been there and done this. If you accept an axiom other pieces follow. If you don't accept the axiom then it's just faffing. Offer me a real method to distinguish morality from guessing or assumption and that would be intetesdting but any link outside of that to science is pointless
-
NS,
Yes, but he implies that as science cannot then the path is clear for his approach or religious faith to do so. This is clearly nonsense: religion offers no method to distinguish its moral claims from just guessing, and a branch of logic that's different from science - ie, applied ethics - does "do" morality.
bhs (and NS), I think the issue is that I don't regard human wisdom - be that in the form of science, or logic or reason - to be the sole arbiter of reality. I have had sufficient expoerience to see that, alone, they don't 'cut the mustard'. In a way, this has to do with my belief that all human attributes are intentional and not things that have arrived by the quirk of nature called evolution.
As such, the debate is somewhat moot since, as I've said on so many occasions before, we are coming to the table from such different viewpoints. My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions. For me, there is no divide between science and faith. They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life. It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.
-
It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.
Why did he have to murder the child though?
I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
By murdering children? Your god appears to be completely full of shit.
-
How anyone can look favourably on that very sick creation of god beats me!
-
NS,
we've been there and done this. If you accept an axiom other pieces follow. If you don't accept the axiom then it's just faffing. Offer me a real method to distinguish morality from guessing or assumption and that would be intetesdting but any link outside of that to science is pointless
Sort of. Yes, all is axioms - the "ought from an is" issue you often reference - but the fact is that, broadly speaking, societies from Papua New guinea to Penguin Island do tend to coalesce around some basic moral positions: co-operation, solidarity, altruism etc. And the attendant behaviours seem to have evolutionary advantages, and so have become embedded.
There's no "ought" here but there are observable and testable phenomena, and tentatively at least I'd suggest that it's possible to say something like, "this thing we develop and practice called morality seems to correlate at least to behaviours that offers the best genomic outcomes", which takes us at least some of the way away from guessing or assumption.
The alternative is applied moral relativism - any morality is a valid as any other - which in epistemic terms you might think to be the case, but in practical application terms societies that practiced it would be unworkable - the rule of law for example would be impossible.
-
My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions. For me, there is no divide between science and faith. They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life. It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.
Not sure what faith does then. Is it the thing that allows you to hold contradictory positions, without it apparently bothering you?
-
NS,
Sort of. Yes, all is axioms - the "ought from an is" issue you often reference - but the fact is that, broadly speaking, societies from Papua New guinea to Penguin Island do tend to coalesce around some basic moral position: co-operation, solidarity, altruism etc. And the attendant behaviours seem to have evolutionary advantages, and so have become embedded.
There's no "ought" here but there are observable and testable phenomena, and tentatively at least I'd suggest that it's possible to say something like, "this thing we develop and practice called morality seems to correlate at least to behaviours that offers the best genomic outcomes", which takes us at least some of the way away from guessing or assumption.
The alternative is moral relativism - any morality is a valid as any other - which in epistemic terms you might think to be the case, but in practical application terms societies that practiced it would be unworkable - the rule of law for example would be impossible.
You could replace "morality" by "religion" in most of that, bhs. They've gone hand in hand in most societies, and even pulled in primitive science to provide consistent world views.
-
bhs (and NS), I think the issue is that I don't regard human wisdom - be that in the form of science, or logic or reason - to be the sole arbiter of reality. I have had sufficient expoerience to see that, alone, they don't 'cut the mustard'. In a way, this has to do with my belief that all human attributes are intentional and not things that have arrived by the quirk of nature called evolution.
As such, the debate is somewhat moot since, as I've said on so many occasions before, we are coming to the table from such different viewpoints. My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions. For me, there is no divide between science and faith. They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life. It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.
Well said, Hope.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.
The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.
-
Well said, Hope.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.
The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.
I think, Alan, based on this post and the post of Hope's you are responding to, that both of you are hopelessly lost in your personal incredulity: for you guys everything you know or experience derives from your God, everything you encounter that you don't fully understand creates convenient little gaps for you to claim your God acts - and then there is this 'more to reality' claim into which you can retreat when pressed.
There is no contrast here - it is all 'just God', which in terms of developing a meaningful understanding of anything is the intellectual equivalent of being dropped head first into a vat of blancmange from which there is no escape.
-
In reply to your post 277 on this thread Hope.
My comment was directed toward your well known inability to substantiate any of your statements/assertions ref: beyond the realms of science and how you actually can know with any certainty that these ideas that you specify are actually beyond the realms of science?
Whether I like these ideas of yours or not, if you could find some way of substantiating your rather strange ideas they would no longer be strange.
Psychology used to be a BA degree is now a BSC and has rather a lot to say about morality and is also extremely adapt at pointing out the many short falls/fallacies of religious beliefs when dealing with the mental state of most people and as such it presents one of the best entry points of science into the assessments of moral judgements, all without calling out to thin air for answers.
ippy
-
Well said, Hope.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.
The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.
Another good example of the godidit syndrome, well done yet again, Alan.
ippy
-
Hope,
bhs (and NS), I think the issue is that I don't regard human wisdom - be that in the form of science, or logic or reason - to be the sole arbiter of reality. I have had sufficient expoerience to see that, alone, they don't 'cut the mustard'. In a way, this has to do with my belief that all human attributes are intentional and not things that have arrived by the quirk of nature called evolution.
I don't know what you mean by this, but if you're implying that morality isn't an emergent property of our evolved selves then you have all your work ahead of you to make an argument for it
As such, the debate is somewhat moot since, as I've said on so many occasions before, we are coming to the table from such different viewpoints.
Yes. Mine is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. You on the other hand seem content to rest your conclusions on false premises.
My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions.
And right on cue you deploy the reification fallacy. Again. The "after all" etc is just your personal faith belief, not a demonstrated fact.
For me, there is no divide between science and faith. They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life. It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.
Fat wrong. They are no more "complementary" than, say, science and astrology are complementary. Science is just indifferent to religious faith (as it is to astrology) because faith offers nothing with which the methods of science can engage. The problem though for faith when it wants to establish truths of its own is that it has no methods of its own to distinguish its claims from just guessing.
Often too the claims of faith not only are not complementary to science but they flatly contradict them when the religious use their faith to make assertions of fact - young earth creationists, or those who ascribe surprising medical outcomes to the effect of prayer as examples.
-
Udayana,
You could replace "morality" by "religion" in most of that, bhs. They've gone hand in hand in most societies, and even pulled in primitive science to provide consistent world views.
Not really. There's a bewildering variety of religious beliefs around the world, with very little obvious commonality between them - at least until for example missionaries spread/enforce their opinions. What is common though is our species' tendency to look for patterns and explanations - better a conspiracy theory than no theory at all - and gods from Thor to Hope's "God" have fulfilled that role for millennia, at least until better explanations have arrived.
It would be interesting to hear Hope's response for example to one of his logically hopeless "Mrs Jenkins was ill/the doctors had given up/we prayed/Mrs Jenkins got better/therefore God" daftnesses if tomorrow a new mechanism for the cure was discovered (if, say, it turned out that eating grapes fixed that particular illness). Would he give up on his god much as the Thor-ists did when thunder was explained, or would he look for the next currently unexplained phenomenon for evidence for his God?
-
Well said, Hope.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.
The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.
You'll have a methodology for determining what you mean by 'evidence' here? I hope you do because if not your statement becomes not even wrong. Hope has been asked many times for one and hasn't ever provided one, so if you help him out that would be good.
Further, reality is a bold claim from either theist or atheist.
-
I think, Alan, based on this post and the post of Hope's you are responding to, that both of you are hopelessly lost in your personal incredulity: for you guys everything you know or experience derives from your God, everything you encounter that you don't fully understand creates convenient little gaps for you to claim your God acts - and then there is this 'more to reality' claim into which you can retreat when pressed.
There is no contrast here - it is all 'just God', which in terms of developing a meaningful understanding of anything is the intellectual equivalent of being dropped head first into a vat of blancmange from which there is no escape.
Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.
You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties. The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events. So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.
The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.
-
Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.
You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties. The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events. So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.
The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.
It is called I don't know. You are making a claim and trying to switch the burden of proof is fundamentally dishonest.
-
Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.
You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties.
No I'm not - I reserve judgment, or put simply I'm comfortable with 'I don't know'.
The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events. So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.
It isn't a problem, since if I say 'I don't know' then I'm not offering an explanation at all. If you have on that you see as non-naturalistic then by all mean present it, but if you do remember to include the methodology involved since if you don't have a method then your explanation is likely to be fallacious.
The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.
Nope - you are begging the question here by assuming your preferred conclusion (that 'there is something yet to be discovered'), which is a fallacy.
-
AB,
Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.
You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties. The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events. So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.
The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.
You've tried this straw man before so it's disappointing to see you return to it. No-one "allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate", so why pretend otherwise?
Anything - literally - might be. Your problem remains though to provide a logical path from "don't know" to "god" without just asserting the argument from ignorance.
-
From Hope's reply 277:
ippy (and Gordon), society relies heavily on the concept of right and wrong - and several times people here have made it very clear that science doesn't deal with right and wrong. There are a number of ideas within this aspect of life that are either totally global or largely global. If, as we are told, science doesn't deal with the idea, are we to understand that the concept doesn't actually exist? That its just a mirage?
The idea that science doesn't deal with morality, I would suggest, is only loosely correct, in the sense that it does not become the arbiter of whether a particular action is moral or not. Science, however, does provide explanations for the existence of morality, and can make pertinent observations as to whether certain actions may promote human flourishing or not. It is then up to society to decide which course of action to take, and that may differ according to many other influences prevalent at any particular time.
The concept of human morality, from a scientific point of view, comes from within the human mind. As far as I can see, there is no reason to think that it comes from any other source, unless you can give reasoned and evidential arguments that this is so. To simply state some sort of 'god' as the source, unless this can be evidenced, is simply pure conjecture.
-
It is the human mind which creates all concepts, imo.
-
Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.
You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties. The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events. So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.
The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.
I'm not sure how much you know about neuroscience, but there is plenty of research into 'executive functions' in the brain, involving things like attention, inhibition, memory, reasoning, planning, and so on.
So the idea of control is valid in neuroscience, and one type of evidence is from various kinds of brain damage, which can impair various control mechanisms. I think 'executive dysfunction' used to be used as a term, but maybe not now. If you know anyone with dementia, you may well see signs of some impairment.
But there is someone here who knows a lot more about it than me - not sure if it's enki or not. Maybe you should read a bit more.
-
I'm not sure how much you know about neuroscience, but there is plenty of research into 'executive functions' in the brain, involving things like attention, inhibition, memory, reasoning, planning, and so on.
So the idea of control is valid in neuroscience, and one type of evidence is from various kinds of brain damage, which can impair various control mechanisms. I think 'executive dysfunction' used to be used as a term, but maybe not now. If you know anyone with dementia, you may well see signs of some impairment.
But there is someone here who knows a lot more about it than me - not sure if it's enki or not. Maybe you should read a bit more.
Hi Wiggs,
You are too kind. I doubt it is me.
However, just one of the many studies of brain damaged patients, and how their sense of morality was affected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=0
-
You are too modest!
I'm just waiting for AB to invoke the ghost in the machine - but what is it that pays attention? It must be some entity, therefore soul, therefore God, therefore I'm a snowflake for Jesus, hurrah.
-
It's pretending imaginary things are real and then making up sophisticated nonsense to hide their non-existence.
No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.
It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.
Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.
-
Vlad,
No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.
Not really. It's just pushing at the open door of "anything's possible" and hoping that no-one notices that there's no path from that to "therefore god is probable".
It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.
No he doesn't, and you still rely in any case on your wrong understanding of "philosophical materialism".
Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.
It's not "squirming" and it is more "virtuous" if by that you mean logically supportable because the former has a probabilistic methodology underpinning and the latter is indistinguishable from just guessing.
-
No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.
It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.
Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.
Oi!
What about my reply #243?
Maybe you would like to set up a 1-1 debate on it. Sure we can agree terms.
As I say it was a shame you were on a flyer and "forgot" about the previous thread.
-
Vlad,
Not really. It's just pushing at the open door of "anything's possible" and hoping that no-one notices that there's no path from that to "therefore god is probable".
No he doesn't, and you still rely in any case on your wrong understanding of "philosophical materialism".
It's not "squirming" and it is more "virtuous" if by that you mean logically supportable because the former has a probabilistic methodology underpinning and the latter is indistinguishable from just guessing.
I'm afraid Carroll is a romantic mathematician given his work on string theory, multiverse and his criticism of falsification and calling the physicists definition of fine tuning ''a problem''. All these things come under what you call guessing which you are trying to call a ''bad'' thing.
You cannot have it both ways where one ''guessing'' is more virtuous than another.
-
No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.
It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.
Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.
You seem to have forgotten to explain 'theological reasoning': telling us what you think about other matters doesn't answer the question I asked.
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid Carroll is a romantic mathematician given his work on string theory, multiverse and his criticism of falsification and calling the physicists definition of fine tuning ''a problem''. All these things come under what you call guessing which you are trying to call a ''bad'' thing.
So just to be clear - you, Vlad, who consistently either lies about the arguments that undo you or just invents new meaning for terms that actually mean something else in order to support your faith conclusion and who has no known knowledge or experience in the field has decided that internationally regarded and extensively published cosmologist Sean Carroll can be dismissed as a "romantic mathematician" with no argument of any kind to support that contention.
Is that really the corner into which you wish to paint yourself?
Really?
You cannot have it both ways where one ''guessing'' is more virtuous than another.
Of course you can. Which "guess" do you think to be more probably true: that there's a keyboard in front of you, or that there's an invisible pixie tap dancing on the keys?
Why?
-
Vlad,
So just to be clear - you, Vlad, who consistently either lies about the arguments that undo you or just invents new meaning for terms that actually mean something else in order to support your faith conclusion and who has no known knowledge or experience in the field has decided that internationally regarded and extensively published cosmologist Sean Carroll can be dismissed as a "romantic mathematician" with no argument of any kind to support that contention.
Is that really the corner into which you wish to paint yourself?
Really?
Of course you can. Which "guess" do you think to be more probably true: that there's a keyboard in front of you, or that there's an invisible pixie tap dancing on the keys?
Why?
Anybody reading what I said would accept that multiverse is in fact romantic mathematics since a lot of what is proposed is untestable. There is of course nothing wrong with what he has done......guessing that what he has the maths for exists physically.
Anybody reading what I have said would have noticed that what gets near to criticism on my part is what any atheist could and indeed has taken issue with him.
Namely that fine tuning observed in physics constitutes some kind of problem........
and that we should get rid of falsification in science......an act that presumably bring untestable multiverse theories firmly into science rather than guessing.
As I have said the only unforgivable here is the bending of the conventions of science to accommodate what he does.
I have no beef with his science or his maths as I understand it and leave both to be judged by his peers as is proper.
-
Vlad,
Anybody reading what I said would accept that multiverse is in fact romantic mathematics since a lot of what is proposed is untestable. There is of course nothing wrong with what he has done......guessing that what he has the maths for exists physically.
That's a basic category error. A multiverse is a hypothesis - something that might or might not be, pending further evidence. You on the other hand assert "God" as a fact, albeit with no coherent reasoning to support you. Hypotheses and facts are not the same thing.
Anybody reading what I have said would have noticed that what gets near to criticism on my part is what any atheist could and indeed has taken issue with him.
Namely that fine tuning observed in physics constitutes some kind of problem........
and that we should get rid of falsification in science......an act that presumably bring untestable multiverse theories firmly into science rather than guessing.
Nope. He's said that "fine tuning" appears to some to be a problem until you understand that thee is no fine tuning, and he's merely discussed the problems falsification can bring but not said we should" get rid of it.
If you want to critique someone by all means do, but not just by lying about what he says.
As I have said the only unforgivable here is the bending of the conventions of science to accommodate what he does.
It probably would be, but no-one has.
I have no beef with his science or his maths as I understand it and leave both to be judged by his peers as is proper.
Fine - any news re the actual question though: if you think all is guessing, why would you conclude that there's a keyboard in front of you (your "guess") but not an invisible tap dancing pixie on the keys (my "guess")?
Why so coy?
-
Vlad,
That's a basic category error. A multiverse is a hypothesis - something that might or might not be, pending further evidence. You on the other hand assert "God" as a fact, albeit with no coherent reasoning to support you. Hypotheses and facts are not the same thing.
Nope. He's said that "fine tuning" appears to some to be a problem until you understand that thee is no fine tuning, and he's merely discussed the problems falsification can bring but not said we should" get rid of it.
If you want to critique someone by all means do, but not just by lying about what he says.
It probably would be, but no-one has.
Fine - any news re the actual question though: if you think all is guessing, why would you conclude that there's a keyboard in front of you (your "guess") but not an invisible tap dancing pixie on the keys (my "guess")?
Why so coy?
An hypothesis must be testable though and that firmly brings multiverse into guessing. Sorry.
Are you suggesting that things are reasoned into existence?
-
Vlad,
An hypothesis must be testable though and that firmly brings multiverse into guessing. Sorry.
Don't be - you're still flat wrong. A hypothesis should be testable at least in principle. There are various suggestions as to how you could do this for the multiverse hypothesis. How in principle would you propose to test your god hypothesis (as you've presumably now downgraded the claim to)?
Are you suggesting that things are reasoned into existence?
No.
-
Vlad,
Don't be - you're still flat wrong. A hypothesis should be testable at least in principle. There are various suggestions as to how you could do this for the multiverse hypothesis.
Hmm.....and how would the multiverse be made manifest under these suggestions?
-
AB,
You've tried this straw man before so it's disappointing to see you return to it. No-one "allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate", so why pretend otherwise?
Anything - literally - might be. Your problem remains though to provide a logical path from "don't know" to "god" without just asserting the argument from ignorance.
I am not making this up. If you google "Free will is an illusion" you will get numerous papers, articles and books written by scientists who come to the inevitable conclusion that in a closed deterministic universe there is no scope for anything to be in control other than natural laws over which we have no control.
You may well say "I don't know" to the question of defining what comprises and drives our conscious thoughts but to assume that there is a natural explanation is handing over control to nature, over which we have no control. For control to exist, the source of control must be in the supernatural not the natural, otherwise is is just a pre determined chain of reactions defined by nature.
-
Another good example of the godidit syndrome, well done yet again, Alan.
ippy
Whereas this is a good example of the 'godcanthavedoneit' syndrome, ippy ;)
-
It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.
And for the record, I'm not the kind of snivelling weasel that would let another person take the punishment for my crimes, whether he is God or not.
That's very noble, but really isn't sensible. True, Jesus dying in our place seems unjust. But he didn't have to spend eternity paying for our sin like we will have to if we reject him.
We are talking about murdering somebody to teach another person a lesson. If you can't see the moral repugnancy of that act, you really need to lie down and take a long hard look at yourself.
I didn't at any point say that God murdered him. He did however allow him to be murdered by his parents, if that is found to be what happened. And he will bring good out of what happened.
Edit:
At some points in the Bible, God is said to have killed. Eg David and Bathsheba's son whom God "struck" with an illness that killed him. Or in the Flood, which God sent to kill everyone except 8 people.
Is this murder? No because murder is unlawful killing. God gave us life so he has the right to take it away. He has a purpose in doing so, which we do not understand at the time because we are his creatures and his thoughts are higher than ours.
-
Spud you have your head right up your rear end where your take on faith is concerned, imo.
-
I am not making this up. If you google "Free will is an illusion" you will get numerous papers, articles and books written by scientists who come to the inevitable conclusion that in a closed deterministic universe there is no scope for anything to be in control other than natural laws over which we have no control
Science is naturalistic so its conclusions, and these are always provisional, are based on naturalism - no surprise there.
You may well say "I don't know" to the question of defining what comprises and drives our conscious thoughts but to assume that there is a natural explanation is handing over control to nature, over which we have no control. For control to exist, the source of control must be in the supernatural not the natural, otherwise is is just a pre determined chain of reactions defined by nature.
Nice to see so many fallacies packed into one paragraph: begging the question, personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.
-
I'm not sure how much you know about neuroscience, but there is plenty of research into 'executive functions' in the brain, involving things like attention, inhibition, memory, reasoning, planning, and so on.
So the idea of control is valid in neuroscience, and one type of evidence is from various kinds of brain damage, which can impair various control mechanisms. I think 'executive dysfunction' used to be used as a term, but maybe not now. If you know anyone with dementia, you may well see signs of some impairment.
But there is someone here who knows a lot more about it than me - not sure if it's enki or not. Maybe you should read a bit more.
Neuroscience, no matter how complex, can't contradict the fundamental deterministic laws of nature. The driver of our thoughts is either natural, or it is supernatural. There is no compromise.
And the symptoms of physical brain damage are irrelevant. If a machine is damaged, it will malfunction and the driver of the machine loses control. The loss of control can't be used to prove the driver does not exist.
-
Spud you have your head right up your rear end where your take on faith is concerned, imo.
I've edited my post. Please explain what you mean rather than just write insults.
-
begging the question, personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.
And what is the source of my personal incredulity?
Is it the inevitable result of natural cause and effect events which span over three billion years?
Or does it emanate from the "I" which drives my thoughts words and actions?
-
AB,
I am not making this up. If you google "Free will is an illusion" you will get numerous papers, articles and books written by scientists who come to the inevitable conclusion that in a closed deterministic universe there is no scope for anything to be in control other than natural laws over which we have no control.
Yes you are - or at least you're fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. You've posited "we" as if we're somehow outside of "natural laws" whereas all the evidence tells us that this "we" is a perceptual model that's just an emergent property of our material selves.
You may well say "I don't know" to the question of defining what comprises and drives our conscious thoughts but to assume that there is a natural explanation is handing over control to nature, over which we have no control. For control to exist, the source of control must be in the supernatural not the natural, otherwise is is just a pre determined chain of reactions defined by nature.
That's some spectacularly bad thinking right there. How on earth can we be "handing over control to nature" when we are nature - or at least an inextricable part of it? Yes, it's "pre-determined" in the sense that our decision making is the outcome of unfathomably complex chains of cause and effect, even though the model we construct appears to suggest that we're somehow outside of that.
Is your problem that you don't understand that, or that you do understand it but you don't like it so have to deny it to satisfy your ego?
Oh, and the point you've dodged by the way was that you pushed at an open door that leads nowhere when you pretended that others don't allow for the possibility of your god - just as we allow for the possibility of orbiting teapots and shape-shifting lizards in Buckingham Palace - but that says nothing whatever to whether any of these conjectures are more probably true than not.
And that's your problem when you attempt that straw man.
-
AB,
And what is the source of my personal incredulity?
Your consciousness, which is an emergent property of your material self.
-
I've edited my post. Please explain what you mean rather than just write insults.
(((((God gave us life so he has the right to take it away. He has a purpose in doing so, which we do not understand at the time because we are his creatures and his thoughts are higher than ours.)))))
You have made an assertion without evidence to support it. However, if god did give us life, it had no right to take it away again. We are humans, not its pawns with which it can play nasty games.
-
Hope,
Whereas this is a good example of the 'godcanthavedoneit' syndrome, ippy ;)
No it isn't because no-one has said that. Or that the Clangers and the Soup Dragon can't be having a jolly old time on their far, far away planet, or that there can't be unicorns pooping glitter in Xanadu, or that.... etc
Any of these things and more - your god included - could be. How though do you think that helps you?
Oh, and having ignored the various rebuttals I posted to your broken thinking, then asked later on where they are and had me tell you, and then continued to ignore them I ask again: what exactly is your point in being here if you refuse point plank to address the reasoning that undoes you?
-
Hope,
No it isn't because no-one has said that.
Soory to disappoint you, but ippy has, over the years, made it clear that he doesn't believe in a God to intervene in the first place.
-
Hope,
Soory to disappoint you, but ippy has, over the years, made it clear that he doesn't believe in a God to intervene in the first place.
You disappoint me only because you continue to fail to grasp even the simplest logic. I don't "believe in a God to intervene in the first place" either. Nor do I believe that the Clangers and the Soup Dragon are enjoying a tea party as we speak. Nor do I believe that there are shape-shifting lizards in Buckingham Palace.
None of these non-beliefs though are the same thing as saying that any of them can't be – which was your straw man claim. However unlikely, I allow for the possibility that in due course there could be reasoning or evidence to make me change my mind about my non-belief(s).
This negative proof thing really has got you foxed still hasn't it.
-
None of these non-beliefs though are the same thing as saying that any of them can't be – which was your straw man claim. However unlikely, I allow for the possibility that in due course there could be reasoning or evidence to make me change my mind about my non-belief(s).
This negative proof thing really has got you foxed still hasn't it.
Except that ippy tends to use the 'can't be' argument. It is why I tend to treat him somewhat differently to folk like you.
-
Hope,
Except that ippy tends to use the 'can't be' argument. It is why I tend to treat him somewhat differently to folk like you.
Ippy can answer for himself regarding whether or not he "tends" to do that. In the post about which you accused him of a "can't" though he didn't. Why not just acknowledge that?
Should I expect further silence from you followed by repetition of the same logical errors by the way, or do you intend to address the rebuttals I posted and then reminded you of when you asked where they were?
-
And what is the source of my personal incredulity?
Your brain, Alan.
Or does it emanate from the "I" which drives my thoughts words and actions?
Same thing: still your brain.
-
Neuroscience, no matter how complex, can't contradict the fundamental deterministic laws of nature. The driver of our thoughts is either natural, or it is supernatural. There is no compromise.
We should put it down to natural then, as supernatural does not exist. Or at least there is no evidence for the supernatural and hence no reason to take that seriously. And of course there never could be any evidence for the supernatural, because it is, errm, supernatural, if there were any evidence for such then that would define it as natural, evidence being a naturalist concept.
There is no need to look for magic answers as to what drives thought when there are pointers to real answers all around us Thoughts arise out of feelings; thus the feeling of hunger gives rise to the thought 'must go get a kebab'. Thoughts result from something, they are consequent of something prior, hence part of the chain of cause and effect. It may feel like we are in control, it may feel like we can take spontaneous decisions for no reason, but we don't have conscious access to the vast majority of our thought processes, most of which are subliminal, hence we feel we can be spontaneous. The feeling of agency, of being in control, is just that, it is a feeling like any other, like the feeling of being hot or in pain or being sad, the feeling of being in control is another feeling produced by brain function.
-
Neuroscience, no matter how complex, can't contradict the fundamental deterministic laws of nature. The driver of our thoughts is either natural, or it is supernatural. There is no compromise.
And the symptoms of physical brain damage are irrelevant. If a machine is damaged, it will malfunction and the driver of the machine loses control. The loss of control can't be used to prove the driver does not exist.
Of course neuroscience doesn't contradict the fundamental deterministic laws of nature(leaving aside any possible quantum probability effects). Why should it?
Assuming that you were correct that some sort of supernatural element exists, why couldn't both the natural and your supposed supernatural both have their parts to play? Why is there no compromise?
Your idea that brain damage is irrelevant assumes that there is some sort of supernatural driver extraneous to the brain, an idea for which you have no actual scientific evidence whatever. Unless or until you can deliver such evidence, how brain damage can effect our thoughts/feelings/decisions is extremely relevant.
-
So the supernatural controller is powerless in the case of brain damage? If I meet someone who doesn't know who they are (because of brain disease), the soul is sort of hanging about, being sympathetic, I suppose? Well, if it's a controller,why doesn't it do something about it?
Why, it's almost as if it doesn't exist!
-
torridon wrote:
We should put it down to natural then, as supernatural does not exist. Or at least there is no evidence for the supernatural and hence no reason to take that seriously. And of course there never could be any evidence for the supernatural, because it is, errm, supernatural, if there were any evidence for such then that would define it as natural, evidence being a naturalist concept.
I was reading the thread again, and I thought that this paragraph goes to the heart of the matter, in relation to the supernatural. As you say, there cannot be evidence for the supernatural. So it is somehow left floating in the air, often propelled there by incredulity. 'I don't understand how thunder is formed, therefore Thor does it'. That's the equivalent argument. Today, we have 'I don't understand how thoughts are formed, therefore the soul'.
I suppose people also say that they experience the supernatural or feel it, or sense it. But this seems almost solipsistic.
Then, the theist can also reverse the argument - 'OK, you prove to me that the brain produces thought' - but this is really admitting defeat.
-
torridon wrote:
I was reading the thread again, and I thought that this paragraph goes to the heart of the matter, in relation to the supernatural. As you say, there cannot be evidence for the supernatural. So it is somehow left floating in the air, often propelled there by incredulity. 'I don't understand how thunder is formed, therefore Thor does it'. That's the equivalent argument. Today, we have 'I don't understand how thoughts are formed, therefore the soul'.
I suppose people also say that they experience the supernatural or feel it, or sense it. But this seems almost solipsistic.
Then, the theist can also reverse the argument - 'OK, you prove to me that the brain produces thought' - but this is really admitting defeat.
Yes, Wigs and Torri,
I came to this conclusion long ago. It's all a total waste of time to argue with people so deeply entrenched in their daft beliefs. :(
-
I take my hat off to you in respect for this post of yours Wiggi:
"So the supernatural controller is powerless in the case of brain damage? If I meet someone who doesn't know who they are (because of brain disease), the soul is sort of hanging about, being sympathetic, I suppose? Well, if it's a controller,why doesn't it do something about it?
Why, it's almost as if it doesn't exist"!
====
Hope you say: "Except that ippy tends to use the 'can't be' argument. It is why I tend to treat him somewhat differently to folk like you".
I have said many times when proof of this god idea of yours that resides inside your head is supplied I will be joining you, now, the likelihood of anyone supplying the said evidence is so unlikely I find it difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people like yourself and others like A B bother with the god idea in the first place.
I only argue from the unlikely event of there being a god or anything like it in the first place POV Hope, I'm not expecting you or anyone else, to believe in a lot of things or ideas that up to the present date have no evidence to support them, in the way you and Alan expect others to believe your completely unsupported religious/faith ideas; the evidence for these religious/faith ideas of yours Hope, the evidence you say you have but never submit to this forum.
Blue, as for you planting nasturtiums on the Clangers the Soup Dragon and the royal lizards, how can you live with yourself?
ippy
-
ippy,
Blue, as for you planting nasturtiums on the Clangers the Soup Dragon and the royal lizards, how can you live with yourself?
Sorry ipster (hangs head in shame, wanders slowly off occasionally muttering obscenities at passing dogs etc)
-
Me to Hope:
Should I expect further silence from you followed by repetition of the same logical errors by the way, or do you intend to address the rebuttals I posted and then reminded you of when you asked where they were?
Hope's reply to me:
Somewhere in the distance a coyote yowls mournfully, while tumbleweed scurries past as the breeze picks up and stirs the hanging spoon to tap erratically on the dinner gong and the long-abandoned rocking chair begins to creak on the broken down verandah...and our Hopey is long long gone and far far away.
Oh well.
-
ippy,
Sorry ipster (hangs head in shame, wanders slowly off occasionally muttering obscenities at passing dogs etc)
Careless comments like yours can spoil these wonderful stories I first become aware of when sitting spellbound watching, listening and enjoying them with my children.
Keep an eye open for "Fire Maidens from Outer Space", on this new Freeview channel 81, if you really want to know what life is really all about.
ippy
-
(((((God gave us life so he has the right to take it away. He has a purpose in doing so, which we do not understand at the time because we are his creatures and his thoughts are higher than ours.)))))
You have made an assertion without evidence to support it. However, if god did give us life, it had no right to take it away again. We are humans, not its pawns with which it can play nasty games.
The evidence is all around, but you are suppressing it with theories like evolution. It's also in the Bible, a historical document, which you may not believe; but in order to back up the statement that you made earlier (re: me talking nonsense where faith is concerned), you need to prove that what I said is not in the Bible.
-
I find it difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people like yourself and others like A B bother with the god idea in the first place.
ippy
Come on Ippy! You KNOW why! You have posted your abhorence of why!
Because it was drilled and drummed into their brains as children! And this is why they are so set on keeping religious education in schools and dragging their kids to church and Sunday school!
-
The evidence is all around, but you are suppressing it with theories like evolution. It's also in the Bible, a historical document, which you may not believe; ...
'suppressing' is probably the wrong word. 'Superseding' would be a better choice. Science doesn't seek to suppress earlier ideas, rather, prescientific ideas will tend to lose out naturally as our body of knowledge and understanding acquired through detailed observational and empirical analysis grows.
-
The evidence is all around, but you are suppressing it with theories like evolution. It's also in the Bible, a historical document, which you may not believe; but in order to back up the statement that you made earlier (re: me talking nonsense where faith is concerned), you need to prove that what I said is not in the Bible.
That is GARBAGE the evidence is only around us in the minds of people like you. The Bible is NOT a historical document, that is a porky.
-
That is GARBAGE the evidence is only around us in the minds of people like you. The Bible is NOT a historical document, that is a porky.
An indigestable 'porkie' at that!
-
Come on Ippy! You KNOW why! You have posted your abhorence of why!
Because it was drilled and drummed into their brains as children! And this is why they are so set on keeping religious education in schools and dragging their kids to church and Sunday school!
Yes Qwl it's the luck of the draw something like people that are naturally more susceptible to hypnosis, no doubt there will always be those unlucky enough to be taken in hook line and sinker by religious indoctrination, but fortunately there are people like us owl still here and doing our best to straighten out these poor deluded religionist people and we do all of these good works without looking for a reward of any kind.
ippy
-
Yes Qwl it's the luck of the draw something like people that are naturally more susceptible to hypnosis, no doubt there will always be those unlucky enough to be taken in hook line and sinker by religious indoctrination, but fortunately there are people like us owl still here and doing our best to straighten out these poor deluded religionist people and we do all of these good works without looking for a reward of any kind.
ippy
Oh, I AM a religionist, BUT I have posted, more times than I care to think about while rebutting Hope, Ab, Sassy et al, that I am fully aware that my religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT FACT!
Also they are MY beliefs and I will not try to tell anyone, atheist or believer in some other religion, that my beliefs are right and theirs are wrong.
Why? Because my beliefs are a matter of faith which will only be proved or disproved to my personal satisfactioin upon my death!
If I am right and the Summerlands are on the other side of the veil between the living and the dead, I will find a way to post that information on this forum.
-
OK, I have read a number of the studies and reports - but none have ever actually specified what the prayer requests being 'tested' actually were. They generally refer to 'prayers for healing' but, as I've previously pointed out, many such prayers include a variety of levels and forms of healing within them.
Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!
Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.
-
Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!
Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.
This shows his monumental insecurity - he cannot face being tested and found wanting!
Add cowardice to his innate bastardry as demonstrated in the OP!
And your cowardice for NOT testing him!
-
This shows his monumental insecurity - he cannot face being tested and found wanting!
Add cowardice to his innate bastardry as demonstrated in the OP!
And your cowardice for NOT testing him!
Quite! The only error being that he can't face being tested (or anything else) because he doesn't exist.
It is his believers that your post applies to. :)
-
Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!
Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.
Of course it should be put to the test if it exists! So far it has failed all the tests where its existence is concerned. Maybe it should be in the remedial class! :D
-
Thou shalt NOT put the LORD thy God to the test!
Waste of time doing studies on prayers and request tests.
Sassy, welcome back and I look forward to reading more of your misguided statements, overshadowed many more times by your non answers.
You're mostly very entertaining Sass, good to see you're posting again.
ippy
-
Oh, I AM a religionist, BUT I have posted, more times than I care to think about while rebutting Hope, Ab, Sassy et al, that I am fully aware that my religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT FACT!
Also they are MY beliefs and I will not try to tell anyone, atheist or believer in some other religion, that my beliefs are right and theirs are wrong.
Why? Because my beliefs are a matter of faith which will only be proved or disproved to my personal satisfactioin upon my death!
If I am right and the Summerlands are on the other side of the veil between the living and the dead, I will find a way to post that information on this forum.
It's the odds Owl, the odds on there being any such thing as a god, the odds alone? doesn't this ring any bells? without adding any of the plentiful arguments against?
ippy
-
Oh, I AM a religionist, BUT I have posted, more times than I care to think about while rebutting Hope, Ab, Sassy et al, that I am fully aware that my religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT FACT!
But I'm afraid atheists see the word faith as LIES or BOLLOCKS.
-
It's the odds Owl, the odds on there being any such thing as a god, the odds alone? doesn't this ring any bells? without adding any of the plentiful arguments against?
ippy
Dear Ippy
How is it the odds?
What are the Odds?
Give one argument against?
Yours not holding breath for any answers from you
Vlad
-
Vlad,
But I'm afraid atheists see the word faith as LIES or BOLLOCKS.
Well yes, but that's not really the point. This atheist sees it as dangerous because its unarguable lies or bollocks. "But that's my faith" is the identical defence of the vicar handing around cucumber sandwiches and the suicide bomber alike. Where do we go from there?
-
Vlad,
Well yes, but that's not really the point. This atheist sees it as dangerous because its unarguable lies or bollocks. "But that's my faith" is the identical defence of the vicar handing around cucumber sandwiches and the suicide bomber alike. Where do we go from there?
Yes but arguably the greater danger is from people who can't see the difference between a vicar dispensing sandwiches and a mad bomber.
-
Vlad,
Yes but arguably the greater danger is from people who can't see the difference between a vicar dispensing sandwiches and a mad bomber.
You've missed the point. As "faith" requires no cogent argument or evidence, how should we demonstrate to someone that his faith belief is wrong? A somebody once said, if someone hasn't reasoned his way into his position, how can he be reasoned out of it?
Whether the faith happens to involve cucumber sandwiches or bombs is a separate matter.
-
Vlad,
You've missed the point. As "faith" requires no cogent argument or evidence, how should we demonstrate to someone that his faith belief is wrong? A somebody once said, if someone hasn't reasoned his way into his position, how can he be reasoned out of it?
Whether the faith happens to involve cucumber sandwiches or bombs is a separate matter.
Yes but we all have faith even you Hillside. If you like, those parts of our philosophy which we cannot demonstrate to others or as a truth...although I take it that the joist of what you and Ippy are trying to say is that there is a probability involved.In which case, what is it?
I'm afraid I consider the position you are taking as somewhat hypocritical.
-
Vlad,
Yes but we all have faith even you Hillside. If you like, those parts of our philosophy which we cannot demonstrate to others or as a truth...although I take it that the joist of what you and Ippy are trying to say is that there is a probability involved.In which case, what is it?
I'm afraid I consider the position you are taking as somewhat hypocritical.
You can consider it anything you like, but you've conflated the method (or process) with the content. The vicar, the suicide bomber and (presumably) you think that your religious faiths are a more reliable guide to probable truths than just guessing about stuff.
What you do with that belief - bombs or cucumber sandwiches - is a different matter.
You seem too to have fallen off your regular cliff of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you". Rather than correct you (again) only for you to ignore the correction (again) here (again) is the Stephen Law essay on "Going Nuclear" that does the job perfectly well. Once you've read it try critiqueing that if you still disagree:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
-
Oh dear, Vlad! Please, please, do apply the clear thinking you have used on the referendum discussions to the subject of faith too! :)
As I personally have said many times, there is nothing I have faith in which relies on faith alone.
-
Vlad,
You can consider it anything you like, but you've conflated the method (or process) with the content. The vicar, the suicide bomber and (presumably) you think that your religious faiths are a more reliable guide to probable truths than just guessing about stuff.
What you do with that belief - bombs or cucumber sandwiches - is a different matter.
You seem too to have fallen off your regular cliff of, "OK, I'm guessing but so are you". Rather than correct you (again) only for you to ignore the correction (again) here (again) is the Stephen Law essay on "Going Nuclear" that does the job perfectly well. Once you've read it try critiqueing that if you still disagree:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
I'm trying to think what you mean by just guessing giving rise to or establishing "probable" truths.
My own faith tells me that an unavoidable encounter with God is on the cards for everybody and therefore if the God of the universe is that interested in people, what right have I not to be.
Can just guessing come up with a conclusion like that?
-
Vlad,
I'm trying to think what you mean by just guessing giving rise to or establishing "probable" truths.
My own faith tells me that an unavoidable encounter with God is on the cards for everybody and therefore if the God of the universe is that interested in people, what right have I not to be.
Can just guessing come up with a conclusion like that?
Given the bewildering variety of gods and their various characteristics that countless people have believed in just as fervently as you believe in your (heavily culturally defined by the way) god, then I'd have thought the answer is obvious.
Did you read the Stephen Law essay? Do you seem now why your "going nuclear" line is failing you?
Try this - you're on the 20th floor of an office block, and you're in a tearing hurry to be somewhere else. I tell you that it's my absolute, deeply held faith that if you jump out of the window you'll float gently to the ground. All your intersubjective experience though tells you that taking the lift is the safer - albeit slower - option.
Which option though do you think to be more probably true and so act on? Each option after all rests, ultimately, on axioms.
Why?
And if you can answer that, can you see now why going nuclear is a bad idea?
-
Vlad,
Given the bewildering variety of gods and their various characteristics that countless people have believed in just as fervently as you believe in your (heavily culturally defined by the way) god, then I'd have thought the answer is obvious.
Did you read the Stephen Law essay? Do you seem now why your "going nuclear" line is failing you?
Try this - you're on the 20th floor of an office block, and you're in a tearing hurry to be somewhere else. I tell you that it's my absolute, deeply held faith that if you jump out of the window you'll float gently to the ground. All your intersubjective experience though tells you that taking the lift is the safer - albeit slower - option.
Which option though do you think to be more probably true and so act on? Each option after all rests, ultimately, on axioms.
Why?
And if you can answer that, can you see now why going nuclear is a bad idea?
See your tactics here Blue.
Introduce a McGuffin.....StephenLaws....
I put my faith in what seems to fit my world experience tells me.
What it is that you believe in concerning what I see as the big questions is the ultimate lift shaft without an actual lift.
-
This shows his monumental insecurity - he cannot face being tested and found wanting!
Add cowardice to his innate bastardry as demonstrated in the OP!
And your cowardice for NOT testing him!
You're a Joke.
Who is the one having the melt down? YOU.
The difference between being secure and insecure is clearly shown in your post.
Gods truth is such, that even your dis-stain and bad language does not move or change them.
It is you who has the problem with God and it is you who lacks the understanding to be able to make a valid argument.
You are annoyed fine... but at least have some actually reason to be annoyed.
-
Sassy, welcome back and I look forward to reading more of your misguided statements, overshadowed many more times by your non answers.
You're mostly very entertaining Sass, good to see you're posting again.
ippy
;D If only you could prove the above or show understanding by revealing what in the bible would support your statements. With God as my guard and guide you will never be able to do anything to substantiate your statement, but thanks for the welcome back. :-*
-
Vlad,
See your tactics here Blue.
Introduce a McGuffin.....StephenLaws....
The only "tactic" is reason - if you've counter-argue, so be it.
I put my faith in what seems to fit my world experience tells me.
Good for you - provided that is you don't overreach by assuming that your "world experience" is also the world experience of anyone else and thus you grasp that "your" faith is entirely yours alone. (And by the way, your "experience" and the cause you attribute to it are not the same thing.)
What it is that you believe in concerning what I see as the big questions is the ultimate lift shaft without an actual lift.
You're still not getting it then. You and I will (presumably) agree that the lift is the safer of the two available ways to the ground. That's a probabilistic truth based on intersubjective experience. (Note by the way that there's no claim here to the truth - for all either of us knows once in a bajillion times one of us would float gently to the ground from the 20th floor.)
That you also though think that something you call "God" cured little Timmy of his rickets and that I think that thunder is caused by Thor banging his hammer are personal beliefs for each of us, but neither claim offers a logical path to take us from personal faith to objective (or at least probabilistic intersubjective) truths.
Are you really, really not getting this yet?
Really?
-
Vlad,
The only "tactic" is reason - if you've counter-argue, so be it.
Good for you - provided that is you don't overreach by assuming that your "world experience" is also the world experience of anyone else and thus you grasp that "your" faith is entirely yours alone. (And by the way, your "experience" and the cause you attribute to it are not the same thing.)
You're still not getting it then. You and I will (presumably) agree that the lift is the safer of the two available ways to the ground. That's a probabilistic truth based on intersubjective experience. (Note by the way that there's no claim here to the truth - for all either of us knows once in a bajillion times one of us would float gently to the ground from the 20th floor.)
That you also though think that something you call "God" cured little Timmy of his rickets and that I think that thunder is caused by Thor banging his hammer are personal beliefs for each of us, but neither claim offers a logical path to take us from personal faith to objective (or at least probabilistic intersubjective) truths.
Are you really, really not getting this yet?
Really?
Unfortunately you seem to have suspended your usualcritique of intersubjectivity for the purposes of special pleading.
-
Vlad,
Unfortunately you seem to have suspended your usualcritique of intersubjectivity for the purposes of special pleading.
You've forgotten our rule: you lie about what I say, I'll ignore you.
By all means try again though without the "usual critique" nonsense.
You might also want to change your old habits by actually responding to what's been said to you: have you now grasped why your "going nuclear" line is hopeless for example?
-
Vlad,
You've forgotten our rule: you lie about what I say, I'll ignore you.
By all means try again though without the "usual critique" nonsense.
You might also want to change your old habits by actually responding to what's been said to you: have you now grasped why your "going nuclear" line is hopeless for example?
What about intersubjectivity with regard to morality or liking marmite?
Are you saying that this has the same status?
-
Vlad,
What about intersubjectivity with regard to morality or liking marmite?
Are you saying that this has the same status?
What about it, and the same status as what?
-
Dear Ippy
How is it the odds?
What are the Odds?
Give one argument against?
Yours not holding breath for any answers from you
Vlad
Have another read of my post and then try to understand how it relates to Owl's post, if you can?
If you manage to understand my post in its context you'll see that this post of yours is meaningless Vlad.
That's assuming you're not doing your best to not understand?
ippy
-
;D If only you could prove the above or show understanding by revealing what in the bible would support your statements. With God as my guard and guide you will never be able to do anything to substantiate your statement, but thanks for the welcome back. :-*
What Sass? No biblical text? A bit of a short reply from you? Worrying?
I like and enjoy all of the exchanges we have here on the forum and In a way enjoy the company of everybody, it's only a difference of points of view, even my wife disagrees with me sometimes? It doesn't mean that I dislike her and ditto the people that post here on the forum Sass.
What's it going to take to convert you to Atheism Sass?
ippy
-
But I'm afraid atheists see the word faith as LIES or BOLLOCKS.
You should be afraid - atheist belief is as much faith as religion, their faith is that the gods do not exist.
-
Owls,
You should be afraid - atheist belief is as much faith as religion, their faith is that the gods do not exist.
Nope. Our reasoning is that there are no cogent arguments to demonstrate that gods do exist.
That's a very different matter, albeit that for practical everyday purpose we proceed on the basis that there are no gods - as indeed most theists do but for the one god in which each happens to believe.
-
Owls,
Nope. Our reasoning is that there are no cogent arguments to demonstrate that gods do exist.
That's a very different matter, albeit that for practical everyday purpose we proceed on the basis that there are no gods - as indeed most theists do but for the one god in which each happens to believe.
not in my case!
-
You should be afraid - atheist belief is as much faith as religion, their faith is that the gods do not exist.
Nonesense; you've already been corrected on this many times before
-
Nonesense; you've already been corrected on this many times before
Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!
-
Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!
Except torridon is correct here and you are the one behaving like Sassy. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just as I have absence of belief in unicorns, and hugyuhoops (and no, I don't know what they are either I just have no belief in them).
-
Owls,
Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!
Actually torri is pretty much the opposite of Sassy here. What he's saying is that the argument is right - and if you don't agree with that argument, you're welcome to attempt to rebut it. Sassy on the other hand has no arguments at all to deploy, so relies instead on expressions of her personal faith beliefs. "It's in the Bible, therefore it's right" is the beginning and end of it for Sassy with no interest whatever in examining why she thinks that to be the case (let alone in suggesting why anyone else should agree with her).
-
What Sass? No biblical text? A bit of a short reply from you? Worrying?
I like and enjoy all of the exchanges we have here on the forum and In a way enjoy the company of everybody, it's only a difference of points of view, even my wife disagrees with me sometimes? It doesn't mean that I dislike her and ditto the people that post here on the forum Sass.
What's it going to take to convert you to Atheism Sass?
ippy
Hi Ippy,
For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...
You asked but I am not sure the answer is what you wanted. Have a good day. Glad you enjoy the exchanges on the forum.
Though it is kinda obvious you don't take the forum or yourself, too seriously. Kind regards to your missus...
Sassy x
-
Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!
Desperate times call for desperate measures....
Is that it... the Sassy card and the worst attempt to relay an untruth?
Gosh! Owlswing, you are losing it... :)
-
Sassy,
For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...
Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of reification. What would actually have to happen is that your belief in "God" would have to cease to exist - a very different matter.
-
Sassy,
Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of reification. What would actually have to happen is that your belief in "God" would have to cease to exist - a very different matter.
WRONG My faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.
Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet? Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.
-
Hi Ippy,
For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...
Sassy x
That is completely untrue! "God" DOESN'T exist, but it hasn't converted you to atheism.
Only when you realise that "God" doesn't exist will you become an atheist.
-
WRONG My faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.
Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet? Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.
Personal 'proof' might convince you god exists, but the personal 'proof' of others leads them to a different conclusion. When you can provide non believers with convincing, verifiable proof god exists, then maybe we might begin to take you seriously. But hell is likely to freeze over first before that happens.
-
Sassy,
WRONG My faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.
I have no way to "challenge or disprove" your personal belief in "God", any more than you have a way to challenge or disprove my personal belief in a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri. That's because each of these beliefs is personal - they offer nothing to falsify - but they're only personal. If either of us expects other people to think we're right about our respective beliefs, then we'd need to up our game by building logical paths from personal faith to probabilistically objective truths.
Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet? Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.
Found a way to disprove the orbiting teapot yet? You've just fallen into the negative proof fallacy so beloved by Hope. You two should form a bad argument club.
-
Hi Ippy,
For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...
You asked but I am not sure the answer is what you wanted. Have a good day. Glad you enjoy the exchanges on the forum.
Though it is kinda obvious you don't take the forum or yourself, too seriously. Kind regards to your missus...
Sassy x
Since he she or it never started in the first place and there's certainly no evidence to support your god idea, so you're an Atheist already then Sass, good o.
ippy
-
You've just fallen into the negative proof fallacy so beloved by Hope.
Careful there fella!
Sassy just might be expounding on her negative proof theory, which of course may be completely different from the from the fallacy of the same name. (on the other hand it might not, but can you prove that it isn't? :-\ ::))
-
Seb,
Careful there fella!
Sassy just might be expounding on her negative proof theory, which of course may be completely different from the from the fallacy of the same name. (on the other hand it might not, but can you prove that it isn't? :-\ ::))
Ah, but how do you know that I am not in fact "God", and so therefore that my omniscience tells me exactly which very bad arguments Sassy and Hope will attempt?
After all, can you prove that I'm not?
-
After all, can you prove that I'm not?
Certainly not, besides I wouldn't presume....!
I'm thinking maybe I will use the NPF for a while, just to see how it looks from the other side!
-
Seb,
Certainly not, besides I wouldn't presume....!
I'm thinking maybe I will use the NPF for a while, just to see how it looks from the other side!
Well, given their fondness for it you might have to check with Sassy and Hope in case they have the intellectual property rights on it - but if not, knock yourself out!
-
Sassy's argument seems ironic - you can't disprove God - as the fact that God is not falsifiable is the problem. Well, it's a problem for theists. But any position like this seems meaningless or at least, very vague. Or it takes it into aesthetics and stuff like that. Picasso is a great painter. OK, fine. Or Picasso is a lousy painter. OK, fine.
-
Wiggs,
Sassy's argument seems ironic - you can't disprove God - as the fact that God is not falsifiable is the problem. Well, it's a problem for theists. But any position like this seems meaningless or at least, very vague. Or it takes it into aesthetics and stuff like that. Picasso is a great painter. OK, fine. Or Picasso is a lousy painter. OK, fine.
Including morality: slavery is morally good - OK, fine; slavery is morally bad - OK, fine.
-
It's odd isn't it - Sassy, Hope et al thinking that a conjecture that's set up to be unfalsifiable somehow becomes more likely to be true when it can't be falsified. What point do they think they are making - "you can't falsify it, therefore - um - it must be true, but you can't apply the same principle to any other unfalsifiable conjecture in which I don't believe" or something?
Weird.
-
It's odd isn't it - Sassy, Hope et al thinking that a conjecture that's set up to be unfalsifiable somehow becomes more likely to be true when it can't be falsified. What point do they think they are making - "you can't falsify it, therefore - um - it must be true, but you can't apply the same principle to any other unfalsifiable conjecture in which I don't believe" or something?
Weird.
Yes, the odd thing is that they seem to boast about it being unfalsifiable. This is very weird, since there are any number of unfalsifiable ideas. Even Thor producing thunder cannot be falsified really.
-
That is completely untrue! "God" DOESN'T exist, but it hasn't converted you to atheism.
Only when you realise that "God" doesn't exist will you become an atheist.
Any evidence that God doesn't exist. If not then God doesn't exist doesn't exist following your logic.
-
Any evidence fairies, goblins, elves etc don't exist?
-
That is completely untrue! "God" DOESN'T exist, but it hasn't converted you to atheism.
Only when you realise that "God" doesn't exist will you become an atheist.
That's pretty profound Len.............is it from Star Wars?
-
WRONG My faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.
My faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that you are a brainless moron.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.
Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet? Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.
Found a way to disprove your moronity, yet? Nah! thought not... you keep quoting the Bible and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ, you have no way to prove it to us.
-
Desperate times call for desperate measures....
Is that it... the Sassy card and the worst attempt to relay an untruth?
Gosh! Owlswing, you are losing it... :)
Unlike you Sassy who never had it to lose!
-
That's pretty profound Len.............is it from Star Wars?
Profound? It's just elementary reasoning. :)
Though unfortunately not for brains addled by religious cant.
-
Len,
Though unfortunately not for brains addled by religious cant.
Well, the cap fits all right but it seems a bit harsh just to describe Vlad that way.
Oh hang on a mo...
...you said "religious cant".
Sorry. My bad.
-
Personal 'proof' might convince you god exists, but the personal 'proof' of others leads them to a different conclusion. When you can provide non believers with convincing, verifiable proof god exists, then maybe we might begin to take you seriously. But hell is likely to freeze over first before that happens.
There is no personal proof about Gods existence for atheists.
They just don't want to believe they have no personal proof for their disbelief.
-
Sassy,
They just don't want to believe they have no personal proof for their disbelief.
It's not "disbelief", it's non-belief.
If you could at least grasp the principle you might be able to avoid the same mistake in future.
-
Disbelief - doubt without necessarily understanding
Unbelief - rejection of a belief
Non belief - definitely not believing.
-
Len,
Well, the cap fits all right but it seems a bit harsh just to describe Vlad that way.
Oh hang on a mo...
...you said "religious cant".
Sorry. My bad.
Ooooh, you arr awful! :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
There is no personal proof about Gods existence for atheists.
They just don't want to believe they have no personal proof for their disbelief.
Concepts of evidence and proof are not personal. 2 plus 2 will equal 4 whoever you are, it does not vary from person to person. The speed of light is what it is, it is not something that varies from person to person.
Here are some things that are personal : prejudices, tastes, opinions, preferences, biases, hopes, fears, desires, habits, memories. What you call 'personal proof' is probably some amalgam of the aforementioned; proof and evidence are objective, not personal.
-
Sassy,
It's not "disbelief", it's non-belief.
If you could at least grasp the principle you might be able to avoid the same mistake in future.
Asking Sass to grasp any principle is asking too much! :D
-
You are really glad she is back though floo, that much is obvious by the glee in your posts.
-
Sassy,
It's not "disbelief", it's non-belief.
If you could at least grasp the principle you might be able to avoid the same mistake in future.
You are the one in error.
it is disbelief because you are refusing to accept something believed as true or real namely God.
disbelief
noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief, lack of credence, lack of conviction, scepticism, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, questioning, cynicism, suspicion, distrust, mistrust, wariness, chariness; More
lack of faith.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms: atheism, unbelief, godlessness, ungodliness, impiety, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
So perhaps when you are older you will have learned not to make the same mistakes twice.
-
Brownie,
Disbelief - doubt without necessarily understanding
Unbelief - rejection of a belief
Non belief - definitely not believing.
Sort of.
Disbelief - actively thinking something to be false.
Unbelief - the state of not having a/the belief that something is true.
Non-belief - the absence of a belief (eg, atheism).
Unbelief and non-belief are more or less the same thing. Sassy's mistake was to think that unbelief/non-belief are also the same thing as disbelief. For practical, everyday purposes atheists do proceed as if we are disbelievers - for exactly the same reason that Sassy proceeds the same way regarding her disbelief in, say, leprechauns - but in strict epistemological terms we cannot say that gods categorically do not exist, again for the same reason that Sassy cannot say that leprechauns categorically do not exist.
What can be said though is first that there's no evidence for gods/leprechauns, and second that those who argue for gods/leprechauns have only logically false arguments to deploy.
That's not to say that at some point either evidence or a cogent argument for either gods or leprechauns (or both) could not emerge, but it is to say that there's neither so far - hence unbelief/non-belief rather than disbelief.
-
Asking Sass to grasp any principle is asking too much! :D
Learning the principle truth so to know there was no error in what I said stops you from looking stupid too. :-*
disbelief
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief, lack of credence, lack of conviction, scepticism, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, questioning, cynicism, suspicion, distrust, mistrust, wariness, chariness; More
lack of faith.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms: atheism, unbelief, godlessness, ungodliness, impiety, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
I was correct in using disbelief as the above shows.
-
Sassy,
You are the one in error.
it is disbelief because you are refusing to accept something believed as true or real namely God.
Oh dear. It's non-belief because I cannot categorically rule out at least the possibility "gods" - any more than I can categorically rule out the the possibility of any other unfalsifiable conjecture.
That's why for example even Richard Dawkins calls himself a "6.9" atheist, because a "7" would mean "definitely no gods" which it true for practical purposes, but cannot be true for epistemological purposes.
disbelief
noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief, lack of credence, lack of conviction, scepticism, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, questioning, cynicism, suspicion, distrust, mistrust, wariness, chariness; More
lack of faith.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms: atheism, unbelief, godlessness, ungodliness, impiety, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
So perhaps when you are older you will have learned not to make the same mistakes twice.
You can pick and choose the meaning to taste according to the source you reference. There are various works online that discuss this if you care to look for them. The etymology is interesting, but the basic sense is what counts here: you asserted that atheism relies on faith, as a sort of corollary to religious faith. It doesn't - it relies on reasoning, namely the reasoning that undoes the arguments for gods - and that's a different from faith.
Part of the problem by the way is that there isn't a strict opposite for theism. "Disbelief" gets close according to some definitions, but there'a no unequivocal word for "definitely no gods" - however much you may think otherwise.
-
Sassy,
I was correct in using disbelief as the above shows.
No, you were correct only in the sense that you found a source that agrees with you. There are others. The point though is that you were incorrect in your basic contention about atheism and faith.
-
Sassy et al,
For anyone interested, here's a ink to an article about the epistemology of religious belief:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/
-
I classify myself as an agnostic, because it is remotely possible a god could exist, although I doubt humans are in touch with it.
-
Floo,
I classify myself as an agnostic, because it is remotely possible a god could exist, although I doubt humans are in touch with it.
Atheists tend to be agnostic atheists - hence Richard Dawkins' "6.9" atheism. An alternative is ignosticism - "I have no idea what you mean by "God" so you offer me nothing about which to form an opinion."
-
Moderator:
Can I suggest that perhaps recent posts are veering towards the speculatively personal, and that maybe it would be better to get back to the issues raised elsewhere in this thread.
-
He might well tell his children that he believes God exists but I can't imagine him being cross with them if they disagree.
(I too have just seen the Mod post and agree with it so I won't say any more about specific people.)
Brownie I was referring to youngsters the ones that are not old enough to have developed the ability to challenge, that age before seven years on average.
The infant scools are the most important ones for the C of E and of course the C of E doesn't know antyhing about youngsters being more gullable, on average, before the age of seven and of course none of the other religious organisations are aware of this fact either.
ippy
-
The Catholic Church used to teach that a child reaches the age of reason at seven years, or thereabouts.
There's also the Jesuit saying, "Give me a boy 'til the age of seven and I will give you the man".
Small kids tend to think the grown ups are always right but after a while, they start to question which is natural and to be encouraged. They have to be able to work things out for themselves and live their own lives.
-
The Catholic Church used to teach that a child reaches the age of reason at seven years, or thereabouts.
There's also the Jesuit saying, "Give me a boy 'til the age of seven and I will give you the man".
Small kids tend to think the grown ups are always right but after a while, they start to question which is natural and to be encouraged. They have to be able to work things out for themselves and live their own lives.
So you wouldn't worry about a child less than 7 being told that suicide bombing is OK or that homosexuals are damaged? Because as they get older they might reject that view?
Don't you think that any chid whatever age should be encouraged to think things through?
-
Sassy,
No, you were correct only in the sense that you found a source that agrees with you. There are others. The point though is that you were incorrect in your basic contention about atheism and faith.
I used the correct word full-stop.
If you keep digging you will end up in Australia...
-
Brownie,
These statements:
The Catholic Church used to teach that a child reaches the age of reason at seven years, or thereabouts.
There's also the Jesuit saying, "Give me a boy 'til the age of seven and I will give you the man".
and this one:
Small kids tend to think the grown ups are always right but after a while, they start to question which is natural and to be encouraged. They have to be able to work things out for themselves and live their own lives.
are contradictory. It's precisely because small children lack reasoning power and because beliefs indoctrinated in early years tend to stick in later life that the churches want to get to them so young, and that's why I take a less benign view than you do of AB's supposed goodness.
-
Sassy,
I used the correct word full-stop.
If you keep digging you will end up in Australia...
Nope - it's more nuanced than that. Try reading the article linked to for starters.
Right or wrong about the etymology though, you were still flat wrong about your "atheism = faith" nonsense.
-
Brownie,
These statements:
and this one:
are contradictory. It's precisely because small children lack reasoning power and because beliefs indoctrinated in early years tend to stick in later life that the churches want to get to them so young, and that's why I take a less benign view than you do of AB's supposed goodness.
Ditto.
ippy
-
Sassy,
Nope - it's more nuanced than that. Try reading the article linked to for starters.
Right or wrong about the etymology though, you were still flat wrong about your "atheism = faith" nonsense.
Nah! I used the correct word full-stop. You can disagree but you cannot prove I was incorrect.
FULL STOP!
-
Nah! I used the correct word full-stop. You can disagree but you cannot prove I was incorrect.
FULL STOP!
Nah! You told lies about me full stop. You can disagree but it is a fact that you did.
FULL STOP!
-
Sassy,
Nah! I used the correct word full-stop. You can disagree but you cannot prove I was incorrect.
FULL STOP!
Oh thank goodness you added that "FULL STOP", and in capitals too! Well done. That seals the deal then I guess, so what do I know with my daft use of argument and evidence. Do you mind if I give it a go? Thanks:
The moon is just a giant ball of Odin's ear wax ejected when he underwent the traditional Norse vasectomy method using two bricks.
FULL STOP!
Ooh, you're right - it's kind of liberating. OK, your turn...
-
Aw no Sassy, turns out I was right all along - there's ambiguity in the meaning. Here for example from Wiki:
"Verb[edit]
disbelieve (third-person singular simple present disbelieves, present participle disbelieving, simple past and past participle disbelieved)
1. To not believe; to exercise disbelief.
2. To actively deny (a statement, opinion or perception).
He chose to disbelieve the bad news as inconceivable.
3. To cease to believe."
As I explained to you, you were correct in the sense that you found a definition you liked aligned to option 1, but not in respect of the meaning at option 2.
Either way though, your basic point remains wrong - the "faith" the religious use for "God" is qualitatively different from the reasoning atheists use to unpick the arguments they attempts for it.
FULL STOP!
-
Nah! I used the correct word full-stop. You can disagree but you cannot prove I was incorrect.
FULL STOP!
You are wrong
Full Bloody Stop
-
When prayers have a positive outcome, like someone's recovery from illness, it is more than likely they would have recovered anyway, prayer or no prayer.
-
So you wouldn't worry about a child less than 7 being told that suicide bombing is OK or that homosexuals are damaged? Because as they get older they might reject that view?
Don't you think that any chid whatever age should be encouraged to think things through?
I was merely illustrating the type of thought that exists, or used to exist, in the church and no doubt was the case in other religious groups. Not my opinions. I kicked out against established values when I was a child and feel strongly that kids need to grow up in an environment where they are free to explore - and do not hear prejudice and bigotry in their own home; they'll hear enough of that when they go to school but, hopefully, they will find such attitudes alien and question them.
-
I was merely illustrating the type of thought that exists, or used to exist, in the church and no doubt was the case in other religious groups. Not my opinions. I kicked out against established values when I was a child and feel strongly that kids need to grow up in an environment where they are free to explore - and do not hear prejudice and bigotry in their own home; they'll hear enough of that when they go to school but, hopefully, they will find such attitudes alien and question them.
It looks to me as though you're hearing things you don't want to hear going by the context of your posting.
In my idea of an ideal world, no teaching of any kind of dogma to children aged seven or under that age the only thing I would advocate would be to prepare youngsters to be thinking for themselves, technically indoctrination, yes, but it would be of a neutral benefit to all, hopefully without bias in any way.
These youngsters are the recruiting ground for all of the vulture like religions, it's their most productive ground for new members; it's no good thinking religious organisations wouldn't behave like that, they know precisely what it is they are doing.
ippy
-
The Jesuit motto:
Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man.
(This nostrum, attributed to St. Francis Xavier, also works for girls and women)
-
The Jesuit motto:
Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man.
(This nostrum, attributed to St. Francis Xavier, also works for girls and women)
Why wouldn't it be for all children male, female or any shade between the two?
Exactly as described by the Jesuits all those years ago.
ippy
-
You are wrong
Full Bloody Stop
Shows how unable any of you are to admit your own errors.
I used the correct word for the correct definition and you just can't help yourselves thinking it can be used for a wind up when it shows how little you know in reality.
-
Shows how unable any of you are to admit your own errors.
I used the correct word for the correct definition and you just can't help yourselves thinking it can be used for a wind up when it shows how little you know in reality.
So modest!
-
Why wouldn't it be for all children male, female or any shade between the two?
Exactly as described by the Jesuits all those years ago.
ippy
Not sure what the phrase would have been in latin, or Spanish, but in correct English, the 'he' pronoun is a gender-neutral one. 'She' and its derivatives is, historically and grammatically (even today) the only gender-marked pronoun in English.
-
There is no personal proof about Gods existence for atheists.
They just don't want to believe they have no personal proof for their disbelief.
Most atheists don't have a belief in God or gods but accept there existence is possible. This is not having a belief.
Some say for certain there is no God and this is having a belief.
The definition of atheist has changed over the years and is used to mean different things by different people but to say that atheists don't want to believe and have a belief themselves is not true for most people who would consider themselves non-believers.
-
Shows how unable any of you are to admit your own errors.
I used the correct word for the correct definition and you just can't help yourselves thinking it can be used for a wind up when it shows how little you know in reality.
You realise I was only echoing your own tactics? Any criticism you have of my post is actually a criticism of your own posts.
-
You realise I was only echoing your own tactics? Any criticism you have of my post is actually a criticism of your own posts.
8) ;D ;D ;D ;D - to the sound of loud applause!
-
Moderator:
In spite of my earlier Mod Post regarding personal comments about others, as opposed to their arguments, this has continued to varying degrees. Therefore, we have decided to remove these posts and in doing so suggest that discussing other members in terms of their suitability, or otherwise, as individuals is something we'd prefer not to see.
Going to lock this while I do the above - Done