Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Reminds me of that old saying, how would you know that you're wrong?   Scientists establish that via observations, which don't match predictions.  Obvious example: the idea of phlogiston (a fire-like element), became suspect when experiments demonstrated that some metals gained mass, when burned, whereas phlogiston theory predicts a loss.  This led to the discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier).

Quite. How I wonder would Hope propose that conjectures like "soul" or "Satan" could be falsified? 

[Nearly Sane]

Reminds me of that old saying, how would you know that you're wrong?   Scientists establish that via observations, which don't match predictions.  Obvious example: the idea of phlogiston (a fire-like element), became suspect when experiments demonstrated that some metals gained mass, when burned, whereas phlogiston theory predicts a loss.  This led to the discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier).

Except the ideas of Feyerabend are trickling down slowly and have lit a glimmering synapse with Hope and ilk, and lacking any real grasp of quite how disastrous this is for all of their own ideas, they shout out ' Science is just opinion! Ha!' And then whimper as the relativism burns up objectivity, revelation and method and spits them out on a desert of nothing, no-one, and nowhimper.

[Shaker]

Hi Wiggs,

Quite. How I wonder would Hope propose that conjectures like "soul" or "Satan" could be falsified?

I hardly think he cares ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except the ideas of Feyerabend are trickling down slowly and have lit a glimmering synapse with Hope and ilk, and lacking any real grasp of quite how disastrous this is for all of their own ideas, they shout out ' Science is just opinion! Ha!' And then whimper as the relativism burns up objectivity, revelation and method and spits them out on a desert of nothing, no-one, and nowhimper.

Nicely put. Hope, Vlad et al seem to be oblivious to the problem of threatening to launch a nuclear device when they live in the next village along. Even allowing for the stupidity of just ignoring the probabilistic epistemology of materialism, why on earth they'd think, "OK I'm guessing but so are you" helps them is beyond me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even allowing for the stupidity of just ignoring the probabilistic epistemology of materialism,

That's got to be worth a fair few points in a game of Scrabble. The words seem sound even though the combination is made up.

[Sassy]

No. You're all a bunch of fucking knobs.

The people of the religion of the "God of Love" can find nothing better to do than accuse each other of not being the right sort of Christians. Why do you have so much hatred for each other?

The true Church had one high priest Jesus Christ. The true Church is born of Spirit and Truth.
It has no Country or denomination in reality...

John 4.

20.Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.



True worship and knowing God is not about a place or a country and denomination.
Salvation is for all, first the Jew and then Gentile.
It is a church where the temple is now the body of the person and where God dwells with them.
Your sexuality and a person are not the church by denominations.
A believer and a child of God does as Christ did. He had no sexual relations outside marriage. He had no homosexual relationships because under the teachings of the Prophets men cannot marry each other the same for women.
In truth a believer does as Christ did not as man does.

You cannot have a sexual relationship outside marriage if a Christian and it might be the death hour when you realise but the Christian will walk away rather than hurt God. It is hard for anyone to understand that God wants us to love him and others.
Truth does not change.

[Sassy]

Confessed to a child molester? No thanks.

Christians confess to one another the confessions is a thing made up by the Roman Catholic Church so they could nosey at what is going on in their parish. Whilst true believers confess their sins to one another they can simply confess to God and be forgiven.
So you see you without faith see it from a purely human prospective. In reality the priest/vicar are NO different to any other believer in Gods eyes. Because God is not a respector of persons. The priest or vicar has no higher standing with God than any other human. Taking holy orders is man made. There is no difference in the Spirit for believers...

[Leonard James]

Whilst true believers confess their sins to one another they can simply confess to God and be forgiven.

Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.

I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.

[Leonard James]

I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.

Well, that is a singularly juvenile belief, for which there is no evidence. When you do something to somebody else's detriment, that is the person you need to ask forgiveness from, since he/she is the prejudiced one.

[Shaker]

I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.

I hope you're going to leave the Assertatron as you found it when you're done with it today.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the idea Len is that God is wronged to since he is the morality which science can never establish.

And you can never establish that to be the case.

At least science provides evidence and answers, not mere unsubstantiated (and unhelpful) assertions.

And besides, how do you know it is your god that is 'the morality' and not any one of the thousands of other purported gods. It could just as easily be Thor, or Vishnu etc etc that defines morality according to your argument.

Of course the reality is that morality is a product of society, even if society choses to imply it is via one of the thousands of gods that societies over the centuries have created.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you can never establish that to be the case.

At least science provides evidence and answers, not mere unsubstantiated (and unhelpful) assertions.

And besides, how do you know it is your god that is 'the morality' and not any one of the thousands of other purported gods. It could just as easily be Thor, or Vishnu etc etc that defines morality according to your argument.

Of course the reality is that morality is a product of society, even if society choses to imply it is via one of the thousands of gods that societies over the centuries have created.

The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.

If one of the little g gods falls short of the job spec then they are not a candidate are they?

Science is good at what it does. To extend it to be the thing which absolutely describe all of reality is more in the way of a commitment I would have thought.

[ProfessorDavey]

The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.

If one of the little g gods falls short of the job spec then they are not a candidate are they?

There you go again with your unsubstantiated assumptions.

You are assuming that there must be one god, but that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely (or unlikely) that there are many gods. Further you are assuming that this 'one' god must be your 'one' god - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods might not be the one you think exists. Finally you make the last assumption that this god will have the morality you take to be true - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods may have a completely different morality (for example being perfectly happy with gay relationships) or indeed might consider morality to be nothing to do with them, but left to society.

Poor arguing, as ever.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There you go again with your unsubstantiated assumptions.

You are assuming that there must be one god, but that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely (or unlikely) that there are many gods. Further you are assuming that this 'one' god must be your 'one' god - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods might not be the one you think exists. Finally you make the last assumption that this god will have the morality you take to be true - again that is an unsubstantiated assumption - it is just as likely that a god or gods may have a completely different morality (for example being perfectly happy with gay relationships) or indeed might consider morality to be nothing to do with them, but left to society.

Poor arguing, as ever.

When on here Davey. I never expect people to accept assumptions. In free debate...something you seem to have issues with...any idea should be able to be put. It is up to others to accept or reject.

So here is the idea.....science does not yield or even observe morality since it only observes behaviour and yet we still have the issue of morality. Since it is beyond natural explanations it is supernatural.

No moralities are completely different Davey.

In philosophy most assumptions are unsubstantiated in the sense you wish things to be substantiated.

in the true freethinkers book any ideas are to be received without silencing from the intellectually totalitarian I think you will agree.

[Rhiannon]

Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.

And don't forget forgiving oneself. This concept of never ending sin doesn't do much for self-acceptance really.

[ProfessorDavey]

When on here Davey. I never expect people to accept assumptions.

Then why do you continually make unsubstantiated assumptions and then base your (very poor) arguments around those assumptions - usually via a classic circular argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then why do you continually make unsubstantiated assumptions and then base your (very poor) arguments around those assumptions - usually via a classic circular argument.

All you are getting from me is an idea based on the question of morality which has no apparent answer or explanation in science. That is substantiated because science merely observes behaviour and has nothing to say on morality.

All I put to you is an idea with grounds for it. End of.

[SusanDoris]

With morality - behaviour which enables our species to co-operate and survive, whichever title you give it - we would have become extinct way, way back.

[ProfessorDavey]

All you are getting from me is an idea based on the question of morality which has no apparent answer or explanation in science. That is substantiated because science merely observes behaviour and has nothing to say on morality.

All I put to you is an idea with grounds for it. End of.

I have said regularly and explicitly that morality is a construct of society, not a construct of science.

[ProfessorDavey]

So here is the idea.....science does not yield or even observe morality since it only observes behaviour and yet we still have the issue of morality. Since it is beyond natural explanations it is supernatural.

No moralities are completely different Davey.

In philosophy most assumptions are unsubstantiated in the sense you wish things to be substantiated.

There you go again.

The unsubstantiated assumptions you are making aren't that morality isn't science - I'd fully agree - morality isn't a objective thing but a subjective thing based on society.

But you try to objectivise it - by firstly assuming it is supernatural - it isn't - it is a construct of society which is very much part of the natural world. You might as well claim that political opinion is 'supernatural' - you seem to fail to understand that human behaviours, opinions and views on morality and other issues are part of the natural world, not supernatural.

And secondly by trying to objectivise it on the basis that it is objectively what your (purported) god says it is. This is a totally unsubstantiated assumption and one that one one who believes in any deity can claim. And the argument is equally weak in every case.

[Owlswing]

The true Church had one high priest Jesus Christ. The true Church is born of Spirit and Truth.
It has no Country or denomination in reality...

John 4.

20.Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.



True worship and knowing God is not about a place or a country and denomination.
Salvation is for all, first the Jew and then Gentile.
It is a church where the temple is now the body of the person and where God dwells with them.
Your sexuality and a person are not the church by denominations.
A believer and a child of God does as Christ did. He had no sexual relations outside marriage. He had no homosexual relationships because under the teachings of the Prophets men cannot marry each other the same for women.
In truth a believer does as Christ did not as man does.

You cannot have a sexual relationship outside marriage if a Christian and it might be the death hour when you realise but the Christian will walk away rather than hurt God. It is hard for anyone to understand that God wants us to love him and others.
Truth does not change.

Holy Jesus Fucking Christ - you're as bad as Ad_O!

Deluded!

[Owlswing]

Rubbish! The only people that can forgive them are those they wronged.

They go to god - get forgiven and go out and do it again - go to god - ad infinitum!

[Owlswing]

The morality is the morality isn't it. if it is God then it is every bodies God since every person is touched by it.

If one of the little g gods falls short of the job spec then they are not a candidate are they?

Science is good at what it does. To extend it to be the thing which absolutely describe all of reality is more in the way of a commitment I would have thought.

And just who decides which gods have the small g and which the capital?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There you go again.

The unsubstantiated assumptions you are making aren't that morality isn't science - I'd fully agree - morality isn't a objective thing but a subjective thing based on society.

But you try to objectivise it - by firstly assuming it is supernatural - it isn't - it is a construct of society which is very much part of the natural world. You might as well claim that political opinion is 'supernatural' - you seem to fail to understand that human behaviours, opinions and views on morality and other issues are part of the natural world, not supernatural.

And secondly by trying to objectivise it on the basis that it is objectively what your (purported) god says it is. This is a totally unsubstantiated assumption and one that one one who believes in any deity can claim. And the argument is equally weak in every case.

If morality is a construct of society then a good scientist should have nothing to do with it.