Religions have succeeded

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I don’t know perhaps whether some damaging event happened to you at a formative age but you seem determined to spit the dummy at anyone who disagrees with you rather than to address their arguments. It’s unedifying, and it serves only to deflect from the arguments themselves (which presumably is your intent).

Right back at you. You digressed to "Servants? Slaves? Street prostitutes? Latrine cleaners? You actually think these people and more had the opportunities to pick more pleasant occupations but chose the shitty ones instead because they believed in the system? Go give your head a wobble will you?"  in #222 when I disagreed with you.

Rather than respond to you in kind then, let’s see whether instead I can get you to return to the question. The Bible story concerns a morally perfect god impregnating an under-age servant girl.

By modern standards however that act would not be considered morally good for the same reasons that, say, a headmaster impregnating one of his 14-year-old pupils wouldn’t be considered morally good (regardless of whether she acquiesced). That is, valid consent would not have been possible.

So the question you’re being asked to address concerns which moral position you think is correct: God’s or the contemporary Western one?           

I already responded to this - see #237 (and also #205,#228 if you want to go back further). If you don't like these responses, try not to spit the dummy again. I don’t know perhaps whether some damaging event happened to you at a formative age but you seem determined to spit the dummy at anyone who disagrees with you rather than to address their arguments. It’s unedifying, and it serves only to deflect from the arguments themselves (which presumably is your intent)

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t know perhaps whether some damaging event happened to you at a formative age but you seem determined to spit the dummy at anyone who disagrees with you rather than to address their arguments. It’s unedifying, and it serves only to deflect from the arguments themselves (which presumably is your intent)

Dear, oh dear VG - at least come up with your own retorts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I can't accept that there was/ are no supernatural pregnancy until someone proves they did not/ cannot take place. There is no method for proving or disproving supernatural events. Therefore, I can only say what I believe or do not believe.

But that’s true of any causal event so you’re attempting a false difference between “accept” and “believe” here. You “accept” that women give birth to babies, but you do not “accept” that invisible storks deliver them instead. The stork speculation cannot be falsified either though, so whence your confidence in the difference between “accept” and “believe”?

What you’re actually saying here is that you accept your beliefs to be true (or true enough to be useable), which is tautological.     

[ProfessorDavey]

VG,
 

But that’s true of any causal event so you’re attempting a false difference between “accept” and “believe” here. You “accept” that women give birth to babies, but you do not “accept” that invisible storks deliver them instead. The stork speculation cannot be falsified either though, so whence your confidence in the difference between “accept” and “believe”?

What you’re actually saying here is that you accept your beliefs to be true (or true enough to be useable), which is tautological.   

VG is squirming, desperately trying not to address the issue - presumably because:

A) If she indicates she does believe in supernatural pregnancies the onus will be smack on her to justify that positive claim, and given that we've been discussing text that makes that claim it tends toward her having to accept that as 'evidence' ... or

B) She indicates she does not believe in supernatural pregnancies in which case all her guff about the law, and ethics only considering natural pregnancies and not supernatural pregnancies (that she continually puts in a separate category - see my list of her quotes) becomes totally pointless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Right back at you. You digressed to "Servants? Slaves? Street prostitutes? Latrine cleaners? You actually think these people and more had the opportunities to pick more pleasant occupations but chose the shitty ones instead because they believed in the system? Go give your head a wobble will you?"  in #222 when I disagreed with you.

Because, as is your way, you essay a ludicrous position and then spit the dummy when it’s challenged. Clearly more bosses would rather be the bosses than their servants, and more servants would rather be their bosses than the servants too. Your “where’s your evidence?” for the bleeding obvious is just time wasting, presumably because it allows you to deflect from the actual question.       

I already responded to this - see #237 (and also #205,#228 if you want to go back further). If you don't like these responses, try not to spit the dummy again. I don’t know perhaps whether some damaging event happened to you at a formative age but you seem determined to spit the dummy at anyone who disagrees with you rather than to address their arguments. It’s unedifying, and it serves only to deflect from the arguments themselves (which presumably is your intent

You’re embarrassing yourself now. That’s called the “no you are” response beloved of small children through the ages.

The question is clear enough. In the example given, which position do you think is morally better:

A. God’s?

B. Modern Western Society’s?

I’ve made it as simple as I can for you – all you need do to answer that is to reply either A or B.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh dear VG - you really are getting yourself into an awful twist aren't you. Where have I ever mentioned misogyny?

I think you need to at least get the basics right - by making sure you make a repost to the poster who has been making that point rather than a completely different poster who has never brought up that topic at all.

This is what you're reduced to focusing on? 

My response was on a separate line about the wider discussion going on in this thread.

You brought up the school Christmas concert and Bible text about men ruling over women in #88 in response to Sriram saying that no religion teaches the exploitation of women. Are you saying that you don't consider the idea of men ruling over women as misogynistic? Good to know.

You also claimed that the Genesis quote was the starting point of Islam and didn't respond when I asked you what you meant and for evidence of this claim.

One of the reasons why your claims of being a Professor aren't very credible - you make claims you don't provide evidence for.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear, oh dear VG - at least come up with your own retorts.

Why would I waste my time doing that when BHS's comments aren't worth the effort. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't need to discredit your credentials because I have not seen any evidence to support your credentials. Consider me a sceptic in the absence of actual evidence.

Hmm - let's see shall we - perhaps a little glance at the current thread might indicate that I do know just a little bit about consent. Along with many people I prefer to keep my actual name etc private - that's my prerogative. There is no requirement to reveal your actual name etc, still less to provide certificates of qualifications etc.

But I suspect most people here with an ounce of balance would regonise that what I claim is actually the case.

Consider me a sceptic in the absence of actual evidence. You calling yourself "ProfessorDavey" on a forum doesn't count as evidence.

What would you like VG - shall I send you photos of my inaugural lecture which I gave after I was awarded my Chair in 2004. Perhaps you'd like to chat to the exceptionally eminent medical ethicist who taught me during my MA in medical ethics and law which I completed in 2000. Maybe I should provide you with guest access to the materials for my medical ethics module which I have run every year since 2004.

Frankly I think your denial as to my background tells us much more about you than it does about me.

I could change my name to the Dalai Lama but it doesn't make me the Dalai Lama.

You could indeed, but it would be pretty easy to disprove your claim to be the Dalai Lama.

On the other hand I am a university professor - I have qualifications in medical ethics and law, although this isn't my main research area. However I maintain my professional practice in this area through teaching and my involvement in ethics committees. If you want to deny this, that's your business, but it makes you look both a bit silly and also rather petulant. I know this to be true.

[ProfessorDavey]

You brought up the school Christmas concert and Bible text about men ruling over women in #88 in response to Sriram saying that no religion teaches the exploitation of women. Are you saying that you don't consider the idea of men ruling over women as misogynistic?

Where have I use the word misogyny on this thread VG - oh actually twice (and a third time below) in response to you aiming a comment at me which was clearly meant for BHS as it was about his views on Mary, god etc and nothing to do with Genesis which is where my comment in reply88 led from.

And misogyny and patriarchy aren't the same thing. What is in Genesis is an appeal to patriarchy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,
 

But that’s true of any causal event so you’re attempting a false difference between “accept” and “believe” here. You “accept” that women give birth to babies, but you do not “accept” that invisible storks deliver them instead. The stork speculation cannot be falsified either though, so whence your confidence in the difference between “accept” and “believe”?

What you’re actually saying here is that you accept your beliefs to be true (or true enough to be useable), which is tautological.   

Not really sure what the issue is here. I thought this was fairly standard stuff.

I accept that women give birth to babies because that is supported by evidence and my personal experience.

I do not accept that men give birth to babies, because I have no evidence to support this happening, unless we change the definition of "men" to include "women". 

I do not accept that invisible storks deliver babies, because I have no evidence or personal experience to support this happening, unless we change the definition of "invisible storks" to include midwives and doctors.

But that does not mean I accept there are no invisible storks as that is a positive claim, for which there is no way of testing - we don't have a method to test magic to prove or disprove it. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really sure what the issue is here. I thought this was fairly standard stuff.

I accept that women give birth to babies because that is supported by evidence and my personal experience.

I do not accept that men give birth to babies, because I have no evidence to support this happening, unless we change the definition of "men" to include "women". 

I do not accept that invisible storks deliver babies, because I have no evidence or personal experience to support this happening, unless we change the definition of "invisible storks" to include midwives and doctors.

But that does not mean I accept there are no invisible storks as that is a positive claim, for which there is no way of testing - we don't have a method to test magic to prove or disprove it.

Stop skirting around the issue VG.

Very simple question - do you believe that supernatural pregnancies are a thing?

Or we can even phrase it as you have - which is pretty well identical to how I phrased it originally.

Do you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing?

[ProfessorDavey]

I do not accept that invisible storks deliver babies, because I have no evidence or personal experience to support this happening ...

I'll help you out here VG.

I do not accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing, because I have no evidence or personal experience to support this happening ...

Over to you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hmm - let's see shall we - perhaps a little glance at the current thread might indicate that I do know just a little bit about consent. Along with many people I prefer to keep my actual name etc private - that's my prerogative. There is no requirement to reveal your actual name etc, still less to provide certificates of qualifications etc.

But I suspect most people here with an ounce of balance would regonise that what I claim is actually the case.

Glad you only suspect it. It's an improvement from you saying "It is clear that I am what I claim I am"

What would you like VG - shall I send you photos of my inaugural lecture which I gave after I was awarded my Chair in 2004. Perhaps you'd like to chat to the exceptionally eminent medical ethicist who taught me during my MA in medical ethics and law which I completed in 2000. Maybe I should provide you with guest access to the materials for my medical ethics module which I have run every year since 2004.

Frankly I think your denial as to my background tells us much more about you than it does about me.

Yes it tells you that I'm a sceptic when people make claims about their qualifications on an anonymous Message Board. I think that's a sensible approach to claims made on the internet. Up to you what you want to do to try to substantiate your claims.

You could indeed, but it would be pretty easy to disprove your claim to be the Dalai Lama.

On the other hand I am a university professor - I have qualifications in medical ethics and law, although this isn't my main research area. However I maintain my professional practice in this area through teaching and my involvement in ethics committees. If you want to deny this, that's your business, but it makes you look both a bit silly and also rather petulant. I know this to be true.

So you keep claiming. What I can't understand is why you care what I think about your un-evidenced claims. Just argue the points in the discussion  - your supposed qualifications are irrelevant to the strength of your argument.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG is squirming, desperately trying not to address the issue - presumably because:

A) If she indicates she does believe in supernatural pregnancies the onus will be smack on her to justify that positive claim, and given that we've been discussing text that makes that claim it tends toward her having to accept that as 'evidence' ...

Very strange argument from you. It really doesn't seem credible that you could be a Professor based on these arguments that you are putting forward. Or maybe your professorship was one you bought online from someone who claimed on the internet that they were a university.

I've repeatedly said on here I am a theist and a Muslim and that this is belief based on faith. Why would I need to justify faith-based beliefs, when faith is a belief that I can't provide evidence for? Like my belief in Allah. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Up to you what you want to do to try to substantiate your claims.

Weird isn't it.

I have nothing to substantiate your claims that you are a woman, that you are a muslim and that you were brought up in a different faith. All of that could be load of hogwash.

However, given that I have nothing to disprove those claims I am more than happy to engage with you on the basis that you are, in fact, as you claim a woman, that you are a muslim and that you were brought up in a different faith.

Why are you so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me VG.

[ProfessorDavey]

Very strange argument from you. It really doesn't seem credible that you could be a Professor based on these arguments that you are putting forward. Or maybe your professorship was one you bought online from someone who claimed on the internet that they were a university.

Oh dear, yet more snide comments.

I've repeatedly said on here I am a theist and a Muslim and that this is belief based on faith.

So why should I accept these claims, while you seem desperate to deny my claims. Seems a bit rude to me. By the way I am totally happy accepting your claims to be a woman and a muslim and having been brought up in another faith - why on earth wouldn't I. 

Why would I need to justify faith-based beliefs, when faith is a belief that I can't provide evidence for? Like my belief in Allah.

But you are dismissing other faith-based claims (e.g. storks) due to lack of evidence. A bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Not really sure what the issue is here. I thought this was fairly standard stuff.

The issue is that “accept” and “believe” mean the same thing, so “I can't accept that there was/ are no supernatural pregnancy until someone proves they did not/ cannot take place. There is no method for proving or disproving supernatural events. Therefore, I can only say what I believe or do not believe” is drawing a distinction without a difference.

Ultimately there’s no method of “proving or disproving” natural events either (see Hume), and so what you “accept’/”do not accept” and “believe”/”do not believe” are the same.

Oh, and if you do change your mind re telling us which of either the God of the Bible or the modern Western standard re impregnating an under-age servant girl is morally better in your opinion all you have to do is to press either "A" or "B".   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Weird isn't it.

I have nothing to substantiate your claims that you are a woman, that you are a muslim and that you were brought up in a different faith. All of that could be load of hogwash.

However, given that I have nothing to disprove those claims I am more than happy to engage with you on the basis that you are, in fact, as you claim a woman, that you are a muslim and that you were brought up in a different faith.

Why are you so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me VG.

I find you jump to conclusions and make assumptions in discussions, that aren't supported by sufficient evidence. Ok you could be a professor who also jumps to conclusions and makes assumptions based on very little evidence. It just seems a bit weird that you think that saying you are a professor makes your argument more credible, when the problem with the argument is that you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.

I'm not sure it matters in the context of a discussion, whether I am a woman, a Muslim, or was brought up in a different faith, does it?

When I mention any of these things, it is to give my perspective, not to bolster my argument or to claim that my perspective should be taken as correct and no other perspectives are valid. I often say that I am just giving my understanding or interpretation of Islam, but that there are multiple interpretations and other Muslims / women/ converts would disagree with me.

But yes, I could be lying about being a woman, a Muslim or a convert. I guess you will never know unless you meet me in person and do a background check. And even then I could just be pretending to have converted. I could still be an atheist...

[ProfessorDavey]

I've repeatedly said on here I am a theist and a Muslim and that this is belief based on faith. Why would I need to justify faith-based beliefs, when faith is a belief that I can't provide evidence for? Like my belief in Allah.

Still refusing to answer the question - by playing the age old game of answering a question that wasn't actually asked. So let's return to what we know so far:

a). You accept that women give birth to babies because that is supported by evidence and your personal experience (note I am paying you the respect of accepting that your claim to be a woman is true).

b). You do not accept that invisible storks deliver babies, because you have no evidence or personal experience to support this happening.

You accept b) to be a faith based claim (that you do not accept) as you clearly indicate that you do not and cannot have actual evidence to disprove the faith-based stork theory.

So what about supernatural pregnancies - another faith based claim like the stork, which you were happy to state that you did not accept due to lack of evidence.

So do you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

Simply yes/no is all that is needed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh dear, yet more snide comments.
But you are dismissing other faith-based claims (e.g. storks) due to lack of evidence. A bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.

Lack of evidence and lack of personal experience or rather my interpretations of my personal experiences cause my lack of belief in invisible storks while leading to me becoming a theist. 

I thought we had covered all this over the years during the discussions on this forum. Why are we back to asking what causes some beliefs to be accepted and others not? 

[ProfessorDavey]

I find you jump to conclusions and make assumptions in discussions, that aren't supported by sufficient evidence.

Other opinions are available and may well be rather more popular VG.

Ok you could be a professor who also jumps to conclusions and makes assumptions based on very little evidence.

Or I could be a professor whose conclusions, based on evidence and argument, you don't like/agree with.

It just seems a bit weird that you think that saying you are a professor makes your argument more credible ...

Of course it makes a difference when the topic of discussion is one of my professional areas of expertise. As demonstrated by your entry level googling on the matter there is a huge amount about valid consent that you really don't understand. I get that, it isn't your area of professional expertise. But it is mine - why do you find it so hard to respect that.

And while we are on the subject - there are loads of topics on which I have no more training, knowledge, experience than anyone else here, in many cases far less. I don't 'wave' my credentials around then. That would be both pointless and also unethical - as a quick check on any professional ethical code of conduct would likely reveal. And in those cases I'm just as much an armchair googler as you are VG. And I enjoy that because I actually learn quite a lot. But if there is someone on this MB who had professional expertise in that area of armchair googling, of course I'd respect their expertise and actually would hope to learn more from them.

But when it is a discussion that is in my professional area of expertise, that final word is important ... expertise.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Still refusing to answer the question - by playing the age old game of answering a question that wasn't actually asked. So let's return to what we know so far:

a). You accept that women give birth to babies because that is supported by evidence and your personal experience (note I am paying you the respect of accepting that your claim to be a woman is true).

I could have just meant I had seen a woman giving birth. Maybe I'm actually a man...

b). You do not accept that invisible storks deliver babies, because you have no evidence or personal experience to support this happening.

You accept b) to be a faith based claim (that you do not accept) as you clearly indicate that you do not and cannot have actual evidence to disprove the faith-based stork theory.

So what about supernatural pregnancies - another faith based claim like the stork, which you were happy to state that you did not accept due to lack of evidence.

So do you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

Simply yes/no is all that is needed.

Yes but it's so much more fun to leave you hanging as it seems to matter to you....

You're married right? Surely you're used to the experience of not getting your own way when you demand it. I'll let you know my beliefs when I feel in the mood to do so. Which is probably when you stop demanding that I tell you what my beliefs are.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes ...

Finally - so there we have it folks.

VG accepts that supernatural births are a thing.

Next question - why do you accept this?

Given that you've rejected magic storks due to lack of evidence. In order to be consistent VG surely you'd need to argue that the difference between magic storks and supernatural pregnancies would be evidence. So where is your evidence - surely you must have this or you are being completely inconsistent in the difference in argument between magic storks and supernatural pregnancies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

The issue is that “accept” and “believe” mean the same thing, so “I can't accept that there was/ are no supernatural pregnancy until someone proves they did not/ cannot take place. There is no method for proving or disproving supernatural events. Therefore, I can only say what I believe or do not believe” is drawing a distinction without a difference.

Ultimately there’s no method of “proving or disproving” natural events either (see Hume), and so what you “accept’/”do not accept” and “believe”/”do not believe” are the same.

Oh, and if you do change your mind re telling us which of either the God of the Bible or the modern Western standard re impregnating an under-age servant girl is morally better in your opinion all you have to do is to press either "A" or "B".   

And your positive assertion that Mary was an underage
Servant girl is proved how Hillside?

Between you and Davey do we have two male, pale? atheist and stale.one superannuated,guys dictating what a woman should have done with her body. That would be a turn up.

[ProfessorDavey]

You're married right?

Not entirely sure the relevance but yes. However I expect a demand to see a marriage certificate from you VG.

Surely you're used to the experience of not getting your own way when you demand it.

Marriage is about compromise and not demands - so of course there are times when we decide not to go down the route I would have ideally liked, and at other times we decide not to go down the route my wife would have ideally liked. That's what compromise is all about and it doesn't involve demands.

And I image you have no experience of the world of academia - why would you. But academia is entirely stuffed with argument, debate, compromise, persuasion etc. Drives people in other walks of life batty - they cannot understand why we don't have such clear line managerial structures that if your line manager demands it, that is what happens. The common analogy for required approach to leadership in academia is herding cats.