|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9187 total) |
| |
Dave Sears | |
Total: 918,739 Year: 5,996/9,624 Month: 84/318 Week: 2/82 Day: 2/0 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The athiest's claim is that: where E = evidence and B = belief "If no evidence then no belief." 1) ~E ⊃ ~BWhich is equivalent to "If belief, then evidence" 2) B ⊃ E Transposition. Christians claim to have belief. 3) B Therefore, there must be evidence. 4 ) ∴ E Modus ponens The christian claim is: "Not evidence and belief" ~E • BAnd that is pretty much the end of it. Now if we merge the two arguments and use the Christian claim as premise #3. Like so: 1) ~E ⊃ ~B2) B ⊃ E Transposition. 3) ~E • B Then seperate #3 4) ~E Subtraction5) B Subtraction You can easily see that premises #1 and #4 give ~B which conflicts with #5. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6176 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Originally posted by gene90:
quote: quote: Of course it's right and proper for there to be follow-up by skeptical scientific scrutiny. This would happen anyway, as the field of study is intrinsically interesting to social scientists of many bents. However, many of the APA's statements were specifically made in response to government THREATS of NON-SCIENTIFIC overview of psychological research. I get this information directly from the APA, by the way (I'm a psychology grad, and a member of the APA came to town to give a talk on the debacle). These goverment actions, by the way, were instigated by radio's self-proclaimed moral watchdog, "Dr." Laura Schlessinger. I'm flabbergasted that you would defend this sort of governmental policing of ideas, and would argue that denouncing a study because of of *possible* disturbing implications of peer-reviewed research is justified. Big into Lysenkoism are you?? Here's an account of the APA's predicament, from the APA journal American Psychologist:| Haverford College These members of Congress were thus suspicious of the Association?s scientific credentials and harbored distrust of?or, at best, unfamiliarity with?the APA?s peer review system. Skepticism and lack of scientific understanding led many congressional offices to discount the assertions of APA staff. To these offices, the only indicator of the quality of the peer review system was the reputation of the Association, which was being undermined by the storm raging around the Rind et al. article. Given the ever-increasing number of cosponsors for H. Con. Res. 107 (1999), it was painfully evident by late May of 1999 that there was little chance of preventing passage of the congressional resolution. The leaders in this controversy were determined to see it through to its natural conclusion?that is, passage of H. Con. Res. 107 in some form. The only viable option was for the APA to persuade the sponsors to introduce and support a less extreme substitute resolution. With the growing likelihood of the resolution?s passage, APA staff were concerned that subsequent broader attacks would ensue, possibly against psychological research budgets in such federal agencies as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. It was also feared that the independence of the APA?s journals? peer review process was in potential jeopardy. This fear was confirmed in a conversation Fowler had with Representative Weldon, who clearly believed that peer review, at least as practiced by the APA, was an old-boys? ?you scratch my back, and I?ll scratch yours? network. Representative Weldon elaborated on the implicit threat in his earlier letter by stating that if the peer review process continued to allow publication of articles such as Rind et al., congressional oversight hearings might be necessary. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Heck thats not too bad for a distant 10 year old memory from history class back in the day....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I doubt I could cut all ties to society. Even so, once a critical number of people becomes hermits and fugitives, the social structure collapses and people start dying. We are simply not built to survive outside a society.
quote: That is a big if... and you have no evidence, as you keep insisting. Consequently, an enormous moral power can be wielded by anyone who can convince people that he or she speaks for GOD. This is the problem.
quote: You are stating what you want to believe. Do you know all athiests?
quote: Really? How is it then that I, a non-theist, disagree?
quote: Yes, it would. Just like your claims about morality are opinions.
quote: hmmm.... I don't believe you. Isn't that what you told me when I said that I am very tolerant of individuals?
quote: And do you really need to have tolerance defined for you again? Lets see. There is a roofing supply house in town. This supply house is run by a man whom we'd probably both label religiously fanatical. Scripture is spray painted on the walls of the store. Religious fliers and books are all over the place. The place is pretty breath-taking actually. It also happens to be the best roofing supply house in town. Do I avoid it because the guy is Christian? Nope. Do I threaten him? Nope. Organize protests? No. And I'd oppose the protests if they were organized. I respect the guys right to push his religion. I buy stuff from him knowing that my money is going to go to his cause. This is tolerance. This is necessary for peaceful cooperative living. But you seem to think it means keeping one's mouth shut. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
John, you crack me up with your little formulas. I like your example about the roofing company though. A very good example of "tolerance."
Thought for the day: materialism precludes free will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Symbolic logic ala Irving M. Copi. It is great fun.
quote: Well, that's what tolerance means to me. It is about living together constructively, not about censoring ideas. I have also been working in a Synagog for a couple of months now. I don't go there and hassle people. In fact, if I can catch someone willing to chat, I quiz them on Judaism-- not why do you believe but what do you believe and what's up with the knotted rope around your waist. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
quote: quote: Correct so far.
quote: The Agnostic might also say that nobody has sufficient information to make a descision.
quote: Right, and many also believe that nobody knows if there is a God or knows anything about God.
quote: Is it better if I say "The Agnostic does not accept any religion as true because there is not enough information to evaluate the truth of any religion?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, I would rather hang around people who choose to do the good, moral, and just thing simply because it is good, just, and moral than hang around people who seem to think that they would behave completely immorally if they didn't fear punishment in the afterlife. Which group has great moral fiber, do you think? The latter group scares me, frankly; those who say that without church -imposed so-called "absolute morality" they would run amok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: ????
quote: Except that I can go to the bank and pull out the money and hold it in my hands. Other people can see it and hold it. Even people who had never seen money before could see it and touch it. You cannot do any of these things with God, so the analogy doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
As an agnostic, I would say that I do not know if any particular religion or all religions are false or not, although I would say they cannot all be true, since they contradict each other in certain important details (for example, views about Jesus by Jews, Christians, and Muslims). I would say that "faith" is unreasonable. I also think this demand for faith is insidious and often corrupting.
But I would say that claims of proof for the existence of God are false. The Catholic church has--or had--as one of its doctrines the idea that the existence of God could be proved by "unaided" Reason. If that were the case there would be no need for faith, but the Catholic church has never worried too much about being consistent. One would think that if one wished to have a religous viewpoint, that at least you would want to limit the assumptions to as few as possible. The Catholic church seems to embrace the opposite view--the more unprovable assumptions the better. They don't call them assumptions though. They call them "mysteries" (for example, the Immaculate Conception). I suppose you could call yourself a Catholic and not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is an official doctrine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: quote: You seriouly downplay any examples I give and always, without fail, provide justification or an excuse for everything the church has ever said or done.
quote: quote: Yes, despite your persecution complex, I do not have a vendetta. I have lots of problems with the Catholic church, too, and probably know more about it. I just haven't had cause to talk about it as much.
quote: You have no idea if the time I have spent researching anything is "disproportionate" so this is a baseless assertion. Perhaps you would like it better if I simply spoke from complete ignorance?? Hey, it takes two to tango, baby.
quote: Sounds like you are annoyed at your church being criticized. Like I said, if you consider that I have a vendetta, it makes it easier for you to ignora and discount my criticisms.
quote: Such as? Dunno. That's why you need the independent study by experienced historians who don't have a religious agenda to maintain.
quote: [QUOTE]Sacred, not secret. If they were secret we wouldn't send people knocking on doors trying to get them to qualify to attend the temple. [/B][/QUOTE] http://www.mormonstoday.com/001103/P2Laake01.shtml (emphasis added) "In a tribute to Mormon journalist Deborah Laake, who committed suicide earlier this year, Phoenix journalist Terry Greene Sterling says that Laake blamed her clinical depression on "Mormonism and the men in her life." Laake was the author of the controversial tell-all "Secret Ceremonies," which detailed LDS Temple ceremonies and led to her excommunication from the LDS Church. If the ceremonies weren't secret, then why did putting her experiences of them in a book lead to her excommunication? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that we can't detect it, so it is effectively and for all practical purposes non-existent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B] quote: quote: Well, yes, but what does this have to do with living in society and the pressures to conform?
quote: Yes. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I agree that morality changes all the time, particularly religious morality. My argument is that morality based upon humanistic ideas are less about strict simplistic rules and more about reason and common sense and are very basically concerned with, "live and let live", and, "let's come together for the common good" ideas.
quote: Well, that's true, except that in the non-religious view, if what you are doing doesn't hurt anyone, it isn't immoral. Sin is an invented religious tool to keep people in line out of guilt and fear. I would much rather have someone do something purely out of concern for others rather than out of fear of going to hell, or out of trying to get into heaven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2334 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, Chara. Gene, I know it is difficult for you to step back and look at things objectively where your religion is concerned. It might very well be impossible for you to be objective at all. However, I examine and pick apart religious practices the same way I pick apart everything else. I have very definite bulldog tendencies but this is the case no matter what the subject. I do not apologize for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: For an analogy to be valid it has to track the relevant feature of that to which it is supposed to be analogous. Money 1) Gene has cash2) Gene goes to bank 3) Gene deposits money 4) Money is in vault and as such is not directly observable 5) Gene withdraws money God 1) hmmmmm.... No one has ever seen God2) No one has ever seen the supposed bank 3) One has never had God to deposit into the bank which no one has ever seen. 4) God is undetectable. Wow. Got one!!! 5) One cannot test withdraw God from the bank-- ie, one cannot test God. One out of five, gene. That is a pretty bad score.
quote: You are trying to make the whole analogy rest on this one thing. It doesn't. Rather, if you want the analogy to rest on this one thing you have to reformulate it like so: 1) Somebody claims that there is money in the bank, but doesn't know who deposited it, or where the bank is located, or how to get the money back out. The fact that money can be shuffled into and out of the bank screws up your analogy. This isn't direct observation, but I never claimed direct observation was necessary. Inference from data is acceptable.
quote: There is no lack of evidence. The existence of the money can be inferred. I'd accept this with God as well.
quote: It is. All definitions are.
[quote](From Merriam-Webster OnLine, Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary ) reasonable: being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive [/b][/quote] You are really going to claim that unfounded assertions are reasonable.
quote: There isn't anything extreme or excessive about a rock sitting in that box. But the statement, based on no evidence, THAT a rock is sitting in that box, is unreasonable. How can it be REASONABLE when there is NO REASON for the claim?
quote: Reasonable == having reasonUnfounded == not having foundations-- IE, not having REASONS quote: But could be inferred.
quote: Because it could be inferred.
quote: Not really. Founded is based on something, unfounded is based on nothing. Based on nothing is having no reasons. Hence, it is unreasonable. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024