Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Persecution of Atheists (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Persecution of Atheists
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Darn, I cant believe I missed this whole thread! [DOH]

It will take too long to read all this and get caught up now. But I definitely agree that Atheists have to deal with a lot of crap if people actually are aware of it.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In fact in some states they are literally prohibited by law from holding any public office. I dunno how they can get away with laws like that, but they do. Even my own "liberal" state of Massachusetts [Frown]
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
quote:
I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my logic, everard.
Shocker! (that he is) Since y'all speak different languages! [Smile]

Do my felonies and bad temper give me enough macho street cred to be a bit or wuss for a second? I can't believe you two guys who are two of my closest friends hate each other so much. I know you both and y'all--you are both great guys, deep down where it counts--you could be friends if you really tried, but at least 'friendly' if not friends. (I admit sometimes it's entertaining but I think in the long run it is bad for both of you.) Okay, back to being a "man". [Frown] Knock off all the bull****! [Wink]
KE

Sad as it may be, KE, You've got to admit that our fights have become a lot less frequent and a lot less intense since I gave up on the guy last year and resigned myself to permanent cold war.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Having had physics, I have a fuller grasp of both gravity and the big bang...

I had physics once, but the doctors cured me.

There is one huge difference - most effects of gravity lend themselves to repeatable experiments, while study of the origin of the universe obviously does not.

Luckily, because I think another Big Bang could prove slightly disruptive.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my logic, everard. The phenomenon of gravity is observable and measurable. The Big Bang is not. Good hell, man, you've had physics. You should be able to grasp this stuff."

As kenmeer pointed out, you're wrong. Having had physics, I have a fuller grasph of both gravity and the big bang then you do

Which makes me wonder why you started your rebuttal with an authoritative cite to the renown kenmeer. [Big Grin] .

FYI, "fuller" is a noun refering to a person who pleats or gathers cloth.


quote:
recognize that we can't observe EITHER, or even measure EITHER. We measure and observe the effects of both, and there are observerable and measurable predictions made by each theory.
Ah. That makes sense, and I can understand why you might imagine that it was relevant, if you were not paying attention to the followup discussion about the issues that were in flux during the first fractions of a second of the big bang. Thank you, those last two sentences were exceptionally coherent, and I will probably make use of that in a future discussion.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That makes sense, and I can understand why you might imagine that it was relevant
Can you tell me why you DON'T imagine that it's relevant, Pete? I'm hard-pressed to come up with a reason it might not be.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
deleted as out of place...

[ March 02, 2007, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Which makes me wonder why you started your rebuttal with an authoritative cite to the renown kenmeer."

Don't shoot me. I'm only the messenger.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't shoot me. I'm only the messenger.
Says you.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
That makes sense, and I can understand why you might imagine that it was relevant
Can you tell me why you DON'T imagine that it's relevant, Pete? I'm hard-pressed to come up with a reason it might not be.
When you get tired of hard-pressing yourself, you could always read what I said.

[ March 02, 2007, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Done it. I don't understand a word of it, at least insofar as it's meant to relate to this topic. I don't want to leap to conclusions, so I'd rather ask you to restate your point.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried readingh his mind too, just to give it a try, y'know. Either I'm telepathically illiterate or it's not in the brain text.

But it was fun wearing the satin turban.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sharpshin
Member
Member # 3175

 - posted      Profile for sharpshin   Email sharpshin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I think faith does more good than harm. I think it gives people hope, comfort and strength. Yes, some people use it to hurt other people and that's a shame (and completely contrary to "love thy neighbor") but I think faith is a net positive.

I wish the atheists who are busy trying to remove the "under god" from the pledge and other such nonsense would get a life and stop making us look like jerks.

Though I'm not quite an atheist-- I'm an apathetic agnostic-- you and me both, on both counts.

That being said, though I've experienced more persecution because I'm Jewish (high school bullying, no big deal in hindsight, most every Jewish kid who attended a public high school at the time had to deal with at least some of that) than as an agnostic... even if agnostics and atheists aren't really persecuted in every state, in certain aspects of American life they've certainly been marginalized.

Like politics. Here in NH we almost make a fetish out of minding our own business, but I'd never get elected governor even if I were qualified. VT of course is another story.

In athletics it's also a liability, though it doesn't matter much if your stats are good enough.

In other areas, atheists and agnostics have been accepted no problem. The sciences, academia, the arts. I would say that "people of faith" really do have more of a hard time in academia. The sciences don't care, as long as the science is really science. As I understand it a pretty good percentage of scientists profess belief in God, but if they come up with reproducible results, no one is going to say the experiment is invalid just because they believe in God, whether it's the OT God they believe in or otherwise.

The arts don't much care either, as long as the work is good. Then again, what constitutes good work in art is such a contentious subject among artists and critics that it hardly matters one way or the other.

In the performing arts, if the performer has the ability to put enough tuchises in the seats, no one gives a flying damn about their religion or lack of it.

Another area in which people of faith, and Christians in particular, have been marginalized or at any rate unfairly pigeon holed is in certain popular music genres. Just because Phil Keaggy's music has been inspired by his faith, there's no reason to call him a "Christian musician." He's a musician, period... not to mention one of the greatest guitarists in the world.

Petra, to my mind, wasn't a "Christian rock band" just because they were into singing about Jesus, anymore than the Rolling Stones are a "secular geriatric rock band" because they still sing about being horny for brown sugar. [LOL]

Truly, this is serious. Phil Keaggy should be much better known than he is, to a much wider audience. But as an officially pigeon holed "Christian musician," he never will be.

Oddly enough, one of the few subgenres of rock where it doesn't seem to make any difference is metal. Stryper was an immensely popular band and reached platinum status back in the mid 80s. Been a long time since I sold Stryper tab books at the gittar shop where I worked through the mid 90s, but the trend continues today-- according to Wiki, "In its 2006 In Review issue (February 2007), Revolver Magazine dubbed Christian metal the phenomenon of the year."

And that being said, the marginalization of atheists and agnostics in American politics does seem to me to a bit more important than the acceptance of Christian metal by secular headbangers.

[ March 03, 2007, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: sharpshin ]

Posts: 318 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My statement was relevent to this thread, pete, because you made an ill-informed statement about physics within this thread. If anyone makes an ill-informed statement within a thread, any correction of that statement belongs within the same thread.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
My statement was relevent to this thread, pete, because you made an ill-informed statement about physics within this thread.

Did I? Which specific statement was that? You seemed to respond to this statement:

"The phenomenon of gravity is observable and measurable."

You responded by acting as if I'd said that the underlying cause of gravity is observable and measurable. Actually, the word "phenomenon" refers to the circumstances and facts perceptible by the senses. The "phenomenon of gravity" refers to the perceptible circumstances and facts associated with gravity. Like an apple falling from a tree.

Now you've made the valid point that the physical effects of the big bang can also be studied, so your post was not an absolute waste of time. But that still doesn't place the Big Bang in the same category as gravity as far as facts of nature that we can reproduce and study.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point that was originally being made, Pete, is that the Big Bang doesn't have to be in that category. In fact, quite a lot of science has to do with things we can't directly observe, but which can be described by theory and which then generate useful predictions of effects we can observe.

Sadly, religion still doesn't do that. If it did, we'd call it science.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not trying to have religion declared a science, Tom.

I'm simply saying that Dawkins is a warped son of a bitch for pretending that "rational" is coterminous with "scientific."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe Dawkins implies the word "physical" when he says rational.

Many religious believers are rational regarding their metaphysics, but it's an intrinsically subjective rationality that can't be measured amongst ourselves. We can consensually measure the good works produced by religious organizations, yes, but we can't consensually measure 'the Spirit'.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Did I? Which specific statement was that?"

The one where you said that big bang theory goes beyond known science.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"Did I? Which specific statement was that?"

The one where you said that big bang theory goes beyond known science.

Sorry if I wasn't specific for you Everard. I should have remembered that as well as being me, I'm also a fictional character in your ongoing sagas, and that I do all sorts of terrible things in *your* statements. So I'll rephrase:

Which specific statement of MINE are you referring to? Please link and quote.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was, I believe, this statement of yours:

"If supernatural means something that exceeds the bounds of known science, then the Big Bang posits a supernatural event."

from the 5th page of this thread.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm simply saying that Dawkins is a warped son of a bitch for pretending that "rational" is coterminous with "scientific."
I think your contempt for him is entirely undeserved. Can you show me where he said this? Or what he said that leads you to this conclusion?
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think this interview may show that both Pete and Adam's positions on Dawkins show a lack of any sense of nuance. For instance, Pete, Dawkins believes that religions are alternately scientific claims. And Adam, the man clearly has it out for any sense of a diety. Not only that but that anyone who believes in a God is ultimately lying to themselves and that rational people just don't do that.

I think that those of a religious persuasion would say that he misapprehends religion though. It is not a scientific hypothesis to be tested in the exact same manner as much of physics. This point in itself is a great point of contention between atheists and religious though.

Those that allow for religion to be outside to bounds of the testing used for physics, say that it has relegated itself to the personal sphere alone, subjectivity. Yet the religious would obviously disagree for a variety of reasons. I tend to bring up modes of epistemology.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I continue to point out the obvious and complete inferiority of religion as an epistemology. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Something I found on youtube about not so great atheist quotes. The best part is at the very end.

I've got to say in defense of my jab at atheism, what atheists say is not too peaceful toward religious people. I care about people and not ideologies, when it comes to atheism as a belief system or a tenet of a belief system, I always suspect some other motivation besides the ones given. I still haven't seen a presentation of atheism that does seem to show the merits of athiesm as greater than those of other believe systems.

I don't feel I persecute atheists as much as put up a defense that people of faith are not just stupid.

TomD: criterion for judgment again please. I will state that you said that if a correlation with multiple variables could be attained, it would be very valuable. I believe that this is where religion has it's niche.

[ March 03, 2007, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: PanHeraclitean ]

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If atheists believe this is what Christianity is about I can understand their frustration with religion, but I think it's a pretty narrow view.

BTW, I'm posting on a Saturday not Sunday because I am celebrating Sunday anticipatorily like mass on Saturday night and because I won't be able to post tomorrow night. Carlotta thought I should mention it.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I always suspect some other motivation besides the ones given.
That's too bad, but I think that it reflects a cognitive problem on your end rather than lack of candor on behalf of atheists. I've tried to address this suspicion of yours a couple times - once here on the board, and again in a private email. Both times my questions to you went unanswered.

quote:
I still haven't seen a presentation of atheism that does seem to show the merits of athiesm as greater than those of other believe systems.
You can replace "atheism" with any view you don't subscribe to. Alternatively, you can replace the "I" with any non-Catholic and replace "atheism" with "Catholicism."

[ March 04, 2007, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard misrepresented:
quote:
The one where you said that big bang theory goes beyond known science.
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
It was, I believe, this statement of yours:

"If supernatural means something that exceeds the bounds of known science, then the Big Bang posits a supernatural event."

from the 5th page of this thread.

Do you not grasp the difference between what I said, and what Ev pretends I said? If you look carefully, you'll see that at least one person soon afterwards did get it.

The Big Bang theory simply draws lines in on a single point and draws a fairly logical conclusion.

I'm talking about the big bang itself, associated with theories about the appearance of the four major known forces of the universe (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational). The theory that these forces developed during the first instants of the big bang.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Explain the distinction, please, Pete. I don't see one at all.

----------

quote:
I believe that this is where religion has it's niche.
Except that religious epistemology specifically doesn't understand the vocabulary of, say, "correlation." Once you start using those words, you're using a scientific -- materialistic, even -- epistemology.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll make the observation from the link Pan provided that Dawkins specifies a "personal deity" as the idea he considers irrational.

Several times he seems to brush off allusions to a vaguer "Einsteinian" kind of idea of God. It doesn't seem like he has a problem with such a nebulous concept--he seems to be arguing quite specifically against an anthropocentric deity.

He makes several statements about scientists who claim to be religious, but upon examination, can be found to subscribe to a version of God that is quite different from the religiously orthodox version--and he seems to give such an idea a pass.

He's clearly not opposed to a conceptual abstraction--he's opposed to belief in a personal God.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This question is addressed to MattP who things I disbelieve his candor, TomD who frequently seems to do the same thing Pete accuses Dawkins of, subsuming all rational thought into materialism, and sp who brought it to a good head for me.

This is start from the Dawkins interviewed but also from other discussions that we have had. Dawkins says that if there was a personal God the universe would be a very different place. How would the existence of a personal God prevent the existence of our universe the way that it currently is? Why are these two thoughts incompatible? Why is it not simply a matter of shifting your paradigm?

BTW, Dawkins goes well beyond the anthropocentric view of god in his book. We're talking about the Omni-personal-God.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How would the existence of a personal God prevent the existence of our universe the way that it currently is?
I'm not sure I follow exactly where Dawkins would take this argument. The way he said it made it sound like he had articulated this line of argumentation before. Perhaps he explains in his book.

My spit-ball conjecture on what he might mean runs to the common, intuitive arguments against the existence of a personal God. You know the sort--the whole "if God existed we wouldn't have disease or war or misery etc etc." If there were a being who cared about these things and had the power to stop them, one can only assume that he would. Since no being appears to be stopping these phenomena, one assumes that no such being exists. But again--this is just a guess. I don't really know where Dawkins would take this argument.

Personally, I think that such arguments are superfluous. It's just simpler than that. Absent evidence for the existence of such a being, there is no reason for postulating such a being.

And the only evidence for the existence of such a being is social or subjective--and such evidence is much better explained without the postulation of the reality of a personal God.

If you simply accept such theism as an effective mode of social control that capitalizes upon the subjective desires and fears of individuals, then all the sudden you don't have to invent complex reasons to bridge the cognitive dissonance presented by such an idea. It really is that easy.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How would the existence of a personal God prevent the existence of our universe the way that it currently is? Why are these two thoughts incompatible?
Without giving you a laundry list of things and situations in this universe that seem incompatible with a God who, just as an example, listens to Pat Buchanan or Pope Benedict, I'll sum up by saying that the observed universe isn't well-modeled by that worldview.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
BTW, Dawkins goes well beyond the anthropocentric view of god in his book. We're talking about the Omni-personal-God.
Hmmm. I haven't read the book. You'll have to explain what you mean.

I just found it interesting that, according to what I heard in that interview, Dawkins doesn't see to have a problem with non-personal versions of God.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sp, "non-personal versions of God" become nothing more than TomD's red button that started the universe. So in other words a non-personal God becomes a non-issue to Dawkins.
Such a thing would not be the contemporary God which he spends 9/10 of the booking refuting.

I'll admit now that I haven't finished reading the book.

TomD, the interesting thing about listening is that it in no way means that the listener has to obey what the speaker is saying. If you make an argument in anyway like that which sp calls superfluous, I would say the same. It seems to be more of a problem with reconciling your own expectations of God with the real world. This is the same for MattP.

If on the other hand you use the second line of argument, than as sp says you are accepting an alternative view which must be shown as superior. This is what I have not seen. For example I don't see TomD's reasoning for not allowing pediphilia to be about as weak as you can get. If I recall it is just about social contract. So as pediphilia becomes more common and they gain a good lobbyist backing we will be more accepting of there deviation from the norm.

This doesn't persuade me one bit.

On the other hand, there are few ways of restricting a person from becoming a part of your religion if they say they believe. I'm sure that thereare many that say they believe but really see it "as an effective mode of social control that capitalizes upon the subjective desires and fears of individuals." I don't see how this in any way necessitates that their manipulation of people falsifies a faith as a whole.

More Later. My munchin wants to play.

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For example I don't see TomD's reasoning for not allowing pediphilia to be about as weak as you can get.
Sure. It's based on arbitrary standards, which are pretty weak. (Note, however, that my argument against pedophilia is not based on a "social contract.") You grant of course that I've been able to objectively prove the badness of harm and the harm of force in another thread, right?

Pedophilia is largely non-consensual, and thus force, and thus harmful; in fact, given our definition of "informed" consent, pedophilia is inherently non-consensual. There may also be multiple physical reasons to delay intercourse beyond a certain arbitrary age cutoff, even if informed consent were somehow to be granted; the question remaining there is whether the harm of sexual contact exceeds the harm of legislation (which I suspect, but cannot confirm, that it does). The difficulty of distinguishing between consensual, non-harmful pedophilia and non-consensual, harmful pedophilia is incredibly difficult, and the harm done is perceived as serious enough that it is considered to be better to draw an arbitrary line that bans all sexual interactions between adults and children than to risk harming a child.

quote:
It seems to be more of a problem with reconciling your own expectations of God with the real world.
I would argue that anyone who says that this is not what they do is lying through his or her teeth. Some people just have much, much lower standards for their gods, and consequently accept the possibility that "God" is just piss-poor.

[ March 04, 2007, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Tammy Kolda "

Yar.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PanHeraclitean
Member
Member # 3120

 - posted      Profile for PanHeraclitean   Email PanHeraclitean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
-------------------------------------------------
It seems to be more of a problem with reconciling your own expectations of God with the real world.
-------------------------------------------------

I would argue that anyone who says that this is not what they do is lying through his or her teeth. Some people just have much, much lower standards for their gods, and consequently accept the possibility that "God" is just piss-poor.

Have I said I don't do that too? I don't think I have. The difference that I percieve between us here is that I don't try to impose my limited understanding of the way I think that things should be to what I consider to be an infinite being. When I do try to place those limits on God, I typically experience pain. It might even be harm. But please direct me to the particular case you make for harm so I can determine if it is.

If we talk about force as harm and we allow free will, how could we say that God would not be harming us if He fixed our problems for us?

Posts: 1259 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PanHeraclitean:
I think this interview may show that both Pete and Adam's positions on Dawkins show a lack of any sense of nuance. For instance, Pete, Dawkins believes that religions are alternately scientific claims. And Adam, the man clearly has it out for any sense of a diety. Not only that but that anyone who believes in a God is ultimately lying to themselves and that rational people just don't do that.

I'm not sure how the fact that Dawson's claims are based on idiotic underlying assumptions about religion modifies or contradicts what I said.

SP, Dawkins' assumption that any assumption of "God" must be absolutely omnipotent, has nothing to do with God being "Anthropocentric."

Most Christian creeds claim that God is "omnipotent," but when it comes down to it, the story of the atonement as most individuals Christians understand it completely undercuts the idea of absolute omnipotence, and subjects God to certain laws of the universe. SO while most Christians will say they believe God is "omnipotent" since that's in their creed, when you ask them specifically if God had the power to save mankind from sin without the suffering of Jesus Christ, most Christians will say no, that there was no other way, as stated in one of the gospels.

Dawkins' only argues against an absolutely omnipotent God, and only defeats the God of the Creeds, which is a product of theology, not of religion. The effect is akin to a straw man, since most Christians beleive in the God described in the New Testament, not the God described in the creeds.

It's not Dawkins' fault that most Christians subscribe to an official creed that they don't completely believe in. But he really should have put a little more thought into his work. Better to understand a world-view before setting out to debunk it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"1) If one defines "supernatural" as "something that exceeds the bounds of known science," but then, to protect his own beliefs, adds a caveat "except if it's a null hypothesis," then that's a protective semantic device.
+++
"2) But what Dawkins would have us believe is that it's the *only* reasonable belief, and that individuals who consider personal rather than emperical evidence are irrational."

(I've listed a truckload of definitions for supernatural at the bottom of this post.)

Regarding 1): for me and, I believe, many of us posting here, supernatural means not just 'exceeding the bounds of known science'. In fact, supernaturalism is often invoked within the bounds of known science. We find this often in the evolution/ID conflict.

Where a phenomenon like the Big Bang exceeds the bounds of known science, the difference between religious and science is this:

Science throws different ideas at the mystery but these hypotheses bear no experimentally verified weight of any lasting import. It generally crafts these 'arrows' from proven concepts and aims them along lines tangential to them, but not always, for science can also proceed from raw imagination. It can't, however, canonize raw imaginations unless they yield comprehensive data confirming their conjectures. Until they do so, they are null hypotheses.

Religion, at least the kind that posits a God in Whom we might trust, places God at this point. he difference between theism/deism and a null hypothesis is that, rather than attempt to answer what happened or how it happened, deism/theism says, He did it!

This deliberately dulls Occam's Razor but not, paradoxically, by multiplying entities unnecessarily, but by limiting entities to one. Once the target of one's conjecture is The One Who Made/Knows All, instead of what can be known about a specific event (i.e., the nanosecond/macroinfinity) before the Big Bang, one is reduced to suppplication.

Now, it may be that all there is to know about that nano/macro-second/infinity is that God Did It. But, since God has consistently remained hidden from even our subtlest measurements, while continuous prodding with those instruments has historically always revealed a deeper/finer set of data by which we explain more than we knew before, it is literally true to say that the God-conjecture is irrational. There's nothing to measure but one's own subjective impressions, a measurement which yields the fact that one's hand fits one's hand.

Conflating the two, we see the pinhole of the Big Bang as a carnival game where scientists try to throw theories through said miniscule aperture and hit the button that dumps God off his throne and into the water.

Regarding 2): ["But what Dawkins would have us believe is that it's the *only* reasonable belief, and that individuals who consider personal rather than emperical evidence are irrational."]

It was irrational, for example, of you to assert that Everard was *pretending*. That it was irrational doesn't make it untrue. He may well have been. But you lacked measurement to make such a claim. Is this an example of a null hypothesis? I suppose so. However, it is a null hypothesis of such poor quality it will not stand as such. It ignores the possibility that Everard may be thick-headed. Or that he yet had a fine point to make (which he in fact did) before he felt the issue could be definitively answered. Or he needs glasses. Aliens have taken over his brain. God told him to write what he wrote. (I think the *pretend* hypothesis lies between aliens/God influence and fine point/thick-headed (by thick-headed, I mean the kind of stubborness that can occulde its view of a topic.)

Worst of all, as hypotheses go, it states itself as fact rather than conjecture. It attempts its own fait accompli. An effective if risky technique in court-room cross-examinations but not in forming hypotheses.

You could have claimed you *believed* he was pretending. That would have been directly rational to you, assuming you feel you can accurately measure the strength of your belief. It would have been indirectly measurable by us, in a very rough manner, by observing over time how your actions accorded with the expressed belief.

But to say the Everard was pretending asserted something only Everard could measure. If Everard confirms or denies this, then your statement becomes rational.

Likewise, if God someday confirms or denies His existence to us, then assertions about God's existence will become rational. ("Hello, Earth? This is God. I deny my existence. Please leave me alone." Gotta love paradox.)

THe history of consensually verifiable evidence for the evidence of God is ZIlch. Over the course of many millennia, this earns consistent belief in God the mantle of irrational.

Which is as it should be. That which yields not to measurement yields not to measurement. That which cannot be consensually verified cannot be consensually verified. This doesn't make such belief inherently wrong or bad of itself.

When it comes to explaining the workings and explolatible directions of life on Terra, Dawkins is decidedly prejudiced toward the rational and against the irrational. One can do things reliably, expansively, counter-entropically, with rational empirical methods.

With religion, one can perhaps do things expansively and (at least socially) counter-entropically, but not reliably.

To date, neither science nor religion have either proved or disproved the existence of God. But science is so greatly superior to religion in obtaining clean drinking water and controlling disease and attending to our physical and mental needs, it has good cause to claim itself superior to religion.

It creates things that once were supernatural: things that didn't exist before, whose conjectured existence invoked the idea of magic and miracle.

"a) No one has defined "supernatural" as "something that exceeds the bounds of known science" here except YOU. In fact, I quite specifically said that this was not how it was generally defined.

b)Except when trying to say that one is better than religious people."

Well, then. Let's add this protective semantic device to Pete's Canon.

"Do you not grasp the difference between what I said, and what Ev pretends I said? If you look carefully, you'll see that at least one person soon afterwards did get it."

Yes, it was finessed after-words. But the statement you requested be identified *is*, truly, the one from page 5.

Now, as for the idea that Everard *pretends* you said or intended meaning other than what you did: You claim by this assertion to kow what Everard thinks or feels or intends.

He may be placing words in your mouth. He adds the word "theory" to the phrase "Big Bang". But he doesn't quote you as saying that. He also clarifies effectively here:

"But saying that the big bang is "supernatural" because its not known science, doesn't follow. If you want to say "The mechanism that caused the big bang is not known science," then fine... but the big bang itself is verifiable, falsifiable, and predictive."

So when you attempt to correct him and myself by stating:

"I'm talking about the big bang itself, associated with theories about the appearance of the four major known forces of the universe (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational). The theory that these forces developed during the first instants of the big bang."

... you *really* confuse the issue. First you say the "the big bang itself", then you say "the theory that these forces developed during the first instants of the big bang."

DEFINITIONS:
collectively; "She doesn't believe in the supernatural"
# not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# The supernatural (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanation —yet remains firmly outside of the realm of science. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

# Supernatural is a 1999 concept album by Santana. The songs on the album represent one man's personal emotions through its various Cuban and Latin rhythms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(album)

# Supernatural (aka MC Supernatural) is a rapper known for his skills in free-styling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(rap)

# Supernatural is the sixth album released by dc Talk.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_(dc_Talk_album)

# an occurrence in violation of the laws of nature. Spiritualism contends that the phenomena of the seance room are ruled by as yet unknown laws and rejects the term.
www.wholeagain.com/channelingglossary.html

# Something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature; for example, gods and ghosts.
www.brooklynexpedition.org/structures/glossary_latin.html

# Something that cannot be given an ordinary explanation
www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/subjects/history/medhist/page45_glossary.html

# characteristics of the reality beyond the senses.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

# The term supernatural comes from the terms “super” meaning above the average, and the term “natural” meaning the norm. Basically it is anything that seems to go beyond any natural force or defies a logical explanation.
knorton13.tripod.com/id33.html

# Something that exists of occurs through some means other than any know force in nature or science.
www.wrexhamparaskeptics.4t.com/definitions.htm

# and the different tracks on it then won nine Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year, Record of the Year for "Smooth", and Song of the Year for Thomas and Itaal Shur. Santana's acceptance speeches described his feelings about music's place in one's spiritual existence. ...
www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Carlos-Santana

# Activity caused by God or His angels, commonly referred to as to anything outside the bounds of natural laws.
www.cprs.info/definitions.htm

# 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural or explainable by natural law. 2. of, pertaining to, or attributed to God or a deity. 3. of a superlative degree; preternatural. 4. pertaining to or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult. --n. 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin. 6. "the supernatural,". a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively. b. ...
towerwebproductions.com/alt-lib/occult/definitions.shtml

# Used sometimes in the sense of make-believe, it originally referred to that which had been done by a being other than natural (human or animal) - though no less real.
www.theology.edu/theology/glossary.htm

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1