Jump to content

Religious and Spiritual Beliefs


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

My objection to it is mainly a religious one, specifically where God destroyed a city full of Sodomites.


The U.S. destroyed 2 cities of Japanese, is it wrong now to be Japanese?

quote:

quote:

Does either sodomy or masturbation hurt society? Is it immoral to get pleasure from something that doesn't hurt anyone else?


Depends if it's hurting society or not. Taken to the extreme of everyone doing it, it would destroy society rather easily (lack of reproduction). You can't assume that it's not bad for society just because one instance isn't bad. Sure, Dragon Lady beleiving in total pleasure for herself and not caring about society doesn't HURT society, but I still object to the concept since if it was applied to everyone, we'd be in anarchy.


Plenty of people indulge in pleasuring themselves, it doesn't mean they're hurting society. Even if nobody had reproductive sex we live in a day and age when intercourse isn't even needed for reproduction.

quote:

This argument, yet again, makes no sense. "Control" doesn't matter unless there's a point to it.


So all those priests, cardinals, bishops, etc would do just fine if they didn't collect money from thier flocks of sheep?

quote:

We know that God (higher power, whatever you want to call it) existed and God creates.

I know no such thing.

quote:

Sure, but there's no reason to assume multiple entities, or entitites over the rest of the course of reality, especially since we only know about one universe.


And there's no reason to assume the existance of even one enitity.

quote:

So why aren't we going around doing whatever we want? Why do humans/civilizations have moral codes if it's not for some repect/fear for/of a higher power?


Because it's hard for people to stay in power over other people if they just did everything they want. Morals are about controlling the population so that a group of people can maintain power over another group of people. Most morals are backed by laws and people to enforce those laws and those morals that are not are often ignored.

quote:

quote:

Mandatory abortion is the way to go, especially considering how many people shouldn't reproduce (and remarkably... these people that shouldn't reproduce are the ones that seem to do it the most).


Talk about an arbitrary standard. Your assuming that you'd be the one choosing who should be aborted/sterilized and who shouldn't.


Nope, I'm assuming there's plenty of logical minded people that could make such a determination. Of course, I wouldn't mind being the one... it would actually be rather fun.

quote:

quote:

Voluntary my @$$! I don't think there would be a problem with making a mandatory retirement and recycling age. I would think that the elderly would happy just knowing they were still useful at that age. I mean, honesty, lack of a sense of usefulness is quite common among the older generations.


If you ever run for President, i'm moving.


Well, you got like 10 years to pack before I'm eligable. Of course, I don't want the job, anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by Litvyak:

The U.S. destroyed 2 cities of Japanese, is it wrong now to be Japanese?

We aren't God.

quote:

Plenty of people indulge in pleasuring themselves, it doesn't mean they're hurting society. Even if nobody had reproductive sex we live in a day and age when intercourse isn't even needed for reproduction.


I'm just pointing out the flaw in the worldview when taken to it's end. Just because artifical means can get around the problems doens't mean that it somehow gets rid of the problem, just like availability of condoms doesn't get around the problem of it destroying the framework of soceity or spreading STDs. Sure, there still may be reproduction, but there could be a huge population loss.

quote:

So all those priests, cardinals, bishops, etc would do just fine if they didn't collect money from thier flocks of sheep?


Depends what CENTURY your living in. If it's the 21st century, they get enough to live (and the people donating the money know where it's going), and most money goes to poor/needy, etc. It's not some secret and corrupt organization, people who give money know where it's going.

quote:

quote:

We know that God (higher power, whatever you want to call it) existed and God creates.

I know no such thing.


Then respond to my other earlier arguments. I'm responding to Dragon Lady's new assumption that a higher power exists and we know virtually nothing about it. It's going to be pointless to keep rehashing the arguments over whether or not a higher power exists. Every effect has a cause, and science can't be true unless the ultimate cause (a higher power) is outside of science. If you don't accept it, fine, but Dragon Lady's arguments about not knowing the specifics of God are a lot more valid (and still allow the potential for an "immoral" (under christian morality) life) than rejecting the concept of cause-effect.

quote:

quote:

Sure, but there's no reason to assume multiple entities, or entitites over the rest of the course of reality, especially since we only know about one universe.


And there's no reason to assume the existance of even one enitity.


Ok here are two positions and a response of mine:

1. You reject the CONSTANTLY PROVEN idea of cause and effect and thus science. At that point, you have no reason to assume the existance of God, but you also have no reason to assume that miracles can ever be explained. You should then concede that miracles, centered around religious phenomena, could possibly/probably have no explainable cause within science. Therefore, the obvious concept of them being around religious artificats/areas implies there is God (probably around the religious affiliation of said artifacts/areas), or at least some sort of God.

2. You accept science and cause and effect and realize there had to have been an original cauase. Thus you admit the existance of a higher power, but can also maintain that there's no effect on our life now (deism).

quote:

Because it's hard for people to stay in power over other people if they just did everything they want. Morals are about controlling the population so that a group of people can maintain power over another group of people. Most morals are backed by laws and people to enforce those laws and those morals that are not are often ignored.


How does stopping murder, theft, blackmail, etc give any benefit to the people in control, and how exactly does it benefit the CHURCH who are the ones who have always dictated it?

quote:

Nope, I'm assuming there's plenty of logical minded people that could make such a determination. Of course, I wouldn't mind being the one... it would actually be rather fun.

Logical, nice arbitrary standard. I fail to see how most Judeo-Christian laws aren't logical.

[ 10-13-2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

We aren't God.


True, we exist... that makes a big difference.

quote:

Sure, there still may be reproduction, but there could be a huge population loss.


I fail to see a population loss as a problem.

quote:

Ok here are two positions and a response of mine:

1. You reject the CONSTANTLY PROVEN idea of cause and effect and thus science. At that point, you have no reason to assume the existance of God, but you also have no reason to assume that miracles can ever be explained. You should then concede that miracles, centered around religious phenomena, could possibly/probably have no explainable cause within science. Therefore, the obvious concept of them being around religious artificats/areas implies there is God (probably around the religious affiliation of said artifacts/areas), or at least some sort of God.

2. You accept science and cause and effect and realize there had to have been an original cauase. Thus you admit the existance of a higher power, but can also maintain that there's no effect on our life now (deism).

I don't subscribe to either philosophy since they both are fundementally flawed. I think the first position has been argued enough, so I'll stick to addressing number two. It breaks down because it makes an assumption that the universe was created by a higher power. That means that the higher power either had to be created itself or had to always have existed. Now, if something had to create the higher power than logically something had to create that and on and on... so that line of thought is illogical. That leaves the arguement that the higher power always existed and that it created it the universe from nothing... which is scientifically impossible by the laws of conservation of matter, mass and energy. The only scientifically rational explination is that the universe was never created and has simply existed. Improbable? Far less so then the belief that a god has always existed... after all we can prove the existance of the universe but not the existance of any god.

quote:

How does stopping murder, theft, blackmail, etc give any benefit to the people in control, and how exactly does it benefit the CHURCH who are the ones who have always dictated it?


Pacifying the population has enormous benefits to those in control. To give a detailed description of why, though it should be common sense, would take more time than I have right now.

quote:

I fail to see how the Judeo-Christian values aren't logical.


Besides the belief and dedication to a fictional entity that has never been proven to exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

AHH!! This is going to be long. Maybe God will be nice and Armageddon will happen by the time I finish this so I don't need to type for hours.

Well I wish he would get on with it then, then maybe I wonÔÇÖt have to reply to all of this.

quote:

I'm saying that it's reentrtenching an oppress patriarchal system when it occurs. I'd expect women to be more worried about that than men.

Sorry darling not worried. Perhaps IÔÇÖm just a little antiquated in some of my reasoning, but I have no problems with the current system. Actually, in some ways I think that womanÔÇÖs lib has damaged a rather nice part of our culture.

quote:

People can easily be trained, non painfully, through experience.

Yes darling, but it isnt as much fun electric dog collars mmmmm...

quote:

That's why you should be more careful before you get married, and yes, there are marriages with no premarital sex and they tend to stay intact a lot longer than those with premarital sex.

Yep, I mean, itÔÇÖs easy to tell if someone is going to become a grouchy old fart.

quote:

Ok, I still find it unnatural and pointless, but your right on a totally utilitarian level that some people do it for a purpose. My objection to it is mainly a religious one, specifically where God destroyed a city full of Sodomites.

A city full of sodomites eh? Nonsense, there has never been any city whose population was primarily gay men, it just isnÔÇÖt feasible.

quote:

My reason for not doing it however, is I have no desire at all for it, and I find it unnatural and disgusting.

Tell me darling, are you familiar with Social Darwinism? Because if you believe that everything that is natural is moral then it should be just your thing.

quote:

Depends if it's hurting society or not. Taken to the extreme of everyone doing it, it would destroy society rather easily (lack of reproduction). You can't assume that it's not bad for society just because one instance isn't bad.

Oh dear, darling I just had the most horrific thought. Our civilization is on the brink of destruction, there is no hope, we are all doomed! You see, we cannot support a society comprised entirely of bankers. ThatÔÇÖs right, we must outlaw bankers, for if we allow bankers then everyone could become a banker, and we would all starve to death. But it gets worse then this, because itÔÇÖs not just bankers, itÔÇÖs everyone. We must outlaw carpenters, for what would happen if everyone decided to be a carpenter, and even worse, bums. Bums should be imprisoned, for what would our society be like if everyone decided to descend into a state of apathetic lethargy? Were all going to die AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Paranoid schizophrenic? Who me?

quote:

Christianity, applied to everyone, doesn't HARM individuals, nor does it harm society.

I donÔÇÖt know, I kind of consider spreading mass lies to be intellectual harm, but hey, maybe thatÔÇÖs just me.

quote:

Ticks carry lyme disease, they don't die from it. HIV is probably in other species, just not dying from it.

Actually, I heard it was a mutation of a virus in monkey blood which was used for polio vaccine. LetÔÇÖs all apologies to those nice people in Africa who we vaccinated. ItÔÇÖs not our fault it mutated and they got the bad batch.

quote:

We know that God (higher power, whatever you want to call it) existed and God creates.

Actually, we donÔÇÖt, creation implies something out of nothing, and we do not know if this was indeed the case.

quote:

When you accept the existance of God, you also accept the possibility that miracles could be from God, which would increase the chance of Him existing.

Yep, and I might just spontaneously combust tomorrow. No really, I might.

quote:

Also, we don't have any reason to believe that God stopped existing in the way He did when He created the universe.

WE DONÔÇÖT KOW! How many times do I have to say this? There is no accurate way to discern either way, but be my guest, make a guess about something you know absolutely and completely nothing about, something that you have repeated again and again is not bound by known scientific principles. Please, I enjoy watching you make a fool out of yourself.

quote:

My reason tells me that someone that powerful wouldn't just stop existing, but your right, we can't be sure.

Bah! Your reason tells you nothing, it is your faith that youÔÇÖre hearing. Reason will tell you that the blast of an atom bomb is incredibly powerful, so it stands to reason the blast should still exist today in the same form as it did when Hiroshima was barbequed. Complete nonsense.

quote:

True, although all monotheistic religions on this planet maintain He was.

Irrelevant. Until a few hundred years ago everyone knew the world was flat, but everyone has proven time and time again an incredible ability to be utterly wrong. You will never convince anyone but the most pathetic socialite that just because most people believe something then it must be true.

quote:

Yes, it is virtually impossible to even make hypotheses about any existance before God (the higher power).

Please darling, you are making an error in assumeing IÔÇÖm talking about god, IÔÇÖm not, god is the image portrayed by the Christian chuche, a fairly well known and at least vaugly understood mythological character. IÔÇÖm talking about the completely unknown phenomena that your reasoning actually supports, the difference is so vast that the two arenÔÇÖt even comparable. Referring to this phenomenon as God implies all of the theological nonsense that various religious crazies and would be dictators have tacked on to an already convoluted idea.

quote:

That sort of falls under your first point, but yes, we don't know if that power still exists, although at the point you recognize a higher power that's outside of science, it's highly doubtful that the being is restrained to any sort of tangible/scientific conditions to act/create.

Nonsense, get glasses. I stated only that we donÔÇÖt know if it will ever be explained by human science, and I never one even suggested that I knew for certain if it is outside science, should such a thing even be possible. Furthermore, conversion of energy (power as you put it) into matter is exactly that, a conversion, and it is perfectly possible that all of this phenomenonÔÇÖs energy was used up. If, on the other hand, you state that it needs neither energy nor matter to create, then there is no reason to believe it has any power at all, seeing as it needs none.

quote:

I'd assume a being powerful enough to create the universe would be superior to us in intellect/knowledge, after all, He CREATED the universe. The best we've done is created nuclear weapons and skyscrapers.

Nonsense, I have already covered the point that it need not be sentient, nor a single entity, nor (should this even be the case) aware of everything it created.

quote:

Sure, but there's no reason to assume multiple entities, or entitites over the rest of the course of reality, especially since we only know about one universe.

Of course not, there is no reason to assume anything, but that hasnÔÇÖt stopped you. IÔÇÖm simply saying that WE KNOW NOTHING. Nada, zip, zilch. Guessing is preposterous as we have no way of determining of weÔÇÖre right.

quote:

It seems impossible with our current understanding of Science that any creator would ever be able to be explained by us.

Ok, let me get this straight. We cannot explain this unknown phenomena, therefore we never will. This is optimism at its finest.

quote:

Yes, but it also can be used to explain a lot, and a lot can be attributed to it.

Yea, and I can explain anything with anything else, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean itÔÇÖs the case. God (not the phenomenon, which is most certainly not god in the Christian sense) has been traditionally used to explain everything unknown, so I can understand why you would be inclined to try to do the same with this phenomenon, but if we are to be logical about this then we have to admit that there is no real way for us to prove a connection there is no reason to believe a connection exists. ItÔÇÖs like explaining mechanical problems on gremlins. Amusing, but of no real value.

quote:

Good, this is evolving.

IsnÔÇÖt it though? I hate arguing with people who never give an inch, itÔÇÖs utterly pointless.

quote:

So why aren't we going around doing whatever we want? Why do humans/civilizations have moral codes if it's not for some repect/fear for/of a higher power?

Covered this a half dozen times at the least, both in this thread and in previous ones.

quote:

Also, can monkeys contemplate God, religious, morality, motivations of people, etc?

You mean to say that ÔÇ£were better then monkeys so there must be a godÔÇØ, oh please.

quote:

It's a theory of progressive moral development, and has 6 levels or stages, and if i remember correctly, the first two levels are based in personal pleasure/gain, and punishment vs affirmation (aka, you don't do stuff because it'd be personally harmful to you, you do what you get away with. I won't kill because I might get killed.), the second two are based on an ordered society and acceptance by society (you do or don't do stuff because of cultural norms and the law. I don't kill someone because it's the law.), the last two are for ultimate moral goods and higher ideals (I fight in this war for freedom from oppression. I don't kill because it infringes on rights, etc).

Well, I have the first two anyway

quote:

But the whole concept undermines an moral/ordered society, when the entire point of long term relationships is for sex with multiple people with no firm commitment to anyone.

Oh, IÔÇÖm sorry; you should have simply told me that you didnÔÇÖt understand. I was talking about having multiple long term, committed relationships. Clearly you didnÔÇÖt know what I was talking about, so I can forgive you error of reasoning.

quote:

I'm going to explain this in regards to Catholic/Christian theology, since it's the only basis I have to work with AND because it's impossible to KNOW for a FACT through EVIDENCE what God intended.

Then there is no way to determine that he intentionally destroyed the city full of sodimites, and thus no reason to believe there is anything wrong with sodomy.

quote:

To put it brief, if someone goes into the womb and cut's off a baby's arm while it is developing, God didn't create it that way, just like if biology makes someone homosexual, GOD didn't make it that way.

Try again darling, there is a difference between a developmental error and biological sabotage.

quote:

Just because it's a popular belief system, and it's a HELPFUL belief system (utilitarian level), and a LOT of people follow it, doesn't mean that it's controlling.

Yep, but the reason it is so utilitarian is because its function is to control people.

quote:

Anyway, at the point you recognize there is a Higher Power/God, it comes down to an issue of what you believe in, what your faith is.

First of all, draw no comparison between my unknown phenomenon and your mythological figure, for surly there is no valid comparison to be drawn. The only similarity is that both are attributed for causing the chain reaction that ended in the universe being how it is, nothing more. Furthermore, it is not a matter of faith, simply one of nomenclature. You didnÔÇÖt like the phrase I DONÔÇÖT HAVE A CLUE, so I made up a theory that basically said I donÔÇÖt have a clue.

quote:

Pascal's wager.

Yea, that sounds like Pascal.

quote:

Nope, I'm assuming there's plenty of logical minded people that could make such a determination. Of course, I wouldn't mind being the one... it would actually be rather fun.

Yea, I agree we could take bribes too

quote:

Sure, there still may be reproduction, but there could be a huge population loss.

Yahoo! Lets dance! A population loss, darling that is a wonderful idea!

quote:

If it's the 21st century, they get enough to live (and the people donating the money know where it's going), and most money goes to poor/needy, etc. It's not some secret and corrupt organization, people who give money know where it's going.

So preachers are basically bums who live off of handouts? Nice.

quote:

Every effect has a cause, and science can't be true unless the ultimate cause (a higher power) is outside of science. If you don't accept it, fine, but Dragon Lady's arguments about not knowing the specifics of God are a lot more valid (and still allow the potential for an "immoral" (under christian morality) life) than rejecting the concept of cause-effect.

Nonsense, I never necessitated that this phenomenon was outside of science, and I have never claimed that it was god or comparable in any way. If you put any more words in my mouth I think IÔÇÖm going to choke.

quote:

2. You accept science and cause and effect and realize there had to have been an original cauase. Thus you admit the existance of a higher power, but can also maintain that there's no effect on our life now (deism).

I think deism refers to a god, which I do not. Thus my position doesnÔÇÖt match up with this one. Furthermore, IÔÇÖm object to calling this pheomonon a higher power as this leads to the assumption that it must be like what is conventionally known as a higher power, and thus I will heretofore refer to it as the creation phenomenon, or the CP.

quote:

True, we exist... that makes a big difference.

Besides, we can blow up a hell of a lot more cities then god ever was accredited with

quote:

I fail to see a population loss as a problem.

My stance exactly.

quote:

Pacifying the population has enormous benefits to those in control. To give a detailed description of why, though it should be common sense, would take more time than I have right now.

Absolutely correct again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Less reproduction=less labor for productivity which means less food and lower quality of life, especially when combined with the more limited gene pool due to less reproduction, which means less scientific advancements and the possible extinction of the human race due to traits that need to be reproduced dying out due to lack of reproduction.

There would be less people to feed, so that point is moot. As to the gene pool, that is utter nonsense, genetic evolution isnÔÇÖt how we solve our problems and it hasnÔÇÖt been in a great many years. As for science slowing down, sure, inconvenient, but nothing compared to overpopulation.

quote:

Also, if nature intended for a population growth decrease, it would occur naturally.

If nature intended? Darling, nature is non-sentient and intends nothing. I might argue that if nature had intended us to fly we would have wings, and thereby consider airplanes to be unacceptable.

quote:

What your advocating is the same as destroying animals and organisms in ecosystems and assuming everything will turn out allright and there won't be a ripple effect.

You canÔÇÖt really believe this. Were not talking about killing off an endangered species, but a measured reduction in the population of an extremely successful and over populated species. I mean, sure, we could wait for nature to take care of it, with the way we are ruining our ecosystem it shanÔÇÖt take all that long, but we might as well take care of it ourselves.

quote:

Yes, pacifying a population CAN benefit those in control. It's not common sense, however, and not even by any stretch of logic, benefitting the people in charge of the Churches by telling their congregations not to murder, steal, cheat, lie, commit adultery, etc.

I donÔÇÖt believe this, I really donÔÇÖt. There are a lot of reasons for someone to want to control the population, some do it because they think they can help, some do it because they enjoy it, some do it because itÔÇÖs what they were taught to do, some do it for money and power, and some probably do it for other reasons. In the past the church was a rival for the state in terms of controlling the people, and often they were linked (establishmentarianism, if you like long words). My point is that the original function of the church was to control people, the same as the state, but in modern times direct control of the people has been left to the state, and the church mostly exists to provide a sense of meaning in peopleÔÇÖs lives, and to act as an extra bulwark of morality.

quote:

There's no BENEFIT for the Church for doing that.

Money, power, influence, et cetera. The church is a lot less powerful then it was a couple of hundred years ago, but it still has a lot of money and power. Besides, ask yourself for a moment how it benefits the government to control the people? Most of the same reasons apply to the church, or at least did.

quote:

Also, the number of atheists/agnostics that exist also prove that there's no net benefit to the "control" exerted by religion since there is no clear dichotomy between the groups in terms of reactions toward governments/those in power.

YouÔÇÖve lost me; this doesnÔÇÖt seam to make any sense.

quote:

If your in a totally isolated building from the time your born with no windows, just because you can't see the ground that the building is on doesn't mean that the ground doesn't exist. You can infer from the fact that everything in the building is always supported by something under it, that there is a very good chance that there has to be something under the building supporting it.

Yea, but you could also be on a spacecraft accelerating at a constant rate of 1G, or on a space born centrifuge that generated gravity. Or hell, you could be in an alien laboratory with gravity plating, but feel free to assume itÔÇÖs the ground if it makes you feel good.

quote:

My analogy doesn't apply in 100% of cases, but it shows that just because you can't PROVE God with science, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist or is outside of science.

But it doesnÔÇÖt mean he exists outside of science either, but I will get to this later.

quote:

Women's lib has gone too far. I find parts of it really hypocritical now too. "Equal rights", but women don't have to register for the draft. Talk about a double standard. Either they are equal and get drafted, or they aren't and they don't.

First of all darling, IÔÇÖm not even going to get in an argument about whether women are equal to men, that is a waste of time, but it is my belief that that men and women are approximately equal, with no real way of telling which is better, if indeed one is. Women and men should have the same legal rights, except where there is a point for them not to (such as the draft, and donÔÇÖt even try to tell me that the average woman can be just as good a soldier as the average man). I was referring to the cultural changes that I donÔÇÖt like.

quote:

I beleive most of what is "nautral" is moral, but a lot of what is "natural" could easily be considered that because of societal influences, so there's always doubt on a pure "nautral" society.

So what youÔÇÖre saying is that you believe that natural is moral, except when you donÔÇÖt want to. Nice.

quote:

Point taken. I think that my argument only applies to immoral/moral activities, since it's true that if EVERYONE had a "pleasure first" view of society, it would infringe on our liberties due to crime, or lack of humans to reproduce, etc.

Ok, let me get this straight. If everyone doing something would be bad for society, then it its wrong (read: immoral), and if everyone doing something isnÔÇÖt bad for society then it is ok. But this standard only applies to things which are moral or immoral. That, darling, is circular reasoning.

quote:

Job choice though, is a choice under which society would balance itself out (not everyone could/would ever become a banker since then there would be no one banking. Everyone could become hedonistic and we'd have anarchy. Everyone could only have sodomy, and the race would die out)

Yea, but everyone could be a bum. Is being a bum immoral now? What about choosing not to have children? IÔÇÖm sterile, so it isnÔÇÖt a problem for me, but what if someone didnÔÇÖt want to have a child? If everyone didnÔÇÖt want a child then our population would plummet (sure, there may be a few accidental births, but they would be put up for adoption, and never adopted because no one would want them). So it is not immoral to not want a child. And, for the US anyway, voting is another issue. If everyone decided not to vote then it would result in a political catastrophe (after all, there canÔÇÖt be an election with 0 votes), so not voting is immoral. But it gets worse, because if no one wanted to be a farmer, then we would have mass starvation, and therefore it is wrong to not want to be a farmer. But on the other hand, if everyone was a farmer, most people wouldnÔÇÖt be able to get enough land to properly farm, and thus would starve, so being a farer is immoral as well.

This all seams ridiculous, especially my point about farmers, because your reasoning is ridiculous. Humans arenÔÇÖt supposed to all be the same, and it doesnÔÇÖt make any sense to try to change this. But there is another reason these horrible immoral activities (like sodomy) arenÔÇÖt bad, the same reason being a bum isnÔÇÖt bad, because not everyone wants to do them. I donÔÇÖt want to be a bum, or a farmer, or a banker (though the last isnÔÇÖt all that terrible), and neither do a lot of people, which is why society works. Society even needs ambitious (or perhaps even greedy, though I think that is just a matter of degree) people to prevent stagnation, or even degeneration.

So, I have a new filter to determine if something is wrong: If most of society doing it would be catastrophically bad, if most of society would do it if unhindered by morals, and if there is no advantage to some people doing it, then and only then can it be considered wrong because of itÔÇÖs negative impact on society.

quote:

If you can't disprove it you can't consider it a lie.

So if I were to claim that IÔÇÖm an all powerful immortal who is choosing to remain unknown would you believe me (after all, if IÔÇÖm all powerful and thus outside of science there would be no way to disprove me)?

quote:

Well, something outside of science had to have created whatever created whatever created whatever created what we consider matter today, at least as empirically proven by science.

I will concede the point that the CP is outside of modern science, but there is no way to determine if this phenomenon is truly outside of science, or simply incomprehensible by modern standards (after all, wouldnÔÇÖt quantum theory be incomprehensible by ancient Greek standards).

quote:

Ok, the prevailing argument used to be that the universe exists, so it always has and always will exist since there's no evidence proving otherwise.

Nonsense, I never said such a fool thing, and IÔÇÖm getting tired of having you put words in my mouth. I said that there is no way to determine if the universe has always existed or not, or what happened, and therefore we can only guess. I said this repeated times, and if you go back to the last page of posts you can probably find it in some manner or another in most of them.

quote:

If you accept that a higher power existed, there's no reason to assume that He hasn't always and will always exist since there's isn't evidence proving otherwise.

Sure darling, everything is true until proven false, I believe you, honest.

quote:

If that entity is outside of science (which it has to be), there's even LESS reason to even assume that the concept of death/non-existance would even exist in relation to that entity.

There is neather reason to believe it still exists, nor reason to believe it no longer exists, therefore the only two possibilities are to make agues with no basis in fact, or to admit not to know. I prefer the latter option. (I covered the outside of science argument earlier, both in this post and in previous ones).

quote:

BTW, speaking of making fools of yourself, you don't seem to know how to spell "KNOW".

Darling, that is pathetically low, and completely irrelevant. If I wanted to, I could point out all of your spelling errors, and trust me, there are more then a few, but IÔÇÖm polite and I understand that just because you happen to misspell (or, as in this case, mistype) a word doesnÔÇÖt reduce the credibility of your arguments. Quibbling like this does.

quote:

We had updated information on the Atom Bomb through senses. We don't have any updated information on God/higher power, unless you accept religious texts. As I said at the end of the line you were responding to, your right, we don't KNOW.

Thank you.

quote:

At least I have the beliefs of a few billion people+history supporting my scientifically unfounded assertion. You, on the other hand, have nothing disproving it except personal doubt.

Yep, and how many billion supporting other wrong assertions? If popular (or even worse, historical) belief was a valid way to measure truth or falseness of something then science would have ground to a halt ere it ever got off the ground. I, on the other hand, have a logically sound sense of doubt, which, while not backed by a history of fools, is still something.

quote:

I'm not sure if I said it earlier, but i'm using "God" in exchange for "the entity" since it's a shorter word and it falls under my beliefs.

Believe it or not darling, how you refer to something has a lot to do with how you understand it. If I were to refer to the CP (which, by the way, is even shorting then typing god, so that argument is ever so much nonsense) as a pebble, it would imply a series of untrue of assumptions (at least, we assume they are probably untrue, I guess the CP could have been small, smooth, hard, and made of stone). Similarly, by calling the CP god you imply that it is what most people (yourself included) consider to be god. This is not the case (or at least, if it is, there is absolutely no way to tell), and thus you are referring to it inaccurately.

quote:

YouÔÇÖre still operating under the presumption that God needed science and was part of it/subject to it. Energy is a concept under science, and if energy existed, what caused that energy to exist? It couldn't be anything within science, and if it was, something had to have created that.

Very true, but you are still operating under the assumption (at least in part) that the CP is the Christian god, which is even less likely then it being explainable by science.

quote:

Yes, and i've admitted that it is possible that it's not sentient, and it's possible that it's not a single entity, and it's possible that it's not aware of everything it created. There's no reason to assume all of those things, especially with all of the miracles and strong following of religions currently in the world.

First of all, you have yet to make a strong tie between the CP and religion, though I will make one connection myself: that most religions contain a mythos that explains creation. However, this connection is tenuous at best as there is no reason to believe that the cultures creating these myths had any more understanding of the CP then we do, and were probably just indulging in baseless assumptions.

As for whether or not its sentient, well, there is no reason to believe it is, and no reason to believe it isnÔÇÖt, and, once more, the only options are to make a baseless guess (just like people have been doing since the down of man) or to admit that you donÔÇÖt know. And once more, I choose the latter.

quote:

Regardless of the specifics, at the point of acknowledging the higher entity, it's a much better idea to study and examine in great detail many different religious beliefs and sects and see if you believe in one or not, instead of taking the path of least resistance and writing off God/the entity as "Existed, doesn't exist any more, I don't need to worry about it".

Actually darling, my reasoning goes as follows:

-The CP is a complete unknown (except that it created the universe in some manner or another).

-There is no way to determine anything about the CP because there is no evidence about it.

-Therefore it is illogical to make completely blind guesses about it.

-Therefore there is no way to determine what, if anything, is necessary to do to get on the CPÔÇÖs good side (if such a thing is even possible), or if there is any reason to (after all, we havenÔÇÖt discussed whether there is an afterlife, which I happen to doubt).

-Therefore it is a waste of time to try to do what is best to get on the good side of the CP.

-Therefore I may as well do what I want to, itÔÇÖs as likely as anything else to be the right thing as far as the --CP is concerned, and definitely is the right thing for me.

Oh, and as to your advice to choose a religion, any religion, you do know you were just suggesting that I become a Satin worshiper, right?

quote:

That's taking a huge risk and is just being lazy. Truth doesn't just come to you, you need to seek it out...

And did you seek out the truth when you decided to be Christian?

quote:

We know the entity exists/existed and created. Now it's just a matter of figuring out the specifics, which we don't know about, but it'd be insane to automatically discount it and assume that he/she/it is just like you and is subject to science.

And how do you go about figuring out the specifics? (IÔÇÖm ignoring the second half of that as I never clamed that it was anything like us, nor necessitated that it was governed by science).

quote:

Scientists typically admit if it will ever be possible to do something, I don't think any claim that they will ever be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, let alone the SPECIFICS of God.

No, they donÔÇÖt, but then were not talking about god now, were talking about a phenomenon that may or may not be outside of science.

quote:

We can prove the truth vs gremlins, we can't prove the specifics of God or miracles, etc.

How do you disprove gremlins?

quote:

Just because a connection can't be proven doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Is this the ÔÇ£all things are true until proven falseÔÇØ logic again? Of course there may be a connection, but there is no reason to believe in one without evidence.

quote:

Nah, i'm just saying that humans are obviously far above animals, and are not subject the simple concept of "Morality=survival=civilizations=survival".

Ok, so my reasoning on the evolutionary reason to develop morality is invalid because we are some 3% different from monkeys? Nonsense.

quote:

There's another moral development theory for women, but I really didn't pay much attention to it and it didn't apply to many women I know. It had 3 levels and progressed from focus on self, to focus on others, to sacrificing one's self for the good of others.

Well, IÔÇÖm at level one then, and perfectly inclined to stay there.

quote:

But the intent of control doesn't really exist since there's no benefit to the Church from it.

Addressed this earlier

quote:

Again, i'm sorry, but I thought that I already articulated that I was using the term "God" for the "phenomenon".

Addressed this earlier

quote:

The similarity is enough to recognize that there has, at some point, been a being/entity MUCH, MUCH, MUCH greater/powerful than humanity, and that it's existance shouldn't immediately be discounted just because science can't show it through a laboratory experiment.

I have already addressed the similarity, both are attributed with creation of the universe, which may or may not imply power/greatness for the PC.

Besides, a lot of things canÔÇÖt be measured in laboratories but can still be measured. When is the last time you heard about a hurricane, or an interstellar body studied in a laboratory?

quote:

And it IS a matter of faith, unless your consciously deciding that since you don't know the speicfics of the entity, you have no desire to know, and thus will never try to know, and will never know the answer or come to a probable conclusion that you BELIEVE (faith) about the answer. I'm not saying that Christianity is the only religion that makes any sense, i'm just saying that it shouldn't be immediately discounted because "you don't know".

Agnostics would disagree, but the truth of the matter is that IÔÇÖm not agnostic because agnostics believe that the CP (or higher power, or whatever they call it) is unknowable as well as unknown. I make no assumptions about what is knowable. Furthermore, my interest in the CP is purely academic as I have no driving need to know how the universe came into being.

quote:

1. Again, I said I was using God interchangably.

2. You implied through your last post that it was outside of science.

3. If it isn't outside of science, then something outside of science had to have created it, due to all of those laws that you keep mentioning, and the underlying factor of cause-effect. Sure, you can SAY that the universe always existed, but every other entity in science needed a cause, there's *NO* logical reason to assume that the creation of the universe was any different.

1. Covered earlier

2. Untrue, I explicitly stated that there is no way of determining either way.

3. Congratulations, you have (once again) proven that it is outside of modern science, and that is all.

quote:

My bad. Deism does refer to a God, but if you replace "God" with "creation phenomenon", it would probably be very close to what your advocating, since, if I remember correctly, Deism maintained that God created the universe then went bye-bye, never to effect/bother us again.

Not exactly, IÔÇÖm closer to agnostic (and even closer to being a scientific materialist), but then I have just finished explaining this, so I shanÔÇÖt boar you with a repetition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

quote:

And exactly what law of science would that be?

Not sure of the name of it, but i'd love for someone to prove it wrong.


Actually, for a law of science to be valid it would have to be proven true. A law that states that everything has a cause is impossible to prove true because of it's vagueness. If it could be proven true we wouldn't have much of a debate

There are scientific laws that deal with a cause and effect relationship in much more specific circumstances, however. And one of the methods of research when employing the scientific method is to look for a cause and effect relationship, since it's often the easiest avenue to persue if one exists. Though my understanding is that that particular method is falling out of favor with the scientific community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'm skipping to points that seem to be on topic. I am extremely guilty of taking this thread off topic into extraneous debates which serve no real purpose (except to waste time writing responses)...

I thought that was the whole point of this debate.

quote:

Again, I simply ask what benefits the Church and even the government gain by establishing laws based around not stealing, not lying, not murdering people, etc. I fail to see how the laws themselves benefit any specific group of people or organization. They seem to support society as a whole, and every member of that society.

Well darling, if it benefits every member of society then it must benefit the church as well.

quote:

Yes, the Church has been powerful in the past, but i'm not saying that the INSTITUTION of the Church is good. I think I may have even posted earlier that i'm against the institution itself (maybe it was on another topic), but I again fail to see how the actually MORALITY that is dictated uniquely HELPS the CHURCH.

Perhaps you donÔÇÖt see the problem in attempting to control a group of people who have no real reason to listen to you and does whatever they bloody well please, but trust me, there is one.

quote:

Yeah, but you'd be pretty stupid to automatically assume that your in space or an alien laboratory since you have no logic supporting it while your there.

Please reread my argument.

Ok, reread it again.

Got it this time? Good, then I neednÔÇÖt mention they I never made that assumption, rather I simply listed other possibilities, all of which would be impossible to prove while inside the building.

quote:

If women can have the same sports men do, have equal sports teams in public schools, are recognized with the same legal rights, and have two arms and are able to aim and fire a gun, they should have to register for the draft and be registered for the draft as any man. Just because "average" women can't be great soldiers, doesn't mean the "young" ones graduating high school right now can't.

Darling, most young women are not suited to be soldiers, both because we tend to be physically weaker then men and because of general psychological differences between men and women in our culture. Besides, there is a perfectly good biological reason why men are more expendable then women, think on it for a bit.

quote:

I think that what is natural are rights to life, liberty, and property.

And how do you determine that these rights are natural?

quote:

Ok, my mistake, I assumed that you thought actions that benefit society as a whole (including yourself) are good.

I generally have no problems with actions that benefit society as a whole, but I reserve judgment for each individual action.

quote:

What exactly, as a basic foundation, do you find to be "morally right"? If you don't have anything, it's impossible to continue this conversation since there is nothing in common to work from.

Well darling, I donÔÇÖt really think of things in terms of morality. In a sense I consider nothing morally right or wrong.

quote:

That would lead to stealing and murder in order to continue to live. Everyone COULDNT be a bum, otherwise there wouldn't be food or medicine and we'd probably all die out.

So does that make being a bum immoral?

quote:

Hmm, I guess I better clarify/shift advocacy (which I thought I already did). My comments about applying it to all of soceity only really apply to *moral frameworks*, not specific actions. For example, having an moral/religious framework that the entire material world is evil and thus you don't reproduce would be immoral. Some people choosing not to have kids wouldn't.

So, if I were to decide that the world was going to hell in a hand basket and that having kids would be cruel (a decision based on morality) then it would be immoral, but if I were to simply decide never to have kids because there nasty icky little parasites then thatÔÇÖs ok?

quote:

Too bad an "advantage" is arbitrary and that advantage could always cost peoples' lives and happinesss. Arbitrary language makes it impossible to determine right and wrong.

And so saying something is disadvantageous to society is arbitrary too right? That kind of conflicts with your previous argument.

quote:

If you'd try to answer in context, you'd see that my comment was to point out that you have no PROOF that religion is "mass lies" and thus should not be portrayed tht way.

Of course not darling, it isnÔÇÖt a mass lie, after all the people who advocate it believe there telling the truth, rather it is a mass logical fallacy. And how do a reason this? Because itÔÇÖs all baseless assumptions.

quote:

Your existance as an all powerful immortal would create a framework in which it would be obvious whether or not you were immortal, however.

So you mean if I was an all powerful immortal I would be unable to disguise it?

quote:

Sure darling, everything is false until proven true, I believe you, honest.

I said nothing of the sort. Rather, everything is CONSIDERED false until adequately demonstrated to be true.

(especially when your expecting affirmation from science when it's already been established that God would be outside of science to begin with)

Oh, could you prove that the CP is outside the scope of science, both present and future? You have yet to provide one scrap of evidence for this; rather you repeatedly claim that IÔÇÖm saying the CP definitely is within the scope of science. This is a lie, I have repeated said that there is currently no way to determine if the CP is within science or not, and thus no reason to believe either way.

quote:

As was your comment about making a fool of yourself.

Really? You judge the quality of someoneÔÇÖs writing by how many typos and misspellings they make? I guess this just goes to prove that my writing is better then yours.

quote:

As do Ad Homs.

Uh yea, I noticed.

quote:

Yes, but also remember that the LAST fact/assumption is that God/a higher power EXISTS and that assumption should exist until disproven through senses.

If I were to leave a cookie out in the middle of the woods for a week would it be logical to assume that the cookie was still there and in the same shape as I left it?

quote:

At the point we both admit we don't KNOW, then the assumption of totally rejecting history is counter-intuitive.

IÔÇÖm not concerned with whatÔÇÖs intuitive; IÔÇÖm concerned with whatÔÇÖs logical.

quote:

It'd seem that in order to keep the argument logical, flaws in existant arguments/posititons would not automatically prove the opposite.

Of course not, and I never claimed anything so preposterous, so I donÔÇÖt know why you put it in here.

quote:

We have no real clue what "creation being" it is, but there's no less liklihood of it being Christian.

First of all, I never called it the creation being, that implies itÔÇÖs alive and perhaps sentient, I called it the creation phenomenon. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe it fits in with the Christian mythos, and thus I wonÔÇÖt.

quote:

It's also illogical to assume that he/she/it doesn't exist.

And itÔÇÖs also illogical to REPEATIDLY PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have NEVER clamed the CP doesnÔÇÖt still exist. NOT ONCE. IÔÇÖm growing tired of having ÔÇ£saidÔÇØ all sorts of preposterous things.

quote:

Well, if you research some religions and feel the calling to that one, go right ahead.

The calling?

quote:

The specifics are mostly by faith.

And where do you get faith from?

quote:

No, but it seems as if the prevailing logic is that all things are false until proven true.

False, whether or not something is true or false is indeterminable until it is proven to be true or false (and even this isnÔÇÖt always 100% accurate due to the inherent flaws of inductive reasoning), and therefore we simply consider things as of yet unproven to be unknown. What constitutes sufficient proof is based on how significant it subject is.

Oh, and darling, you botched youÔÇÖre quotes in the end; you might want to fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

There are scientific laws that deal with a cause and effect relationship in much more specific circumstances, however. And one of the methods of research when employing the scientific method is to look for a cause and effect relationship, since it's often the easiest avenue to persue if one exists. Though my understanding is that that particular method is falling out of favor with the scientific community.

So give me an example of something that disproves that everything needs some sort of cause. For the sake of this argument, and just about all others, that assumption needs to exist.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Again, I simply ask what benefits the Church and even the government gain by establishing laws based around not stealing, not lying, not murdering people, etc. I fail to see how the laws themselves benefit any specific group of people or organization. They seem to support society as a whole, and every member of that society.

Well darling, if it benefits every member of society then it must benefit the church as well.


If it doesn't give a unique advantage to the Church, there's no problem.

quote:

Perhaps you donÔÇÖt see the problem in attempting to control a group of people who have no real reason to listen to you and does whatever they bloody well please, but trust me, there is one.


What is it? Having a group manipulate people into not murdering, stealing, etc is a BAD thing? Other than being a minority opinion, i'm asking you to explain how causing people to follow Christian morality is BAD for society. Yes, I know you never said "Christian morality is bad for society", but you've implied it time and time again by your position that the Church controlling people is "bad". Defend it.

quote:

quote:

Yeah, but you'd be pretty stupid to automatically assume that your in space or an alien laboratory since you have no logic supporting it while your there.

Please reread my argument.

Ok, reread it again.

Got it this time? Good, then I neednÔÇÖt mention they I never made that assumption, rather I simply listed other possibilities, all of which would be impossible to prove while inside the building.


Please, reread my argument

Ok, reread it again.

Got it this time? Good, then I needn't mention that I was telling you that all probibilities can be false, but it'd be illogical to assume the most likely one is wrong just because you aren't sure.

quote:

Darling, most young women are not suited to be soldiers, both because we tend to be physically weaker then men and because of general psychological differences between men and women in our culture. Besides, there is a perfectly good biological reason why men are more expendable then women, think on it for a bit.

Then biologically women should not be able to do jobs that are not suited to their biology. Maybe they should just stay at home and make babies.

In terms of biological reasons why men are more expendable than women, please tell me what they are. I'd guess it's because men can have sex with multiple women for reproduction, but in that case you'd be implying that women's rights movement was wrong, and that reproduction is good for some reason.

quote:

quote:

I think that what is natural are rights to life, liberty, and property.

And how do you determine that these rights are natural?


Locke, common belief, and biological comfort about it.

quote:

quote:

What exactly, as a basic foundation, do you find to be "morally right"? If you don't have anything, it's impossible to continue this conversation since there is nothing in common to work from.

Well darling, I donÔÇÖt really think of things in terms of morality. In a sense I consider nothing morally right or wrong.


Well then, this conversation is going to probably go nowhere, but i'll explain that at the end.

quote:

quote:

That would lead to stealing and murder in order to continue to live. Everyone COULDNT be a bum, otherwise there wouldn't be food or medicine and we'd probably all die out.

So does that make being a bum immoral?


Being a bum would not be morally positive or negative.

quote:

quote:

Hmm, I guess I better clarify/shift advocacy (which I thought I already did). My comments about applying it to all of soceity only really apply to *moral frameworks*, not specific actions. For example, having an moral/religious framework that the entire material world is evil and thus you don't reproduce would be immoral. Some people choosing not to have kids wouldn't.

So, if I were to decide that the world was going to hell in a hand basket and that having kids would be cruel (a decision based on morality) then it would be immoral, but if I were to simply decide never to have kids because there nasty icky little parasites then thatÔÇÖs ok?


Not having kids is a morally neutral action.

quote:

And so saying something is disadvantageous to society is arbitrary too right? That kind of conflicts with your previous argument.


Doesn't conflict when I have a structure supporting me. Consider it natural law or utilitarianism. I reserve the right to argue only natural law, but since you aren't a socialist, I think i'm safe arguing utilitarianism.

quote:

Of course not darling, it isnÔÇÖt a mass lie, after all the people who advocate it believe there telling the truth, rather it is a mass logical fallacy. And how do a reason this? Because itÔÇÖs all baseless assumptions.


It's only baseless if you've ignored the last 4 pages of posts. The SPECIFIC sects of religions may be baseless, depending on how you look at em.

quote:

quote:

Sure darling, everything is false until proven true, I believe you, honest.

I said nothing of the sort. Rather, everything is CONSIDERED false until adequately demonstrated to be true.


Why not the other way around?

quote:

Oh, could you prove that the CP is outside the scope of science, both present and future? You have yet to provide one scrap of evidence for this; rather you repeatedly claim that IÔÇÖm saying the CP definitely is within the scope of science. This is a lie, I have repeated said that there is currently no way to determine if the CP is within science or not, and thus no reason to believe either way.

1. Cause and effect proves it.

2. Ok, read this point a few times. The reason why I repeatedly say that you claim the CP is within the scope of science is because you have *NO ADVOCACY AT ALL*. Other than being mentally biased toward Christian teachings, I also am operating under the restraint of defending there is a God/higher being. You, on the other hand, are expecting me to somehow conclusively prove that the CP is outside of science. Seeing I am part of the material world, I can't, and the only way your going to be able to disprove or cast doubt on my last 4 pages is to provide a counter-explanation of ALL the issues i've raised, and then point out some sort of scientific basis for it.

In other words, you need an ADVOCACY. Saying "I don't know" doesn't answer ANYTHING i've said, and it doesn't disprove God, or even cast doubt on it. All it does is point out a fundamental truth of all humans, that they don't know. Sure, humans don't know, but that doesn't mean that God automatically doesn't exist. Regardless of how much you say "i never said that", your argument is based around the following:

1. I don't know if God exists.

2. If I don't know something, I need sceintifc proof that it's true.

3. If it's impossible to get scientific proof, what I don't know should never be believed as true or untrue.

4. Probability of something being true and logic is never enough to make me believe that something I don't know about AND that I don't agree with is true, since, after all, I don't know.

If those 4 points are true, as it seems to be, this conversation is dead.

quote:

quote:

Yes, but also remember that the LAST fact/assumption is that God/a higher power EXISTS and that assumption should exist until disproven through senses.

If I were to leave a cookie out in the middle of the woods for a week would it be logical to assume that the cookie was still there and in the same shape as I left it?


1. Science doesn't apply to God's existance, thus isn't relevent to cookie.

2. It'd be logical to assume the cookie still exists, even if it has changed.

3. There is other SENSORY/SCIENTIFIC information that would contradict the cookie being there and in the same shape. Without knowing anything about science or the situation, it WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there in the same shape. Without knowing anything else about God except that He created the universe, it's logical to assume He still exists.

quote:

quote:

At the point we both admit we don't KNOW, then the assumption of totally rejecting history is counter-intuitive.

IÔÇÖm not concerned with whatÔÇÖs intuitive; IÔÇÖm concerned with whatÔÇÖs logical.


You should be concerned with both, and you present no reason why history should be discounted when you don't know. Following previous experiences IS logical.

quote:

quote:

It'd seem that in order to keep the argument logical, flaws in existant arguments/posititons would not automatically prove the opposite.

Of course not, and I never claimed anything so preposterous, so I donÔÇÖt know why you put it in here.


This is why:

quote:

Yep, and how many billion supporting other wrong assertions? If popular (or even worse, historical) belief was a valid way to measure truth or falseness of something then science would have ground to a halt ere it ever got off the ground.

Your claiming in your argument that since people have believed in false things before that aren't scientifically proven (Earth flat, etc), that it somehow proves that we should NEVER believe in things that aren't scientifically proven.

quote:

quote:

It's also illogical to assume that he/she/it doesn't exist.

And itÔÇÖs also illogical to REPEATIDLY PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have NEVER clamed the CP doesnÔÇÖt still exist. NOT ONCE. IÔÇÖm growing tired of having ÔÇ£saidÔÇØ all sorts of preposterous things.


Then take an advocacy. I'm not going to keep jumping around from point to point with you suddenly not claiming things. Either you believe a CP exists (which we've already established would have to be outside of science. *IF YOU CONTENT THAT HE/SHE/IT IS WITHIN SCIENCE, THEN PROVE IT OR CONCLUSIVELY ANSWER THAT EFFECTS NEED CAUSES*), or you don't. You can't have it both ways. I'm not going to make arguments assuming God/CP with you answering them with "maybe the CP doesn't exist". Well, that's nice, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. If arguments keep reverting to whether or not the CP existed, then this conversation will go NOWHERE.

quote:

quote:

The specifics are mostly by faith.

And where do you get faith from?


Everyone has faith (elevators work, etc), it just depends on what kind. I guess it's inside of you.

quote:

quote:

No, but it seems as if the prevailing logic is that all things are false until proven true.

False, whether or not something is true or false is indeterminable until it is proven to be true or false (and even this isnÔÇÖt always 100% accurate due to the inherent flaws of inductive reasoning), and therefore we simply consider things as of yet unproven to be unknown. What constitutes sufficient proof is based on how significant it subject is.


Something being unknown doesn't prove or disprove it. That's where it comes down to personal belief. What DO you believe, and then defend it. You shouldn't assume that since it's unknown it doesn't exist, and you shouldn't set up "sufficient proof" to be so high just so that you'll always be right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here we go again?

quote:

So give me an example of something that disproves that everything needs some sort of cause.

Sorry darling, but your theory needs to be proven before I need worry about disproving it. Sure, logic leads us to believe that everything has a cause, but then your own logic shows that there wasn?t an original cause for the universe, and thus some effects don?t need causes.

quote:

What is it? Having a group manipulate people into not murdering, stealing, etc is a BAD thing? Other than being a minority opinion, i'm asking you to explain how causing people to follow Christian morality is BAD for society. Yes, I know you never said "Christian morality is bad for society", but you've implied it time and time again by your position that the Church controlling people is "bad". Defend it.

Easy now darling, I haven?t clamed that Christian morality is bad for society because, in the strictest sense, it isn?t. It?s bad for a lot of people, homosexuals being a prime example, and inconveniencing for most, but not bad per say. The church, however, is another story. It has been burning witches, murdering heretics, spieling all sorts of nonsense, and disrupting science for hundreds of years. It?s teeth are pretty much pulled in the modern age, so it doesn?t do much harm, but in the past the church has been a viable option for those who want to control others.

quote:

Please, reread my argument

Ok, reread it again.

Got it this time? Good, then I needn't mention that I was telling you that all probibilities can be false, but it'd be illogical to assume the most likely one is wrong just because you aren't sure.

I?m not assuming it?s wrong though, all I?m saying as that from inside the building there is no way to determine that it?s wrong, and furthermore there is no evidence inside the building that suggests the ground even exists, and so no reason for that to be the most likely conclusion. If anything, it would be logical to assume it was inside an even larger building.

quote:

Then biologically women should not be able to do jobs that are not suited to their biology. Maybe they should just stay at home and make babies.

Darling, I can?t believe were having this discussion. Soldiering happens to require certain physiological characteristics (size and strength) that men have in greater abundance then women. The same cannot be said for most modern jobs. Besides, there is absolutely no ground to argue that men are being treated unfairly when women still make considerably less on average.

quote:

In terms of biological reasons why men are more expendable than women, please tell me what they are. I'd guess it's because men can have sex with multiple women for reproduction, but in that case you'd be implying that women's rights movement was wrong, and that reproduction is good for some reason.

Yes darling, I was referring to reproduction, but unless you?re noticing a substantial drop in the population women seem to be managing having a job and reproducing just fine. No conflict of interests here.

quote:

Locke, common belief, and biological comfort about it.

Common belief doesn?t hold much value, and neither does Locke?s philosophy. Biological comfort is a lot more malleable though. After all, soldiers are regularly trained to kill the enemy without feeling bad about depriving him of his natural rights.

quote:

Doesn't conflict when I have a structure supporting me. Consider it natural law or utilitarianism. I reserve the right to argue only natural law, but since you aren't a socialist, I think i'm safe arguing utilitarianism.

Well then utilitarianism can determine what is advantageous for society as well, so your point is still invalid.

quote:

Why not the other way around?

Well, because it doesn?t work and because it doesn?t make sense. If you were to consider everything true until proven false you would be extremely vulnerable to any misinformation that happens to be running around (you might even actually believe urban legends and such). Furthermore, you would have to be juggling a number of ?truths? that were mutually contradictory (or else be constantly revising your opinion of what?s true). While believing something false until adequately demonstrated (not, you?ll notice, scientifically proven) to be true may leave you saying I don?t know a lot, but that?s better then believing just any old thing.

quote:

Cause and effect proves it.

Nonsense.

quote:

Ok, read this point a few times. The reason why I repeatedly say that you claim the CP is within the scope of science is because you have *NO ADVOCACY AT ALL*.

Not true, I?m advocating the belief in nothing without sufficient evidence (and what constitutes sufficient evidences varies with the importance of what is being considered), and thus advocating the position of not knowing. This is different from not advocacy at all.

quote:

Other than being mentally biased toward Christian teachings, I also am operating under the restraint of defending there is a God/higher being. You, on the other hand, are expecting me to somehow conclusively prove that the CP is outside of science.

Well you are advocating it?s outside of science, so prove it.

quote:

Seeing I am part of the material world, I can't, and the only way your going to be able to disprove or cast doubt on my last 4 pages is to provide a counter-explanation of ALL the issues i've raised, and then point out some sort of scientific basis for it.

Actually, I have replied to most if not all of your arguments over the last four pages, as well as providing possible counter explanations. Furthermore, I need only prove your points wrong if you have first proven them to be right (which you haven?t, not once).

quote:

Regardless of how much you say "i never said that", your argument is based around the following:

1. I don't know if God exists.

2. If I don't know something, I need sceintifc proof that it's true.

3. If it's impossible to get scientific proof, what I don't know should never be believed as true or untrue.

4. Probability of something being true and logic is never enough to make me believe that something I don't know about AND that I don't agree with is true, since, after all, I don't know.

1 True.

2 Actualy, I use the terms sufficient evidence and adequate demonstration rather then scientific proof. There is a reason for this, I know full well that I can?t expect to have scientific proof for everything, or even most things, so I ask only for sufficient evidence, with what is sufficient being determined by the impact of what is being said, as well as my general understanding of whether such things are true.

3 Gee, you make me out to sound like some kind of scientific zealot. I don?t need scientific evidence for everything (indeed, I have never said that scientific evidence was required for me to believe most things). I may form an opinion about something without sufficient evidence, but I accept that opinion as a possibility and nothing more.

4 Nonsense, I haven?t even said anything to SUGGEST this, not once. I get really tired of having you shove words in my mouth.

quote:

1. Science doesn't apply to God's existance, thus isn't relevent to cookie.

2. It'd be logical to assume the cookie still exists, even if it has changed.

3. There is other SENSORY/SCIENTIFIC information that would contradict the cookie being there and in the same shape. Without knowing anything about science or the situation, it WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there in the same shape. Without knowing anything else about God except that He created the universe, it's logical to assume He still exists.

1 You have yet to demonstrate that science doesn?t apply to the CP.

2 Sure it is, but I wouldn?t call it a cookie if it?s resting inside a raccoon?s belly. For the CP however, which may be outside of science, we don?t even know if that which composites its existence (I?m avoiding scientific words like energy) is still around, because it may be able to break laws such as conservation of energy and matter. The matter that formed the cookie still has to be around, the stuff that formed the CP doesn?t.

3 Well then that demonstrates your logic is flawed.

quote:

You should be concerned with both, and you present no reason why history should be discounted when you don't know. Following previous experiences IS logical.

Yes, but common knowledge provides only the most insubstantial of evidence, and historical common knowledge is even worse. Sure, for some things common knowledge is sufficient, but not for anything as important as whether or not there is a god.

quote:

Your claiming in your argument that since people have believed in false things before that aren't scientifically proven (Earth flat, etc), that it somehow proves that we should NEVER believe in things that aren't scientifically proven.

No, I say only that common knowledge is a very weak support for anything.

quote:

Then take an advocacy.

What, are you saying that if I don?t your going to keep picking one for me? Well I already have an advocacy, and a rather nice one at that.

quote:

Either you believe a CP exists (which we've already established would have to be outside of science.

I?m SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING SAID THINGS I NEVER ONCE SAID. WE never established that the CP was outside of science, YOU clamed it was while I argued that it may or may not be.

quote:

*IF YOU CONTENT THAT HE/SHE/IT IS WITHIN SCIENCE, THEN PROVE IT OR CONCLUSIVELY ANSWER THAT EFFECTS NEED CAUSES*

But I don?t darling, that?s my point. I say only that there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. Not simply that I don?t know, but that by claiming that god exists you are making an insufficiently supported assumption. I?m dreadfully sorry if I won?t be nice and argue the point you want me to, I tried that for about three pages and it didn?t work, so I changed (not threw out, changed) my advocacy.

quote:

Everyone has faith (elevators work, etc), it just depends on what kind. I guess it's inside of you.

Well, I have seen innumerable elevators (at least from the inside) and have a general idea of how they work, so it?s no surprise that I have faith that they work. This is called accumulated experience, which is sufficient to believe that an elevator works (especially considering I have never herd any better evidence suggesting they don?t work). Do you have a collection of empirical evidence that necessitates the existence of god?

quote:

Something being unknown doesn't prove or disprove it.

Nope, but it is considered false until adequately proven true. If you think otherwise, I have bridge I would like to sell you?

quote:

That's where it comes down to personal belief. What DO you believe, and then defend it.

Well, I happen to require more then a funny feeling in my gut to believe something (unless that something happens to be that I?m ill). I defend what I know to be true, not what I happen to feel would be nice.

quote:

You shouldn't assume that since it's unknown it doesn't exist, and you shouldn't set up "sufficient proof" to be so high just so that you'll always be right.

For most things sufficient proof isn?t very high, but most things don?t matter much. For something as fundamentally against my understanding of the universe as god (and yes, the existence of god in the manner you claim him happens to disagree violently with my understanding of how things work) I need a considerable amount of proof.

[ 10-24-2002, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So give me an example of something that disproves that everything needs some sort of cause.

Dragon Lady answered that point quite nicely, I think.

quote:

quote:

What is it? Having a group manipulate people into not murdering, stealing, etc is a BAD thing? Other than being a minority opinion, i'm asking you to explain how causing people to follow Christian morality is BAD for society. Yes, I know you never said "Christian morality is bad for society", but you've implied it time and time again by your position that the Church controlling people is "bad". Defend it.

Easy now darling, I havenÔÇÖt clamed that Christian morality is bad for society because, in the strictest sense, it isnÔÇÖt. ItÔÇÖs bad for a lot of people, homosexuals being a prime example, and inconveniencing for most, but not bad per say. The church, however, is another story. It has been burning witches, murdering heretics, spieling all sorts of nonsense, and disrupting science for hundreds of years. ItÔÇÖs teeth are pretty much pulled in the modern age, so it doesnÔÇÖt do much harm, but in the past the church has been a viable option for those who want to control others.


Exactly. Though I still think Christian morality is a major hinderence to scientific progress, even in modern times. Or maybe it would be better put as organized religion is a hinderance. An example off the top of my head is protests about cloning and research on aborted fetises, both of which are valuable areas for scientific study.

quote:

Darling, I canÔÇÖt believe were having this discussion. Soldering happens to require certain physiological characteristics (size and strength) that men have in greater abundance then women. The same cannot be said for most modern jobs. Besides, there is absolutely no ground to argue that men are being treated unfairly when women still make considerably less on average.

I assume that's supposed to be soldiering, in which case I have to disagree. Women, when they've been allowed to soldier, have proven themselves exceptionally capable of the task. After all, the first Soviet citizen to be recieved at the White House was a female sniper from WWII with over 300 kills to her credit... more than any US sniper ever that I'm aware of... it just goes to prove that guns don't kill people, PMS kills people. Not to mention many other countries employ women as combat soldiers successfully, including Israel, and there's women serving in the U.S. Army's elite Delta Force counter terrorism unit.

[ 10-24-2002, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, actually, it was supposed to be (and is now) soldiering, my bad.

I'm not saying that women are incapable of being soldiers, that's not the case, but I it does seem that most women are poorly adapted both physically and psychologically to the rigors involved in such a career. I may be biased though, in fact I probably am.

[ 10-24-2002, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Yes, actually, it was supposed to be (and is now) soldiering, my bad.

Well, I do some girls that are good at soldering, too

quote:

I'm not saying that women are incapable of being soldiers, that's not the case, but I it does seem that most women are poorly adapted both physically and psychologically to the rigors involved in such a career. I may be biased though, in fact I probably am.

I think that's more an effect of society than gender differences. Soldiering in modern times requires more in the way of physical and mental endurance than physical strength. Most women, assuming they keep in shape, are more than capable of exhibiting physical endurance just as well as man, and many women show themselves quite capable of dealing with mental stress... after all, how many women snap and shoot up thier school or place of employment? If wars were still fought with axes and swords there might be an arguement that women might not be able to cut it (no pun intended), but since the gun is the modern tool of warfare and many professional firearms instructors will swear that women appear to be naturally better shots than men, I think the female soldier is just as capable as a male if not more so.

Society however, teaches girls that they are less capable in that role and that it's unwoman like to take a liking to violence. After all, boys are the ones raised on G.I. Joe... girls have Barbie...

[ 10-24-2002, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having been in the military i have dealt with women from both sides of the fence. those that believe they could do the soldiers job and those that couldnt. with the basic infantry system, most women can not handle the physical requirements. in my own job military intelligence (waiting for oxymoron comments) we had several that thought they could handle the job and could but could not handle the pack that came with it. women are not incapable of the duty but they are not built for it. not to say all men are though, quite a few men had problems with the packs we had to carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

having been in the military i have dealt with women from both sides of the fence. those that believe they could do the soldiers job and those that couldnt. with the basic infantry system, most women can not handle the physical requirements. in my own job military intelligence (waiting for oxymoron comments) we had several that thought they could handle the job and could but could not handle the pack that came with it. women are not incapable of the duty but they are not built for it. not to say all men are though, quite a few men had problems with the packs we had to carry.

Well, it's really hard to avoid those oxymoron comments when you state that women aren't built for military service because some can't handle the pack and then go on to defeat your own arguement by saying that some men can't handle the pack, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replying in some semblence of order:

Ok, logic, as you admitted, dictates effects need causes. That stance is a lot more valid than "some effects don't need causes because I don't believe in God". I know you didn't say it in THOSE terms, but your implying that effects must not need causes because your right, even though everything else in the universe needs a cause.

We agree, the institution of the Church is historically bad and for the most part is a bad idea. This also applies to the comments about researching on aborted fetuses and cloning. The institution is REALLY conservative which is sad, hopefully they'll catch up with society.

My building analogy just points out that everyone inside would believe SOMETHING is supporting it, just like all the objects in the building are supported by something. This just goes along with my point about causes. We know something created us, we just don't know the specifics.

In regards to reproduction, I was just pointing out that somehow your assume reproduction is a good thing. If I contend reproduction is bad, what's the problem with women being drafted? (this paragraph was just to point out a contradiction in your morality. you seem to claim that there are no moral absolutes, yet you seem to set up reproduction as one in order to justify your position on women being drafted)

Anyway, what's wrong with women being drafted if they claim they can do any job men can?

Common belief and Locke's philosophy both hold value since they:

1. Work

2. Are what most law and concept of rights are based on. Without Locke, we probably would still be working for a nobility.

3. Biological comfort doesn't apply when your CONDITIONED to kill. People don't intrinsically believe killing/murder/stealing is good.

Uhh, utilitarianism in regards to the well-being of society would advocate Christian morality as well, for the most part.

Requiring everything to be proven true just leads to a lack of opinion and structure in one's beliefs and life and seems to lead to nihlism. Taking opinions requires thought and advocacy which at least is open to change when faced with evidence/logic.

quote:

Not true, I?m advocating the belief in nothing without sufficient evidence (and what constitutes sufficient evidences varies with the importance of what is being considered), and thus advocating the position of not knowing. This is different from not advocacy at all.


Well, this conversation will go nowhere then, since you refuse to take an opinion as to a counter-explanation. Since we both agree that the importance of the existance of God is extremely high, it would be impossible for your burden of proof to EVER be met.

quote:

Well you are advocating it?s outside of science, so prove it.

Everything else needs/has a cause. In order for us to exist and science to be true, whatever caused the universe had to be outside of science. If the fact EVERYTHING ELSE needs a cause isn't enough for you, then I guess you've set your burden of proof high enough that your paradigm will never be forced to change. Good job.

quote:

Actually, I have replied to most if not all of your arguments over the last four pages, as well as providing possible counter explanations. Furthermore, I need only prove your points wrong if you have first proven them to be right (which you haven?t, not once).

Thank you for proving my point. You've provided possible counter explanations. I know you have. I've ADMITTED that they are POSSIBLE counter-explanations, but you STILL don't have a COHERENT advocacy. What ONE explanation do YOU BELIEVE IN that explains ALL of the arguments and points that have been brought up over the past pages? And since you require some sort of "proof" provide it too. You haven't done so yet. All you've been doing is casting doubt through SPECULATION w/o evidence (which is why it's not allowed in courts of law) At least empirical evidence/logic is held valid.

Your idea of "sufficient evidence" is impossible to be met. You've set your burden of proof high just so your in no danger of having your entire paradigm proven wrong. I know that my arguements/logic/evidence is not sufficient to prove to you, or anyone else, that the Christian God is the absolute Truth, but I do know it should be sufficient to make most reasonable people believe that there is a high probability of a Creator/God of some sort, and to cause people to not immediately dismiss the concept of a Christian God.

As for my 4th point that logic can't prove anything to you, sure you never SAID that, but i'm not "shoving words in your mouth". All of your words imply that your not slightly open to being wrong no matter how much logic you presented with.

I've admitted that my belief in the CHRISTIAN concept of God is based around faith (non-scientific). I've admitted that it's POSSIBLE I could be wrong. I've also admitted that since it is outside of science, there is no "proof/evidence", per se. No one else, however, has pointed out how all of my arguments over the past few pages are wrong. All that's been done are seperate "possible explanations" for each of my points, which in no way answer them all, as a whole. The best that happened was when Dragon Lady admitted that there was a creation being, which was quickly recanted when that actually implied an advocacy.

quote:

There is other SENSORY/SCIENTIFIC information that would contradict the cookie being there and in the same shape. Without knowing anything about science or the situation, it WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there in the same shape. Without knowing anything else about God except that He created the universe, it's logical to assume He still exists.

How is that logic flawed? It's exactly how any human being would think if they had no experience of natural decay/other animals eating cookies/etc. It WOULD be logical to assume the cookie is still there, in the same shape. (at least past the age 6 months-1 year...that's when humans naturally develop the concept of object permanence).

quote:

What, are you saying that if I don?t your going to keep picking one for me? Well I already have an advocacy, and a rather nice one at that.

If you don't have an advocacy, it's impossible to argue against. "Not knowing anything that isn't proven" isn't an advocacy in this case since i've ALREADY admitted that it's IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE a Christian God within your/our concept of "proof", espeically since that being would be outside of science.

quote:

I?m SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING SAID THINGS I NEVER ONCE SAID. WE never established that the CP was outside of science, YOU clamed it was while I argued that it may or may not be.

Umm, your proving my point WHY YOU NEED AN ADVOCACY. I claim that it's outside of science, and you claim that it "may or may not be". You just covered just about EVERYTHING. That's like a doctor saying to a woman that she may or may not be pregnant. No matter WHAT argument I make, you'll just claim that it's unverifiable, since you have NO DEFINITE OPINION/ADVOCACY on the subject, since you seem to have an unalienable desire to never be proven wrong. Which is it, is the being inside or outside of science? Take a position, and defend it.

quote:

But I don?t darling, that?s my point. I say only that there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. Not simply that I don?t know, but that by claiming that god exists you are making an insufficiently supported assumption. I?m dreadfully sorry if I won?t be nice and argue the point you want me to, I tried that for about three pages and it didn?t work, so I changed (not threw out, changed) my advocacy.

Had to start quoting to make my arguments apparent. My belief that God (again, i'm using God interchangably for CP since I've already admitted that i'm not trying to prove to you that the Christian God is definitely true) exists is supported by the logic and arguments i've been posting over the past 3-4 pages. You claim "there's not enough evidence one way or another", which isn't an advocacy, just you admitting a lack of knowledge/evidence. Sure, we've both agreed on that (I hope?), but you must have an opinion/advocacy that you can defend and believe in.

quote:

Well, I have seen innumerable elevators (at least from the inside) and have a general idea of how they work, so it?s no surprise that I have faith that they work. This is called accumulated experience, which is sufficient to believe that an elevator works (especially considering I have never herd any better evidence suggesting they don?t work). Do you have a collection of empirical evidence that necessitates the existence of god?

Ok, everything in the universe has a cause, so I have faith that a being created us. Since every thing within our realm of existance/science has a cause, whatever was the first cause could not be within science (process of elimination). There is no better evidence that those two points aren't true, so I believe in em.

Also, my elevator analogy was just to point out you have FAITH, not to prove God. Thanks for helping me out though.

quote:

Nope, but it is considered false until adequately proven true. If you think otherwise, I have bridge I would like to sell you?

This sort of goes along with your argument that the immensity/importance of the point determines the amount of evidence. I disagree. What matters is the possible BAD CONSEQUENCES of believing something true when it hasn't been proven true. If someone tries to sell me a bridge, and I believe they have a bridge without it being proven false, I give them the money, and then they run, it's an obvious bad consequence so I shouldnt do it. In the case of God, there are no bad consequences to believing in the existance of that God, and in the case of a Christian God, there are no bad consequences of following that morality. Thus, believing in true without it being proven true has no bad effects, thus the level of evidence required to believe in it should be significantly LOWER than buying something for a million dollars, walking into a dark room where you hear screams of pain from, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...