Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...
Posted by: Mike Dudley on 08 January 2010
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
quote:The sin is not the Sinner. Pretty sure this has been mebtioned before.
Monotonously, without clarification or response to the opposite argument.
As usual.
Bit like talking to a particularly thick brick wall that can only argue by saying the same thing over and over again.
As to my intolerance - I already said I believe in free speech and would fight for it, given the need.
I tolerate you, I just think your religious views are contemptible.
Now I really am outtahere.
Bye.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by DanielP:
But the church does punish sinners, for example, homosexual teachers are frequently fired in religious schools, when found out. "Love the sinner" is only meaningful to the Christian, it's not meaningful to the sinner, the sinner doesn't care that somebody who is punishing them also loves them, in some sense. I'm surprised that you would make this argument, because the Christian idea of "love the sinner" has never precluded punishment for commiting the sin.
-- Daniel
Is that the case? I'd have thought that, assuming Christians view homosexual practices as sinful, they would only sack those teachers who sought to promote this pov.
M
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I tolerate you, I just think your religious views are contemptible.
My religious views?
I have at no stage expressed my religious views, or indeed *any* religious views. I have said, twice I think, that I am not a Christian though.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
Mike
Hang on a sec. If you are going to bat my question away (unanswered as usual) at least be accurate.
Don't tell me I'm just 're-iterating the same non-descriptibe descriptive'
I am 'dealing with the argument' as you put it.
You asked for a definition of spirituality-I have given you one sensible and interesting link that covers far more than just 'emotional response'.
Spirituality can and is defined in many ways. You don't get it but a significant body of academic thought does.
I have no great love of religious organisations (there is a sweeping statement) but considerable respect for people of faith who act in ways according to sincerely held beliefs for the good of others. Faith is clearly not essential for this but if it provides a motivation then all to the good.
Bruce
Hang on a sec. If you are going to bat my question away (unanswered as usual) at least be accurate.
Don't tell me I'm just 're-iterating the same non-descriptibe descriptive'
I am 'dealing with the argument' as you put it.
You asked for a definition of spirituality-I have given you one sensible and interesting link that covers far more than just 'emotional response'.
Spirituality can and is defined in many ways. You don't get it but a significant body of academic thought does.
I have no great love of religious organisations (there is a sweeping statement) but considerable respect for people of faith who act in ways according to sincerely held beliefs for the good of others. Faith is clearly not essential for this but if it provides a motivation then all to the good.
Bruce
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Trevp
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:quote:Originally posted by Trevp:
[There is no reason to believe in God.
I've never said there is.quote:Therefore a belief in God is irrational until there is evidence to the contrary.
Mike Dudley is correct with regard to where the need for proof lies.
Not really, except in Mondo Dudley. Which seems to be a very bitter, intolerant world. Those who follow a religion just *know*. AFAICT. They don't need proof.
But Mike (L),
You were the one asking for proof of the non-existence of God, I was simply offering you an explanation of why this is not a sensible request.
Regarding "knowing" that God exists, surely even the religious can appreciate the irrationality of this. I'm not saying there is a problem with "knowing" - as long as you don't try make any claims to rationality (as some posters in these religious threads tend to).
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by JWM
quote:Originally posted by Trevp:
You can prove the existence of something by evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of anything - simply because until you have evidence to the contrary i.e. that it does exist, then it may or may not exist. That does not, however, from a logical point of view give you cause to believe things which there is no REASON to believe. This is the foundation of science...
But this isn't really correct about the nature of science, certainly not ALL science, certainly not science as it has existed historically.
Science exists in two modes: (a) proving something is, and (b) proving something is not, which is termed apophatic science.
Equally, scientific 'progress' frequently relies upon the latter method of proving something is not. It is amazing the amount of scientific FACT that is later disproved by something else.
Science is interesting in that it means 'to know', but in reality it is in fact temporary analogy usually expressed in its own special language, the language of formulas!
Scientific 'facts' (which may be held as universal truths and upon which whole structures of human life then come to be built) are frequently shown later (perhaps years later) to be either not true afterall, or only partially true. Therefore, scientific facts are themselves demonstrated to be only temporary analogs of the true reality.*
It is neither unreasonable, not outside the historic understanding of science to prove that something 'is not'.
*EDIT It occurs to me now that a Platonist philosopher might include scientific knowledge within the concept of 'Forms'.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
"But Mike (L),
You were the one asking for proof of the non-existence of God"
Only because Mike D was DEMANDING proof that God existed.
M
You were the one asking for proof of the non-existence of God"
Only because Mike D was DEMANDING proof that God existed.
M
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by droodzilla:
Mike, why have you started this thread after you losing the argument on the other one?
^^ As was said some pages ago.
The original "point" was to show how religion survives by indoctrinaton of children, but when I pointed out that it was actually about the Taliban brainwashing children into becoming suicide bombers, he decided to ignore the point.
Mike D then showed some bizarre, extreme religious intolerance, and lied about things that I'd said ( because I'd not said them. )
When this was pointed out to him, he left in a hissy fit.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
Only poofs have hissy fits.
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Trevp
quote:Originally posted by JWM:quote:Originally posted by Trevp:
You can prove the existence of something by evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of anything - simply because until you have evidence to the contrary i.e. that it does exist, then it may or may not exist. That does not, however, from a logical point of view give you cause to believe things which there is no REASON to believe. This is the foundation of science...
But this isn't really correct about the nature of science, certainly not ALL science, certainly not science as it has existed historically.
Science exists in two modes: (a) proving something is, and (b) proving something is not, which is termed apophatic science.
Equally, scientific 'progress' frequently relies upon the latter method of proving something is not. It is amazing the amount of scientific FACT that is later disproved by something else.
Science is interesting in that it means 'to know', but in reality it is in fact temporary analogy usually expressed in its own special language, the language of formulas!
Scientific 'facts' (which may be held as universal truths and upon which whole structures of human life then come to be built) are frequently shown later (perhaps years later) to be either not true afterall, or only partially true. Therefore, scientific facts are themselves demonstrated to be only temporary analogs of the true reality.*
It is neither unreasonable, not outside the historic understanding of science to prove that something 'is not'.
*EDIT It occurs to me now that a Platonist philosopher might include scientific knowledge within the concept of 'Forms'.
JWM,
Perhaps you could give me an example of the empirical proof of the non-existence of anything? As far as I am aware, this is a logical impossibility.
Of course science is developing and theories have to be modified in the light of new evidence - but then that's the whole point! There has to be evidence.
All the best,
Trev
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:The evidence for a god who is in any way involved in the evolution of the universe, from the formation of stars to the action of geological fault lines on earth and all points in between and outside, does not exist.
The evidence that such a god does NOT exist, does not exist.
Presumably you can accept this?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:quote:The evidence for a god who is in any way involved in the evolution of the universe, from the formation of stars to the action of geological fault lines on earth and all points in between and outside, does not exist.
The evidence that such a god does NOT exist, does not exist.
Presumably you can accept this?
Cheers
Don
Nice one centurion!
Bruce
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by JWM
quote:Originally posted by Trevp:quote:Originally posted by JWM:quote:Originally posted by Trevp:
You can prove the existence of something by evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of anything - simply because until you have evidence to the contrary i.e. that it does exist, then it may or may not exist. That does not, however, from a logical point of view give you cause to believe things which there is no REASON to believe. This is the foundation of science...
But this isn't really correct about the nature of science, certainly not ALL science, certainly not science as it has existed historically.
Science exists in two modes: (a) proving something is, and (b) proving something is not, which is termed apophatic science.
Equally, scientific 'progress' frequently relies upon the latter method of proving something is not. It is amazing the amount of scientific FACT that is later disproved by something else.
Science is interesting in that it means 'to know', but in reality it is in fact temporary analogy usually expressed in its own special language, the language of formulas!
Scientific 'facts' (which may be held as universal truths and upon which whole structures of human life then come to be built) are frequently shown later (perhaps years later) to be either not true afterall, or only partially true. Therefore, scientific facts are themselves demonstrated to be only temporary analogs of the true reality.*
It is neither unreasonable, not outside the historic understanding of science to prove that something 'is not'.
*EDIT It occurs to me now that a Platonist philosopher might include scientific knowledge within the concept of 'Forms'.
JWM,
Perhaps you could give me an example of the empirical proof of the non-existence of anything? As far as I am aware, this is a logical impossibility.
Of course science is developing and theories have to be modified in the light of new evidence - but then that's the whole point! There has to be evidence.
All the best,
Trev
What I am speaking about is the aspect of science where progress is made by 'disproving'. And that there are things that have been held to be truths that have subsequently been shown not to be. You know, based on evidence one genuinely concluded 'this', but in fact it is 'that'. Not simply 'going a bit further' with later theorems (i.e. what might be termed 'fine tuning' of existing ideas), but rather demonstrating they were in fact wholly or significantly partially wrong.
(I do not, for example, mean quantum physics showing that light is both wave and particle.)
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by FlyMe
The evidence that fairies/pixies/elves/unicorns/flying pasta monsters/giant tea pots in the sky does NOT exist, does not exist.
Presumably you can accept this?
Presumably you can accept this?
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:The evidence that fairies/pixies/elves/unicorns/flying pasta monsters/giant tea pots in the sky does NOT exist, does not exist.
Presumably you can accept this?
Not sure about the fairies....
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
When you say fairies, presumably you're not talking about ...
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:When you say fairies, presumably you're not talking about ...
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
... yourself... 
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by Mike Dudley
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by DanielP
quote:Originally posted by droodzilla:
Perhaps worth pointing out that not all Christians view homosexual acts as sinful.
[</QUOTE>]
My sister, coming from a Babtist tradition, does, because it says so in the texts. But your point is correct, particularly for Christians in the more liberal, urban, intellectual, protestant centers. The mass of Christianity, though, is more conservative and tradition bound than that ("If God supported homosexuality he would have created Adam and Steve.")
[<QUOTE>]
So much heat generated by this inessential point.
[</QUOTE>]
Not inessential, it's a topical example of Christians harming other people, the harm ranging from discomfort to job loss to death. It's also one where the more liberal, educated Christians feel defensive and embarrassed
about, witness the postings here.
[<QUOTE>].
I actually agree with Mike D on this one - Christians (the ones with issues, at any rate) need to take a long hard look at their attitudes to sexuality, and "get over themselves".
The problem becomes reinterpreting the texts to make them accord with contemporary standards of morality, as they evolve. The ancients had the same problem, of course, reinterpreting traditions of gods raping maidens, and such.
-- Daniel
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by droodzilla
quote:Not inessential, it's a topical example of Christians harming other people, the harm ranging from discomfort to job loss to death. It's also one where the more liberal, educated Christians feel defensive and embarrassed
about, witness the postings here.
Hi, just to clarify, I was referring to heated debates about sexuality between Christians in my original post. Some members of the church seem to have severe hang-ups about women priests, homosexuality and so forth. I see these debates as fruitless and inessential to the Christian message. It irritates me that they absorb so much bandwidth - a case of Christians repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot in my view.
Regards
Nigel
Posted on: 14 January 2010 by DanielP
quote:Originally posted by droodzilla:
Hi, just to clarify, I was referring to heated debates about sexuality between Christians in my original post. Some members of the church seem to have severe hang-ups about women priests, homosexuality and so forth. I see these debates as fruitless and inessential to the Christian message. It irritates me that they absorb so much bandwidth - a case of Christians repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot in my view.
Sorry! I misinterpreted your post.
It's obvious that your views, like mine, fall on the liberal side. But with religion, if it's in the texts, part of the tradition, the forces to keep with the tradition will be very strong, religion is fundumentally about traditions, and is basically conservative. The texts can't be changed, but they can be reinterpreted, are always being reinterpreted, just not within the time lines of the liberal.
-- Daniel
Posted on: 15 January 2010 by Rockingdoc
quote:Originally posted by FlyMe:
The evidence that fairies/pixies/elves/unicorns/flying pasta monsters/giant tea pots in the sky does NOT exist, does not exist.
Presumably you can accept this?
If you are trying to tell me that Tinkerbell isn't real, I shall have to leave the forum.
Posted on: 15 January 2010 by Trevp
quote:Originally posted by JWM:quote:Originally posted by Trevp:quote:Originally posted by JWM:quote:Originally posted by Trevp:
You can prove the existence of something by evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of anything - simply because until you have evidence to the contrary i.e. that it does exist, then it may or may not exist. That does not, however, from a logical point of view give you cause to believe things which there is no REASON to believe. This is the foundation of science...
But this isn't really correct about the nature of science, certainly not ALL science, certainly not science as it has existed historically.
Science exists in two modes: (a) proving something is, and (b) proving something is not, which is termed apophatic science.
Equally, scientific 'progress' frequently relies upon the latter method of proving something is not. It is amazing the amount of scientific FACT that is later disproved by something else.
Science is interesting in that it means 'to know', but in reality it is in fact temporary analogy usually expressed in its own special language, the language of formulas!
Scientific 'facts' (which may be held as universal truths and upon which whole structures of human life then come to be built) are frequently shown later (perhaps years later) to be either not true afterall, or only partially true. Therefore, scientific facts are themselves demonstrated to be only temporary analogs of the true reality.*
It is neither unreasonable, not outside the historic understanding of science to prove that something 'is not'.
*EDIT It occurs to me now that a Platonist philosopher might include scientific knowledge within the concept of 'Forms'.
JWM,
Perhaps you could give me an example of the empirical proof of the non-existence of anything? As far as I am aware, this is a logical impossibility.
Of course science is developing and theories have to be modified in the light of new evidence - but then that's the whole point! There has to be evidence.
All the best,
Trev
What I am speaking about is the aspect of science where progress is made by 'disproving'. And that there are things that have been held to be truths that have subsequently been shown not to be. You know, based on evidence one genuinely concluded 'this', but in fact it is 'that'. Not simply 'going a bit further' with later theorems (i.e. what might be termed 'fine tuning' of existing ideas), but rather demonstrating they were in fact wholly or significantly partially wrong.
(I do not, for example, mean quantum physics showing that light is both wave and particle.)
I see ... But then we are speaking about different things. You are speaking about disproving the truth of existent hypotheses or theories based on evidence(which is standard scientific practice)whereas I am talking about disproving the existence of objects or phenomena for which there is no evidence (which cannot be done).
I do not believe in God because there is no evidence that he/she/it/them exists. If there was evidence, then I would have to change my view.
Although it is not possible to disprove the existence of God, or fairies or any supernatural phenomena, the probability of their existence is very low (otherwise at some point there would be some evidence somewhere).