If Religious Faith Is Okay

[Dev]

Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
inference.

*If religious faith is okay, convicting someone for murder without
evidence is equal to convicting someone for murder with none.
Assertions should be enough to put someone away for life--that should
be okay.

*If religious faith is okay, driver's tests are superfluous and
bigoted. Since it is proven that blind people and drunk people are
capable of unsubstantiated faith, there is no reason they should not
get behind the wheel of a car--that is okay.

*If religious faith is okay, we should re-evaluate the way we handle
someone who is proven to be a child murderer and rapist in at least
two ways. For one, we have to consider that maybe there is perfectly
good reason to rape and murder children that we simply have no
evidence of that makes it okay. And for another, we have to consider
that all the evidence that proves someone to be a child rapist-murder
is invalidated by the fact that you can have faith that they did not
rape and murder any children. The converse of punishing the innocent
is liberating the guilty, and by the "virtue" of religious faith both
should be equally okay.

*If religious faith is okay, science and logic are a waste of time and
energy because their rules are invalid (unless, of course, you have
religious faith to the contrary). Rational standards are exclusionary,
and the purposes of rational exclusion make no sense if religious
faith can magically make anything okay. PD would describe using both
science and faith as being "varied", in other words if something is
excluded by reason it doesn't matter because it can always be
justified by religious faith. Dismissing standards of any kind--moral
or intellectual--should be okay.

*All of these things can only be not okay by virtue of religious
faith. Making things that are okay not okay is okay, and making things
that are not okay okay is okay--as long as religious faith is
utilized, it's okay.

So we are left with two options.

(1) All these things are okay.
(2) Theists are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the living
dead.

Just a few thoughts from your friendly neighborhood devil.

As always, use ink.

[Simpleton]

Thought might be better than ink, but hey, it is your post.

Another excellent post from thedeviliam.

But your rampant use of ad hominems and disparaging comments about
blind people may prompt another group; I hope you are happy.

[Dev]

:) I'm surprised I haven't prompted the creation of The Zombie
Defamation League by now, what with my comparisons of theists and the
living dead. "How dare you compare us to those assholes! You set
zombie rights back further than George A. Romero!"

> blind people may prompt another group; I hope you are happy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dev]

Dunnah. Dunnah-dunnah-dunnah-dunnah-dunnah. Woo!
Dunnah. Duh-dunnah-dunnah-_dun_-nah-dunnah-dunnah.
Bu-nuh-nuh-waaaah.
Dunnah. Duh-dunnah-dunnah-wah-wah-waaaaaah...

Guess not.

[dillan]

intellectually dead? I presume this is a rhetorical question ?
If it's not, please define what you mean by "intellectually dead".
After all, we are the stupid theists who don't understand anything.

As for morally dead part, I think the only way we can achieve any
headway is by comparing which party has done more good things or more
bad things. Just how do you propose we do that?

[Dev]

It means confront my original post and try to explain why I'm wrong,
genius. You say "we are the stupid theists who don't understand
anything" like you're being sarcastic. Why? Why is there a call for
sarcasm when you really are too stupid to understand anything? Now get
to work.

> > > As always, use ink.- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

On Feb 19, 12:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> inference.
>
> *If religious faith is okay, convicting someone for murder without
> evidence is equal to convicting someone for murder with none.
> Assertions should be enough to put someone away for life--that should
> be okay.

Not at all. Just because some certainties are arrived at without
evidence in NO WAY implies that all certainties should be arrived at
that way. Thinking that this follows as a logical consequence would
indicate a severe impairment of rationality.

>
> *If religious faith is okay, driver's tests are superfluous and
> bigoted. Since it is proven that blind people and drunk people are
> capable of unsubstantiated faith, there is no reason they should not
> get behind the wheel of a car--that is okay.

Not at all. Just because some certifications do not require passing
some standardized test does not mean that ALL certifications should
not require passing some standardized test. Thinking that this follows
as a logical consequence would indicate a severe impairment of
rationality.

>
> *If religious faith is okay, we should re-evaluate the way we handle
> someone who is proven to be a child murderer and rapist in at least
> two ways. For one, we have to consider that maybe there is perfectly
> good reason to rape and murder children that we simply have no
> evidence of that makes it okay.

You mean like the perfectly good reason that permits fetuses to be
excluded from the class of children whereas centuries ago they were
not? You mean like the perfectly good reason that reveals that bearing
the child will pose a life threat to the mother, said reason not
having been known a century ago? You mean like the perfectly good
reason that reveals that the child is likely to be born with severe
defects and so justifies abortion, said reason not having been known
fifty years ago? You mean like the potential of those perfectly good
reasons? I just want to be clear what you think a perfectly good
reason might be when we run across it.

> And for another, we have to consider
> that all the evidence that proves someone to be a child rapist-murder
> is invalidated by the fact that you can have faith that they did not
> rape and murder any children. The converse of punishing the innocent
> is liberating the guilty, and by the "virtue" of religious faith both
> should be equally okay.

Not at all. Just because you can have faith about something for which
you do not have evidence does not mean that you should have faith
about something for which you have direct counterevidence. Thinking
that this follows as a logical consequence would indicate a severe
impairment of rationality.

>
> *If religious faith is okay, science and logic are a waste of time and
> energy because their rules are invalid (unless, of course, you have
> religious faith to the contrary).

Not at all. Believing in things about which science makes no claim
does not make the rules of science invalid. Nor does science IN ANY
WAY prohibit phenomena that are not consistent with its models. In
fact, it is the active search for phenomena that are prohibited by its
models that leads to the *advancement* of science and the refinement
of the models. To think that science and rational standards are
strictly exclusionary is to reveal a lack of understanding of science,
as well as the fact that thinking that this follows as a logical
consequence indicates a severe impairment of rationality.

> Rational standards are exclusionary,
> and the purposes of rational exclusion make no sense if religious
> faith can magically make anything okay. PD would describe using both
> science and faith as being "varied", in other words if something is
> excluded by reason it doesn't matter because it can always be
> justified by religious faith. Dismissing standards of any kind--moral
> or intellectual--should be okay.
>
> *All of these things can only be not okay by virtue of religious
> faith. Making things that are okay not okay is okay, and making things
> that are not okay okay is okay--as long as religious faith is
> utilized, it's okay.
>
> So we are left with two options.
>
> (1) All these things are okay.
> (2) Theists are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the living
> dead.
>
> Just a few thoughts from your friendly neighborhood devil.

Well, if that's what passes for thoughts in your head, then I'd say
you belong to the class of theists you criticize, because your grip on
logical analysis is slippery at best.

>
> As always, use ink.

[dillan]

you haven't answered my second question, as for your post, you start
by defining faith;

"religious faith--the belief in something without rational

substantiation".
But you haven't defined "rational".

if rationality is individually defined (ie, what's rational to you may
not be rational to me), then following one's spirituality and one's
emotional desires are rational.

If by rational, you mean scientific, then you're still wrong because
scientifically no one claims there is no God, and so it remains an
open hypothesis.

The rest of you post is just fluff if your got the definition wrong.

[Dev]

And you once again utilize your lack of understanding for what a
"standard" is as if it is supposed to be an argument. In order to
determine what things are to be held to rational standards and what
things are not consistently you would require yet another set of
standards. You have not defined what these set of standards should be
nor what they should be based on. Through standards of reason,
science, empirical evidence or critical thinking there is no way of
arguing that religious faith is okay here and not there--at least, you
haven't even attempted to try this. In order for religious faith to be
set as a standard for anything at all, religious faith must be your
"ultimate standard" for determining standards in specific situations.
In other words, your determination of religious faith being okay in
situation x but not situation y is based on religious faith and
nothing else. If religious faith is to be utilized as this "ultimate
standard" for determining standards, there really is no standard for
saying it shouldn't be used in the situations I described. You are a
hypocrite, and truly a member of the living dead.

> > As always, use ink.- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

On Feb 19, 12:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> inference.

This looks like fun. Let's see if I can play the same game.

Defining religious faith as belief in something without scientific
substantiation...

"If religious faith is OK, then believing that this painting is the
most beautiful painting in the museum, where two other people believe
that two other paintings are the most beautiful paintings in the
museum, leads to the natural and inevitable consequence that every
painting in the museum is the most beautiful painting in the museum,
which (because there can only be one most beautiful) inescapably
proves that there is only one painting in the museum."

"If religous faith is OK, then if it is OK to pursue string theory
without scientific substantiation in the form of empirical support,
then it is also OK to pursue spaghetti theory without scientic
substantiation in the form of empirical support, and also OK to pursue
stretched taffy theory without scientific substantation in the form of
empirical support. All of these theories, being equal in having a lack
of empirical support, are equally valid."

"If religious faith is OK, then capital punishment is wrong but
assisted suicide is OK, because those kinds of rational decisions
about killing depend on the rationality that you would apply to
justify them anyway. Oh, and if religious faith is OK, then homosexual
marriage is certainly something the state should recognize, because
there is no need to demonstrate through any scientific or rational
process that the state should recognize it."

[Dev]

Nope. You are making the same mistake as PD essentially, in utilizing
religious faith in determining where science, evidence and reason
should apply and where it should not. As I demonstrated in my original
post, if you utilize religious faith to determine _where_ reason or
science should apply then religious faith becomes the ultimate factor
in determining everything. We can approach what is reasonable or not
reasonably, but it becomes irrelevent if religious faith is the
overriding factor. Your own definition of "rational"--where it can
simply be a matter of personal preference--is already synonymous with
religious faith, which is not how reasonable people use the term.

Here is an example of reason:
http://csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simpleton]

On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> > belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> > for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> > empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> > here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> > inference.
>
> This looks like fun. Let's see if I can play the same game.
>
> Defining religious faith as belief in something without scientific
> substantiation...
>
> "If religious faith is OK, then believing that this painting is the
> most beautiful painting in the museum, where two other people believe
> that two other paintings are the most beautiful paintings in the
> museum, leads to the natural and inevitable consequence that every
> painting in the museum is the most beautiful painting in the museum,
> which (because there can only be one most beautiful) inescapably
> proves that there is only one painting in the museum."
>

This one would qualify, yes. Sounds eerily like the perfect design
and cosmological argument rolled into one.

> "If religous faith is OK, then if it is OK to pursue string theory
> without scientific substantiation in the form of empirical support,
> then it is also OK to pursue spaghetti theory without scientic
> substantiation in the form of empirical support, and also OK to pursue
> stretched taffy theory without scientific substantation in the form of
> empirical support. All of these theories, being equal in having a lack
> of empirical support, are equally valid."
>

Not this one. Try this

> "If religous faith is OK, then string theory is wrong"

or even

> "If religous faith is OK, then string theory is right"

> "If religious faith is OK, then capital punishment is wrong but
> assisted suicide is OK, because those kinds of rational decisions
> about killing depend on the rationality that you would apply to
> justify them anyway. Oh, and if religious faith is OK, then homosexual
> marriage is certainly something the state should recognize, because
> there is no need to demonstrate through any scientific or rational
> process that the state should recognize it."

And not on this one either. However had you instead stated

> "If religious faith is OK, then capital punishment is wrong and
> assisted suicide is wrong too. Oh, and if religious faith is OK, then homosexual
> marriage is certainly something the state should not recognize."

then yes, I think you'd hit the mark.

[Dev]

More proof that theists are the living dead. You can kill their
arguments, but they keep coming back.

On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> > belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> > for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> > empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> > here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> > inference.
>
> This looks like fun. Let's see if I can play the same game.
>
> Defining religious faith as belief in something without scientific
> substantiation...
>
> "If religious faith is OK, then believing that this painting is the
> most beautiful painting in the museum, where two other people believe
> that two other paintings are the most beautiful paintings in the
> museum, leads to the natural and inevitable consequence that every
> painting in the museum is the most beautiful painting in the museum,
> which (because there can only be one most beautiful) inescapably
> proves that there is only one painting in the museum."

When someone says "this is the most beautiful painting in the museum"
it is understood to mean "this is the painting that gives me the most
desirable emotional response in the museum as best as I can tell, and
since these experiences tend to correlate other people might feel the
same way". No religious faith required--only reasoning based on
empirical experience.

> "If religous faith is OK, then if it is OK to pursue string theory
> without scientific substantiation in the form of empirical support,
> then it is also OK to pursue spaghetti theory without scientic
> substantiation in the form of empirical support, and also OK to pursue
> stretched taffy theory without scientific substantation in the form of
> empirical support. All of these theories, being equal in having a lack
> of empirical support, are equally valid."

Again, pursuing theories in science has nothing to do with religious
faith because they are treated as theories based on reasonable merit.

> "If religious faith is OK, then capital punishment is wrong but
> assisted suicide is OK, because those kinds of rational decisions
> about killing depend on the rationality that you would apply to
> justify them anyway. Oh, and if religious faith is OK, then homosexual
> marriage is certainly something the state should recognize, because
> there is no need to demonstrate through any scientific or rational
> process that the state should recognize it."

Morality requires no religious faith, either, because ultimate goals
can be connected rationally by the likely outcomes of certain laws
based on evidential experience.

[Simpleton]

On Feb 19, 2:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Nope. You are making the same mistake as PD essentially, in utilizing
> religious faith in determining where science, evidence and reason
> should apply and where it should not. As I demonstrated in my original
> post, if you utilize religious faith to determine _where_ reason or
> science should apply then religious faith becomes the ultimate factor
> in determining everything. We can approach what is reasonable or not
> reasonably, but it becomes irrelevent if religious faith is the
> overriding factor. Your own definition of "rational"--where it can
> simply be a matter of personal preference--is already synonymous with
> religious faith, which is not how reasonable people use the term.
>
> Here is an example of reason:http://csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
>

It is worthwhile quoting the last para, although it is not as germane
to the central point of your thread:

"Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all
knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be
required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and
you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what
skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants."

[Simpleton]

On Feb 19, 1:35 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just because some certainties are arrived at without
> evidence in NO WAY implies that all certainties should be arrived at
> that way.

So how do we arrive at those "some certainties without evidence"
across different propositions. For example, how do we come about
being certain without evidence of one thing being true, and another
being false.

Jesus went alone into the desert and was tempted by the devil but did
not fall for it. We have no evidence for that. Let us say we are
certain that this happened.

Andrea Yates says she was led by the voice of demons to kill her own
children. We have no evidence for that. What makes us not certain
that this happened?


I can see that not all propositions can be subjected to the
"certainties without evidence" discovery, but then a different
question comes by, which is what Dev is asking?

How do you decide which propositions you apply this standard, and
which you apply other standards? What standard do you use to make
that distinction?

> Thinking that this follows as a logical consequence would
> indicate a severe impairment of rationality.
>

I agree.

[Dev]

I mentioned this to PD, but since the "science can't be used to
determine whether a sunset is beautiful" argument is so common I have
to correct your complacency regarding dumbfuck's painting analogy.

If someone says "this is the most beautiful painting in the museum" it
is understood that they are saying that they personally _prefer_ the
painting. If a theist were to say "I _prefer_ to believe in God" it
would not be religious faith and would probably be true. However, when
a theist says "there is a God" they are not asserting a mere
preference but something's existence independent of preference.
Therefore, "this is a beautiful painting" and "there is a God" are not
correctly comparable in the way PD is attempting to compare them. One
requires religious faith, and the other does not.

> then yes, I think you'd hit the mark.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
hasn't been completely refuted.

[Simpleton]

On Feb 19, 2:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
> and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
> antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> hasn't been completely refuted.
>

I have no idea what Dillan's argument is, if there is one. He's about
to make my slow poll list.

I am yet to hear clearly from PD why he has faith in the Christian
God, and about the closest thing I have heard him commit to stating
resembled "I choose to believe in God because I choose to accept the
subjective evidence and it is written in our hearts" several months
ago. The above is NOT a direct quote.

Over the course of his latest stint I feel like I am making progress
understanding how he considers something to be knowledge, but find
that I have gotten no closer.

Oldman's position is a lot clearer: he claims to have an
indescribable, admittedly unshareable experience that he trusts to be
from God. But then he trusts God first, and then trusts that the God
is the Christian God. I don't understand his basis for that trust,
but I understand what he claims.

[Dev]

Yes, that's what's nice about OldMan--he at least _tries_ to keep the
stupid to a minimum which I realize isn't very easy considering his
position. When pushed, I still think he can be a regular Dillan, but I
guess that's inevitable for a theist. The problem I have with this
"all I have is a personal experience and that's enough for me"
argument is that it is very arrogant to think you are so superior as
to be incapable of deluding yourself. He also doesn't care that
supporting theism is bad for the world, which reeks of a void where a
conscience should be.

I hate everything about PD. He's a perfect example of what I'm talking
about. He claims to be a scientist, which very well might be true, but
his ultimate decisions are _all_ governed essentially by religious
faith at the top. This is why he holds the most rigid standards to
anything I say, but none whatsoever to his own belief in God. His
faith tells him it is okay to hold higher standards to your opponents
than to yourself, and I think this is a sick and immoral way of
thinking. Since there is a microscopic possibility that religious
faith has never caused violence through rules of observational science
(see the "contaminated human" thread), he takes that as a free ride to
keep supporting it whether or not it keeps killing people. The fact
that he's smart enough to know better makes me want to puke.

[PD]

On Feb 19, 4:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
> and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
> antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> hasn't been completely refuted.

Um, that's exactly what a scientific theory is, you dodo. It is a
model that is provisionally accepted as long as it isn't completely
refuted.

Now why would you say that doing that in another arena is antithetical
to science and reason?

Geez, if you're going to be an ape in a tuxedo, then at least try to
make sure the tuxedo fits reasonably well.

PD

[Sketch System]

On Feb 19, 1:38 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you haven't answered my second question, as for your post, you start
> by defining faith;
> "religious faith--the belief in something without rational
> substantiation".
> But you haven't defined "rational".

He doesn't have to. If you don't understand the word, grab a
dictionary.

> if rationality is individually defined (ie, what's rational to you may
> not be rational to me), then following one's spirituality and one's
> emotional desires are rational.

That's fine, if you think the use of sane reasoning can result in
believing in something that has not been shown to exist. I don't.

> If by rational, you mean scientific, then you're still wrong because
> scientifically no one claims there is no God, and so it remains an
> open hypothesis.

Again with the "non-belief = claim of non-existence" garbage. Sane,
rational, reasonable people don't belief in that which has not been
shown to exist - that for which there is no evidence.

> The rest of you post is just fluff if your got the definition wrong.

See above.

[PD]

I didn't say the beauty of the painting was based on religious faith,
you ninny.
And this desirable emotional response you cite. Is this an irrational
response to sensory stimulation, or is it an objectively justifiable
mental state based on reason?

>
> > "If religous faith is OK, then if it is OK to pursue string theory
> > without scientific substantiation in the form of empirical support,
> > then it is also OK to pursue spaghetti theory without scientic
> > substantiation in the form of empirical support, and also OK to pursue
> > stretched taffy theory without scientific substantation in the form of
> > empirical support. All of these theories, being equal in having a lack
> > of empirical support, are equally valid."
>
> Again, pursuing theories in science has nothing to do with religious
> faith because they are treated as theories based on reasonable merit.

You apparently did not see and do not understand the part about
"without substantiation in the form of empirical support". I'm sure
you take it on faith that they have good reason to do it anyway,
Smolin notwithstanding.

>
> > "If religious faith is OK, then capital punishment is wrong but
> > assisted suicide is OK, because those kinds of rational decisions
> > about killing depend on the rationality that you would apply to
> > justify them anyway. Oh, and if religious faith is OK, then homosexual
> > marriage is certainly something the state should recognize, because
> > there is no need to demonstrate through any scientific or rational
> > process that the state should recognize it."
>
> Morality requires no religious faith, either, because ultimate goals
> can be connected rationally by the likely outcomes of certain laws
> based on evidential experience.

Really? Then everyone should be convinced of the rationality of the
rightness or wrongness of capital punishment or assisted suicide,
based on the likely outcomes of the laws and based on evidential
experience. Surely, we have enough evidential experience to make
scientific determinations of what the answers are. What are the
answers and please defend those answers with sufficient empirical
evidence that those who disagree violently will be swayed. After all,
it's just a matter of natural *fact* whether they are right or wrong.

But don't strain yourself. You are apparently too dim-witted to grasp
that I was writing these in *parody* of the wretched logical
mangling... er, thinking... you were attempting in your original post.
My exasperation meter has swung wildly into the red. I may need to let
the anti-goofball system cool down a while.

PD

[Dev]

On Feb 19, 4:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
> > and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
> > antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> > hasn't been completely refuted.
>
> Um, that's exactly what a scientific theory is, you dodo. It is a
> model that is provisionally accepted as long as it isn't completely
> refuted.

I thought you were a scientist? Even I know that a guess or hypothesis
isn't a scientific theory. Belief in God does not originate from nor
is it supported by experimental evidence, isn't testable and in almost
every situation isn't even logical or self-consistent.

> Now why would you say that doing that in another arena is antithetical
> to science and reason?

In _what_ other arena and _what_ standard do you use for determining
what standards should be utilized in what arenas? If you don't want to
play just stay home, asshole.

> Geez, if you're going to be an ape in a tuxedo, then at least try to
> make sure the tuxedo fits reasonably well.
>
> PD

Better an ape than apeshit.

[PD]

On Feb 19, 5:38 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
> > > and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
> > > antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> > > hasn't been completely refuted.
>
> > Um, that's exactly what a scientific theory is, you dodo. It is a
> > model that is provisionally accepted as long as it isn't completely
> > refuted.
>
> I thought you were a scientist? Even I know that a guess or hypothesis
> isn't a scientific theory.

You are even more of a dodo than I thought just five minutes ago.
General relativity is a scientific theory. It is a model that is

provisionally accepted as long as it isn't completely refuted.

> Belief in God does not originate from nor
> is it supported by experimental evidence, isn't testable and in almost
> every situation isn't even logical or self-consistent.

That isn't what you said, you belligerent baboon. You said it was

antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it

hasn't been completely refuted. I can't help it if you make
astoundingly stupid statements in between other statements. The
astoundingly stupid statements are what catch my eye with you.

[Dev]

On Feb 19, 4:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:38 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 4:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
> > > > and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
> > > > antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> > > > hasn't been completely refuted.
>
> > > Um, that's exactly what a scientific theory is, you dodo. It is a
> > > model that is provisionally accepted as long as it isn't completely
> > > refuted.
>
> > I thought you were a scientist? Even I know that a guess or hypothesis
> > isn't a scientific theory.
>
> You are even more of a dodo than I thought just five minutes ago.
> General relativity is a scientific theory. It is a model that is
> provisionally accepted as long as it isn't completely refuted.

And this goes to what I said directly after the part you just replied
to...

> > Belief in God does not originate from nor
> > is it supported by experimental evidence, isn't testable and in almost
> > every situation isn't even logical or self-consistent.
>
> That isn't what you said, you belligerent baboon. You said it was
> antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> hasn't been completely refuted.

It is! Theories are not followed by science _just_ because they
haven't been completely refuted--there's _other criteria_ at work.
Fuck, you're dumb.

> I can't help it if you make
> astoundingly stupid statements in between other statements. The
> astoundingly stupid statements are what catch my eye with you.

You really aren't in any position to talk, asshole. You couldn't find
your asshole with your left hand no matter how much Keith tried to
help you.

> > > Now why would you say that doing that in another arena is antithetical
> > > to science and reason?
>
> > In _what_ other arena and _what_ standard do you use for determining
> > what standards should be utilized in what arenas? If you don't want to
> > play just stay home, asshole.
>
> > > Geez, if you're going to be an ape in a tuxedo, then at least try to
> > > make sure the tuxedo fits reasonably well.
>
> > > PD
>

> > Better an ape than apeshit.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

You didn't start that paragraph with "if religious faith is OK"? Then
please, in English, reword your statements.

> And this desirable emotional response you cite. Is this an irrational
> response to sensory stimulation, or is it an objectively justifiable
> mental state based on reason?

It is reasonable that preference exists because it is a Universal
experience, can be observed, and is the only apparent explanation for
countless things.

>
>
> > > "If religous faith is OK, then if it is OK to pursue string theory
> > > without scientific substantiation in the form of empirical support,
> > > then it is also OK to pursue spaghetti theory without scientic
> > > substantiation in the form of empirical support, and also OK to pursue
> > > stretched taffy theory without scientific substantation in the form of
> > > empirical support. All of these theories, being equal in having a lack
> > > of empirical support, are equally valid."
>
> > Again, pursuing theories in science has nothing to do with religious
> > faith because they are treated as theories based on reasonable merit.
>
> You apparently did not see and do not understand the part about
> "without substantiation in the form of empirical support". I'm sure
> you take it on faith that they have good reason to do it anyway,
> Smolin notwithstanding.

And this was addressed in that other part of this thread. You keep
arguing that this or that is not my point and whining because I didn't
understand something stupid you said because you know that the more
your position is clarified, the more it will crumble. I didn't pay a
dog to rape your mother. I didn't make you what you are so don't blame
me.

>
>
> > > "If religious faith is OK, then capital punishment is wrong but
> > > assisted suicide is OK, because those kinds of rational decisions
> > > about killing depend on the rationality that you would apply to
> > > justify them anyway. Oh, and if religious faith is OK, then homosexual
> > > marriage is certainly something the state should recognize, because
> > > there is no need to demonstrate through any scientific or rational
> > > process that the state should recognize it."
>
> > Morality requires no religious faith, either, because ultimate goals
> > can be connected rationally by the likely outcomes of certain laws
> > based on evidential experience.
>
> Really? Then everyone should be convinced of the rationality of the
> rightness or wrongness of capital punishment or assisted suicide,
> based on the likely outcomes of the laws and based on evidential
> experience.

No. For one thing, there are disagreements about what is preferable
which is why in moral discussions we usually use common ground--when
common ground is not agreed upon, other common ground is explored to
argue about that. Based on that common ground, we can argue what is
likely to better reach that common ground logically through what we
know is probably true about the world.

> Surely, we have enough evidential experience to make
> scientific determinations of what the answers are. What are the
> answers and please defend those answers with sufficient empirical
> evidence that those who disagree violently will be swayed. After all,
> it's just a matter of natural *fact* whether they are right or wrong.

No, you're just raping your poor little strawman now.

> But don't strain yourself. You are apparently too dim-witted to grasp
> that I was writing these in *parody* of the wretched logical
> mangling... er, thinking... you were attempting in your original post.
> My exasperation meter has swung wildly into the red. I may need to let
> the anti-goofball system cool down a while.

I'm glad I'm pissing you off. Get laid. I'm sure Keith is around there
somewhere. Just tell him you want to take one for the team.

> PD- Hide quoted text -

[Phillip Montgomery]

Why are you asking me?  I'm not a theist.

--
Phillip Montgomery
Blog at
http://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/

[Dev]

My bad. I threw you on there last because I was running out of names
(Keith was left off intentionally because he doesn't even try and I
don't reply to him) and you started a thread called "Biblical Veracity
Proven 100%". I haven't interacted with you much, so my apologies for
lumping you with those assholes.

On Feb 19, 7:23 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Why are you asking me?  I'm not a theist.
>

> Blog athttp://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[Phillip Montgomery]

Glad to be vindicated

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 19, 1:51 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> *If religious faith is okay, convicting someone for murder without
> evidence is equal to convicting someone for murder with none.
> Assertions should be enough to put someone away for life--that should
> be okay.

Thats not a valid inference.

> *If religious faith is okay, driver's tests are superfluous and
> bigoted. Since it is proven that blind people and drunk people are
> capable of unsubstantiated faith, there is no reason they should not
> get behind the wheel of a car--that is okay.

Thats not a valid inference.

> *If religious faith is okay, we should re-evaluate the way we handle
> someone who is proven to be a child murderer and rapist in at least
> two ways. For one, we have to consider that maybe there is perfectly
> good reason to rape and murder children that we simply have no
> evidence of that makes it okay. And for another, we have to consider
> that all the evidence that proves someone to be a child rapist-murder
> is invalidated by the fact that you can have faith that they did not
> rape and murder any children. The converse of punishing the innocent
> is liberating the guilty, and by the "virtue" of religious faith both
> should be equally okay.

Thats not a valid inference.

> *If religious faith is okay, science and logic are a waste of time and
> energy because their rules are invalid (unless, of course, you have
> religious faith to the contrary). Rational standards are exclusionary,
> and the purposes of rational exclusion make no sense if religious
> faith can magically make anything okay. PD would describe using both
> science and faith as being "varied", in other words if something is
> excluded by reason it doesn't matter because it can always be
> justified by religious faith. Dismissing standards of any kind--moral
> or intellectual--should be okay.

Thats not a valid inference.

> *All of these things can only be not okay by virtue of religious
> faith. Making things that are okay not okay is okay, and making things
> that are not okay okay is okay--as long as religious faith is
> utilized, it's okay.

Thats not a valid inference.

>
> So we are left with two options.
>
> (1) All these things are okay.
> (2) Theists are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the living
> dead.

I prefer:

(3) The inferences above are simply loaded questions projected onto
scarecrow positions.

Regards,

Brock

[Dev]

Wow, you know the word "inference" but you can't apply it to a
discussion. Way to go.

[Keith MacNevins]

You certainly are full of wit.

[Keith MacNevins]

Finally. He has outdone himself.

On 2/19/08, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Dunnah. Dunnah-dunnah-dunnah-dunnah-dunnah. Woo!
Dunnah. Duh-dunnah-dunnah-_dun_-nah-dunnah-dunnah.
Bu-nuh-nuh-waaaah.
Dunnah. Duh-dunnah-dunnah-wah-wah-waaaaaah...

Guess not.

On Feb 19, 11:51 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> inference.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, convicting someone for murder without
> evidence is equal to convicting someone for murder with none.
> Assertions should be enough to put someone away for life--that should
> be okay.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, driver's tests are superfluous and
> bigoted. Since it is proven that blind people and drunk people are
> capable of unsubstantiated faith, there is no reason they should not
> get behind the wheel of a car--that is okay.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, we should re-evaluate the way we handle
> someone who is proven to be a child murderer and rapist in at least
> two ways. For one, we have to consider that maybe there is perfectly
> good reason to rape and murder children that we simply have no
> evidence of that makes it okay. And for another, we have to consider
> that all the evidence that proves someone to be a child rapist-murder
> is invalidated by the fact that you can have faith that they did not
> rape and murder any children. The converse of punishing the innocent
> is liberating the guilty, and by the "virtue" of religious faith both
> should be equally okay.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, science and logic are a waste of time and
> energy because their rules are invalid (unless, of course, you have
> religious faith to the contrary). Rational standards are exclusionary,
> and the purposes of rational exclusion make no sense if religious
> faith can magically make anything okay. PD would describe using both
> science and faith as being "varied", in other words if something is
> excluded by reason it doesn't matter because it can always be
> justified by religious faith. Dismissing standards of any kind--moral
> or intellectual--should be okay.
>

> *All of these things can only be not okay by virtue of religious
> faith. Making things that are okay not okay is okay, and making things
> that are not okay okay is okay--as long as religious faith is
> utilized, it's okay.
>

> So we are left with two options.
>
> (1) All these things are okay.
> (2) Theists are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the living
> dead.
>

> Just a few thoughts from your friendly neighborhood devil.
>
> As always, use ink.

--
Ambassador From Hell
Keith A. MacNevins
Elk Grove Village, IL USA
copyright

[dillan]

Alright Dev, for a moment, let's put our weapons down. Let's take our
shields off and for a moment, let's pretend that we're not on an epic
battle for good against some religious evil. let's pretend we are two
friends talking.

Speaking honestly, I think you don't understand WHY I (I'll just speak
for my self but I think most others hold the same view) have this
view. I understand your argument, but let's start from where we are
NOW, and not where we should be, Right now, I hold my view because of
a religious experience, and I think everyone's aware of this. And I am
sure you know it's a profound and a life altering experience. To me
it's real as these keys that I am typing on. So, I think it's
important to understand that right now, right here, I have a positive
evidence in the form of an experience, for God. So, it would make
sense that I would require some positive evidence to the contrary for
me to shed my beliefs. I think that's a rational position to have.

It would be irrational if I'd just sit on my hands and believe what I
believe, but you know that I have been actively seeking answers for
these questions. You know that I try my best to learn about universe
and it's origins. I'm not always smart enough to understand how some
physics work at that level, but i try anyway. From my point of view,
I think that's a very rational position to take. It's not easy to shed
a life long belief reaffirmed by a profound experience. So from that
point of view, I think it's incredibly rational to keep the faith, but
question it and investigate to see what;s driving your faith.

Also, it would be irrational to enforce these beliefs upon others, and
i'm sure you'll agree that most of us theists in this group hold a
very inclusive view of morality.

Also, I read below that you kinda-sorta equated OldMan to me. While I
am flattered by that statement, I think you are being incredibly
unfair to him. It's not easy to defend an emotion or an experience at
the best of times. The task is made more difficult by the unashamed
biases that exists in this group. There is a clear left and right, and
very few people in between. OldMan, for me is a person who was in the
middle, and one of the more rational people on this forum.

I am not sure how you'll respond to this. You can call me stupid or an
idiot or whatever, but I hope you won't ridicule my view. That would
amount to a cheap shot, because I did put my guard down.

anyway, I don't think the world is black and white as you make it turn
out to be Dev. It's not either you're a rational person and an
atheist, or you're an irrational brain dead twit. Rationality works
within a framework of knowledge and experiences. knowledge is not
unique to individuals, but experiences are. It would not make sense to
exclude the latter from the equation.

Ok, by guard is back on :)..

[4praise]

> faith--the belief in something without rational substantiation

That is your definition of faith?

Seems pretty shallow. Most Christians have reasons for their faith
and happy to share those reasons.

So our faith is rational but it is also greater than reason alone.

[bonfly]

That's not a valid inference. (Br?ock)

J-You like ants under & among your furrical bits? D'you like midgies,
scratchies, termites, biters and nibblers? Succour de jous ? Nu
este ?

[bonfly]

One shiny brass bullet to the back of your head should resolve all (or
most) of your issues Keith.

On Feb 20, 3:43 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You certainly are full of wit.
>

[floyd_1977]

On Feb 20, 1:28 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > faith--the belief in something without rational substantiation
>
> That is your definition of faith?
>
> Seems pretty shallow.  

I think you're on to something.

[PD]

If pissing me off is your objective, then I understand you better as a
human being.

In the meantime, consider that all you really accomplished is that you
cannot sustain a logical train long enough to come up with a
conclusion that actually follows from the premise, and that you were
willing to demonstrate this inability repeatedly. This produced both
reports from your audience that your conclusions do not follow, as
well as a parody of that so-called logic featuring other conclusions
that do not follow from premises. You failed not only to recognize the
brokenness of the logic you mustered, but also failed to recognized
the parody.

For someone who is so firmly committed to reason and logic, you are
superbly ill-equipped to support the life you aspire to. Since you
don't want to avail yourself of other pursuits that might offer
sustenance, you might as well give up in general. It's like watching
someone who passionately wants to live on a diet of tree bark that he
cannot digest. It's sad, but what can you do?

[floyd_1977]

PD,

Please respond to Simpleton's post #25 in this thread, as his
questions
in that post get to the heart of the matter.

[Dave]

On Feb 19, 10:51 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> inference.

The problems with that kind of belief is readily seen in the USA. We
have people that absolutely cannot, and refuse to, accept evolution.
We have people that refuse to accept that we caused the climate to
change. We have people that believe anything that goes against modern
medicine is true. All because they put a belief in a mythology above
that of rational thought.

> (2) Theists are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the living
> dead.

I'll go along with that for some believers. Some use their religion as
a crutch to get through life. Others replace their brains with
religion. You can see several examples of those here. It's the latter
that cause the problems.

[Dave]

On Feb 19, 1:14 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> intellectually dead? I presume this is a rhetorical question ?

No, not a rhetorical question. When someone replaces their mind with
religion, they are intellectually dead. Rational thought processes can
no longer operate in a mind like that.

[Dave]

On Feb 19, 2:30 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> It is worthwhile quoting the last para, although it is not as germane
> to the central point of your thread:
>
> "Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all
> knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be
> required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and
> you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what
> skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants."

That is worth repeating since it blows religious beliefs out of the
water. There is no evidence to warrant a belief in gods when all the
evidence points to them being nothing more than characters in a
mythology. If new evidence were presented tomorrow, it will be
carefully considered and rejected, or accepted, and if needed, the
knowledge changed. Religions cannot do that. They are set in stone and
cannot change.

[Dave]

On Feb 19, 3:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I think that applies to dillan and PD's argument that since science
> > and reason don't disprove God it is okay to have faith in one. It is
> > antithetical to science and reason to accept something just because it
> > hasn't been completely refuted.
>

> Um, that's exactly what a scientific theory is, you dodo.....

It most certainly is not. Anyone that is a scientist would know that.

[atypican]

It boils down to the question: Do you think some truths are self
evident?

Dev says no.

atypican

On Feb 19, 11:51 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> belief in something without rational substantiation that is required
> for any belief in God--is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> empiricism and science. This is the inference of every theist poster
> here. The purpose of this post is to look at the inferences of that
> inference.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, convicting someone for murder without
> evidence is equal to convicting someone for murder with none.
> Assertions should be enough to put someone away for life--that should
> be okay.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, driver's tests are superfluous and
> bigoted. Since it is proven that blind people and drunk people are
> capable of unsubstantiated faith, there is no reason they should not
> get behind the wheel of a car--that is okay.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, we should re-evaluate the way we handle
> someone who is proven to be a child murderer and rapist in at least
> two ways. For one, we have to consider that maybe there is perfectly
> good reason to rape and murder children that we simply have no
> evidence of that makes it okay. And for another, we have to consider
> that all the evidence that proves someone to be a child rapist-murder
> is invalidated by the fact that you can have faith that they did not
> rape and murder any children. The converse of punishing the innocent
> is liberating the guilty, and by the "virtue" of religious faith both
> should be equally okay.
>

> *If religious faith is okay, science and logic are a waste of time and
> energy because their rules are invalid (unless, of course, you have
> religious faith to the contrary). Rational standards are exclusionary,
> and the purposes of rational exclusion make no sense if religious
> faith can magically make anything okay. PD would describe using both
> science and faith as being "varied", in other words if something is
> excluded by reason it doesn't matter because it can always be
> justified by religious faith. Dismissing standards of any kind--moral
> or intellectual--should be okay.
>

> *All of these things can only be not okay by virtue of religious
> faith. Making things that are okay not okay is okay, and making things
> that are not okay okay is okay--as long as religious faith is
> utilized, it's okay.
>

> So we are left with two options.
>
> (1) All these things are okay.

> (2) Theists are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the living
> dead.
>

[Keith MacNevins]

If I had written that about an insect (you) then poochio would protest and threaten to ban me. But I am not one of poochio's butt buddies.

[Simpleton]

In all earnestness, this is one of your best posts, Dillan. I don't
have any more respects for your beliefs, but I have new found respect
for your coherency.

> Ok, by guard is back on :)..
>

Knew it was too good to last. Damn!

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 8:53 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It boils down to the question: Do you think some truths are self
> evident?
>

Not really. The question is how you determine truths to be so when
they are *not* self-evident, so to speak. I summarized this earlier:

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/tree/browse_frm/thread/ffecbbf911247e29/dd89bac952fa4762?hl=en&rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2FAtheism-vs-Christianity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fffecbbf911247e29%2F44d13b2b751a96ea%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_fdd445784538b534

> Dev says no.
>

He said nothing of the sort. But, I should not really make that
statement, it might be better if Dev spoke for himself, instead of
either of us.

[floyd_1977]

Here is the post I'm referring to:

On Feb 19, 4:41 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:35 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just because some certainties are arrived at without
> > evidence in NO WAY implies that all certainties should be arrived at
> > that way.
>
> So how do we arrive at those "some certainties without evidence"
> across different propositions. For example, how do we come about
> being certain without evidence of one thing being true, and another
> being false.
>
> Jesus went alone into the desert and was tempted by the devil but did
> not fall for it. We have no evidence for that. Let us say we are
> certain that this happened.
>
> Andrea Yates says she was led by the voice of demons to kill her own
> children. We have no evidence for that. What makes us not certain
> that this happened?
>
> I can see that not all propositions can be subjected to the
> "certainties without evidence" discovery, but then a different
> question comes by, which is what Dev is asking?
>
> How do you decide which propositions you apply this standard, and
> which you apply other standards? What standard do you use to make
> that distinction?

[PD]

On Feb 19, 4:41 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:35 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just because some certainties are arrived at without
> > evidence in NO WAY implies that all certainties should be arrived at
> > that way.
>
> So how do we arrive at those "some certainties without evidence"
> across different propositions.  For example, how do we come about
> being certain without evidence of one thing being true, and another
> being false.
>
> Jesus went alone into the desert and was tempted by the devil but did
> not fall for it.  We have no evidence for that.  Let us say we are
> certain that this happened.
>
> Andrea Yates says she was led by the voice of demons to kill her own
> children.  We have no evidence for that.  What makes us not certain
> that this happened?

There are a variety of ways by which we attribute truth (with a
continuous scale of certainty) to statements:
1. Consistency with personal experience
2. Consistency with collective experience
3. Plausibility of argument, sometimes with and sometimes without
exclusion of other plausible candidates
4. Consistency with personal convictions or opinions
5. Imparted or extended trust to witness or testimony, regardless of
personal or collective experience
6. Empathy or consistency between witness or testimony and personal
experience or convictions
7. Systematic enumeration of possibilities and assessment of
likelihood to each of them, including the candidate statement,

as well as a few others that I've not recounted here.

We use all of these methods in what we call reasoning, singly or more
frequently in combination, with relative weight depending on the
circumstances. For some pursuits, a higher weight for one or two over
the others has a demonstrated level of success and on the basis of
that success has become a standard *for those pursuits*.

I don't think it has been demonstrated by anyone (though I know many
have a strong *opinion*) that one has intrinsically higher value than
the others, in terms of operational success -- except possibly in the
context of the pursuit where it has become the standard. Indeed, the
very fact that we DO use different combinations of these strategies
depending on context indicates that there is no clear reason to think
there is intrinsically higher value to one over the others.

At the same time, because there is a context-sensitive application of
these strategies in different mixes, it is entirely likely that there
ISN'T a reliable standard that can be applied in an arbitrary case.

Now, this may be dismaying to those who might think that even if there
ISN'T a reliable standard that is applicable in an arbitrary case,
there SHOULD be a standard that is applicable in an arbitrary case. To
this, I simply comment that it is often true that what we WANT to be
true does not necessarily indicate what IS true. Anybody who looks at
the complaints about quantum mechanics and relativity from cranks and
amateurs on the physics newsgroups will recognize both the aspiration
and the refusal.

[Simpleton]

The question was specific to "certainties without evidence", not what
you considering to be reasoning, generally. In that sense I only see
a subclause of 5 applies.

"> 5. Imparted or extended trust to witness or testimony, *without*
personal or collective experience"


(The *without* makes it explicit as the subclause of "regardless" that
you had used)

Can you try to apply this to the two specific examples I raised, and
provide your opinion? I am assuming that you are certain of the
former (Jesus in the desert), and not Andrea Yates.

> I don't think it has been demonstrated by anyone (though I know many
> have a strong *opinion*) that one has intrinsically higher value than
> the others, in terms of operational success -- except possibly in the
> context of the pursuit where it has become the standard. Indeed, the
> very fact that we DO use different combinations of these strategies
> depending on context indicates that there is no clear reason to think
> there is intrinsically higher value to one over the others.
>

This is clear, which is precisely why the question is raised. How do
you choose when you admit that there is no clear reason to think
that? I would like to see an application of it in the example I
presented.

> At the same time, because there is a context-sensitive application of
> these strategies in different mixes, it is entirely likely that there
> ISN'T a reliable standard that can be applied in an arbitrary case.
>
> Now, this may be dismaying to those who might think that even if there
> ISN'T a reliable standard that is applicable in an arbitrary case,

It is not to me, I explicitly covered this.

> there SHOULD be a standard that is applicable in an arbitrary case. To
> this, I simply comment that it is often true that what we WANT to be
> true does not necessarily indicate what IS true.

Goes without saying, and I am not quite concerned with how you go
about proving it is true. My problem is that I do not even understand
the thought process that is involved.

Personally I have no problems dismissing one instance of demonic
possession from another -- I don't believe any of them, I have no
evidence for demons. Now, someone someday may come with a proof that
may force me to change my opinion, and I would have been wrong.

The interesting part to me is the thought process of those who can
accept that Jesus or his merry men exorcised some demons circa AD 30
or so, but refuse to accept demonic possession of an Andrea in 2005.

I fully understand that you can come up with an example of how it is
normal for people to accept one thing and not another using something
other than demons. For example I can easily imagine that one ten year
old runs the 100 m in 10.85 seconds, and you accept that, and that it
does not mean that you have to believe all ten year olds can do so.
Such an example is not necessary, and not relevant to the point I am
asking.

Which is why I am raising the *very specific* example of demons.

What kind of reasoning will it take, for someone to accept Andrea's
demons?

What kind of reasoning will it take to evaluate if someone (and I will
explicitly note that I do not mention man or god) walked on water to a
praying audience of 30 at a beach, and blessed them, in February 2008?

> Anybody who looks at
> the complaints about quantum mechanics and relativity from cranks and
> amateurs on the physics newsgroups will recognize both the aspiration
> and the refusal.
>

Except that amateurs on the sci.physics and sci.relativity groups can
be confronted with established theories -- based on evidence
(observation, testing, etc.) Item 7. or beyond in your list. Just
like the cranks here on ID. It is different matter that cranks are
not convinced.

How do you decide to accept or not accept an Andrea Yates? Or one
instance of exorcism from another?

>
>
>
>
> > I can see that not all propositions can be subjected to the
> > "certainties without evidence" discovery, but then a different
> > question comes by, which is what Dev is asking?
>
> > How do you decide which propositions you apply this standard, and
> > which you apply other standards?  What standard do you use to make

> > that distinction?- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

On Feb 20, 1:49 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Which is why I am raising the *very specific* example of demons.
>
> What kind of reasoning will it take, for someone to accept Andrea's
> demons?

I don't have a rule. Does there have to be a rule about which
combination of the above people use to assess the truth (with some
continuous scale of certainty) of that statement?

>
> What kind of reasoning will it take to evaluate if someone (and I will
> explicitly note that I do not mention man or god) walked on water to a
> praying audience of 30 at a beach, and blessed them, in February 2008?

I don't have a sure-fire rule. If you're looking for a prescription of
what combination will work in one context and what combination will
work in another context, I don't have one. I certainly don't think
there is a single, good prescription.

>
> > Anybody who looks at
> > the complaints about quantum mechanics and relativity from cranks and
> > amateurs on the physics newsgroups will recognize both the aspiration
> > and the refusal.
>
> Except that amateurs on the sci.physics and sci.relativity groups can
> be confronted with established theories -- based on evidence
> (observation, testing, etc.)

Please note what my comment was about. There is no evidence that there
is a single, reliable rule that will generate the best quality of
certainty regardless of context. There is some demonstrated success in
a *particular* context. Note that the combination varies, going even
from mathematics to physics to marketing.

>  Item 7. or beyond in your list.  Just
> like the cranks here on ID.  It is different matter that cranks are
> not convinced.

Exactly. It doesn't matter that cranks aren't convinced that there
isn't a single, good rule for determining truth to optimum certainty.

>
> How do you decide to accept or not accept an Andrea Yates?  Or one
> instance of exorcism from another?

In the case of Andrea Yates, I deliberately suspend that evaluation.

Relative to the claims regarding Jesus, I include in the evaluation of
his claims a number of things, including my impartation of trust to
witnesses and testimony, consistency of the validity and reliability
of his other statements, resonance with my own personal convictions,
evaluation of the relative likelihood of the claims being true and the
claimants being liars, and a couple of other things.

In the case of Andrea's demons, I have much less to go on for an
evaluation. I do not have any witnesses or testimony to Andrea's
demons to even impart trust, I have no resonance with my personal
convictions about anything she claims, I have less way to evaluate the
likelihood of her claims being true vs the claimant being a liar, or
the consistency and reliability of her other statements.

It's a similar issue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no
witness accounts of the FSP (let alone ones where I can decide to
impart trust), no resonance with personal convictions or experience,
and even less way to evaluate the relative likelihood of the claims
being true and the claimants being liars, and so on.

PD

[rappoccio]

Excellent post, Dev!

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 12:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:49 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which is why I am raising the *very specific* example of demons.
>
> > What kind of reasoning will it take, for someone to accept Andrea's
> > demons?
>
> I don't have a rule. Does there have to be a rule about which
> combination of the above people use to assess the truth (with some
> continuous scale of certainty) of that statement?
>

No, and you'll note that I have tried everything to indicate that I am
looking for your thoughts in a specific matter, not *the* rule, or *a*
rule?

I keep hoping that it is my not inability to express, clarify or
restate that I am not, repeat not, looking for a rule, however rigid
or loose you want it to be.

>
>
> > What kind of reasoning will it take to evaluate if someone (and I will
> > explicitly note that I do not mention man or god) walked on water to a
> > praying audience of 30 at a beach, and blessed them, in February 2008?
>
> I don't have a sure-fire rule. If you're looking for a prescription of
> what combination will work in one context and what combination will
> work in another context, I don't have one. I certainly don't think
> there is a single, good prescription.
>

Do you have a single thought on the matter that you feel comfortable
sharing, PD? Not a rule, not a binding one, not a guideline, not a
standard, just an opinion, perhaps?

On the specific matter of demons. Not of puzzling quandaries in
Quantum mechanics, not of Higgs boson with mass of 90 GeV/c^2, not of
Euclidean geometry errors, not of Capital punishment.

Demons. or the Devil.

Pick either.

>
>
> > > Anybody who looks at
> > > the complaints about quantum mechanics and relativity from cranks and
> > > amateurs on the physics newsgroups will recognize both the aspiration
> > > and the refusal.
>
> > Except that amateurs on the sci.physics and sci.relativity groups can
> > be confronted with established theories -- based on evidence
> > (observation, testing, etc.)
>
> Please note what my comment was about. There is no evidence that there
> is a single, reliable rule that will generate the best quality of
> certainty regardless of context.

Yes, I understand that.

> There is some demonstrated success in
> a *particular* context. Note that the combination varies, going even
> from mathematics to physics to marketing.
>

Yes, I understand that, too. I also understand that *all* contexts do
not have that demonstrated success, nor am I implying that all
contexts should have one, nor that a particular one does or does not
have one, nor that you said we should or should not have one.

In the specific context of demons, are you personally aware of any
demonstrated success?

> >  Item 7. or beyond in your list.  Just
> > like the cranks here on ID.  It is different matter that cranks are
> > not convinced.
>
> Exactly. It doesn't matter that cranks aren't convinced that there
> isn't a single, good rule for determining truth to optimum certainty.
>

Thank you for agreeing with my obvious agreement.

>
>
> > How do you decide to accept or not accept an Andrea Yates?  Or one
> > instance of exorcism from another?
>
> In the case of Andrea Yates, I deliberately suspend that evaluation.
>

Yes. Why do you suppose that is?

> Relative to the claims regarding Jesus, I include in the evaluation of
> his claims a number of things, including my impartation of trust to
> witnesses and testimony, consistency of the validity and reliability
> of his other statements, resonance with my own personal convictions,
> evaluation of the relative likelihood of the claims being true and the
> claimants being liars, and a couple of other things.
>

Claim. Not claims regarding. One specific claim. (Pick the devil
tempting him, or the demons exorcised by him and his merry men)

Do you have personal convictions about demons that resonate well with
it? Do you have some loose way of evaluating (and again I am NOT
looking for rules, or standards) the relative likelihood of demons
2000 years ago?

Or is it, because you simply trust the account to be true based on
<whatever else>?

> In the case of Andrea's demons, I have much less to go on for an
> evaluation. I do not have any witnesses or testimony to Andrea's
> demons to even impart trust, I have no resonance with my personal
> convictions about anything she claims, I have less way to evaluate the
> likelihood of her claims being true vs the claimant being a liar, or
> the consistency and reliability of her other statements.
>

But you have no personal resonance with the demons of 2000 years ago,
either.

OK, maybe you won't answer that but can I at least get you to offer an
opinion on the Yates's case?

Due to lack of whatever for an evaluation, how certain are you,
approximately that Yates's demons were unreal?

Closer to 100%, 50% (agnostic), more certain, less certain, quite
certain? *Something* that on your scale or estimate that expresses a
value of certainty for it?

I do not care if it is precise, of if there is a rule for it.

> It's a similar issue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no
> witness accounts of the FSP (let alone ones where I can decide to
> impart trust), no resonance with personal convictions or experience,
> and even less way to evaluate the relative likelihood of the claims
> being true and the claimants being liars, and so on.
>

Which is not interesting to me at all, since it does not pose the
issue I am posing. Likewise you can exclude Spongebob, Russell's
teapot, Bugs Bunny, and others.

I used demons (and the devil) specifically because you do seem to
accept their existence at least 2000 years ago.


Please have the last word, unless you want me to answer questions. I
believe I have made my questions clear, and if they are not, it is not
worth the effort on my part for now.

Thanks, PD.

[PD]

On Feb 20, 3:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 1:49 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Which is why I am raising the *very specific* example of demons.
>
> > > What kind of reasoning will it take, for someone to accept Andrea's
> > > demons?
>
> > I don't have a rule. Does there have to be a rule about which
> > combination of the above people use to assess the truth (with some
> > continuous scale of certainty) of that statement?
>
> No, and you'll note that I have tried everything to indicate that I am
> looking for your thoughts in a specific matter, not *the* rule, or *a*
> rule?

I tell you below. Read first, open mouth second, please.

No, as I explained below.

>
> > >  Item 7. or beyond in your list.  Just
> > > like the cranks here on ID.  It is different matter that cranks are
> > > not convinced.
>
> > Exactly. It doesn't matter that cranks aren't convinced that there
> > isn't a single, good rule for determining truth to optimum certainty.
>
> Thank you for agreeing with my obvious agreement.
>
> > > How do you decide to accept or not accept an Andrea Yates?  Or one
> > > instance of exorcism from another?
>
> > In the case of Andrea Yates, I deliberately suspend that evaluation.
>
> Yes.  Why do you suppose that is?

I tell you below.

>
> > Relative to the claims regarding Jesus, I include in the evaluation of
> > his claims a number of things, including my impartation of trust to
> > witnesses and testimony, consistency of the validity and reliability
> > of his other statements, resonance with my own personal convictions,
> > evaluation of the relative likelihood of the claims being true and the
> > claimants being liars, and a couple of other things.
>
> Claim.  Not claims regarding.  One specific claim.  (Pick the devil
> tempting him, or the demons exorcised by him and his merry men)

I suspend judgement on the devil tempting him, because the claim made
in the New Testament about that event is not attributed to something
that he said directly about himself (contrasted with other statements
that are attributed to him), nor was there any claim of anyone
witnessing that event.

On the demons exorcised by him and his merry men, there is a bit more
certainty for me, insofar as the observations are recounted by
witnesses to whom I impart trust, and because they are consistent with
other actions that are also recounted and witnessed. Note that there
is no direct observation of demons in most of these accounts, though
there is in one particular case an account of sudden rationality in a
human followed by highly unusual behavior by a batch of pigs.

>
> Do you have personal convictions about demons that resonate well with
> it?  Do you have some loose way of  evaluating (and again I am NOT
> looking for rules, or standards) the relative likelihood of demons
> 2000 years ago?
>
> Or is it, because you simply trust the account to be true based on
> <whatever else>?
>
> > In the case of Andrea's demons, I have much less to go on for an
> > evaluation. I do not have any witnesses or testimony to Andrea's
> > demons to even impart trust, I have no resonance with my personal
> > convictions about anything she claims, I have less way to evaluate the
> > likelihood of her claims being true vs the claimant being a liar, or
> > the consistency and reliability of her other statements.
>
> But you have no personal resonance with the demons of 2000 years ago,
> either.

That's correct. But as I've indicated elsewhere, my belief in what
Jesus said is based on a different set of parameters than what those
2000 years ago witnessed. They apparently needed the force of
demonstration of supernatural phenomena to be convinced that he was
who he said he was, and he said explicitly that he did it precisely so
that they would believe. He ALSO said that there would be those that
followed in the years after his death who would belief WITHOUT
requiring the additional push of demonstration of supernatural
phenomena. He furthermore said that, in order to make this possible
(though obviously not guaranteed), he would send the Holy Spirit to
provide an additional handle for people to use in their evaluation of
the truth of what he said. Since this works for me, I have no reason
to doubt the validity of that statement. Since I obviously cannot put
myself in a subjective state both today and 2000 years ago, I have no
way to unambiguously and certainly demonstrate that this change has
occurred. But it was indeed promised by one in whom I have imparted
trust. Because that trust has not been violated, I see no reason to
withdraw it.

>
> OK, maybe you won't answer that but can I at least get you to offer an
> opinion on the Yates's case?

Didn't I just tell you that I suspend judgement on Andrea Yates and
the reason for that suspension? If I were to acquiesce to your request
and deliver a judgement anyway, don't you think neither you nor I
should give any credibility to that judgement? If you asked me whether
Ford or Chevy makes better cars, and I told you I don't make a
judgement either way because I don't have enough information to make a
judgement, and you asked me to make a call anyway, and I just said
"Chevy", would you have any reason to think that this would be a call
that was worth either supporting or critiquing? I don't think so.

>
> Due to lack of whatever for an evaluation, how certain are you,
> approximately that Yates's demons were unreal?
>
> Closer to 100%, 50% (agnostic), more certain, less certain, quite
> certain?  *Something* that on your scale or estimate that expresses a
> value of certainty for it?
>
> I do not care if it is precise, of if there is a rule for it.
>
> > It's a similar issue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have no
> > witness accounts of the FSP (let alone ones where I can decide to
> > impart trust), no resonance with personal convictions or experience,
> > and even less way to evaluate the relative likelihood of the claims
> > being true and the claimants being liars, and so on.
>
> Which is not interesting to me at all, since it does not pose the
> issue I am posing.  Likewise you can exclude Spongebob, Russell's
> teapot, Bugs Bunny, and others.
>
> I used demons (and the devil) specifically because you do seem to
> accept their existence at least 2000 years ago.

I do? Where did you get that idea?

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent post, Dev!
>

I echoed the same sentiments. In fact when I look at various
responses, it becomes evident that it is not the ad hominems or the
abusiveness that is commonly affixed to Dev that is of issue.

It is really an excellent display of evasion of discussion. Dev's
initial post was provocative, but no abuse. Then rather than respond
to the thrust of the question posed, it gets quickly into an
escalation of abuses thereby paving the way to non-responses.

I've hoped that Dev would exercise restraint so that this can be made
obvious, but I can only imagine that he has low frustration tolerance
to such tactics. I do not condone abuse either way, and do not do so
here either, but this thread is an excellent example of a topic that
was initiated by Dev, and one which could have been discussed
reasonably being sidetracked, and it is not majorly Dev's fault, in my
opinion.

> > As always, use ink.- Hide quoted text -

[atypican]

>The question is how you determine truths to be so when
> they are *not* self-evident

Or, what is a good standard for evidence. I say, respectfully and
critically compare your own observations with those of others. I
however think worshiping types don't give enough credit to their own
experience and give too much credit to those they worship.

If a person is not convinced by their own studies, the only two
options I see are that they continue journaling their own
observations, or review the remarks associated with someone elses
observations who appear to have shared their curiosity.

>> Dev says no.

>He said nothing of the sort. But, I should not really make that
>statement, it might be better if Dev spoke for himself, instead of
>either of us.

Fair enough, I responded to how I interpreted his thinking. (And yes I
could be mistaken) I am not particularly interested in engaging dev.
His opinion is like "If you disagree with me, you must be my
intellectual inferior or just an asshole". I just want to have my
opinions right along side his. So atheists don't get quite such a bad
name among theists. Theists already hate us enough.

atypican

On Feb 20, 10:32 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:53 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It boils down to the question: Do you think some truths are self
> > evident?
>
> Not really.  The question is how you determine truths to be so when
> they are *not* self-evident, so to speak.  I summarized this earlier:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/tree/browse_fr...

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 1:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 12:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 1:49 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Which is why I am raising the *very specific* example of demons.
>
> > > > What kind of reasoning will it take, for someone to accept Andrea's
> > > > demons?
>
> > > I don't have a rule. Does there have to be a rule about which
> > > combination of the above people use to assess the truth (with some
> > > continuous scale of certainty) of that statement?
>
> > No, and you'll note that I have tried everything to indicate that I am
> > looking for your thoughts in a specific matter, not *the* rule, or *a*
> > rule?
>
> I tell you below. Read first, open mouth second, please.
>

Good advice, I hope you show your conviction by doing so yourself.

>
>
> > OK, maybe you won't answer that but can I at least get you to offer an
> > opinion on the Yates's case?
>
> Didn't I just tell you that I suspend judgement on Andrea Yates and
> the reason for that suspension? If I were to acquiesce to your request
> and deliver a judgement anyway, don't you think neither you nor I
> should give any credibility to that judgement? If you asked me whether
> Ford or Chevy makes better cars, and I told you I don't make a
> judgement either way because I don't have enough information to make a
> judgement, and you asked me to make a call anyway, and I just said
> "Chevy", would you have any reason to think that this would be a call
> that was worth either supporting or critiquing? I don't think so.
>
>

No, but if you elaborated "Chevy" seems to give better mileage, but
"Ford" is cheaper, and breaks down less often perhaps, but I am not
sure either way, I'd at least get a sense of consideration being given
on your part.

That's all I was looking for.

I should therefore note that you have zero opinions on the matter of
Andrea Yates.

>
> > I used demons (and the devil) specifically because you do seem to
> > accept their existence at least 2000 years ago.
>
> I do? Where did you get that idea?
>

Probably from you, given that you do believe the accounts of Jesus and
his merry men for the most part, and heck, in this very post when you
say this:

[PD]

I thought that's what I said.

>
>
>
> > > I used demons (and the devil) specifically because you do seem to
> > > accept their existence at least 2000 years ago.
>
> > I do? Where did you get that idea?
>
> Probably from you, given that you do believe the accounts of Jesus and
> his merry men for the most part, and heck, in this very post when you
> say this:
>
>
>
> > On the demons exorcised by him and his merry men, there is a bit more
> > certainty for me, insofar as the observations are recounted by
> > witnesses to whom I impart trust, and because they are consistent with
> > other actions that are also recounted and witnessed. Note that there
> > is no direct observation of demons in most of these accounts, though
> > there is in one particular case an account of sudden rationality in a
> > human followed by highly unusual behavior by a batch of pigs.

This doesn't mean that I accept their existence. There is also some
interesting suggestion for some ideas in physics, like technicolor,
but this doesn't mean that I accept its validity.

PD

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 2:19 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The question is how you determine truths to be so when
> > they are *not* self-evident
>
> Or, what is a good standard for evidence. I say, respectfully and
> critically compare your own observations with those of others.

Explain how it is possible for someone who does not share any
standards or thoughts for determining the presence or absence of
demons existing to be considered respectfully for stating that demons
exist?

Here are my standards: There is no evidence for demons existing,
there is very little definition of what a demon's attributes are, and
I see no reason to believe that demons exist.

Now what? Why should I respect someone's claim that demons 2000 years
ago were real, but we cannot tell in any other case if they are not?

Or if I have, please suggest a way by which I can have respect for her
opinion? (Not respect for her to hold an opinion, but the object of
that opinion).

Should I expect respect for my opinion from her?

> I
> however think worshiping types don't give enough credit to their own
> experience and give too much credit to those they worship.
>

Which is one of the points Dev is expounding.

> If a person is not convinced by their own studies, the only two
> options I see are that they continue journaling their own
> observations,

Er, why? And in cases where I have no observations, why should I even
bother when the opposing viewpoint has NOTHING either, other than a
claim?

> or review the remarks associated with someone elses
> observations who appear to have shared their curiosity.
>

But when we do that, and wonder if such people are deluded (and such
people will often call Yates deluded, for example), it prompts
Armageddon.

> >> Dev says no.
> >He said nothing of the sort.  But, I should not really make that
> >statement, it might be better if Dev spoke for himself, instead of
> >either of us.
>
> Fair enough, I responded to how I interpreted his thinking. (And yes I
> could be mistaken) I am not particularly interested in engaging dev.

That is indeed your prerogative. I can see that it caused you to form
another group, and I can see why you did so.

> His opinion is like "If you disagree with me, you must be my
> intellectual inferior or just an asshole".

Well, are you either of those? If not, why worry what Dev thinks of
you? I can see why you won't respond to him, and I would be averse to
doing it myself.

> I just want to have my
> opinions right along side his.

Which is great, and I think it is A Good Thing. The more the
opinions, the better it is. I was only jumping in to suggest that you
might have considered what he said differently.

> So atheists don't get quite such a bad
> name among theists. Theists already hate us enough.
>

Theists hating atheists is hardly news. I expect it from quite a few
Christians in here. I'd be ecstatically disappointed if they didn't.

Let me get your thoughts on this. Christians, and I do not mean all,
often say that if you do not believe in God, you deserve to burn in
Hell. Hell to these Christians is a place of eternal torture.
They'll then act very polite and say that they do not know who goes to
Hell for sure, but atheists are hellbound.

I do not believe a Hell exists, so I do not care much other than the
occasional flame here and there.

But what if an atheist were to respond to the Christian that "perhaps
your dead grandmother is Hell, getting tortured and repeatedly
sodomized by Satan and his buddies, what do you think of that?"

Do you think the atheist has grounds to respond the way he does?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

No. Saying otherwise doesn't mean anything since you can't back it up.

On Feb 20, 12:28 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > faith--the belief in something without rational substantiation
>

> That is your definition of faith?
>

> Seems pretty shallow.  Most Christians have reasons for their faith
> and happy to share those reasons.
>
> So our faith is rational but it is also greater than reason alone.

[Dev]

Thanks, guys. I realize that you think it is counterproductive to call
these assholes on their tactics, but frankly I think a little blunt
honesty is in order when someone sinks to a certain level. I don't
like people getting away with certain things unchecked--I think if
someone wants to behave like the scum of the Earth, we shouldn't make
it an easier for them. I think that certain standards should be held
to people. I'm really not asking for anything that anyone isn't
capable of. I just want people to at least aspire to be decent, to
reason and to be honest. I don't get that from the theists here. At
all.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simpleton]

So you trust some witnesses, therefore there is a bit more certainty
(than an unknown amount unspecified in Yates's case) in the demons
exorcised by Jesus and his gang, and it does not mean that you accept
the existence of demons.

Got it. Thanks, PD.

[PD]

Exactly! I feel the same way about superstrings as opposed to boojums.

PD

[Scott Richard Campbell]

When you facetiously make the statements beginning with "If religious
faith is OK, then......" and follow them with illogical, irrational,
potentially harmful actions or behavior, or conclusions you bring to
mind Wilson's hypothesis about the "vertical dimension" of religion.

Wilson says that vertical or proximate religious beliefs or practices
can be completely delusional, ridiculous, dysfunctional, irrational,
weird, bizarre, totally stupid, yet the overall "horizontal"
dimension- ultimate result-- can be a religious system that is
individual and group adaptive to a given environment.

David Sloan Wilson's main hypothesis as described in "Darwin's
Cathedral" and "Evolution for Everyone" .

Cultural group natural selection:

Religious groups, defined as groups that have beliefs and practices
that identify them as different from other groups, are products of
group natural selection that are like "bodies and beehives."

A given religion adapts its members to their local environement,
achieving by collective action what they couldn't do alone, or what
they couldn't accomplish together as a group without religion.
Religions' primary benefits are for the living, not for those who have
passed on to the next world. Although perhaps irrational, bizarre, or
dysfunctional, religious beliefs or practices act as proximate
"vertically dimensioned" phenomena that support a ultimate,
functional, adaptive group social physiology "horizontal dimension"
that coordinates action and behavior and that offers competitive
survival value against other groups.

Wilson seems to have witnessed both positive and negative effects of
religion, in his three year academic study of them.

Wilson's ideal religion would provide a strong "horizontal" dimension
and a strong vertical dimension that is fully consistent with
scientific knowledge.

In the future, religion could be totally replaced with different
systems that provide equal, or improved, group survival value based on
different group identities rather than religious ones, and scientific
facts instead of religious beliefs.

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 2:55 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Thanks, guys. I realize that you think it is counterproductive to call
> these assholes on their tactics,

Depends on your goals, Dev. I always say that. They are
counterproductive to mine, and if you see that they let the "assholes"
escape without even being made to answer and squirm over the real
questions, then it is probably counterproductive to yours as well.

> but frankly I think a little blunt
> honesty is in order when someone sinks to a certain level. I don't
> like people getting away with certain things unchecked--I think if
> someone wants to behave like the scum of the Earth, we shouldn't make
> it an easier for them. I think that certain standards should be held
> to people. I'm really not asking for anything that anyone isn't
> capable of. I just want people to at least aspire to be decent, to
> reason and to be honest. I don't get that from the theists here. At
> all.
>

So if your goal is to expose that, you are letting them off scot-
free. You are giving them a ready-made excuse.

[PD]

I completely agree. I think Dev is the counterpart to the sidewalk
Bible-screamer who "evangelizes" by telling people they are damned and
fools if they don't see they are damned. *Completely* ineffective to
the point of being counterproductive. And in fact, Dev often draws the
same derision and catcalls that the sidewalk thumper gets.

Of course, when I point that out to a street preacher, I get the
response, "I don't care if anyone thinks it's effective. I'm called to
do it anyway. If *one* person in my whole effort is moved in any way,
then I've succeeded." I fully expect Dev to answer in pretty much
exactly the same way.

PD

[atypican]

> Much of the debate here centers on the idea that religious faith--the
> belief in something without rational substantiation

Presumes that that is what religious faith is.

>[Religious Faith] is equal or even superior to rationalism,
> empiricism and science.

I like what einstein said, and I think it applies here

"Religion without science is blind, and Science without religion is
lame."

>*If religious faith is okay, convicting someone for murder without
>evidence is equal to convicting someone for murder with none.

Well convicting someone for murder "without" evidence IS equal to
convicting someone for murder with "none." So according to your
equation here "Religious faith is OK."

>Assertions should be enough to put someone away for life--that should be okay.

If a person is raised by bank robbers, they are unlikely to believe
that stealing is wrong. The court system we have here in the US has
higher standards for evidence than that even though the overwhelming
majority of judges, legislators etc. profess to have religious faith.
For sure like voltaire said "If one can be convinced of absurdities
they can be made to commit attrocities"

that quote sums up any real point your post may have had before you
destroyed it.

>*If religious faith is okay, driver's tests are superfluous and
>bigoted. Since it is proven that blind people and drunk people are
>capable of unsubstantiated faith, there is no reason they should not
>get behind the wheel of a car--that is okay.

I see, it's religious faith (as dev defines it, and he's quite the
authority here)

I notice you use the terms "unsubstantiated faith." I think that is
the distinction. Faith is ok according to dev as long as it is
substantiated according to the "higher" standards he (and only people
who agree with him have) Dev is a theist in disguise out to increase
hate for atheists.

>*If religious faith is okay, we should re-evaluate the way we handle
>someone who is proven to be a child murderer and rapist in at least
>two ways. For one, we have to consider that maybe there is perfectly
>good reason to rape and murder children that we simply have no
>evidence of that makes it okay.

Not true, even according to your definition of religious faith. Under
your definition we would hardly be inclined to do much re-evaluating
at all.

>And for another, we have to consider
>that all the evidence that proves someone to be a child rapist-murder
>is invalidated by the fact that you can have faith that they did not
>rape and murder any children. The converse of punishing the innocent
>is liberating the guilty, and by the "virtue" of religious faith both
>should be equally okay.

I think you meant inverse there brainiac. You equate "Religious Faith"
with "Unsubstantiated Religious Faith" and therefore would condemn and
fail to respect a great many people who have been very thoughtful and
of much more consequence than you or I.

atypican

[Simpleton]

That said, I'll still consider Dev's discourse over the sidewalk
preacher's, since I have consistently found more thought in his.

But I can easily see others not being amenable to the same, or
preferring the other way around.

[dillan]

hehe.. thanks simp...:)

[Dev]

Anyone can have an excuse--I don't need to give them one. If these
bastards killed someone they wouldn't want to be called on it, either.
They'd still want to be called decent people and would be offended by
being labelled "murderers". That's an excuse. Nobody "gave" it to
them--they made it. I'm just telling the truth about what they are.
They don't deserve to live, much less have decent people lie about
what great people they are. They have an "excuse" to do what they do
regardless, but they will never have a reason.

[Simpleton]

Boojums? (WTF is that?)

Any thoughts on the Vatican's recent drive to perform more exorcisms
to drive away demons then, or have you suspended proferring opinions
on such developments as well?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/29/wexor129.xml

Perhaps another way to ask this:

Do you have an opinion unlike the suspended judgment in Yates's case,
on *any* incident of demonic possession other than the ones attributed
to Jesus and his gang, or in the Bible, preferably in the 21st
century? Pick a specific one if you can think of one.

[atypican]

> Explain how it is possible for someone who does not share any
> standards or thoughts for determining the presence or absence of
> demons existing to be considered respectfully for stating that demons
> exist?

You recognize demon as a word first. Then you recognize that there are
some standards of belief that you do share with them. I wouldn't think
you could start with the concept of demons. I have this problem you
describe. I "lost my brother" who I was very close with to "Christian
Right" indoctrination. I have found this much out.. If you are
unwilling to engage an opponent on their terms, they are unlikely to
hear a single point you have to make. My brother is and always was a
bright fella, I am convinced we are ALL susceptible to it in some form
or another. That is because it is so much easier to cite an authority
than to think for yourself.

>Here are my standards: There is no evidence for demons existing,
>there is very little definition of what a demon's attributes are, and
>I see no reason to believe that demons exist.

Well I do see some evidence (admittedly refutable and not convincing
to me)

But I especially don't expect a great many people to accept that the
majority of their elders were liars. So while I may think someone to
be mistaken, accusations of dishonesty are the furthest from my lips.

>Now what? Why should I respect someone's claim that demons 2000 years
>ago were real, but we cannot tell in any other case if they are not?

Well there were an awful lot of people on about them, that's why I
make effort to understand the meaning behind the words.

>Or if I have, please suggest a way by which I can have respect for her
>opinion? (Not respect for her to hold an opinion, but the object of
>that opinion).

Ok think of it like addiction to a certain unhealthy line of thinking.

>Should I expect respect for my opinion from her?

If she expects to continue engaging you.

atypican

[PD]

I'm not a Catholic. I admit that a lot of what comes out of the very
human office of the Vatican leaves me mystified.

>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/29/wexor...

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 5:04 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Explain how it is possible for someone who does not share any
> > standards or thoughts for determining the presence or absence of
> > demons existing to be considered respectfully for stating that demons
> > exist?
>
> You recognize demon as a word first. Then you recognize that there are
> some standards of belief that you do share with them.

And what might they be? I have a demon defined in the dictionary, I
have a notion from a movie, I have some vague definitions of it as a
"evil force"?

What exactly are my beliefs in something like that, when I see nothing
to suggest they exist?

> I wouldn't think
> you could start with the concept of demons. I have this problem you
> describe. I "lost my brother" who I was very close with to "Christian
> Right" indoctrination. I have found this much out.. If you are
> unwilling to engage an opponent on their terms, they are unlikely to
> hear a single point you have to make.

And when they do not respond even on their terms, what then?

Look at this thread, and tell me on what terms should I be trying to
understand how demons are known to exist to people.

Go ahead.


Heck you try it, and maybe I'll learn from your interactions.

Find out how one determines if a person is possessed by a demon, or
not. In the year 2008.

> My brother is and always was a
> bright fella, I am convinced we are ALL susceptible to it in some form
> or another. That is because it is so much easier to cite an authority
> than to think for yourself.
>

Intellectual laziness is what I'd call it.

> >Here are my standards:  There is no evidence for demons existing,
> >there is very little definition of what a demon's attributes are, and
> >I see no reason to believe that demons exist.
>
> Well I do see some evidence (admittedly refutable and not convincing
> to me)
>

Do you have evidence in Yates's case that she was possessed by demons,
or was she deluded, or something else?

> But I especially don't expect a great many people to accept that the
> majority of their elders were liars. So while I may think someone to
> be mistaken, accusations of dishonesty are the furthest from my lips.
>

Mistaken? Do you call people who claim to have met Elvis Presley or
Tupac Shakur in 2008 mistaken, or deluded?

> >Now what?  Why should I respect someone's claim that demons 2000 years
> >ago were real, but we cannot tell in any other case if they are not?
>
> Well there were an awful lot of people on about them, that's why I
> make effort to understand the meaning behind the words.
>

Ignoring the slight implication that I may not have done so, where
does it leave you, once you realize that you have understood what a
demon means?

> >Or if I have, please suggest a way by which I can have respect for her
> >opinion?  (Not respect for her to hold an opinion, but the object of
> >that opinion).
>
> Ok think of it like addiction to a certain unhealthy line of thinking.
>

You respect someone's unhealthy line of thinking, or the addition to
such?

> >Should I expect respect for my opinion from her?
>
> If she expects to continue engaging you.
>

And in what form should she be doing so? Take a guess, if you like.
Tell me how someone who believes in demons should be respecting my
opinion that "emons do not exist, people who believe they do, like
Yates,are deluded"

[Dev]

On Feb 20, 8:28 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:26 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My exasperation meter has swung wildly into the red. I may need to let
> > > the anti-goofball system cool down a while.
>
> > I'm glad I'm pissing you off. Get laid. I'm sure Keith is around there
> > somewhere. Just tell him you want to take one for the team.
>
> If pissing me off is your objective, then I understand you better as a
> human being.

Well, I would love to reason with you but since you clearly _aren't_ a
human being this is probably the best anyone can do.

> In the meantime, consider that all you really accomplished is that you
> cannot sustain a logical train long enough to come up with a
> conclusion that actually follows from the premise, and that you were
> willing to demonstrate this inability repeatedly.

Read: "W'ah, I'm PD and I don't like having my bullshit lack of an
argument exposed as such."

> This produced both
> reports from your audience that your conclusions do not follow, as
> well as a parody of that so-called logic featuring other conclusions
> that do not follow from premises. You failed not only to recognize the
> brokenness of the logic you mustered, but also failed to recognized
> the parody.

All I would have said to you in this case is "fuck off, moron". You
are simply disguising an insult as an argument, because your previous
attempts at "arguments" failed. Yet, subhuman that you are, you will
still bitch when I articulate my observations about you. Way to be a
person, PD.

> For someone who is so firmly committed to reason and logic, you are
> superbly ill-equipped to support the life you aspire to. Since you
> don't want to avail yourself of other pursuits that might offer
> sustenance, you might as well give up in general. It's like watching
> someone who passionately wants to live on a diet of tree bark that he
> cannot digest. It's sad, but what can you do?

Blah, blah, blah. What a hypocrite. You made no case in this post,
simply insults, yet you turn around and say all I have to offer is
insults. No decent people hold higher standards to their opponents
than they do to themselves.

[Dev]

All I've gotten from you today is insults, PD, which makes you a
pathetic hypocrite.

> PD- Hide quoted text -

[PD]

On Feb 20, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> All I've gotten from you today is insults, PD, which makes you a
> pathetic hypocrite.

When have I ever told you that I find your insulting manner to be
disgusting and (what was the word you used?) "subhuman" behavior?

If you want to be insulting, please be my guest. I will point out to
you that you are being ineffective (not that you care), and it's very
likely that I will mock you (that is, insult you) for being insulting.
But it's more likely that I will mock you for a spectacular display of
crappy logic when you do it, since you *clearly* want that done for
you when you do it. You have said that no one who uses crappy logic
*should* be allowed to get away with it. So when you do it, you won't
get away with it.

Please don't project onto me your expectation that I should try to
elevate myself to some higher "Christian" standard of behavior. I
don't intend to give you such an easy target by pretending to conform
to that.

Now, when you said earlier, "Way to be a person, PD," and "subhuman
that you are" and "you don't deserve to live", is that you being a
model person? Or do you hold yourself to a different standard?
Goofball.

PD

[atypican]

> But what if an atheist were to respond to the Christian that "perhaps
> your dead grandmother is Hell, getting tortured and repeatedly
> sodomized by Satan and his buddies, what do you think of that?"
>
> Do you think the atheist has grounds to respond the way he does?

If you are very opposed to the use of terms like "demon", "hell" and
"satan." And you use them as much as your opponent, it's sort of like
there's no such thing as bad publicity.

just trying to finish answering your post. sorry for any "quality of
response" issues :)

atypican

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 5:44 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But what if an atheist were to respond to the Christian that "perhaps
> > your dead grandmother is Hell, getting tortured and repeatedly
> > sodomized by Satan and his buddies, what do you think of that?"
>
> > Do you think the atheist has grounds to respond the way he does?
>
> If you are very opposed to the use of terms like "demon", "hell" and
> "satan."

I am no more opposed to those words than I am to "vampire", "ghoul",
or "poltergeist".

> And you use them as much as your opponent, it's sort of like
> there's no such thing as bad publicity.
>

Which is not distressing at all to me.

> just trying to finish answering your post. sorry for any "quality of
> response" issues :)
>

No problems, but would you mind answering the question I asked with
that example about some Christians talking about Hell, and the
atheist's grandmother remark?

[Dev]

If I were displaying crappy logic, and you were in a position to make
such a judgment, you wouldn't have fled from the issue with strawmen
and empty assertions. When I call you subhuman, I acknowledge that I
am insulting you, but I back it up as do I back up everything I say.
You, on the other hand, are equally insulting but bitch about my
insults. I just complain about your hypocrisy--_that_ is the issue
with me, and when you try and twist it into something else you are
simply being dishonest. So it is you with the lack of standards, not
me.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

Interesting thought. What standards might a demon have?

[atypican]

> And what might they be?

To find out exactly what they are requires a tremendous amount of
respect from you for her. I wouldn't recommend it unless this is
someone you are otherwise close to like a family member or loved one.

> I have a demon defined in the dictionary, I
> have a notion from a movie, I have some vague definitions of it as a
> "evil force"?

And what does "evil" mean to you? To me it means something like
progressive illness.

>What exactly are my beliefs in something like that, when I see nothing
>to suggest they exist?

But you must admit they do exist at least as terms. You recognize that
that they are at least professed beliefs. You recognize that they are
thought of as entities up to no good. Those are a couple of my
guesses.

>And when they do not respond even on their terms, what then?

In the worst cases violence.

>Look at this thread, and tell me on what terms should I be trying to
>understand how demons are known to exist to people.

Did I criticize your approach?

>Go ahead.

>Heck you try it, and maybe I'll learn from your interactions.

I sympathize with your doubt. Who knows my doubts may increase to
where I no longer have enough faith to bother with discourses like
this.

>Find out how one determines if a person is possessed by a demon, or
>not. In the year 2008.

I think today we call it mental illness.

>Ignoring the slight implication that I may not have done so, where
>does it leave you, once you realize that you have understood what a
>demon means?

If I implied that your investigation has been shallow, let me
explicitly state that so has mine in many areas. To your question: I
think my earlier responses addressed that.... or are you going to keep
pressing me?

>You respect someone's unhealthy line of thinking, or the addition to
>such?

Absolutely. especially if they were someone very famous or universally
hated.

And in what form should she be doing so?

That is up to you and her

>Take a guess, if you like.Tell me how someone who believes in demons should be respecting my
> opinion that "demons do not exist, people who believe they do, like Yates,are deluded"

If someone thought demons (as you describe them) were real I would
agree with you that they were delusional, though somehow I doubt that
anyone is free from all forms of delusion, it is usually only when a
delusion is very uncommon that people take notice.

atypican

[atypican]

> > > But what if an atheist were to respond to the Christian that "perhaps
> > > your dead grandmother is Hell, getting tortured and repeatedly
> > > sodomized by Satan and his buddies, what do you think of that?"

>would you mind answering the question I asked with
> that example about some Christians talking about Hell, and the
> atheist's grandmother remark?

Ok. According to my ethics that would be a poor response. I think that
it IS entirely fair game but it is not conducive to acheiving anything
like good rapport (if that is your goal)

atypican

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 10:02 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > But what if an atheist were to respond to the Christian that "perhaps
> > > > your dead grandmother is Hell, getting tortured and repeatedly
> > > > sodomized by Satan and his buddies, what do you think of that?"

> >would you mind answering the question I asked with
> > that example about some Christians talking about Hell, and the
> > atheist's grandmother remark?
>
> Ok. According to my ethics that would be a poor response.

Thanks.

> I think that
> it IS entirely fair game but it is not conducive to acheiving anything
> like good rapport (if that is your goal)
>

And that good rapport is worth pursuing with the Christian, because?


Any thoughts on the Christian comment that prompted the response? How
about that, according to your ethics?

I reproduced it, since it has been cut off:

Christians, and I do not mean all, often say that if you do not
believe in God, you deserve to burn in Hell. Hell to these Christians

is a place of eternal torture.They'll then act very polite and say

that they do not know who goes to Hell for sure, but atheists are
hellbound.

(how about the above, is what I am asking. Does this produce good
rapport, for instance? Does this go against your ethics?)

I do not believe a Hell exists, so I do not care much other than the
occasional flame here and there.

But what if an atheist were to respond to the Christian that "perhaps
your dead grandmother is Hell, getting tortured and repeatedly
sodomized by Satan and his buddies, what do you think of that?"

(This you say is against your ethics but fair game)

[Simpleton]

On Feb 20, 9:48 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And what might they be?
>
> To find out exactly what they are requires a tremendous amount of
> respect from you for her. I wouldn't recommend it unless this is
> someone you are otherwise close to like a family member or loved one.
>

So you have no idea, is what you are saying.

> > I have a demon defined in the dictionary, I
> > have a notion from a movie, I have some vague definitions of it as a
> > "evil force"?
>
> And what does "evil" mean to you? To me it means something like
> progressive illness.
>

To me it means extreme malevolence.

> >What exactly are my beliefs in something like that, when I see nothing
> >to suggest they exist?
>
> But you must admit they do exist at least as terms.

So does "necrophilia", "cocksucker", and "fucking asshole". Admitting
that they exist as terms does what, exactly?

> You recognize that
> that they are at least professed beliefs.

Yes, and?

> You recognize that they are
> thought of as entities up to no good. Those are a couple of my
> guesses.
>

Yes, and?

Hello, what are my beliefs?

> >And when they do not respond even on their terms, what then?
>
> In the worst cases violence.
>

What? Violence because people do not respond to me on their terms?

> >Look at this thread, and tell me on what terms should I be trying to
> >understand how demons are known to exist to people.
>
> Did I criticize your approach?
>

Unsure about that, but I am asking you to do something to help me
understand.

> >Go ahead.
> >Heck you try it, and maybe I'll learn from your interactions.
>
> I sympathize with your doubt. Who knows my doubts may increase to
> where I no longer have enough faith to bother with discourses like
> this.
>
> >Find out how one determines if a person is possessed by a demon, or
> >not. In the year 2008.
>
> I think today we call it mental illness.
>

Or delusion. So what do you call people who claim that demons told
her to kill kids?

How about people who, in 2008, claim that Jesus and his gang expunged
demons out of a person?

> >Ignoring the slight implication that I may not have done so, where
> >does it leave you, once you realize that you have understood what a
> >demon means?
>
> If I implied that your investigation has been shallow, let me
> explicitly state that so has mine in many areas.

Which still leaves the implication that my investigation is
shallow. :-)

> To your question: I
> think my earlier responses addressed that.... or are you going to keep
> pressing me?
>

I am only pressing because I do not see an answer. If you do not want
to answer, and instead insist that you have already answered it, but
will not repeat it for whatever reason, I'll bail after a while since
it becomes unproductive. Or you can simply state that you do not want
to answer. Playing dodge ball is not as much fun twice in a day in
the same thread.

> >You respect someone's unhealthy line of thinking, or the addition to
> >such?
>
> Absolutely. especially if they were someone very famous or universally
> hated.
>

That explains a lot. I have nothing but contempt.

> And in what form should she be doing so?
>
> That is up to you and her
>

Yes, which is why I asked you to take a guess. You were rather quick
with how I should be considering respecting her beliefs for better
rapport and stuff.

> >Take a guess, if you like.Tell me how someone who believes in demons should be respecting my
> > opinion that "demons do not exist, people who believe they do, like Yates,are deluded"
>
> If someone thought demons (as you describe them) were real I would
> agree with you that they were delusional,

Then can you see why someone would extend to people who believe in a
three-in-one god born of a virgin who killed himself on the cross to
spare his own creation from his own wrath?

> though somehow I doubt that
> anyone is free from all forms of delusion,

I doubt what you are saying there

> it is usually only when a
> delusion is very uncommon that people take notice.
>

This I can agree.

[atypican]

If they really believe it, they think they are trying to "scare you
strait". I am irritated but not offended by that. My response is
usually to try and get questioning going. Like: Is hell where justice
is finally served? How long does it take? Forever? Do you really think
people are just good or evil or do terms like healthy or sick describe
them better? I like it when I see signs that they are questioning and
adjusting their beliefs closer and closer to coherance. I think we
have better success when we can get them not to view us as enemies
(which is possible). No one has ever come up to my face and said "You
know I just wanted to thank you for provoking me to question my
beliefs, I no longer accept others preaching them to me I am more fit
than anyone else to decide which beliefs should be my own." But I have
heard an atheist confession from a good friend, and I am aware of mine
and other's parts in the process. Knowing how difficult it is I am
pretty proud of it.

atypican

[atypican]

> So you have no idea, is what you are saying.

I certainly would not venture to guess far in to particulars.

>> And what does "evil" mean to you? To me it means something like
>> progressive illness.

>To me it means extreme malevolence.

So do you commonly use the word evil?

>Yes, and?

Now when you use the words you can try to do so with out allowing
theistic ideological connotations to pollute your meaning. Good
luck :)

>Hello, what are my beliefs?

LOL I worded it like that for fun since you asked it like that.

>What? Violence because people do not respond to me on their terms?

If people have a real dispute, and they fail to agree on terms for the
settling of it, violence is a common next step.

>So what do you call people who claim that demons told
>her to kill kids?

People who use an antiquated term. (for mental illness in this case)

>How about people who, in 2008, claim that Jesus and his gang expunged
>demons out of a person?

Send me a link or something I didn't hear about it...

>I am only pressing because I do not see an answer. If you do not want
>to answer, and instead insist that you have already answered it, but
>will not repeat it for whatever reason, I'll bail after a while since
>it becomes unproductive. Or you can simply state that you do not want
>to answer. Playing dodge ball is not as much fun twice in a day in
>the same thread.

It is my intention never to dodge a question, but I always just type
what comes to mind. If you would have patience with me and re-phrase
the question you feel I have dodged. I will answer with as much
directness I can muster.

>Yes, which is why I asked you to take a guess. You were rather quick
>with how I should be considering respecting her beliefs for better
>rapport and stuff.

It is just my opinion..... I am not worried about you getting all
worship like towards me, from what I can tell you are a critic at
heart (like me)

>Then can you see why someone would extend to people who believe in a
>three-in-one god born of a virgin who killed himself on the cross to
>spare his own creation from his own wrath?

Sure. But being delusional in one sense does not mean one is
hopelessly or completely delusional in all others. Plus I think there
is the factor of people professing a belief they don't have for social
reasons.

I enjoy the challenge...please bear with me...to me you are a rare
find

atypican

[PD]

On Feb 20, 7:55 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> If I were displaying crappy logic, and you were in a position to make
> such a judgment, you wouldn't have fled from the issue with strawmen
> and empty assertions. When I call you subhuman, I acknowledge that I
> am insulting you, but I back it up as do I back up everything I say.
> You, on the other hand, are equally insulting but bitch about my
> insults. I just complain about your hypocrisy--_that_ is the issue
> with me, and when you try and twist it into something else you are
> simply being dishonest. So it is you with the lack of standards, not
> me.

Dev, when you say that anyone who is rational would want to see me
killed, that is just a bizarre statement. For you to say that you can
back that up (as you say you back up everything you say), and to also
maintain that you are a model of rationality and secular humanism,
just compounds the bizarreness and adds a healthy splash of blindness.
Have the last word, if you like, I'm taking a break from you.

PD

[bonfly]

Yeah? Well you'd have to think anyone gave a shit as to your opinion
Draper.

[bonfly]

Just fuck off Keith.

On Feb 21, 2:51 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting thought. What standards might a demon have?
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell
> Keith A. MacNevins
> Elk Grove Village, IL USA
> copyright

[Dev]

Well, I will do what you asked and hold you to word (LOL) that you are
retreating. I think that is rational to want you dead because you are
a shit person, and I have yet to see an argument as to why more shit
people=good thing. As to whether or not I've called myself a model for
secular humanism, well, I haven't so you can't find a quote where I
said that so you are lying.

[PD]

On Feb 21, 8:52 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Yeah? Well you'd have to think anyone gave a shit as to your opinion
> Draper.

If you don't care about my opinion, then don't read my posts, and by
all means don't waste your time replying to them. However, if you just
want to heckle, I suggest you get really drunk and go to a children's
soccer game and yell obscenities at the refs. The games are free and
there are plenty of them, so when you get booted from one, you can
simply move to the next one.

PD

[Keith MacNevins]

The dev is a human being (possibly) at this time, but if you believe in life after death what do you think his fate will be? I think it is rather plain. He will roam the world and many waterless places (as the Bible says) as a spirit. Also known as a demon.

[Keith MacNevins]

I think bonfrog has already tried that. It is easier for him to not have to leave the house and so he just just goes on the Internet. He hasn't gotten arrested yet for disorderly conduct at his flat.

On 2/21/08, PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Simpleton]

On Feb 21, 12:15 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you have no idea, is what you are saying.
>
> I certainly would not venture to guess far in to particulars.
>

Guess at the broad outline, please

> >> And what does "evil" mean to you? To me it means something like
> >> progressive illness.
> >To me it means extreme malevolence.
>
> So do you commonly use the word evil?
>

Not really, but it is part of my vocabulary.

> >Yes, and?
>
> Now when you use the words you can try to do so with out allowing
> theistic ideological connotations to pollute your meaning. Good
> luck :)
>

Oh, I readily surrender to the context. It is more important to me
that we understand what we are saying than the specific use of a word,
generally.

> >Hello, what are my beliefs?
>
> LOL I worded it like that for fun since you asked it like that.
>
> >What? Violence because people do not respond to me on their terms?
>
> If people have a real dispute, and they fail to agree on terms for the
> settling of it, violence is a common next step.
>

Lawsuits, dude!

> >So what do you call people who claim that demons told
> >her to kill kids?
>
> People who use an antiquated term. (for mental illness in this case)
>

Er,no. Yates did not say that she had a mental illness. Her
doctor(s) did. She said demons.

> >How about people who, in 2008, claim that Jesus and his gang expunged
> >demons out of a person?
>
> Send me a link or something I didn't hear about it...
>

Oops. Let's try that again.

It is the year 2008. There are Christians who believe the Bible. The
Bible has various verses describing how Jesus and/or his posse drove
out demons from possessed people.

I am asking what should we call these Christians?

You said in the Yates case, we call her mentally ill?

Is it reasonable to do the same for all Christians, for exactly the
same reasons?

> >I am only pressing because I do not see an answer. If you do not want
> >to answer, and instead insist that you have already answered it, but
> >will not repeat it for whatever reason, I'll bail after a while since
> >it becomes unproductive. Or you can simply state that you do not want
> >to answer. Playing dodge ball is not as much fun twice in a day in
> >the same thread.
>
> It is my intention never to dodge a question, but I always just type
> what comes to mind. If you would have patience with me and re-phrase
> the question you feel I have dodged. I will answer with as much
> directness I can muster.
>
> >Yes, which is why I asked you to take a guess. You were rather quick
> >with how I should be considering respecting her beliefs for better
> >rapport and stuff.
>
> It is just my opinion..... I am not worried about you getting all
> worship like towards me, from what I can tell you are a critic at
> heart (like me)
>
> >Then can you see why someone would extend to people who believe in a
> >three-in-one god born of a virgin who killed himself on the cross to
> >spare his own creation from his own wrath?
>
> Sure. But being delusional in one sense does not mean one is
> hopelessly or completely delusional in all others.

Nor did I say that it did. All I am saying is that do you see why
someone would call Christians deluded, for having a belief like that?
And they do.

> Plus I think there
> is the factor of people professing a belief they don't have for social
> reasons.
>

In 2008, I'd think that this would be getting rare. I mean it is not
like homosexuals coming out of the closet, and that still has stigma.

> I enjoy the challenge...please bear with me...to me you are a rare
> find
>

Thanks.

[Dag Yo]

> >Find out how one determines if a person is possessed by a demon, or
> >not. In the year 2008.
>
> I think today we call it mental illness.

Yes, we atheists call it a mental illness. Unfortunately there are
plenty of Christians who don't, and that leads to some pretty horrible
situations.

---

On Feb 20, 9:48 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:

[PD]

On Feb 21, 2:10 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Find out how one determines if a person is possessed by a demon, or
> > >not.  In the year 2008.
>
> > I think today we call it mental illness.
>
> Yes, we atheists call it a mental illness.  Unfortunately there are
> plenty of Christians who don't, and that leads to some pretty horrible
> situations.

I agree that diagnoses made by unqualified individuals leads to some
pretty horrible situations. In most cases, people that do that are run
out of the state.

> > > Yates,are deluded"- Hide quoted text -

[Simpleton]

On Feb 21, 12:15 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:10 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Find out how one determines if a person is possessed by a demon, or
> > > >not.  In the year 2008.
>
> > > I think today we call it mental illness.
>
> > Yes, we atheists call it a mental illness.  Unfortunately there are
> > plenty of Christians who don't, and that leads to some pretty horrible
> > situations.
>
> I agree that diagnoses made by unqualified individuals leads to some
> pretty horrible situations. In most cases, people that do that are run
> out of the state.
>

Others get lucrative TV shows, or get to dispense advice on the mental
sickness called homosexuality from behind the pulpit, then get to
spend time in DC, counselling the most powerful man on the planet.
Some even get to counsel couples on marital problems with no
qualifications or even any personal experience. Still others lead
crusa.. charges to increase exorcisms, apparently demons have gone al
Qaeda on the masses in recent years.

Good thing that these are still considered qualified individuals,
otherwise who knows, we might voice at least as much concern at their
efforts as we do with those of a few non-descript atheists of a Google
group called AvC.

[PD]

Oh, I do.