Old Questions, New Thread

[Dev]

Theists:

Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
your God?

If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
judgment about reality?

Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Jul 19, 2:47 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Theists:
>
> Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> your God?

Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the current
standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
utterly irrelevant.

It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief. The O.J. Simpson
case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.

So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems of
the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise?

>
> If you answered "no", is this because you are guilty of crimes? Or is
> it because it is insufficient evidence on which to form a conclusive
> judgment about reality?
>
> Do you consider it moral to hold higher standards to the convictions
> of others than you do to your own? Should everybody do that?

I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
of evidence that I merely believe in God. But criminal convictions
are not based on mere belief ...

[Observer]

On Jul 19, 2:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

Observer
Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
existence of any god. Second when you refer to god you refer to the
hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
myths.


That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
god. Partly because of the 1000 or more hypothesized gods worshiped by
untold millions of other people . Making it necessary to disqualify
each of them for cause beefer establishing the validity of what you
think to be the only true god. Remember all this after proving or at
least giving compelling reasons to believe that any god exists.


No one has ever been able to do either. Now to rely on the bible,
which is the only source of this myth , makes any argument thereof
circular.

The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
someone I trust told me to believe the bible.

There has never been offered any compelling argument for the belief in
ghosts, demons, a devil , angels , this hypothetical god thing, (or
any god for that matter) a heaven, a hell, or any of the so-called
metaphysical nonsense.

If i am wrong please supply a clear and persuasive argument to the
contrary. Such argument to contain exactly why you believe this
metaphysical clap trap .

Regards

Psychonomist

[Allan C Cybulskie]

The standard epistemological standards FOR BELIEF.

There is exactly no concrete
> evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> existence of any god.

Do you only believe things that are scientifically verified? So when
you believe -- or even know -- that you like a certain dish, did you
go through any scientific justification for it, or do you believe it
without that?

> Second when you refer to god you refer to the
> hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
> myths.

Yes.

>
> That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
> of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
> god.

Yep. That's why it's a belief, and not knowledge.

Partly because of the 1000 or more hypothesized gods worshiped by
> untold millions of other people . Making it necessary to disqualify
> each of them for cause beefer establishing the validity of what you
> think to be the only true god. Remember all this after proving or at
> least giving compelling reasons to believe that any god exists.
>
> No one has ever been able to do either. Now to rely on the bible,
> which is the only source of this myth , makes any argument thereof
> circular.

Um, no. To reference the source of the concept is in no way circular
in determining why you are considering believing in the concept in the
first place. If that was true, then someone telling you that they
hate hot weather and you replying, when someone asks you why you
believe that they hate weather your replying that they told you would
be equally circular.

>
> The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
> Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
> someone I trust told me to believe the bible.

I'll go with that one. And it's a perfectly justifiable reason for
belief. We do it all the time. If my parents, for example, tell me
that there is a special on pork chops at the grocery store, I don't
have to examine the flyer or go there and check before I can believe
it. And, in fact, should I get there and not find that special I am
totally justified in asking the store where they are, and not
immediately forced to doubt what my parents told me. And this even
applies for people that we don't necessarily trust; if a stranger on
the street tells me that there's an accident just out of sight, and I
should take another route, it is, in fact perfectly reasonable for me
to believe him and take the other route, despite my not having
verified that.

>
> There has never been offered any compelling argument for the belief in
> ghosts, demons, a devil , angels , this hypothetical god thing, (or
> any god for that matter) a heaven, a hell, or any of the so-called
> metaphysical nonsense.
>
> If i am wrong please supply a clear and persuasive argument to the
> contrary. Such argument to contain exactly why you believe this
> metaphysical clap trap .

I refuse to provide compelling evidence because if I had compelling
evidence, I'd KNOW that God exists, since knowledge is the only thing
that can compel belief. I categorically deny that I -- or anyone --
KNOWS that God exists. I actually even deny that anyone CAN know that
God exists. But you are demanding -- it seems -- that in order for me
to be able to BELIEVE that God exists, I have to be able to KNOW that
God exists. If I take this as a general standard -- and you seem to
be applying it as such - - then you seem to be saying that before I
can BELIEVE something, I must KNOW it. Flipped around, this means
that I can only believe that which I know. And that's a very, very
risky proposition, since there's a whole heck of a lot that we don't
know, and yet believe anyway.

[Keith MacNevins]

Do you have a brain or are you borrowing one from a lower primate?

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Brock]

On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
>
> Observer
> Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
> evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> existence of any god.

This is in fact, more of an indication of the limitation of the
scientific method, than it is an indictment against Christianity:

"In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge')
refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect
accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a
way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative
predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by
experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of
acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the
organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

So the scope of science is knowledge through reason - and the scope of
earth science is knowlege of earth systems through the study od
combined sceinces.

As for limitations - well it's in the answer for scope - Reason.
Science is bounded by reason and argument and proof - it doesn't step
into the realm of belief systems."[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070616052312AAaAuac

[Walt]

Very well, but have you considered all the implications of what you
are saying here?

You're implying there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
Christianity is true. Doesn't that mean that Christianity cannot be
used as a basis to delcare a person be a criminal, either explicitly
or de facto?

Suppose a young woman wants to take a morning-after pill to avoid a
possible pregnancy, but the law prohibits her doing so. It is a very
stern legal sanction to prohibit her from doing this. An unwanted
pregnancy can destroy a woman's plans, hopes and dreams. So this law,
de facto, declares the woman to be a criminal deserving a stern
punishment (to say nothing of the innocent child-to-be). How can it
be proper to vote for this law based on Christianity? If Christianty
cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no one should be punished
like a criminal based on Christianity.

On Jul 19, 5:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[Walt]

This point of view is the bedrock of anti-theism. If religious belief
is no way shaped by reason/observation, the anti-theists are correct
that there is no way one can say that Al Qaeda's murderous Takfiri
Wahabbism is less valid than Methodism.

My point of view is that there is no clear boundary between knowledge
and belief, that knowledge is a word for strong belief. People use
some combination of reason/observation and intuition to form beliefs.
Physics is based purely on reason/observation. Psychology involves
significant intuition (thus the many competing theories). Political
philosophies involve so much intuition they are not generally called
scientific. Mainstream Christianity uses common-sense principles like
reciprocity (do onto others as you would have them do onto you), a
little weak one-source history and gobs of intuition to form beliefs
that can neither be proven nor disproven by Science. Christians who
believe in Creation "Science" actually override the results of Science
with intuition-based religious beliefs. (It should be noted that much
Christian belief comes from intuitive trust in the witness born by
other Christians, rather than direct intuition about the existence and
nature of God.)

[Trance Gemini]

And, of course, no surprise here ... but you would be wrong.

 

People use
some combination of reason/observation and intuition to form beliefs.
Physics is based purely on reason/observation.  Psychology involves
significant intuition (thus the many competing theories).  Political
philosophies involve so much intuition they are not generally called
scientific. Mainstream Christianity uses common-sense principles like
reciprocity (do onto others as you would have them do onto you), a
little weak one-source history and gobs of intuition to form beliefs
that can neither be proven nor disproven by Science.  Christians who
believe in Creation "Science" actually override the results of Science
with intuition-based religious beliefs.  (It should be noted that much
Christian belief comes from intuitive trust in the witness born by
other Christians, rather than direct intuition about the existence and
nature of God.)

> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> [1]http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070616052312AAaAuac

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Dev]

Well, first of all it is absolutely hilarious (and clearly
disingenuous) that you assert that my question implies that I think
the lack of standards theists require to believe in God should be
applied to the court system, when it is precisely this lack of
standards that I criticize. Anyway, you do acknowledge here that you
expect higher standards to be used in matters of importance than you
use to form your deeply held convictions. Unfortunately, the fact that
you find this ethically acceptable is challenged by the fact that the
deeply held convictions of people have consequences.

On Jul 19, 3:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

[Dag Yo]

> Well, first of all it is absolutely hilarious (and clearly
> disingenuous)

yup

[Observer]

On Jul 19, 4:51 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

Observer
Specifically describe exactly how your theory of knowledge
(epistemology) is better than or even partially equal to the practice
of scientific method.

Your epistemology reduced to its essence is ** somebody said it it is
true * no proof and no applied scientific method in an attempt to
verify it. In other words the imagined world of uneducated ,
superstitious Neolithic goat herders is accepted based on nothing but
that they said so.

That which can not be known by the application of scientific method is
unknowable and therefor irrelevant to human affairs.

>
> There is exactly no concrete
>
> > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> > existence of any god.
>
> Do you only believe things that are scientifically verified?

Observer
Is it necessary that usable information become part of a belief
system?
I am quite satisfied to use such information with out having to
believe that it part of some universal and eternal truth. I see by the
light of the sun only when it is visible or when it is reflected off
of the moon.

So when
> you believe -- or even know -- that you like a certain dish, did you
> go through any scientific justification for it, or do you believe it
> without that?

Observer
Of course I went through a scientific justification . I tested the
food and and thereby found it palatable subsequent tastings were
additional verifications of the acceptability of the substance by my
personal experience there of.

>
> > Second when you refer to god you refer to the
> > hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
> > myths.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
> > of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
> > god.
>
> Yep. That's why it's a belief, and not knowledge.

Observer

There exists no stand alone justification for such belief . The belief
is of zero value in that there exists no pragmatic usefulness
therefor.

It explains nothing in that the world is quite nicely accounted for by
scientific method and accumulated data even if you wish to reject the
quite sound explanations of the origin of the universe(s). Progress
through the four and one half billion years over which our solar
system congealed into the sun the planets and the asteroids are
almost completely understood.

The existence of man on this planet is directly traceable back to the
first primitive life . the exact process of Bio-genesis will soon be
understood .

No creator is necessary to any of it. In fact trying to explain just
how a god thing came to be or just the existence of such simply adds
an additional layer of unnecessary complexity .




Belief in the sense of religious faith is an absurdity . There exists
nothing upon which to base such utter mind vomit.

Never has there been any footprint of such an absurd creature nor any
scientifically verifiable action there to attributed .

>
> Partly because of the 1000 or more hypothesized gods worshiped by
>
> > untold millions of other people . Making it necessary to disqualify
> > each of them for cause beefer establishing the validity of what you
> > think to be the only true god. Remember all this after proving or at
> > least giving compelling reasons to believe that any god exists.
>
> > No one has ever been able to do either. Now to rely on the bible,
> > which is the only source of this myth , makes any argument thereof
> > circular.
>
> Um, no. To reference the source of the concept is in no way circular
> in determining why you are considering believing in the concept in the
> first place.

Observer
To attempt to prove that the bible is true by reference the bible
other than in scientifically verified truths contained therein is an
act not only of credulity but obfuscation. Furthermore there is
nothing anywhere there in that will establish existence of
metaphysical absurdities. In order for that to occure the passages in
question must be verified as scientifically provable.

If that was true, then someone telling you that they
> hate hot weather and you replying, when someone asks you why you
> believe that they hate weather your replying that they told you would
> be equally circular.

Observer
Direct from the pages of the supreme manual for argumentation by
nincompoopery.

You have got to be smarter than that..

>
>
>
> > The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
> > Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
> > someone I trust told me to believe the bible.
>
> I'll go with that one. And it's a perfectly justifiable reason for
> belief.

Observer

Oh really ? It is then also a part of your superstitious nature to
believe in the infallibility of humans.

We do it all the time. If my parents, for example, tell me
> that there is a special on pork chops at the grocery store, I don't
> have to examine the flyer or go there and check before I can believe
> it.

Observer
Once again nincompoopery raises its stupid head. Acceptance of a
concept as extravagantly absurd as the existence of the sadomasochist
monster (your god thing) and the willingness to trust a harmless
statement about a grocery special are hardly comparable .

You christians have so dedicated yourselves to being told what to
think that how to think has become the victim of cognitive atrophy.

And, in fact, should I get there and not find that special I am
> totally justified in asking the store where they are, and not
> immediately forced to doubt what my parents told me. And this even
> applies for people that we don't necessarily trust; if a stranger on
> the street tells me that there's an accident just out of sight, and I
> should take another route, it is, in fact perfectly reasonable for me
> to believe him and take the other route, despite my not having
> verified that.

Observer

What disjointed and irrelevant triviality.

Again you fail to understand that the above propositions are in no way
comparable to belief in your complex mythology and its preposterous
assertions of metaphysical absurdities.

>
>
>
> > There has never been offered any compelling argument for the belief in
> > ghosts, demons, a devil , angels , this hypothetical god thing, (or
> > any god for that matter) a heaven, a hell, or any of the so-called
> > metaphysical nonsense.
>
> > If i am wrong please supply a clear and persuasive argument to the
> > contrary. Such argument to contain exactly why you believe this
> > metaphysical clap trap .
>
> I refuse to provide compelling evidence because if I had compelling
> evidence, I'd KNOW that God exists, since knowledge is the only thing
> that can compel belief.

Observer

Ha Ha ha ha

You do not refuse to do so ,you are unable to do so. There is a great
difference.


Observer
You say knowledge compels belief . Where is the knowledge that
compelled your belief in your superstitious morbidities ?

Ignorance is that which contributes the most to superstitious beliefs.

I categorically deny that I -- or anyone --
> KNOWS that God exists. I actually even deny that anyone CAN know that
> God exists. But you are demanding -- it seems -- that in order for me
> to be able to BELIEVE that God exists, I have to be able to KNOW that
> God exists.

If I take this as a general standard -- and you seem to
> be applying it as such - - then you seem to be saying that before I
> can BELIEVE something, I must KNOW it. Flipped around, this means
> that I can only believe that which I know. And that's a very, very
> risky proposition, since there's a whole heck of a lot that we don't
> know, and yet believe anyway.

Observer


I asked you to supply compelling reasons to believe these christian
superstitious absurdities . Failure to do so indicates that you have
no compelling reasons your self. That is unless you are assuming the
infallibility and infinite wisdom of those who told you to believe.
My friend ,you are simply the victim of misinformation , an extreme
lack of sound judgment and a disassociation from the benefits of
applied scientific method. Your error ridden epistemology not
withstanding.

Regards

Psychonomist

[Observer]

On Jul 19, 10:14 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
> > > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
> > > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
>
> > Observer
> > Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
> > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> > existence of any god.
>
> This is in fact, more of an indication of the limitation of the
> scientific method, than it is an indictment against Christianity:

Observer
What can not be known by scientific method (anything outside of
physics) is irrelevant to the lives of humanity as there is no
possibility of interaction therewith.

>
> "In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge')
> refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect
> accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a
> way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative
> predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by
> experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of
> acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the
> organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
>
> So the scope of science is knowledge through reason -

Observer

Bull shit you eliminated the prime ingreediant of knowledge which is
experiential.

Quote
But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the
whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only
became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler
and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of
the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience
and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are
completely empty as regards reality. (Albert Einstein)

Such utter crap as the christian superstition proffers is a prime
example of such as developed by uneducated , Neolithic superstitious
goat herders.

and the scope of
> earth science is knowlege of earth systems through the study od
> combined sceinces.

Observer
Earth sciences being only those sciences that deal with the earth.
There are four major disciplines in earth sciences, namely geography,
geology, geophysics and geodesy. The major disciplines use physics,
chemistry, biology, chronology and mathematics to build a quantitative
understanding of the principal areas or spheres of the Earth system.

>
> As for limitations - well it's in the answer for scope - Reason.
> Science is bounded by reason and argument and proof - it doesn't step
> into the realm of belief systems."[1]

Observer
Of course you dimwit , science dose not deal with the produce of
imagination except as in matters of psychological investigation or
hypothecation. Such Hypothecation thereafter to be tested by
scientific method.


Belief systems are purely the produce of imagination and seldom have a
counterpart in actuality . If and when such actuality is discovered
it will have been accomplished through scientific method.


Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the
conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased
interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to
document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is
available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing
other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to
reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows
statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be
established.


Psychonomist

http://www.reference.com/search?q=scientific%20method

[trog69]

Oh man, you nailed him! Wow, that was AWESOME! Lower primate, haha,
yeah, I get it! 'Cause their brains are smaller, right? Ahahaha,
brilliant repartee on your part, sir!

On Jul 19, 10:04 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you have a brain or are you borrowing one from a lower primate?
>

[trog69]

>t doesn't step
into the realm of MAKE-belief systems."[1] ~ ftfy, Westy!

Oh, btw, referencing a comment from some schmuck on Yahoo Answers,
even when 1 other person agrees, is pretty lame, even for you, Capt.
Cut and Paste.

On Jul 19, 10:14 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:07 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>t doesn't step
> into the realm of MAKE-belief systems."[1] ~ ftfy, Westy!
>
> Oh, btw, referencing a comment from some schmuck on Yahoo Answers,
> even when 1 other person agrees, is pretty lame, even for you, Capt.
> Cut and Paste.

Its a response that certainly shows why observer's position is not tenable. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Observer <mayo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 10:14 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I hold people to the same standards whether or not they are me, or my
>> > > convictions. So anyone can merely believe based on the same standard
>> > > of evidence that I merely believe in God.
>>
>> > Observer
>> > Just what standards might those be. There is exactly no concrete
>> > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
>> > existence of any god.
>>
>> This is in fact, more of an indication of the limitation of the
>> scientific method, than it is an indictment against Christianity:
>
> Observer
> What can not be known by scientific method (anything outside of
> physics) is irrelevant to the lives of humanity as there is no
> possibility of interaction therewith.

So you accept on faith that the limitations of science are not
limiting. Its so refreshing to hear an atheist talk about his
faith. :)

>> "In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge')
>> refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect
>> accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a
>> way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative
>> predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by
>> experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of
>> acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the
>> organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
>>
>> So the scope of science is knowledge through reason -
>
> Observer
>
> Bull shit you eliminated the prime ingreediant of knowledge which is
> experiential.

I don't eliminate it at all. That's actually even worse for your
position, as it means you are limited by science to matters that are
observable. This is getting worse and worse for you. :)

> Such utter crap as the christian superstition proffers is a prime
> example of such as developed by uneducated , Neolithic superstitious
> goat herders.

Sounds like elitist snobbery on your part. :)

Regards,

Brock

[trog69]

You really should stop eating the paste. :(

On Jul 20, 7:15 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You really should stop eating the paste. :(

Contrary to atheistic dogma, a stigma does not refute a dogma. :)

Regards,

Brock

[trog69]

You really ought to look up words if you're unsure of their meaning.
Stigma, in the sentence you wrote, has no meaning, nor does it help
explain anything else there.

Too much cutting and pasting, not enough comprehension, is my guess.

On Jul 20, 4:05 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:38 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stigma, in the sentence you wrote, has no meaning, nor does it help
> explain anything else there.

Its a nice gentle rebuke of your response; noting that an appeal to
ad hominem does not refute my position, nor does it strengthen your
position.

Regards,

Brock

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Jul 19, 2:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Very well, but have you considered all the implications of what you
> are saying here?
>
> You're implying there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
> Christianity is true.  Doesn't that mean that Christianity cannot be
> used as a basis to delcare a person be a criminal, either explicitly
> or de facto?
>
> Suppose a young woman wants to take a morning-after pill to avoid a
> possible pregnancy, but the law prohibits her doing so.  It is a very
> stern legal sanction to prohibit her from doing this.  An unwanted
> pregnancy can destroy a woman's plans, hopes and dreams.  So this law,
> de facto, declares the woman to be a criminal deserving a stern
> punishment (to say nothing of the innocent child-to-be).  How can it
> be proper to vote for this law based on Christianity?  If Christianty
> cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no one should be punished
> like a criminal based on Christianity.

This argument is exactly the same as one that Dev made. The problem
is that in a democracy, we don't insist that people vote only on the
basis of what they know to be true. They are, in fact, free to vote
on the basis of what they believe to be true about a situation. If we
did otherwise, we wouldn't need or want a democracy; since everyone
would be voting based only on what was objectively known to be true,
what we'd want instead is a bunch of people trained to figure out what
was objectively true and make decisions based on that. Why? Well,
the only reason that anyone else would vote differently from these
people who objectively knew the truth would be that they DIDN'T have
access to that information or proof, and why would we want that to
influence our decisions?

The key to democracy is that everyone votes on the basis of what they
think is in their best interests, and that includes things that are
mere beliefs.

In addition -- and I didn't raise this point against Dev's argument --
just because _I_ vote for a law on the basis of my belief doesn't mean
that the law itself is based on that. There are many reasons why
someone may vote for a particular law, and so the basis of the law is
always "will of the majority". Even if one can claim that the
majority voted for it on the basis of, say, Christianity, the law is
still democratically enacted, and thus is the will of the majority.
And, like ANY law, your recourse if you don't like the law or the
reasons why it was enacted is to convince others that their support of
it is wrong.

> > are not based on mere belief ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Jul 19, 9:46 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well, first of all it is absolutely hilarious (and clearly
> disingenuous) that you assert that my question implies that I think
> the lack of standards theists require to believe in God should be
> applied to the court system, when it is precisely this lack of
> standards that I criticize.

Actually, that isn't my assertion, or my question. My question --
perhaps poorly phrased, but still parsable if you had understood that
my claim was that we consider the standards for a criminal conviction
to be greater than that for a mere belief, which theism is -- is why
you would raise the question at all, and in any way expect that
theists -- to be consistent, which is your common refrain -- should in
any way consider that the standards for criminal convictions should be
applied to their belief in God or vice versa? No one thinks that way;
mere belief always has lower standards of evidence than criminal
convictions.

>Anyway, you do acknowledge here that you
> expect higher standards to be used in matters of importance than you
> use to form your deeply held convictions.

Who says it's a "deeply held conviction"? For me, it's a mere belief,
nothing more. I'm open to changing it. Unfortunately, I have a
stronger belief that it isn't a proposition that can be proven one way
or the other.

> Unfortunately, the fact that
> you find this ethically acceptable is challenged by the fact that the
> deeply held convictions of people have consequences.

And thus you challenge the entire U.S. and Canadian legal systems that
insist that the standards for criminal convictions are higher than
those of civil cases and are higher than those for beliefs. The
Simpson case shows that the same proposition may filter through all
three, but only in the latter two is it considered to be reasonable to
consider the proposition "O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown" as being
justified to hold as true.

[Walt]

On Jul 21, 5:15 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

I don't see how it makes sense for there to be one set of ethics that
governs how one should vote on a jury, and another set of ethics that
governs how one should vote in an election. I think, when deciding
whether or not to impose a harsh punishment on someone else, it is
ethical to impose the punishment only if there is proof beyond a
reasonable doubt the person deserves it.

Both hypothetically and practically, the will of the majority can be
immoral. That is why we have a Bill of Rights, which can override the
will of the majority. Precisely as it did in the example I gave of
the morning-after pill.

[Dev]

The problem, Allan, is that since you can't deny that the standards
people use to justify theism would be disasterous if applied to
criminal cases you can't explain why it suddenly becomes ethical to
use these same standards (or lack thereof) for people to formulate
their convictions because the convictions of people, particularly
large populations of people, also have consequences. There is an
argument for the legality of belief--it is futile and harmful for the
government to try to coerce belief or speech--but this is not to be
conflated with evaluating the practicality or ethicality of utilizing
a set of standards for belief that even you would admit are terrible
for forming practical or ethical conclusions when it concerns
something important. You are utilizing a double-standard. I don't want
theists or the legal system to settle for these standards, you don't
want the legal system to settle for these standards but want a free
pass when you do it.

On Jul 21, 3:23 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

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

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Jul 20, 12:28 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:51 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > > Observer
> > > Just what standards might those be.
>
> > The standard epistemological standards FOR BELIEF.
>
> Observer
> Specifically describe exactly how your theory of knowledge
> (epistemology) is better than or even partially equal to  the practice
> of scientific method.

It can handle testimony when any direct verification is impossible or
inconvenient.

BTW, you can't jump to "theory of knowledge" in the way you did here,
because I'm talking about BELIEF, not knowledge. This is in the same
way that a theory of ethics can talk about and form a theory about
desire without making desire necessarily ethical, or even a main
component of such.

>
> Your epistemology reduced to its essence is ** somebody said it  it is
> true * no proof and no applied scientific method in an attempt to
> verify it. In other words the imagined world of uneducated ,
> superstitious  Neolithic goat herders is accepted based on nothing but
> that they said so.

Well, there's always a bit more to it than that, mostly including that
it fits into the current belief system. None of it, however, is
absolute proof, though I've never claimed to have any.

>
> That which can not be known by the application of scientific method is
> unknowable and therefor irrelevant to human affairs.

How do you know this? You can't apply the scientific method to your
above statement, because that would be circular. So how do you know
it? Or do you just believe it?

>
>
>
> >  There is exactly no concrete
>
> > > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> > > existence of any god.
>
> > Do you only believe things that are scientifically verified?
>
> Observer
> Is it necessary that usable information become part of a belief
> system?
> I am quite satisfied to use such information with out having to
> believe that it part of some universal and eternal truth. I see by the
> light of the sun only when it is visible or when it is reflected off
> of the moon.

Of course, if something is a mere belief or part of a belief system
one does not have to -- and generally is wrong to -- consider it to be
universal or eternal truth. Belief is always dubious to some degree;
that's why it would be a mere belief, and not knowledge.

>
>  So when
>
> > you believe -- or even know -- that you like a certain dish, did you
> > go through any scientific justification for it, or do you believe it
> > without that?
>
> Observer
> Of course I went through a scientific justification . I tested the
> food and and thereby found it palatable subsequent tastings were
> additional verifications of the acceptability of the substance by my
> personal experience there of.

Ah, this canard: the expansion of science to include any possible way
to determining any information.

Since empiricism was a philosophy first, the position of "anything you
can know, we know" is taken by it. You can't have it [grin].

In the case of the example above, you are missing one of the
cornerstones of science: objective verification. Getting others to
verify your results. But in the example above, you didn't do that;
your determination was completely subjective. That's not something
that science generally can accept, nor should it, since it's
insistence on objective verification is what gives it its power.

That DOES mean that science isn't great at dealing with subjective
claims.

>
>
>
> > > Second when you refer to god you refer to the
> > > hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
> > > myths.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
> > > of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
> > > god.
>
> > Yep.  That's why it's a belief, and not knowledge.
>
> Observer
>
> There exists no stand alone justification for such belief . The belief
> is of zero value in that there exists no pragmatic usefulness
> therefor.

Well, shouldn't the "pragmatic usefulness" be determined by the
believer? What objective standard for pragmatic use do you propose?
Should I not believe in something that might -- even if wrong -- save
me from death because it might not benefit you, or even most other
people? Wouldn't the belief be pragmatically useful for me in that
situation?

>
> It explains nothing in that the world is quite nicely accounted for by
> scientific method and accumulated data even if you wish to reject the
> quite sound explanations of the origin of the universe(s). Progress
> through the four and one half billion years over which our solar
> system congealed into the sun the planets and the asteroids  are
> almost completely understood.

Of course, one need not reject evolution to remain a Christian. And
that "First Cause" thing is still not quite understood. Yeah, yeah,
it doesn't NEED to be a God, but that doesn't mean that I have to
reject a belief that God created the whole process because someone
else came up with an explanation THEY like better ...

>
> The existence of man on this planet is directly traceable back to the
> first primitive  life . the exact process of  Bio-genesis will soon be
> understood .
>
> No creator is necessary to any of it. In fact trying to explain just
> how a god thing came to be or just the existence of such simply adds
> an additional layer of unnecessary complexity .

Of course, to care one would have to accept Occam's Razor. I don't,
since it leads unerringly to a form of idealism if it was applied
strictly.

>
> Belief in the sense of religious faith is an absurdity . There exists
> nothing upon which to base such utter mind vomit.
>
> Never has there been any footprint of such an absurd creature nor any
> scientifically verifiable action there to attributed .
>
>
>
> >  Partly because of the 1000 or more hypothesized gods worshiped by
>
> > > untold millions of other people . Making it necessary to disqualify
> > > each of them for cause beefer establishing the validity of what you
> > > think to be the only true god. Remember all this after proving or at
> > > least giving compelling reasons to believe that any god exists.
>
> > >  No one has ever been able to do either. Now to rely on the bible,
> > > which is the only source of this myth , makes any argument thereof
> > > circular.
>
> > Um, no.  To reference the source of the concept is in no way circular
> > in determining why you are considering believing in the concept in the
> > first place.
>
> Observer
> To attempt to prove that the bible is true by reference the bible
> other than in scientifically verified truths contained therein is an
> act not only of credulity but obfuscation. Furthermore there is
> nothing anywhere there in that will establish existence of
> metaphysical absurdities. In order for that to occure the passages in
> question must be verified as scientifically provable.

Unless, of course, one considers that it would be very, very hard for
a naturalistic approach to prove the existence of anything
supernatural. Some -- I think Dennett does this -- posit the
seemingly reasonable claim that we should then have explanatory gaps
to show this. The problem, of course, is that one has to draw a limit
on how improbable a naturalistic explanation has to be before the
supernatural should be consider more so. And most naturalists draw
that line at "Never". At which point, since I can come up with a
natural explanation for pretty much anything -- especially if I can
add "lying" and "hallucinating" to the list -- that doesn't help us
much, does it?

>
>   If that was true, then someone telling you that they
>
> > hate hot weather and you replying, when someone asks you why you
> > believe that they hate weather your replying that they told you would
> > be equally circular.
>
> Observer
> Direct from the pages of the supreme manual for argumentation by
> nincompoopery.
>
> You have got to be smarter than that..

It's the consequence of one interpretation of your argument: that I
cannot use the thing that instigated the belief to justify the
belief. If that isn't what you meant, then please clarify your
position.

>
>
>
> > > The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
> > > Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
> > > someone I trust told me to believe the bible.
>
> > I'll go with that one.  And it's a perfectly justifiable reason for
> > belief.
>
> Observer
>
> Oh really ? It is then also a part of your superstitious nature to
> believe in the infallibility of humans.

Nope. I fully believe that they are fallible. That, again, is why

it's a belief, and not knowledge.

That being said, since even knowledge is not considered to require
certainty I might even be able to claim knowledge, but I don't trust
those trusted people that much, nor do I think that their knowledge is
sufficient to justify the claim that strongly. So, just belief.

>
>  We do it all the time.  If my parents, for example, tell me
>
> > that there is a special on pork chops at the grocery store, I don't
> > have to examine the flyer or go there and check before I can believe
> > it.
>
> Observer
> Once again nincompoopery raises its stupid head. Acceptance of  a
> concept as extravagantly absurd as the existence of the sadomasochist
> monster (your god thing)  and the willingness to trust a harmless
> statement about a grocery special are hardly comparable .
>
> You christians have so dedicated yourselves to being told what to
> think that how to think has become the victim of cognitive atrophy.

In what way are they NOT comparable?

In probability? I agree that the belief in God is less probable, and
I treat it as such. I will re-arrange my cooking schedule, for
example, simply based on the belief that the pork chops are on
special, knowing that it will cause me much grief if that isn't true.
I can't see anything that I'd accept the possibility of that much
grief about simply based on the belief in God.

In consequence? See above; my belief in God has currently less
consequences than that belief.

Something else, perhaps? Please enlighten me.

>
>  And, in fact, should I get there and not find that special I am
>
> > totally justified in asking the store where they are, and not
> > immediately forced to doubt what my parents told me.  And this even
> > applies for people that we don't necessarily trust; if a stranger on
> > the street tells me that there's an accident just out of sight, and I
> > should take another route, it is, in fact perfectly reasonable for me
> > to believe him and take the other route, despite my not having
> > verified that.
>
> Observer
>
> What disjointed and irrelevant  triviality.
>
> Again you fail to understand that the above propositions are in no way
> comparable to belief in your complex mythology and its preposterous
> assertions of metaphysical absurdities.

Again, in what way? The above situation certainly has greater
consequences -- at least in the short-term -- than my belief in
God ...

>
>
>
> > > There has never been offered any compelling argument for the belief in
> > > ghosts, demons, a devil , angels , this hypothetical god thing, (or
> > > any god for that matter) a heaven, a hell, or any of the so-called
> > > metaphysical nonsense.
>
> > > If i am wrong please supply a clear and persuasive argument to the
> > > contrary. Such argument to contain exactly why you believe this
> > > metaphysical clap trap .
>
> > I refuse to provide compelling evidence because if I had compelling
> > evidence, I'd KNOW that God exists, since knowledge is the only thing
> > that can compel belief.
>
> Observer
>
> Ha Ha ha ha
>
> You do not refuse to do so ,you are unable to do so. There is a great
> difference.

I refuse to even ATTEMPT to do so, but also refuse to accept that not
having knowledge means that I can't have belief.

>
> Observer
> You say knowledge compels belief . Where is the knowledge that
> compelled your belief in your superstitious morbidities ?

I said that it is only knowledge that compels beliefs. My belief is
not compelled. It could change tomorrow. I doubt it will.

There is a difference between a belief being formed and one being
compelled. If I know something, I am compelled to believe it or else
be irrational. But beliefs form without there being knowledge all the
time.

>
> Ignorance is that which contributes the most to superstitious beliefs.
>
>  I categorically deny that I -- or anyone --
>
> > KNOWS that God exists.  I actually even deny that anyone CAN know that
> > God exists.  But you are demanding -- it seems -- that in order for me
> > to be able to BELIEVE that God exists, I have to be able to KNOW that
> > God exists.
>
>  If I take this as a general standard -- and you seem to
>
> > be applying it as such - - then you seem to be saying that before I
> > can BELIEVE something, I must KNOW it.  Flipped around, this means
> > that I can only believe that which I know.  And that's a very, very
> > risky proposition, since there's a whole heck of a lot that we don't
> > know, and yet believe anyway.
>
> Observer
>
> I asked you to supply compelling reasons to believe these christian
> superstitious absurdities .

And I pointed out that I am not claiming to KNOW that God exists, and
that is the only case where you can expect compelling reasons.

> Failure to do so indicates that you have
> no compelling reasons your self.

Thus, I do not have knowledge. Correct. So since I don't know that
God exists, why is my BELIEF wrong? Can I only believe that which I
know? Please answer that question.

[Dev]

As much as it hurts me to be even-handed, four stars for the first
sane post I've seen you write.

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

[Keith MacNevins]

Even if you had them both amputated it still wouldn't help, demon.

[Walt]

I'm just being consistent with what I've always said. Intuition,
religious or otherwise, can be used for form beliefs that augment
those formed based on reason and observation. Bur intuition should
never override reason and observation.

[Keith MacNevins]

Words to the wise for philosophers and scientists.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Dev]

Deriving certainty or even near-certainty from what you call
"intuition" is immediately at odds with the uncertainty of
acknowledging that your intuition is unreliable and observing that
your desire to believe something is over-riding its relationship to
reality, but I didn't expect you to stay reasonable on this thread.

[Keith MacNevins]

This is what happens when you take too much Ritalin with caffeine:

On 7/21/08, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Walt]

By observing and not just speculating, it seems clear
that deriving certainty from intuition is not a serious
practical problem generally. People say they are
certain there is a heaven, but said people are still
terrified by the thought of having a fatal illness. Best
to work against hypocrisy in general, rather than
arbitrarily focusing on religious hypocrisy.

[Keith MacNevins]

It is human nature. And what is it when my mind says "No, no cookies and milk because I'm on a diet" -- and then I completely and utterly enjoy a couple of chocolate chip cookies and guzzle down a glass of some very well-chilled milk?

On 7/21/08, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Walt]

Does it mean the lactose-intolerant are the chosen people of God?

> --
> Ambassador From Hell

[xeno]

On Jul 21, 2:15 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> The problem
> is that in a democracy, we don't insist that people vote only on the
> basis of what they know to be true.  They are, in fact, free to vote
> on the basis of what they believe to be true about a situation.

eh? what does truth particularily have to do with elections? it's abt
interests with private interests usuallly taking the primary
consideration. & who you elect ultimately serves the interests which
has the most influence which is primarily business interests, not
what's arguably in the best interests of all. people consciously
choose between two bad choices & not necessarily the less of two
evils. it's hillarious that you think "truth" is primary here.

[Dev]

Except there's clearly a double-standard for religious hypocrisy. Most
superstition that gets regulated into governments, or is even
considered a "serious controversy", is religious.

[Keith MacNevins]

No. Why, were you a colicky baby? I bet you still are, actually.

[trog69]

You're "position" is that since science doesn't, or won't acknowledge
things not of the senses or of any physical manifestation, the basis
for science is flawed. Yet you give not one bit of data to prove that
science SHOULD acknowledge them. The fact that science DOES, and has
in the past, investigated non-physical, outside the human senses
hypotheses, and found NOTHING for the efforts, but will continue to
investigate, as DATA is added, is ignored by you. You have no proof of
anything supernatural, yet somehow it's science that's at fault for
not seeing any proof.

Science itself will never say that you're wrong, Brock. It merely
refuses to accept your hypotheses without...something, anything;
Anything at all! And you can't wrap your head around that, because to
you, it's perfect clear that the supernatural realm is all around us,
but we're too blind to see it.


On Jul 21, 7:23 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[trog69]

Well, to be fair, it would have worked better for you, if you hadn't
amputated your head first.

On Jul 21, 3:06 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if you had them both amputated it still wouldn't help, *demon*.

> --
> Ambassador From Hell

[trog69]

I would yell this out from the highest mountains, if not for the fact
that too many fundamentalists globally inject their "certainty" into
law that encompasses seculars and the religious alike.

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:26 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're "position" is that since science doesn't, or won't acknowledge
> things not of the senses or of any physical manifestation, the basis
> for science is flawed. Yet you give not one bit of data to prove that
> science SHOULD acknowledge them. The fact that science DOES, and has
> in the past, investigated non-physical, outside the human senses
> hypotheses, and found NOTHING for the efforts, but will continue to
> investigate, as DATA is added, is ignored by you. You have no proof of
> anything supernatural, yet somehow it's science that's at fault for
> not seeing any proof.

Consider Wittgenstein:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."[1]

Science cannot speak to the existence of God. Science must be
regarded as being silent on the matter. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

[Keith MacNevins]

That was dopey froggie, even for you. I do believe that you have thick skin though. Unusual for a bullfrog to be categorized as a pachyderm, but how many bullfrogs look like they are straight out of Jurassic Park?

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Observer]

On Jul 21, 2:47 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

wrote:
> On Jul 20, 12:28 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 4:51 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
> > > > Observer
> > > > Just what standards might those be.
>
> > > The standard epistemological standards FOR BELIEF.
>
> > Observer
> > Specifically describe exactly how your theory of knowledge
> > (epistemology) is better than or even partially equal to the practice
> > of scientific method.
>
> It can handle testimony when any direct verification is impossible or
> inconvenient.

Observer
Oh I see when the truth of a matter cannot be established you chose to
"just believe" based on hear say, conjecture, and the superstitious
assertions of Neolithic goat herders.
Very good ! Ha Ha Ha Ha . How utterly obtuse.

>
> BTW, you can't jump to "theory of knowledge" in the way you did here,
> because I'm talking about BELIEF, not knowledge.

Observer
Sorry but you brought up epistemology.

"The standard epistemological standards FOR BELIEF. "

Epistemology
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

"Theory of knowledge" redirects here: for other uses, see theory
of knowledge (disambiguation)

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is a branch of philosophy
concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge

Please do not say what you do not mean your silly belief systems are
ridiculous enough with out introducing things in which you have no
belief.

This is in the same
> way that a theory of ethics can talk about and form a theory about
> desire without making desire necessarily ethical, or even a main
> component of such.

Observer
Extraneous nonsense. A stupid comment in and of it's self.
>
>
>
> > Your epistemology reduced to its essence is ** somebody said it is

> > true * no proof and no applied scientific method in an attempt to
> > verify it. In other words the imagined world of uneducated ,
> > superstitious Neolithic goat herders is accepted based on nothing but
> > that they said so.
>
> Well, there's always a bit more to it than that, mostly including that
> it fits into the current belief system.

Observer
It is your current belief system, at least the one about which we are
discussing.

If you truly mean that christianity is subordinate to some other
belief system I should like very much to know just what that is.
Furthermore, it would be of interest to see just how the two relate.

None of it, however, is
 absolute proof, though I've never claimed to have any.

Observer
That is the understatement of the year.
Absolute proof. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha .


Observer
You can not supply even the simplest reason that anyone should believe
such superstitious and completely idiotic crap as contained in the
"bible" It reeks of primitivism, misinformation and laughable mind
vomit.

Look at the idiotic account of creation in Genesis , the extremely
stupid account of a universal flood, and the brutish sadomasochism of
the mythological god thing.

Here is a list of 1202 biblical absurdities.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

It seems to be an inherent vice of those suffering unskilled cognitive
processes to accept completely, irrational belief systems which are
absent of any rational substantiation thereof.

I know, I know, Your Mommy and Daddy (or their surrogates) told you
to believe it.

I do not wish to cast aspersions on them, but what they taught you to
believe is superstitious nonsense that has been the root of horrendous
atrocities, genocide, tens of millions of deaths by torture, and
terrorism since the time that Constantine 1 decriminalized its
practice.

Ever wondered what happened to ancient Greece? Its culture, beliefs,
books? Ever thought about why so many Greek temples and buildings lie
in ruins? The pages here will inform you about these and other
Things They Don't Tell You
about Christianity

>
>
> > That which can not be known by the application of scientific method is
> > unknowable and therefor irrelevant to human affairs.
>
> How do you know this?

Observer

It does not take a mental giant to understand. If you do not I think
you should get cognitive help from a professional.

You can't really be that stupid. Any thing, which could have existence
outside of physics (which is clearly only a wet dream), would be by
definition unknowable and therefore irrelevant.

How do you know that your Christ, the god fraud, is not pimping in
Harlem or selling heron on the streets of New York? Come on, have you
no common sense?

I find it in the realm of complete stupidity to believe in ghosts,
demons, your dumb ass version of a god thing, angels, a heaven a hell
or any of the miscellaneous claptrap necessary to your filthy
superstition.



Belief such, tomfoolery, sets you and all Christians aside, as
childish oafs with out intellectual redeeming qualities.

I am amazed that you cannot see the constant stupidity of biblical
nonsense.

I furthermore am amazed that you would see fit to be part of a hideous
organization which has caused the death of over a hundred million
people by torture, fratricidal religious wars, murder, terrorist
activities, and which held in abeyance the progress of scientific
investigation for over 1300 years.

Come on your guilt as an accomplice after the fact is obvious and the
beat goes on.

Alleged crucifixion of Christ: Christianity becomes first religion
with lawfully-convicted felon as god; this may explain criminal
behavior of Christian followers over centuries.


Whole generation transpires before first account of Christ's life is
written; this raises questions over why it took so long for anyone to
write it.

You can't apply the scientific method to your
> above statement, because that would be circular. So how do you know
> it? Or do you just believe it?

Oh but scientific method has been applied to the establishment of the
physical existences. There is absolutely no indication that any thing
else exists. Now some uneducated superstitious Neolithic goat herder
claims that there exists an alternate reality of course we should all
just suspend rational judgment and assume that he is right.

Ha Ha Ha Ha

What utter stupisity.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > There is exactly no concrete
>
> > > > evidence (scientifically verifiable substantiation) relating to the
> > > > existence of any god.
>
> > > Do you only believe things that are scientifically verified?
>
> > Observer
> > Is it necessary that usable information become part of a belief
> > system?
> > I am quite satisfied to use such information with out having to
> > believe that it part of some universal and eternal truth. I see by the
> > light of the sun only when it is visible or when it is reflected off
> > of the moon.
>
> Of course, if something is a mere belief or part of a belief system
> one does not have to -- and generally is wrong to -- consider it to be
> universal or eternal truth.

Observer

Exactly, so it is that your whole collection of superstitious myths
are baseless, useless, meaningless and an embarrassment to the
rational mind. They have no claim to truth at all.

Belief is always dubious to some degree;
> that's why it would be a mere belief, and not knowledge.

Observer
Belief in that which is by no means verifiable is stupid. Your bible
is stupid, the statements purported to have been made by Jesus were
and are at best naive and at worst dimwitted.(stupid)

>
>
>
> > So when
>
> > > you believe -- or even know -- that you like a certain dish, did you
> > > go through any scientific justification for it, or do you believe it
> > > without that?
>
> > Observer
> > Of course I went through a scientific justification . I tested the
> > food and and thereby found it palatable subsequent tastings were
> > additional verifications of the acceptability of the substance by my
> > personal experience there of.
>
> Ah, this canard: the expansion of science to include any possible way
> to determining any information.

Now you are being a fucking moron. The food was tested for taste,
found acceptable to my pallet and no external verification is
required.

And please don't be so stupid as to rush to equivocation between
tasting food and the whole inane idea of a supernatural.

Scientific method
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source


Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A
scientific method consists of the collection of data through
observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses.

Jerk !

>
> Since empiricism was a philosophy first, the position of "anything you
> can know, we know" is taken by it. You can't have it [grin].

Observer

Scientific method was delineated quite clearly by the epicureans three
hundred years before the filth of Christianity infected humanity and
became a destructive meme.
Philosophy, like metaphysics and theology is the study of nothing but
the function of the mind its self.

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of
Epicurus (c. 341-c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an
atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His
materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine
intervention.








If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Quote
"And whatever image we receive by direct understanding by our mind or
through our sensory organs of the shape or the essential properties
that are the true form of the solid object, since it is created by the
constant repetition of the image or the impression it has left behind.
There is always inaccuracy and error involved in bringing into a
judgment an element that is additional to sensory impressions, either
to confirm [what we sensed] or deny it.
Epicurus said that all the tangible things are real and each
impression comes from existing objects and is determined by the object
that causes the sensations.
Therefore all the impressions are real, while the preconceived notions
are not real and can be modified.
If you battle with all your sensations, you will be unable to form a
standard for judging which of them are incorrect."

Learn more here;




http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Epicureanism



Quote:

But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the
whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only
became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler
and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of
the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts form experience
and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are
completely empty as regards reality. (Albert Einstein)

>
> In the case of the example above, you are missing one of the
> cornerstones of science: objective verification.

In as much as I was the only one using the information gathered only
my testing, there of , was necessary or germane to the experiment or
the result.

Getting others to
> verify your results.

Now If I were looking for a universality of test results as to taste
then others would be required for input.

But then if I have to explain that to you there isn't much reason to
discuss anything further with you in as much as you would have
established your self to be too cognitively maladroit for any
rational discourse.

But in the example above, you didn't do that;
> your determination was completely subjective. That's not something
> that science generally can accept, nor should it, since it's
> insistence on objective verification is what gives it its power.

Read my above comments! Better yet get some one who can think to read
them to you and then explain the difference in testing a taste for
personal use and testing for universal taste consensus.

You divert us from the main issue .I guarantee I shall not let you do
it again.

Yours is a filthy stupid misanthropic superstition. You cannot supply
any compelling reason for any one to believe in your superstitious
crap.
There exists no possibility of scientific verification. This god thing
that you claim exists leaves and has left no footprint ant there is no
scientifically verifiable evidence of any act of such or any human
interaction with same . That is the Crux of the mater.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Second when you refer to god you refer to the
> > > > hypothetical/mythical god thing as described in the book of christian
> > > > myths.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > That becomes even more problematical in that this hypothesis is orders
> > > > of magnitude more difficult to substantiate than the existence of any
> > > > god.
>
> > > Yep. That's why it's a belief, and not knowledge.
>
> > Observer
>
> > There exists no stand alone justification for such belief . The belief
> > is of zero value in that there exists no pragmatic usefulness
> > therefor.
>
> Well, shouldn't the "pragmatic usefulness" be determined by the
> believer? What objective standard for pragmatic use do you propose?
> Should I not believe in something that might -- even if wrong -- save
> me from death because it might not benefit you, or even most other
> people? Wouldn't the belief be pragmatically useful for me in that
> situation?

Adolph Hitler and the Christian nation of Germany had such pragmatic
belief in Christianity. That worked out well they together Catholics
and Protestants starved, tortured and worked to death six million Jews
based on the Christian beliefs most articulately spelled out by Martin
Luther. Simultaneously they embarked on a holey war aimed at the
conquest of the entire world. Said war resulting in fifty million
dead.
Praise Jesus.

Hitler's Christianity
To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World
War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself
from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII
atrocities occurred.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

>
>
>
> > It explains nothing in that the world is quite nicely accounted for by
> > scientific method and accumulated data even if you wish to reject the
> > quite sound explanations of the origin of the universe(s). Progress
> > through the four and one half billion years over which our solar
> > system congealed into the sun the planets and the asteroids are
> > almost completely understood.
>
> Of course, one need not reject evolution to remain a Christian. And
> that "First Cause" thing is still not quite understood. Yeah, yeah,
> it doesn't NEED to be a God, but that doesn't mean that I have to
> reject a belief that God created the whole process because someone
> else came up with an explanation THEY like better ...

Observer

But why this idiotic biblical concept of a god?

Is studying scientific cosmology simply a matter of choosing something
that one likes better?

Talk to our resident particle physicist, Dr. Salvatore Rappoccio about
this matter you might learn something by discussing these things with
an educated and quite brilliant physicist, or Is it that you are so
scientifically well educated that no one can teach you anything.

>
>
>
> > The existence of man on this planet is directly traceable back to the
> > first primitive life . the exact process of Bio-genesis will soon be
> > understood .
>
> > No creator is necessary to any of it. In fact trying to explain just
> > how a god thing came to be or just the existence of such simply adds
> > an additional layer of unnecessary complexity .
>
> Of course, to care one would have to accept Occam's Razor. I don't,
> since it leads unerringly to a form of idealism if it was applied
> strictly.

Observer
Please give us a dissertation of the inherent errors of Occam's
Razor . I would ask you to point out specifics and exactly to what
"idealism " it leads and why that idealism (if you can establish
such) is counterproductive. You pit your uneducated superstitious mind
against the most brilliant best-trained minds in the world, who
endorse the use thereof.

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Your self-evaluation is typical of Christian megalomania coupled with
ignorance in the extreme.

Observer
For all things ,which men know to exist, there is proof. For imaginary
concepts, lacking counterparts in actuality, there can be no proof.

Some -- I think Dennett does this -- posit the
> seemingly reasonable claim that we should then have explanatory gaps
> to show this. The problem, of course, is that one has to draw a limit
> on how improbable a naturalistic explanation has to be before the
> supernatural should be consider more so. And most naturalists draw
> that line at "Never". At which point, since I can come up with a
> natural explanation for pretty much anything -- especially if I can
> add "lying" and "hallucinating" to the list -- that doesn't help us
> much, does it?

Please explain what lies and hallucinations have been the produce of
scientific method.

Unless you can provide compelling reasons to believe in a
"supernatural" I must insist that to do so is simply a display of
profound unintelligence.

>
>
>
> > If that was true, then someone telling you that they
>
> > > hate hot weather and you replying, when someone asks you why you
> > > believe that they hate weather your replying that they told you would
> > > be equally circular.
>
> > Observer
> > Direct from the pages of the supreme manual for argumentation by
> > nincompoopery.
>
> > You have got to be smarter than that..
>
> It's the consequence of one interpretation of your argument: that I
> cannot use the thing that instigated the belief to justify the
> belief. If that isn't what you meant, then please clarify your
> position.

"I came to realize that many people choose
scientific beliefs the same way they choose
to be Methodists, or Democrats, or Chicago
Cubs fans. They judge science by how well
it agrees with the way they want the world
to be." {Robert Park, Voodoo Science, 2000}

>
>
>
> > > > The only standards ever offered for belief in your superstition are .
> > > > Somebody I trust told me to believe it . And the bible says so and
> > > > someone I trust told me to believe the bible.
>
> > > I'll go with that one. And it's a perfectly justifiable reason for
> > > belief.
>
> > Observer
>
> > Oh really ? It is then also a part of your superstitious nature to
> > believe in the infallibility of humans.
>
> Nope. I fully believe that they are fallible. That, again, is why
> it's a belief, and not knowledge

Why does the superstitious shit rise to the level of belief?

> That being said, since even knowledge is not considered to require
> certainty I might even be able to claim knowledge, but I don't trust
> those trusted people that much, nor do I think that their knowledge is
> sufficient to justify the claim that strongly. So, just belief.

So then, you relegate belief to a relatively unimportant place in your
life. In as much as you, refer to it as, just belief.

How do you differentiate, qualitatively, between the produce of
scientific method and belief in that which in no scientific way is
verifiable? You apparently discount "just belief" but down to what
level of value?

To be specific lets examine your belief that Jesus was the Christ and
there by one must obey his (supposed) teachings to be saved from a
hell he (the biblical god postulate) created. How much effect should
that have on your life as compared to the scientifically discovered
actuality that cigarette smoking is a leading cause of cardio
pulmonary disease?

Please explain in light of your statement of "just belief".

>
>
>
> > We do it all the time. If my parents, for example, tell me
>
> > > that there is a special on pork chops at the grocery store, I don't
> > > have to examine the flyer or go there and check before I can believe
> > > it.
>
> > Observer
> > Once again nincompoopery raises its stupid head. Acceptance of a
> > concept as extravagantly absurd as the existence of the sadomasochist
> > monster (your god thing) and the willingness to trust a harmless
> > statement about a grocery special are hardly comparable.
>
> > You christians have so dedicated yourselves to being told what to
> > think that how to think has become the victim of cognitive atrophy.
>

> In what way are they NOT ...

Oh please! You cannot be so stupid as to fail to understand the
difference in gravitas between beliefs in one as oppose to the other.

>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

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

Regards

Psychonomist

[xeno]

On Jul 21, 2:47 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>  And
> that "First Cause" thing is still not quite understood.  Yeah, yeah,
> it doesn't NEED to be a God, but that doesn't mean that I have to
> reject a belief that God created the whole process because someone
> else came up with an explanation THEY like better ...

if an explanation is more plausible then *that* explanation would be
better than the one people prefer for reasons other than plausibility
if we're talking in terms of trying to understand reality better.
sounds like you're trying to give carte blanche to subjectivism.

> Unless, of course, one considers that it would be very, very hard for
> a naturalistic approach to prove the existence of anything
> supernatural.

to prove that the supernatural exists would refute the
supernaturalness of what is assumed to be supernatural.