The shameful gay marriage ban. [Archive] - Page 15

Nick Soapdish

11-29-2005, 12:15 PM

Then its all pointless and relative. Sorry, but you and I have an inherently different view of the world, right down to the atom.

What do you use as a basis for natural law?

So far it sounds like you're arguing that Catholic doctrine is determined by the Pope selecting the appropriate stuff from the Bible. If there is anything in Catholic doctrine that isn't straight out of the Bible ... or that conflicts with parts of the Bible, it's from natural law. But it does nothing to define what natural law is. Throughout history, it's tended to simply be whatever the prevailing moral currents of the time were. That even seems to apply to the Church since it has changed its mind on issues from time to time, despite the Pope apparently being divinely inspired in each case.

There is only one moral aphorism that I'd be willing to consider common enough to be a universal truth. And that's the Golden Rule (although it's a simplified version of it). Unfortunately, the second most common moral rule seems to be "do unto others whatever you can get away with".

Nick Soapdish

11-29-2005, 12:19 PM

Dude. Tigers eat their young. Tigers. Freaking. Eating their young. In the Serengheti. With little or no contact with cannibals. If you're going to live by what you call the law of animal behavior, how can you ignore nature?

How many tigers are there in the Serengeti anyway? :confused:

'Sides, I don't think it's our side citing natural law as the reason it's OK for gays to marry. We're citing examples as to why it isn't unnatural which is a pretty popular argument against homosexuality (and one that I must admit to having used in my youth).

the4thpip

11-29-2005, 12:21 PM

Except I did put in a huma....oh screw it.
You just didn't get my post at all.

the4thpip

11-29-2005, 12:23 PM

anthony!

11-29-2005, 01:26 PM

What do you use as a basis for natural law?

I tend to take the Aquinas view that natural law comes out of...nature. But given the way in which this world is fallen, not everything found in nature is intended in Creation. Take Spack's lovely "Tiger's eating their young" example vs. Jeff's "Gay penguin" example.

This world is broken, thanks to original sin. Sure, there are aspects of us guided by our bodies in similar fashion to animals. However, we also have higher faculties that link and connect mind, body and spirit that guide our behaviour and understanding. The intent is for all these aspects to work in harmony and be put to their proper use.

So far it sounds like you're arguing that Catholic doctrine is determined by the Pope selecting the appropriate stuff from the Bible.

Who mentioned the pope? I'm not sure what the pope has to do with this, and again— this is more than the Bible.

If there is anything in Catholic doctrine that isn't straight out of the Bible ... or that conflicts with parts of the Bible, it's from natural law. But it does nothing to define what natural law is.

I think you'd have to understand that the Catholic line of thinking takes into consideration both faith and reason, without one trumping the other— in terms of where natural law is. It's both, all our capacities firing on all cylinders. If Catholics based there decision making based solely on say reason and science, then there'd be no rationale in believing that some carpenter dude defeated death 2,000 years ago. At the same time, neither does a religion based solely on faith work. I'd point to the differences between Protestants and Catholics on that one; "faith and faith alone" and somesuch.

Throughout history, it's tended to simply be whatever the prevailing moral currents of the time were. That even seems to apply to the Church since it has changed its mind on issues from time to time, despite the Pope apparently being divinely inspired in each case.

If you choose to be cynical about history, I suppose.

For one, the Church is both divine and human. It's divinely inspired, but not perfect. It can (and has) made mistakes. Conversely— yeah, I do believe the Holy Spirit moves through the workings of the chuch— and to others like myself it is different than the typical political machinations of, say, the U.S. Congress.

Your never going to get all your ducks in a row if your going to base all your decision making entirely on what you can see with your eyes. Certainly if all existence is only what we consider to be observable, I'd still put foward the notion that religion is pointless. Faith, belief and even morality are deeper than that and require more than what we know via the sciences.

I'd also argue over what you mean by the church "changing its mind". Policies and practices change, but belief I would say evolves more than changes. I'm hard pressed to think of a core belief the church has had that was out right reversed. Now, things change move and adapt under the auspices of a fuller UNDERSTANDING of God and natural law. I believe the Vatican has a commission to discuss the impact of the human genome, who knows what that could lead in terms of the church further refining its positions.

In regards to the Pope— mistakes on his part would all depend on what we are speaking about. If it is a matter crucial to the faith, yeah he's pretty much infallible (but can allow room for other pontiffs to wiggle if he chooses). On matters of theological theory or just plain any issue, he can make mistakes. Even saints make mistakes. St. Augustine (if I'm correct) believed non-baptised babies went to Hell. Later the concept of Limbo came into popularity. None were officially imbedded in Catholic belief, and today are pretty much rejected. You have to keep in mind what is falling into the area of WHAT is Catholicism's bliefs vs. HOW Catholicism believes.

There is only one moral aphorism that I'd be willing to consider common enough to be a universal truth. And that's the Golden Rule (although it's a simplified version of it)

Is that only because is it is commonly found and used today? Seems to me universal truth is defined objectively by the Creator, not by whatever "truths" people choose to see.

anthony!

11-29-2005, 01:32 PM

Well, we do have fundamentally different views. Yours is based on superstition and mysticism, mine is demonstrably more congruent with reality.

Where you err is in assuming that all is pointless and relative just because morality is not handed down to us from some big mystic poo-bah. Personally, I think it much more meaningful that over time, humans have realized on their own that it is better to treat others well, rather than acting like a bunch of seven year olds who try to be good just because Big Daddy says so. Free will, all that, you know?

Except for one small tiny little detail Kramer.

If, IF Christ rose from the dead— the entirety of faith becomes validated. Your only recourse is to deny what Christians believe to be actual historical fact. Because you only believe in what you can observe, therefore you feel obliged to reject all else, regardless of how well reasoned. What I call history, you call superstition— thats your only way out. Deny, deny, deny.

The ego there has real problems with the notion of a God. I don't think you like the idea of an existence subjected to a Creator or Poo-Bah or whatever insulting phrase you'd like to use. Certainly I put more stock in concept of a Creator that made us out of love and only wishes for us to be close to Him, parent and child— as opposed to being lost in a wilderness of make believe and existentialism. We screwed up. We sinned. Thankfully there's a way back. Sorry you can't see that.

the4thpip

11-29-2005, 01:40 PM

Except for one small tiny little detail Kramer.

If, IF Christ rose from the dead— the entirety of faith becomes validated. Your only recourse is to deny what Christians believe to be actual historical fact. Because you only believe in what you can observe, therefore you feel obliged to reject all else, regardless of how well reasoned. What I call history, you call superstition— thats your only way out.
And Scientologists believe Xenu hid evil souls in volcanoes that cause our negative thoughts.

Calling that superstitious is my only way out of Scientology, then?

Adam Crocker

11-29-2005, 01:40 PM

Fact is, everyone has a differing definition of what constitutes a marriage, and no one is going to really get their way.

And your point is...? So far this looks like justifying unfair discrimination in the law because no one is getting their way on marriage exactly as they want it. Yet the entire debate is that everyone has been talking about making sure the law applies fairly and equally to everyone as it does in modern democracies. Your posts on the issue have ignored this as much as possible in your discussion along with obvious legal rights for married couples like citizenship rights for married spouses, visitation rights, child custody rights should one spouse die, etc., etc.

Its a contract. Nothing more nothing less. All the government has to recognize is that two people agreed to certain conditions and exchanges. It wouldn't be different from me getting contracter to build a fence.

Funnily enough that's what Gilda has been addressing this whole time. Though I fail to see what even ruling out civil unions is meant to really accomplish when civil marriage is a already a longstanding, long recognized and widely accepted institution in European and North American society.

And for that matter what cultural effect is abolishing civil marriage supposed to have?

--------------

Moving over to a slightly separate matter while I don't usually rag on religion for its views not lining up with my own I'm going to have to back Spike on his recent statements. I've never really given a damn whether or not the Church chooses to regard homosexuality as sin or not, so I think that arguing the matter is pointless since it's all a matter of faith. The arguments would be, and have proven to be entirely circular, and the only real issue at stake here is equal rights under the law.

But I have to admit that their view as Spack put forth looks pretty facile considering their reprehensible handling of the child molester issue. So if you're shocked at his supposed hostility to religion, it's really a matter of hostility towards one religious institution's corruption rather than faith itself.

Spackling Compound

11-29-2005, 02:02 PM

But I have to admit that their view as Spack put forth looks pretty facile considering their reprehensible handling of the child molester issue. So if you're shocked at his supposed hostility to religion, it's really a matter of hostility towards one religious institution's corruption rather than faith itself.

All institutions are corrupt to a certain degree, of course.
The pedophile coverups and scandal are hardly the condoned practice of the Church and pedophilia is condemned as sinful as well.

west3man

11-29-2005, 02:09 PM

All institutions are corrupt to a certain degree, of course. I don't know where to begin on this one, but I had to type something. Something.

The pedophile coverups and scandal are hardly the condoned practice of the Church [snip]There have been a lot of debates on this topic in the last year or so. In those debates, people have suggested (and, I think, supported the notion) that the higher-ups knew what was going on and condoned it. If nothing else, the church's "unofficial" practices had the consistency of clear, printed policy.

anthony!

11-29-2005, 02:17 PM

I'm uncertain what the pedophile scandal has to do with this, other than people using it as a means to invalidate anything the church says.

Was it wrong? Sure. But that story isn't over yet, and its impossible to see its full impact.

But sentators, presidents, congressman and the like screw up all the time. Does that mean we disregard our own government, or our own country?

The pedophile issue, as reprehensable as it is— hasn't had an ounce of impact on my faith and belief, and nor should it really for others.

A pedophile priest has no impact on the truth the Church teaches. If a bunch of teachers taught me that a tree was a tree, and then one teacher turned out to be thief— that wouldn't change the status of the tree.

The only impact that entire scandal has on me is a gigantic cringe feeling everytime another accusation occurs or another lawsuit opens up, because I know people are going to grab hold of it and use it to bad mouth and even attempt to destroy the church.

west3man

11-29-2005, 02:22 PM

I'm uncertain what the pedophile scandal has to do with this, other than people using it as a means to invalidate anything the church says.

Was it wrong? Sure. But that story isn't over yet, and its impossible to see its full impact.

But sentators, presidents, congressman and the like screw up all the time. Does that mean we disregard our own government, or our own country? Sometimes, yes.

Individuals screwing up - that's gonna happen. When it comes to-light, that the organization they're a part of not only knew of their behavior, but condoned and enabled it, that's a strong reason to disregard that organization.

It's hard to get behind an organization or leader whose moral compass is off.

Charles RB

11-29-2005, 02:25 PM

But sentators, presidents, congressman and the like screw up all the time.

And if they were found covering up and enabling paedophiles to continue exploiting a position of trust, they'd have been thrown out of their respective parties and arrested, if only for the bad press. I'm not seeing all the priests who covered up the paedophilia getting excommunated and arrested.

And if a large section of the political party in government was behind it, there would be hell to pay.

The pedophile issue, as reprehensable as it is— hasn't had an ounce of impact on my faith and belief, and nor should it really for others.

Faith or not, it's had a really big impact on what I think about the Catholic Church as an organisation.

A pedophile priest has no impact on the truth the Church teaches. If a bunch of teachers taught me that a tree was a tree, and then one teacher turned out to be thief— that wouldn't change the status of the tree.

And if one of those teachers turned out to be raping children and the others had known & covered it up, I'm not going to take seriously anything that school says on the subject of morality and ethics.

Spackling Compound

11-29-2005, 02:26 PM

I don't know where to begin on this one, but I had to type something. Something.

There have been a lot of debates on this topic in the last year or so. In those debates, people have suggested (and, I think, supported the notion) that the higher-ups knew what was going on and condoned it. If nothing else, the church's "unofficial" practices had the consistency of clear, printed policy.
The leadership "condoned" nothing. They covered up a stinking mess and passed on deviants from Church to Church until there was a massive blow up.

Condone means they approved. They did not approve. They covered up as best they could.
The other side of the story is that the police, the medical and psychiatric community at the time also supplied fuel to the fire and covered up in their own way or made it easy to do so.

The Church condemns pederasty. On the level of leadership, it looked the other way and allowed for sin.
However, the rule isn't changed. Pederasty is a sin under any guise or protection. Sin is sin.

Homosexuality is also a sin and there are/will be Gay...flaming even...priests in the future. The Church condemns homosexuality but as with gay parishioners and clergy, sometimes the leadership covers up or just looks the other way.
Still a sin.

anthony!

11-29-2005, 02:30 PM

And your point is...? So far this looks like justifying unfair discrimination in the law because no one is getting their way on marriage exactly as they want it. Yet the entire debate is that everyone has been talking about making sure the law applies fairly and equally to everyone as it does in modern democracies. Your posts on the issue have ignored this as much as possible in your discussion along with obvious legal rights for married couples like citizenship rights for married spouses, visitation rights, child custody rights should one spouse die, etc., etc.

My point was that if everyone was slavish in the law to their own view of marriage, everyone would end up dissappointed.

Funnily enough that's what Gilda has been addressing this whole time. Though I fail to see what even ruling out civil unions is meant to really accomplish when civil marriage is a already a longstanding, long recognized and widely accepted institution in European and North American society.

And for that matter what cultural effect is abolishing civil marriage supposed to have?

The point is getting government out of marriage. For an society that prizes the individual so much, why suddenly get into the whole "long recognized and widely accepted institution" issue. If we're going to go there, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be left up to the people, and by the looks of things a little over half the country wouldn't allow gay marriage. Though I'm sure that'll change in a decade or so.

The whole effect I'm after by abolishing it would be get marriage out of the mind of government. Why even have such a ridiculous debate given all the history over marriage? Why even bother, if its only going to be insulting to one-half of the people either way you go? Why force one set of values down the throat of another?

I want the entire conotation of marriage via the government gone. The government does not exist to validate a lifestyle, gay or straight. To me this whole matter stretches beyond what a government is intended to do.

Thats just my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty ready to bash it.

Ed Cunard

11-29-2005, 02:31 PM

Covering up crimes, though--that's like a sin cake with sin frosting, or something. It's Extra-Sinny Kentucky Fried Catholicsim. It's closer to condoning than, say, not covering up these things for fear of a PR nightmare.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 02:31 PM

Except for one small tiny little detail Kramer.

If, IF Christ rose from the dead— the entirety of faith becomes validated. Your only recourse is to deny what Christians believe to be actual historical fact.
And they base this belief on no facts whatsoever. A book says so. Books say lots of things. Not all of them are true. When books say things happen, but we have no actual evidence for these events, and the events are contrary to how observable reality works, we call that fiction, or mythology.

Because you only believe in what you can observe, therefore you feel obliged to reject all else, regardless of how well reasoned.
Not necessarily what I observe - I've never been to Antarctica, or in space - but what is observable. Those things for which we have actual evidence. There is no actual evidence for God, angels, or Jesus rising from the dead. There is instead lots of evidence that people who are actually dead for any length of time stay dead. I presume this is what happened to Jesus, given the lack of any actual evidence to the contrary. You're free to believe otherwise, of course, but there's no reason for anyone to take that belief any more seriously than the belief that the earth is flat.

What I call history, you call superstition— thats your only way out. Deny, deny, deny.

Real history is supported by evidence. The ruins of the ancient Egyptian tombs exist. There is ample documentary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. We have photos from the Civil War, and film of more recent events. The evidence for the rising of Christ is on the par with evidence that I was once President. I presume that if I made that claim, I would be asked to prove it - and I would be unable to do so. Similarly, nobody has managed to provide any real evidence for the claims of Christianity, or any other religion. The best anyone can come up with is that some of the places and people mentioned in the Bible actually existed. Well, to that, I note that President Bush and New York City have appeared in Marvel and DC comics, but Superman and Spider-Man aren't real.

The ego there has real problems with the notion of a God. I don't think you like the idea of an existence subjected to a Creator or Poo-Bah or whatever insulting phrase you'd like to use.

Who am I insulting? A nonexistent entity? Let him come complain if I've upset Him.

Really, what I like isn't at issue. I don't like mosquitos or leeches or the fact that I'm going to die some day. But I deal with them, because they are objectively true facts. Given complete lack of such objective evidence, there's no reason to be concerned about God, and frankly, much of what people say about God is silly.

Certainly I put more stock in concept of a Creator that made us out of love and only wishes for us to be close to Him, parent and child— as opposed to being lost in a wilderness of make believe and existentialism. We screwed up. We sinned. Thankfully there's a way back. Sorry you can't see that.

I'm glad I can't see that. It's a sign my reasoning capabilities are functioning. People put stock in a lot of things. I think it tends to work better to put stock in things which are demonstrably real, thanks.

west3man

11-29-2005, 02:32 PM

The leadership "condoned" nothing. They covered up a stinking mess and passed on deviants from Church to Church until there was a massive blow up.
Condone means they approved. They did not approve. They covered up as best they could. Here's what condone means (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condoned):

" To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure"

I'd say that's clear "positive" on the litmus test of condoning.

anthony!

11-29-2005, 02:33 PM

I'm not seeing all the priests who covered up the paedophilia getting excommunated and arrested.

Arrested, sure— though I have no clue how all those matters are handled. But yeah, there are priests in jail for what they've done.

Excommunication wouldn't apply here. The Church's forgiveness would, but that doesn't matter much to the people on YABS.

Spackling Compound

11-29-2005, 02:35 PM

Arrested, sure— though I have no clue how all those matters are handled. But yeah, there are priests in jail for what they've done.

Excommunication wouldn't apply here. The Church's forgiveness would, but that doesn't matter much to the people on YABS.
They are both excommunicated and they are also being arrested.

anthony!

11-29-2005, 02:35 PM

They are both excommunicated and they are also being arrested.

Huh. Now that I didn't know.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 02:42 PM

They are both excommunicated and they are also being arrested.

And if the same thing happened to those officials within the church who aided and abetted the crimes by moving pedophile priests from place to place, thereby providing them with more victims, and to those who helped priests escape justice, worked to hide evidence of the crimes, etc., that would be a good thing.

They can start with the current Pope.

Spackling Compound

11-29-2005, 02:51 PM

And if the same thing happened to those officials within the church who aided and abetted the crimes by moving pedophile priests from place to place, thereby providing them with more victims, and to those who helped priests escape justice, worked to hide evidence of the crimes, etc., that would be a good thing.

They can start with the current Pope.
I'll leave the Pope alone but yes, Jeffrey, all the above is absolutely correct.

Charles RB

11-29-2005, 03:00 PM

Arrested, sure— though I have no clue how all those matters are handled. But yeah, there are priests in jail for what they've done.

For the child-raping, yes, but what about for the covering up?

howyadoin

11-29-2005, 03:58 PM

The leadership "condoned" nothing. They covered up a stinking mess and passed on deviants from Church to Church until there was a massive blow up.

Condone means they approved. They did not approve. They covered up as best they could.What's the difference? If you aid and abet somebody's crimes, you're just as guilty as they are.

Gilda Dent

11-29-2005, 04:00 PM

I've stayed out of the current direction in the discussion, because, for the most part, the Catholic Church's position on marriage, homosexuality, gay sex, and sin, and whether that position is derived from the Bible itself or from "natural law" is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is legal marriage.

They seem like the same thing, but though they are related, they are independent concepts. Civl marriage and religious marriage can, and to be consistent in the preservation of religious freedom, must be treated separately. Perhaps a lesson from my first-grade class would be helpful:

noun
bank: a place where you keep money
bank: the side of a river
bank: a pile of tightly packed snow

verb
bank: bounce off of a barrier
bank: change direction by altering the angle

Five distinct definitions for the same word. Context, though, makes it clear whether the speaker means the verb form or the noun form, and which form. We have one basic idea here, that of bank=wall, with a bunch of specific uses and applications and derived concepts for that one basic concept. However, we don't try to claim that someone who who is banking the eight ball is putting it into a building with strong walls for safekeeping. Related concepts, but not the same concept, simple enough for a six-year-old to understand.

marriage (spiritual): the spiritual or religious union of two people
marriage (civil): a legal contract defining a particular relationship between two people

Most of the time, the two dominant forms of marriage, the form sanctified by a religious organization, and the legal contract form, occur at about the same time, but even then, not at exactly the same time. The minister or Priest performs the ceremony. The religious form thus is sanctified and occurs at the culmination of said ceremony. Either shortly before or after the ceremony, the couple, the officer performing the ceremony, and one or more witnesses sign the contract. Depending upon where this occurs and the laws thereof, this may be the moment that the civil version occurs, or it may be when the signed marriage liscense is filed. In any case, such couples are actually entering into two distinct marriages, one religious, and one civil, and doing so at separate moments, though the actual moments might containing overlapping elements.

A second group, a significant minority, will do only the civil form, skipping the religious form. A still smaller minority, such as my wife and I, will enter only into the religious form, sanctified by their particular church.

Because the two forms seem to occur at the same time for most (though they don't) they're often equated. They're related to be sure, in that they both deal with the union of two lives, but one is concerned with the siritual union, and the other the legal union.

Most of the past two or three pages has been concerning marriage (spiritual), specifically that form recognized and sanctified by the Catholic Church. While interesting from a theological point of view, and certainly an important issue for those in the Catholic Church, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is marriage (civil).

Applying the rules governing one particular form of religious marriage to civil marriage is about as logical as applying the rules governing how we deal with a snowstorm to financial institutions.

Not being a Catholic, I couldn't care less what the Catholic Church's position on (Catholic) marriage. It doesn't harm me in any way, it doesn't restrict my human rights, it doesn't affect my personal religious beliefs.

anthony!: I see you saying that you'd like the government to get out of the marriage biz. You don't want there to be any form of (civil) marriage. That's at least consistent in that it treats all people, gay and straight equally, and if that is a sincere belief and not a flanking attack on gay marriage, I respect that, though I disagree.

Would you agree that the opposite concept is equally valid, that if the government is going to recognize marriage, that all people should be treated equally under the law, regardless of sex, orientation, or sexual identity?

I get that your position is that of no (civil) marriage for anyone, but just for a second, let's recognize that the government already does recognize and grant rights to some couples in the form of (civil) marriage, and moving from there decide whether we should grant all couples the same civil rights and not grant them to people unequally.

Do you agree that the civil form of marriage should apply equally to all people regardless of whether that's granting or denying those rights? If no, what non-religious reasons do you have for that stance?

Gilda

anthony!

11-29-2005, 05:16 PM

anthony!: I see you saying that you'd like the government to get out of the marriage biz. You don't want there to be any form of (civil) marriage. That's at least consistent in that it treats all people, gay and straight equally, and if that is a sincere belief and not a flanking attack on gay marriage, I respect that, though I disagree.

Would you agree that the opposite concept is equally valid, that if the government is going to recognize marriage, that all people should be treated equally under the law, regardless of sex, orientation, or sexual identity?

I've said before, months ago, on this thread that the government has only two options: either everyone gets access to marriage or no one gets access to marriage. Its a King Solomon solution, but there you have it. In terms of the culture and the inherent principles that founded the nation, it would be more consistent to abolish civil marriage than to offer it to everyone.

The Puritan/Protestant founders opened themselves up to all of this when they themselves messed with marriage and "divorce". Had the world remained under the auspices of Catholicism you would have gotten a different answer from me because it would have been consistent with the principles and laws underwhich we all believed now and at the founding.

Whats happening now is just one more consequence of the Reformation, like it or not.

I get that your position is that of no (civil) marriage for anyone, but just for a second, let's recognize that the government already does recognize and grant rights to some couples in the form of (civil) marriage, and moving from there decide whether we should grant all couples the same civil rights and not grant them to people unequally.

That all depends on marriage as a human right. Under civil marriage, it doesn't seem to me much more than a driver's liscense— something you don't have a right to. You have to meet criteria to get it.

However, if you believe marriage to be a human right, then the government has no recourse but to allow everyone access to it. Brown v. Board of Education alone provides for that. If the government takes on a service it believes to be a right of the people, it must be despensed equally to all.

Yet I would still maintain the position that I believe marriage to be a human right about as much as I believe abortion to be an inherent right to a woman. It doesn't exist and I just won't recognize that, despite whatever decision the Supreme Court makes. Court decisions make things legal, not true. It completely flies in the face of states rights, the intent of the Constitution and the concept of natural law. You don't need to be Catholic or anything else to have that conviction. I don't see how people can just pull new rights out of thin air because their emotions demand so (despite however genuine and sincere and well intentioned).

Do you agree that the civil form of marriage should apply equally to all people regardless of whether that's granting or denying those rights? If no, what non-religious reasons do you have for that stance?

Honestly I'm pretty "eh" on that.

It depends on what you believe laws and communities and societies are for, honestly. Everyone must abide by the rule of law, but that law is inherently tied to the will of the people. People come together to decided what kind of society they want to live in. If they want to live in a society that defines marriage a certain way, and they've got the votes to do it— I'm hard pressed to argue with that, regardless of my opinion. I think it was ridiculous for Texas to do their recent Constitutional amendment over marriage, but there you have it. There it is. That's the world Texas has chosen to live in.

Are there cases where human rights trump that? Sure. Slavery being the obvious example. However I genuinely disagree that the issue of marriage reaches that kind of massive threshold, particularly when you consider that so many of the reasons people cite in favor of gay marriage (taxes, estates, health care, insurance, etc.) can easily be fixed with adjustments to the law. I'd be hard pressed to find a reasonable person who doesn't believe a gay citizen has less entitlement to employment, insurance benefits, housing, education, expression, etc. But marriage, even civil marriage, by what I believe to be its intent and nature, doesn't qualify under that umbrella. The only way to make that so is to change the definition, and that needs to be done legislatively not judicially. This is a society that collectively decides how it wants to live, and it shouldn't have to hide behind court decision after court decision to justify their positions.

In short, my answer is— if the people really really want it that way, I wouldn't stand in the way despite my own opinions. I think there are safer, better and less confrontational solutions but that would be too much to hope for.

Spackling Compound

11-29-2005, 06:03 PM

What's the difference? If you aid and abet somebody's crimes, you're just as guilty as they are.
There's a difference in condoning sin as a position of the Church and abetting a crime as a hierarchical figure of the Church.

Lex

11-29-2005, 07:08 PM

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled controversial debate for some Protestant words:The Puritan/Protestant founders opened themselves up to all of this when they themselves messed with marriage and "divorce". Had the world remained under the auspices of Catholicism you would have gotten a different answer from me because it would have been consistent with the principles and laws underwhich we all believed now and at the founding.

Whats happening now is just one more consequence of the Reformation, like it or not.If the Reformation had never happened, God would have been long forgotten in favor of worshiping the saints (at the time, chicken bones were being sold to peasents who thought they were buying the bones of a saint with the intention of worshiping them), and people would still be paying the Church to get out of Purgatory. So, thank God the Reformation happened. It reminded the Church that God comes first. Martin Luther was very cool!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled controversial debate.

11-29-2005, 08:51 PM

There is no actual evidence for God, angels, or Jesus rising from the dead. There is instead lots of evidence that people who are actually dead for any length of time stay dead. I presume this is what happened to Jesus, given the lack of any actual evidence to the contrary. You're free to believe otherwise, of course, but there's no reason for anyone to take that belief any more seriously than the belief that the earth is flat.

Jeffrey,

I would like to ask you a simple question: How do you know that God does not exist? What evidence do you have? You seem to have a very strong conviction in your belief that God is an invention of man and nothing more than superstition. What proof do you have of this? How can you prove that a supreme being did not create the universe that you now live in?

Login:

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 08:58 PM

I would like to ask you a simple question: How do you know that God does not exist? What evidence do you have? You seem to have a very strong conviction in your belief that God is an invention of man and nothing more than superstition. What proof do you have of this? How can you prove that a supreme being did not create the universe that you now live in?

It's virtually impossible to prove a negative, i.e., that something does not exist. Nobody ever proved Zeus and the other Olympians don't exist, or that elves and fairies don't exist, but we've sobered up enough as a species to largely reject such nonsense. Hopefully the same will eventually be true of belief in God.

What you fail to understand, apparently, is that being unable to prove something does not exist does not provide any reason to believe it *does* exist. You can't prove that I don't have super powers, but there's no reason you should believe I do have them, unless I can convincingly demonstrate them. Similar elves and Zeus, and God. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of such entities, there is no reason to believe in them. One might as well believe that Zeus created the universe, or that fairies made it out of stardust. These propositions make as much sense, and have just as much evidence supporting them (i.e., absolutely none) as do the Judeo/Christian/Islamic propositions.

howyadoin

11-29-2005, 09:03 PM

There's a difference in condoning sin as a position of the Church and abetting a crime as a hierarchical figure of the Church.Try telling that to the kids who wouldn't have been molested if the church hadn't deliberately hidden the known offenders in new hunting grounds.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 09:19 PM

It's virtually impossible to prove a negative, i.e., that something does not exist. Nobody ever proved Zeus and the other Olympians don't exist, or that elves and fairies don't exist, but we've sobered up enough as a species to largely reject such nonsense. Hopefully the same will eventually be true of belief in God.

What you fail to understand, apparently, is that being unable to prove something does not exist does not provide any reason to believe it *does* exist. You can't prove that I don't have super powers, but there's no reason you should believe I do have them, unless I can convincingly demonstrate them. Similar elves and Zeus, and God. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of such entities, there is no reason to believe in them. One might as well believe that Zeus created the universe, or that fairies made it out of stardust. These propositions make as much sense, and have just as much evidence supporting them (i.e., absolutely none) as do the Judeo/Christian/Islamic propositions.
Atheism is ridiculous. Intelligent design is all around you, and you can blind yourself to it if you want, but let's not throw stones at people who don't want to buy into your silly theories or pretend logic dressed up in rhetorical pablum.

Gilda Dent

11-29-2005, 09:21 PM

I've said before, months ago, on this thread that the government has only two options: either everyone gets access to marriage or no one gets access to marriage.

I agree with you here.

That all depends on marriage as a human right. Under civil marriage, it doesn't seem to me much more than a driver's liscense— something you don't have a right to. You have to meet criteria to get it.

I disagree. Privileges must be earned. For a driver's liscense, you must prove that you know the laws and can drive a car. You prove your qualifications by accomplishing a task or passing a test.

Rights are granted to all who qualify based on status. Any unmarried adult in the US can currently marry any other adult of the opposite sex. Unmarried adult isn't something you do, something you've earned, it's something you are. As is sexual status.

However, if you believe marriage to be a human right, then the government has no recourse but to allow everyone access to it. Brown v. Board of Education alone provides for that. If the government takes on a service it believes to be a right of the people, it must be despensed equally to all.

The US government defines marriage as a basic right.

Yet I would still maintain the position that I believe marriage to be a human right about as much as I believe abortion to be an inherent right to a woman. It doesn't exist and I just won't recognize that, despite whatever decision the Supreme Court makes. Court decisions make things legal, not true.

The debate is entirely about the law.

Are there cases where human rights trump that? Sure. Slavery being the obvious example. However I genuinely disagree that the issue of marriage reaches that kind of massive threshold, particularly when you consider that so many of the reasons people cite in favor of gay marriage (taxes, estates, health care, insurance, etc.) can easily be fixed with adjustments to the law.

The easiest being to change the law to allow gays to marry. One small change, and everything else comes along with it. Everything else becomes a piecemeal mish-mash if done one right at a time.

I'd be hard pressed to find a reasonable person who doesn't believe a gay citizen has less entitlement to employment, insurance benefits, housing, education, expression, etc.

You're begging the question. Of course reasonable people don't believe those things, but there are plenty of people who do nonetheless, which is why it's important for the government to defend those rights against the tyrrany of the oppressive majority.

Gilda

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 09:22 PM

Atheism is ridiculous. Intelligent design is all around you, and you can blind yourself to it if you want, but let's not throw stones at people who don't want to buy into your silly theories or pretend logic dressed up in rhetorical pablum.

The only intelligent design evident in reality is the intelligence underlying those things designed by humans. People who believe otherwise truly don't understand basic concepts of logic and evidence.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 09:32 PM

11-29-2005, 09:45 PM

It's virtually impossible to prove a negative, i.e., that something does not exist. Nobody ever proved Zeus and the other Olympians don't exist, or that elves and fairies don't exist, but we've sobered up enough as a species to largely reject such nonsense. Hopefully the same will eventually be true of belief in God.

What you fail to understand, apparently, is that being unable to prove something does not exist does not provide any reason to believe it *does* exist. You can't prove that I don't have super powers, but there's no reason you should believe I do have them, unless I can convincingly demonstrate them. Similar elves and Zeus, and God. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of such entities, there is no reason to believe in them. One might as well believe that Zeus created the universe, or that fairies made it out of stardust. These propositions make as much sense, and have just as much evidence supporting them (i.e., absolutely none) as do the Judeo/Christian/Islamic propositions.

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you don't have to prove that God doesn't exist to say that he doesn't exist.

Zeus was said to live on Mt. Olympus. There is no Mt. Olympus and no Zeus living there. There are no elf graves, so I can assume there are no elves. Scientists have no Latin name for fairies, so I doubt their existence. These, as simple as they are, are reasons why I do not believe these creatures exist. Crude, I admit, but they are much more than you have provided in your belief.

What proof, as simple as it may be, do you have that God does not exist?

Login:

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 09:46 PM

It still doesn't explain why there's ANY SORT of inherent logic to things. Why is there and up and a down? Why do events repeat themselves the same way under the same circumstances? Why does math work? There's a fundamental order to the physical universe. I call that order evidence of a controlling intelligence. I think I'm as well versed in logica and evidence as you are.

Review the logical fallacy of "begging the question" then. Since there's no reason to assume that things would be different without a controlling intelligence, the existence of order argues for a controlling intelligence only if one starts by assuming such a controlling intelligence exists.

Then there's chaos theory and modern quantum theory, which suggest that much of what we observe as order is not necessarily so orderly, and that most natural laws are both situational and conditional, but probably not universal. So much for universal order.

Finally, there are the aspects of supposed intelligent design which, if "designed", would suggest very unintelligent design. Vestigal organs, junk DNA, hobbled-together anatomical features, etc.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 09:51 PM

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you don't have to prove that God doesn't exist to say that he doesn't exist.
No, I'm saying unless someone can provide evidence he does exist, there's no reason to believe he does.

Zeus was said to live on Mt. Olympus. There is no Mt. Olympus and no Zeus living there.
Learn some geography. There is a Mt. Olympus. As to no Zeus living there, who's to say he isn't? He's a god, he can turn invisible and all sorts of magical stuff like that. That's what gods do.

There are no elf graves, so I can assume there are no elves.
Who says there are no elf graves? Maybe they hide their graves. Or maybe dead elves turn to dust, or air. Or maybe elves eat their dead, or make them into Keebler cookies.

Scientists have no Latin name for fairies, so I doubt their existence.
As arguments go, yours keep getting worse. This one isn't even worth rebutting.

What proof, as simple as it may be, do you have that God does not exist?

The complete lack of proof that he *does* exist.

Cam63

11-29-2005, 09:54 PM

I'm not willing to take the word of the blindly faithful or religious nutjobs on God existing either.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:01 PM

Review the logical fallacy of "begging the question" then. Since there's no reason to assume that things would be different without a controlling intelligence, the existence of order argues for a controlling intelligence only if one starts by assuming such a controlling intelligence exists.

Then there's chaos theory and modern quantum theory, which suggest that much of what we observe as order is not necessarily so orderly, and that most natural laws are both situational and conditional, but probably not universal. So much for universal order.

Finally, there are the aspects of supposed intelligent design which, if "designed", would suggest very unintelligent design. Vestigal organs, junk DNA, hobbled-together anatomical features, etc."Begging the question" doesn't apply here. I say that the ordered universe, even our perception of the universe as ordered (and of order as something that goes against the physical trend of breakdown and averaging out) proves that there is a God, somewhere. The fact that you can express the complexities of this sort of thing in terms of quantum mechanics and chaos theory just adds weight to my argument.

Vestigial organs are part of evolution, no one really knows what "junk DNA" is for, and hobbled-together anatomical features still function, don't they? If they don't, they're vestigial, and part of evolution, too. Try harder.

Jeff Brady

11-29-2005, 10:04 PM

Cam63

11-29-2005, 10:07 PM

I wanted mutant powers God, you bastard.

...and fix the Middle East while you're at it.

Jeff Brady

11-29-2005, 10:13 PM

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:15 PM

"Begging the question" doesn't apply here. I say that the ordered universe, even our perception of the universe as ordered (and of order as something that goes against the physical trend of breakdown and averaging out) proves that there is a God, somewhere.
How does this supposed proof work?

Keep in mind also that our perceptions often see patterns where they don't exist. Innate gestalt reasoning tendencies, all that. While this is useful as it predisposes us toward finding patterns, it also results in us seeing fallacious ones, mistaking coincidence for causality, developing phobias and believing superstitions, etc.

The fact that you can express the complexities of this sort of thing in terms of quantum mechanics and chaos theory just adds weight to my argument.
Sounds like a "just so story" sort of argument to me. Reality works out, so that tells us it was designed and is directed.

Vestigial organs are part of evolution, no one really knows what "junk DNA" is for, and hobbled-together anatomical features still function, don't they? If they don't, they're vestigial, and part of evolution, too. Try harder.
Well, at least we know you aren't a separate-creation literalist.

Still, if evolution was "designed", one would expect the solutions arrived at would be less awkward, less cobbled-together, and less prone to fatal failure. There wouldn't be things like appendicitis - catastrophic malfunction of an unnecessary organ - or sickle cell anemia.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:23 PM

How does this supposed proof work?

Keep in mind also that our perceptions often see patterns where they don't exist. Innate gestalt reasoning tendencies, all that. While this is useful as it predisposes us toward finding patterns, it also results in us seeing fallacious ones, mistaking coincidence for causality, developing phobias and believing superstitions, etc. Sure, but our minds don't exist independent of the natural world. Innate gestalt reasoning and pattern finding are the most useful way of ordering information we have, lending yet more credibilty to the idea that the universe is ordered by an intelligence similar to our own. Very occasionally (on average), those processes fail to work out the world, insinuating that the creator is higher than ourselves.

Sounds like a "just so story" sort of argument to me. Reality works out, so that tells us it was designed and is directed. Er... yes. See above.Well, at least we know you aren't a separate-creation literalist.

Still, if evolution was "designed", one would expect the solutions arrived at would be less awkward, less cobbled-together, and less prone to fatal failure. There wouldn't be things like appendicitis - catastrophic malfunction of an unnecessary organ - or sickle cell anemia.Well, we call that the result of original sin, in the Christian world.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:24 PM

Dad's a lapsed Catholic, Mom's a Protestant. Mom brought me to church every Sunday and people talked about this God fellow, and his kid J.C. None of it got to me. I was a small kid, 8 years old or so, and I thought it was all bunk. Never understood it. I was taught that imaginary friends were just that, but God & JC were somehow real because a few people wrote some books. They were written by men who may have been divinely inspired, or just stoned out of their minds. Who's to know? Some were interesting philosophers with a few tales to tell, poems to recite & songs to sing. I still never got it. Mom still dragged me to church until I was 14. Dad never went. I don't know if I "blinded myself" from God or not. It just never made sense.And far be it from me to tell you that your experience of the world is invalid. I just think that theism is a perfectly reasonable and logical way of looking at the universe. I'm not going to try to make you believe anything. No attack was intended.

As for evolution, I think we evolved INTO God's image (in terms of our minds - God is a spirit and has not a body like man, or so says the shorter catechism) - that he set the plan in motion and we were the result. C.S. Lewis thought that the next step was Christianity - that as soon as we could perceive the process, we were given a choice in the matter, like Eve and the apple. In terms of biology, beats me.

Jeff Brady

11-29-2005, 10:29 PM

Another thing I can't figure out is "Original Sin."

Original Sin: "Fallen man's natural sinfulness, the hereditary depravity and corruption of human nature because of Adam's fall." 1 That is, Adam and Eve's transgression when they ate of the forbidden fruit opened a gulf between God and humanity. Pollution from that sin has been inherited by all of Adam and Eve's descendents to the present day.

Homosexuality is blamed on the Original Sin. So...gay penguins are descendants of Adam?

God created Eden, and Adam & Eve to live in harmony, bliss & ignorance. He said, "Here's a tree of Knowledge. Even though I created you, gave you free will & curiosity, and I know everything that has and will happen, don't eat from the tree. Don't seek knowledge, be ignorant." Satan comes along and says, "hey take a bite. Eve: "No, God said not to." Snake: "Yeah, so?"

*crunch*

Disobedience and Knowledge, these two things created 'the gulf between God & humanity.' Yet they seem to be our most powerful tools.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:30 PM

Well, we call that the result of original sin, in the Christian world.

Which, as explanations go, is way up there with "God works in myserious ways" - i.e., no explanation at all.

11-29-2005, 10:31 PM

I disagree. Privileges must be earned. For a driver's liscense, you must prove that you know the laws and can drive a car. You prove your qualifications by accomplishing a task or passing a test.

Marriage isn't a privilege that can always be earned. A blind person shouldn't be given a drivers licence. No amount of drivers' ed is going to fix the fact that they can't see, and you have to see in order to drive. Does the DPS discriminate against this person? Yes. Is it unjust discrimination? No.

What would happen if suddenly judges across the US suddenly said that it was unconstitutional for blind people to be deprived of the right to drive? What if certain states started handing out drivers licesnces to blind people?

But what about their jobs? How are they supposed to get food? What about visiting family? These are real challenges for sure, but handing them drivers licences wouldn't solve them.

Why then are we looking at the problems of homosexuals and trying to solve the issues they're having by handing out licences? Sure there are real issues to face for these people, no doubt. There are issues of property, health care, and children, but granting married status is not the best way to solve them.

Much like the rest of the motorists on the road would object to having blind people driving along in traffic because they lack the ability to drive, so too are those who believe that marriage should be for those who have the capacity to fulfill a marriage, for most this means having children. And while yes, homosexual couples can raise children, they cannot conceve, together, their own, no matter how hard they might try. Any children they do raise would still be the product of a hetorosexual union.

Now, does society accommodate blind people and their transportation needs? Yes, most of the time. There's oftentimes public transportation or friends and family who help out with the responsibilities. So too with homosexual couples, at least for the most part. For them, they too can get to the same destinations as married couples by taking certain provisional measures. If they want to share an estate or grant power of attorney, this is easily done in about an hour at a courthouse. Many healthcare providers have changed their status to allow for extended coverage to other dependents. Hospitals have begun changing the rules for visits by people other than family. While not perfect just yet, think of it more as the universal access laws that made handicapped parking and ramps mandatory. To me, this is the more productive place to be.

Login:

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:31 PM

Sure, but our minds don't exist independent of the natural world. Innate gestalt reasoning and pattern finding are the most useful way of ordering information we have, lending yet more credibilty to the idea that the universe is ordered by an intelligence similar to our own. Very occasionally (on average), those processes fail to work out the world, insinuating that the creator is higher than ourselves.

So, when it works, that's evidence of God.. and when it doesn't that's also evidence of God.

Sounds like arguments made from an a priori assumption here.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:32 PM

Which, as explanations go, is way up there with "God works in myserious ways" - i.e., no explanation at all.Well, your question is "Why is there suffering?" It doesn't make sense outside of a moral world, and I posit a God who doesn't want people to suffer. If you think God's indifferent to suffering, why the hell does it matter if the process is sometimes inaccurate? Bring on the death.

Jeff Brady

11-29-2005, 10:33 PM

And far be it from me to tell you that your experience of the world is invalid. I just think that theism is a perfectly reasonable and logical way of looking at the universe. I'm not going to try to make you believe anything. No attack was intended.

No attack perceived.

Problem is, faith is highly illogical. Atheism is not.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:35 PM

So, when it works, that's evidence of God.. and when it doesn't that's also evidence of God.

Sounds like arguments made from an a priori assumption here.Atheism and theism are both a priori assumptions, Jeff. You see chaos, I see God. Neither of us can prove the point to the other, because we're starting from different places.

Read "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant. There's a section where he has two columns run parallel, one arguing for, one against, the existence of God. The arguments are flawless, and they come to completely opposite conclusions. Your atheism is no more valid or logical than my theism.

Noah Johnson

11-29-2005, 10:36 PM

To me, this is the more productive place to be.

Separate and unequal?

Okay. Good to know what you stand for.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:39 PM

Well, your question is "Why is there suffering?" It doesn't make sense outside of a moral world, and I posit a God who doesn't want people to suffer. If you think God's indifferent to suffering, why the hell does it matter if the process is sometimes inaccurate? Bring on the death.

My question isn't "Why is there suffering" at all. Not in this context, at least. My question is, why does a system created by a supposedly perfect and beneficient entity not work a lot better, in humans and in animals? Why are the anus and vagina in such close proximity as to make cross-contamination problematic (a major factor in UTI)? Why do we have organs that don't do anything other than cause us problems (tonsils, appendix)? Why are some animal species so prone to joint or back problems? Why didn't a panda just get a thumb rather than a jury-rigged wrist bone?

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:39 PM

No attack perceived.

Problem is, faith is highly illogical. Atheism is not.Eh, it's mostly about what point you start from. I start from a theistic perspecitive and see evidence everywhere. You start from an atheistic perspective and see evidence everywhere. Christianity is mostly about historicity. If you think that the gospels have survived the depredations of the centuries mostly intact (as I do, for a long laundry list of reasons), then you have to deal with the person of Christ who appeared to rise from the dead after three days in a tomb. That necessitates some kind of response on my part. If you don't accept that the gospels (which many do not, for an equally long list of reasons), then that burden is not incumbent upon you. Everyone has SOME kind of faith.

Jeff Brady

11-29-2005, 10:43 PM

a bunch of nonsense

Blind people aren't allowed to drive because it isn't safe, for anyone.

Gay people aren't allowed to marry because it will cause spontaneous combustion, four year old girls to marry frogs, the sanctity of 'real' marriage to be desecrated, seas to turn into blood and boil, the moon to explode, the sun turn green, and the platypus to walk on its hind legs and spin its bill around his head like Daffy Duck getting shot at by Elmer Fudd while he's trying to con him into shooting Bugs and say, "gosh, this is a silly run-on sentence."

Wait, none of that will happen if gays are allowed to marry. Nevermind.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:43 PM

My question isn't "Why is there suffering" at all. Not in this context, at least. My question is, why does a system created by a supposedly perfect and beneficient entity not work a lot better, in humans and in animals? Why are the anus and vagina in such close proximity as to make cross-contamination problematic (a major factor in UTI)? Why do we have organs that don't do anything other than cause us problems (tonsils, appendix)? Why are some animal species so prone to joint or back problems? Why didn't a panda just get a thumb rather than a jury-rigged wrist bone?Oh, sorry - I misunderstood. I would say that it's because they're steps toward perfection. We assume that the tonsils and appendix were part of a more complex immune system back when we needed it. Now they're useless, and will no doubt slowly cease to be. Cross-contamination is a way to test those immune systems. Animals with back and joint problems will eventually be naturally selected. Pandas without thumbs - no idea. Sorry. These are basic questions about the evolutionary process, Jeff, not about God.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:45 PM

Atheism and theism are both a priori assumptions, Jeff. You see chaos, I see God. Neither of us can prove the point to the other, because we're starting from different places.

Read "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant. There's a section where he has two columns run parallel, one arguing for, one against, the existence of God. The arguments are flawless, and they come to completely opposite conclusions. Your atheism is no more valid or logical than my theism.

I haven't read Kant for awhile, but I really come to this from a somewhat different POV. I certainly didn't come in with an assumption of athiesm, I started out nominally Lutheran and arrived at athiesm by a circuitous route, best summarized by my having observed the illogic and irrationality of theism of any sort - how the pieces don't add up. Beyond that, I assert athiesm a more logical position by reason of Occam's razor. Since there's no actual evidence supporting the existence of God, there's no real reason to believe in God.

You're right that one can't definitively prove or disprove either position, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily equal.

11-29-2005, 10:46 PM

No, I'm saying unless someone can provide evidence he does exist, there's no reason to believe he does.

Jeffery,

Once again you have tried to put the burden of proof upon my shoulders. I am not here to prove to you that God exists. That is not my intent. My intent is for you to prove to me that God does not. You fail to do so. At this point I say that you cannot.

To say that ' The complete lack of proof that he *does* exist' is your rationale is at least an honest one. But with that logic, your theory that there is no God is just as empty for you lack any proof that he *doesn't*.

Login:

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:48 PM

I haven't read Kant for awhile, but I really come to this from a somewhat different POV. I certainly didn't come in with an assumption of athiesm, I started out nominally Lutheran and arrived at athiesm by a circuitous route, best summarized by my having observed the illogic and irrationality of theism of any sort - how the pieces don't add up. Beyond that, I assert athiesm a more logical position by reason of Occam's razor. Since there's no actual evidence supporting the existence of God, there's no real reason to believe in God.

You're right that one can't definitively prove or disprove either position, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily equal.I think we both have Occam's razor firmly in hand here. I see theism as the simplest solution, and the things you cite as evidence for atheism as evidence the other way. I didn't mean to say that you were always an atheist, but that when you come at the world now, you are doing so from your understanding of a world without God. It's a fundamental.

edit: beyond that, you can certainly overapply Occam's razor.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:49 PM

These are basic questions about the evolutionary process, Jeff, not about God.

Not really. Evolution is directed, or it isn't. If one assumes design by a perfect being, one should expect a better job. If it happens by trial and error, you expect cobbled-together results like we observe in actual organisms.

11-29-2005, 10:51 PM

I haven't read Kant for awhile, but I really come to this from a somewhat different POV. I certainly didn't come in with an assumption of athiesm, I started out nominally Lutheran and arrived at athiesm by a circuitous route, best summarized by my having observed the illogic and irrationality of theism of any sort - how the pieces don't add up. Beyond that, I assert athiesm a more logical position by reason of Occam's razor. Since there's no actual evidence supporting the existence of God, there's no real reason to believe in God.

You're right that one can't definitively prove or disprove either position, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily equal.

Curious. While I will respect your privacy if you don't wish to share your conversion to athiesm with a room of strangers, but what sort of pieces didn't seem to add up?

Login:

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 10:51 PM

Not really. Evolution is directed, or it isn't. If one assumes design by a perfect being, one should expect a better job. If it happens by trial and error, you expect cobbled-together results like we observe in actual organisms.Not if it's all moving towards something. The process works as well as it can and still BE a process. Otherwise, God should have just created the perfect being. It's on its way to perfection, like clockwork. Yes, there's trial and error in the intermediary forms, but they're means to an end, and a part of the process. That's not beautiful to you?

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 10:52 PM

To say that ' The complete lack of proof that he *does* exist' is your rationale is at least an honest one. But with that logic, your theory that there is no God is just as empty for you lack any proof that he *doesn't*.

But again, if you're going to believe in God despite a complete lack of evidence for God, you might as well believe in astrology, ESP, pyramid power, elves, fairies, Zeus, unicorns and all sorts of other nonsense.

I prefer to believe in things for which there is actual evidence.

11-29-2005, 11:01 PM

Not really. Evolution is directed, or it isn't. If one assumes design by a perfect being, one should expect a better job. If it happens by trial and error, you expect cobbled-together results like we observe in actual organisms.

Excuse me while I step in on this one...

Jeff, here's a thought. What if things don't have to be black and white? What if creation is a mixture between things being directed AND allowing for chaos at the same time? While it might seem that these two ideas are apposed to each other, in reality they may not be.

Just a thought.

Login:

11-29-2005, 11:03 PM

But again, if you're going to believe in God despite a complete lack of evidence for God, you might as well believe in astrology, ESP, pyramid power, elves, fairies, Zeus, unicorns and all sorts of other nonsense.

I prefer to believe in things for which there is actual evidence.

Then by that logic, what is your evidence for your aethism?

Login:

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 11:03 PM

OK, sorry to bitch out, but it's late where I am and I'm going to bed. I think I've made most of my points, but if anyone would like me to respond I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Lordy, I'm tired.

Ian Boothby

11-29-2005, 11:07 PM

Then by that logic, what is your evidence for your aethism?

Login:

You don't have to prove that there's isn't a blue dinosaur on the moon either. If you believe that it's up to you to prove it. Same for the invisible diety that created the universe. If you just want to believe in him or the dinosaur that's fine but keep that belief away from laws that affect real life people.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:08 PM

Curious. While I will respect your privacy if you don't wish to share your conversion to athiesm with a room of strangers, but what sort of pieces didn't seem to add up?

Well, here's the short answer. I studied a lot of faiths over many, many years, and found various things that didn't add up. These include: The various aspects of theologies which make no sense; stuff in the Bible and other texts which simply isn't true; the fact that every faith asserts itself to be truth, but these various truths aren't consistent with each other, and none has any more support for it than any other; and the fact that naturalistic explanations, which do not require arguments to the supernatural, seem to work better, and don't require appeals to special principles (i.e., the supernatural) to work.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:10 PM

Not if it's all moving towards something. The process works as well as it can and still BE a process. Otherwise, God should have just created the perfect being. It's on its way to perfection, like clockwork. Yes, there's trial and error in the intermediary forms, but they're means to an end, and a part of the process. That's not beautiful to you?

Well, it's a nice idea, but I don't see any evidence for it. Species don't move toward perfection. They adapt and survive, or don't. I don't know that a mammal is any more perfect than, say, a nautilus - and one can argue it is probably less so. But mammals developed because there were niches for which a nautilus wasn't suited.

Ian Boothby

11-29-2005, 11:10 PM

It still doesn't explain why there's ANY SORT of inherent logic to things. Why is there and up and a down? Why do events repeat themselves the same way under the same circumstances?

And other posters can throw stones as much as they want, but fuck it, I'm back. Look, Ian was actually right about something.

And you remain consistantly wrong, how's that for proof of events repeating themselves?

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:13 PM

Excuse me while I step in on this one...

Jeff, here's a thought. What if things don't have to be black and white? What if creation is a mixture between things being directed AND allowing for chaos at the same time? While it might seem that these two ideas are apposed to each other, in reality they may not be.

Just a thought.

And what if what we call gravity is really the result of invisible, intangible fairies which use their magic to push things down toward the earth?

Really, I see no reason to assume things for which there isn't evidence, especially when naturalistic explanations seem to work just fine. People can make up lots of wonderful "what if" stories, and while this is great for works of fantasy fiction, it doesn't lend itself well to actually understanding and explaining reality.

Screwtape

11-29-2005, 11:14 PM

And you remain consistantly wrong, how's that for proof of events repeating themselves?We have a first time and a last time - it's milestone day! What makes you such a bully, just out of curiosity? Respond, while I sleep.

Ian Boothby

11-29-2005, 11:14 PM

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you don't have to prove that God doesn't exist to say that he doesn't exist.

Zeus was said to live on Mt. Olympus. There is no Mt. Olympus and no Zeus living there. There are no elf graves, so I can assume there are no elves. Scientists have no Latin name for fairies, so I doubt their existence. These, as simple as they are, are reasons why I do not believe these creatures exist. Crude, I admit, but they are much more than you have provided in your belief.

What proof, as simple as it may be, do you have that God does not exist?

Login:

I still don't see how you can prove any of the Greek, Norse or Egyptian Gods didn't exist with your logic. How is your God (if he is your God) any more real than Odin?

11-29-2005, 11:14 PM

You don't have to prove that there's isn't a blue dinosaur on the moon either. If you believe that it's up to you to prove it. Same for the invisible diety that created the universe. If you just want to believe in him or the dinosaur that's fine but keep that belief away from laws that affect real life people.

But I'm not saying that I believe in blue dinosaurs. In fact, I'm asking others to prove to me that their blue dinosaurs exist. In order to hold to an idea, aethism, Christianity, etc., it seems necessary to have reasons to doing so. For some here it seems that having no reason is a good enough reason.

Login:

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:15 PM

Then by that logic, what is your evidence for your aethism?

The lack of any evidence in favor of God or other divine entities suggests that there aren't any such beings. Thus, athiesm.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:15 PM

OK, sorry to bitch out, but it's late where I am and I'm going to bed. I think I've made most of my points, but if anyone would like me to respond I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Lordy, I'm tired.

Eh, I don't see that as bitching out, I see it as a reasonable response to fatigue.

Ian Boothby

11-29-2005, 11:16 PM

I wanted mutant powers God, you bastard.
.

You have the internet. That's better than mutant powers. You can talk to the world, listen to music, play games and there's dirty pictures.

11-29-2005, 11:21 PM

The lack of any evidence in favor of God or other divine entities suggests that there aren't any such beings. Thus, athiesm.

I see what you're saying. But let me ask you this. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, period. Atheism isn't so much the lack of proof that God exists, but the willful denial that ever such a being could exist. With your only proof for your point of view being a lack of proof, I find myself wondering why you don't fall more in the realm of agnostic.

Login:

Converge

11-29-2005, 11:21 PM

For me, the purpose of spirituality is not to explain reality objectively, but to help me understand reality subjectively.

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:21 PM

But I'm not saying that I believe in blue dinosaurs. In fact, I'm asking others to prove to me that their blue dinosaurs exist. In order to hold to an idea, aethism, Christianity, etc., it seems necessary to have reasons to doing so. For some here it seems that having no reason is a good enough reason.

Not really. Athiesm is the belief that there is no God/are no gods. Since there is no evidence of the existence of gods, this lack of evidence supports athiesm.

Was there any sort of evidence for the existence of God - or Zeus, Vishnu, etc. - athiesm wouldn't be a very viable POV. In the complete absence of such evidence, athiesm is a very viable POV.

Athiesm also has the advantage of being consistent with observable, objective reality (to the extent we can prove such things exist). There is no evidence for magic, the supernatural, or anything which cannot be explained within a naturalistic metaphysics (i.e., science). Arguments for God and similar entities are founded on the idea that there are things which transcend these rules - things which fall outside the bounds of what we recognize as reality. Such arguments are not consistent with what we know to be true.

Ian Boothby

11-29-2005, 11:25 PM

We have a first time and a last time - it's milestone day! What makes you such a bully, just out of curiosity? Respond, while I sleep.

Well, people who call other folks names then leave for one.

Have you ever actually met a bully? Am I taking your lunch money? Am I twice your size and beating you up by the bike rack? You can't throw out cheap shots and then call foul when you get some back.

Ian Boothby

11-29-2005, 11:27 PM

JeffreyWKramer

11-29-2005, 11:28 PM

I see what you're saying. But let me ask you this. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, period. Atheism isn't so much the lack of proof that God exists, but the willful denial that ever such a being could exist. With your only proof for your point of view being a lack of proof, I find myself wondering why you don't fall more in the realm of agnostic.

Agnosticism tends to fall more within the realm of "I don't know what I believe." I know that I have reason to believe in a materialistic, empirical reality, because this is consistent with my own observations and those of others throughout history, and because this POV allows for prediction and functional explanations. I know that, much as I find fascinating the ideas of gods, spirits, demons and angels and magic and all that, I don't believe in them. I believe that if these things were real, we'd have some sort of proof that they exist.

The fact that even geniuses such as Aquinas weren't able to develop workable logical proofs for the existence of God is also a strong - though not conclusive - argument for his nonexistence.

Now, being that I'm aware that humans are fallible, I can admit that I may be wrong in my beliefs. But I don't think I am, based on my own experiences and literally three-decades-plus spent studying and thinking about these issues. If you want to take that as a leaning toward agnosticism, I won't quibble with you, so knock yourself out.

Converge

11-29-2005, 11:32 PM

My question isn't "Why is there suffering" at all. Not in this context, at least. My question is, why does a system created by a supposedly perfect and beneficient entity not work a lot better, in humans and in animals? Why are the anus and vagina in such close proximity as to make cross-contamination problematic (a major factor in UTI)? Why do we have organs that don't do anything other than cause us problems (tonsils, appendix)? Why are some animal species so prone to joint or back problems? Why didn't a panda just get a thumb rather than a jury-rigged wrist bone?

Well the easy answer is that the universe was cursed after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life. Also, you're perception is clouded by your own limited view of right and wrong and your own definition of perfection. Why is there suffering? Why would there not be suffering? What is it about suffering that it absolutely should not exist?

And Pandas were created by ancient Chinese alchemists. Don't blame that on God.

11-29-2005, 11:38 PM

Agnosticism tends to fall more within the realm of "I don't know what I believe." I know that I have reason to believe in a materialistic, empirical reality, because this is consistent with my own observations and those of others throughout history, and because this POV allows for prediction and functional explanations. I know that, much as I find fascinating the ideas of gods, spirits, demons and angels and magic and all that, I don't believe in them. I believe that if these things were real, we'd have some sort of proof that they exist.

The fact that even geniuses such as Aquinas weren't able to develop workable logical proofs for the existence of God is also a strong - though not conclusive - argument for his nonexistence.

Now, being that I'm aware that humans are fallible, I can admit that I may be wrong in my beliefs. But I don't think I am, based on my own experiences and literally three-decades-plus spent studying and thinking about these issues. If you want to take that as a leaning toward agnosticism, I won't quibble with you, so knock yourself out.

How then do you explain love? What have been your experiences?

Login:

the4thpip

11-30-2005, 12:18 AM

I believe that gay love does exist.

Lex

11-30-2005, 12:39 AM

Jeffrey,

I would like to ask you a simple question: How do you know that God does not exist? What evidence do you have? You seem to have a very strong conviction in your belief that God is an invention of man and nothing more than superstition. What proof do you have of this? How can you prove that a supreme being did not create the universe that you now live in?

Login:
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Proof? When does a belief need any proof? Isn't the point of a belief the idea that you don't need any evidence to believe in it?

More and more lately, I've seen Christians trying to find proof that their beliefs are true. But I feel that's contrary to the concept of a belief. You don't need proof to believe in God and athiests like Jeff don't need proof to believe there are no gods.

So asking for proof of someone's beliefs doesn't seem very constructive.

the4thpip

11-30-2005, 12:58 AM

How many angels can dance on the tip of a needle again?

Gilda Dent

11-30-2005, 01:01 AM

You have the internet. That's better than mutant powers. You can talk to the world, listen to music, play games and there's dirty pictures.

The internet is for porn,
The internet is for porn,
Why you think the net was born?
Porn, porn, porn.

Gilda

Gilda Dent

11-30-2005, 01:37 AM

Marriage isn't a privilege that can always be earned. A blind person shouldn't be given a drivers licence. No amount of drivers' ed is going to fix the fact that they can't see, and you have to see in order to drive. Does the DPS discriminate against this person? Yes. Is it unjust discrimination? No.

It isn't discrimination at all. Driving is a privilege that must be earned through demonstrating the ability to perform the activity involved at an adequate level. A blind person is incapable of passing the driving portion of the test. Blind people aren't denied driver's licenses because they're blind, they're denied driver's licences because they are incapable of driving safely.

Marriage isn't a privilege in the United States. It's a right--Loving vs. Virginia--that nobody has to do anything to earn, which is arbitrarily denied a group not because they have a demonstrable inability to perform the task at hand, but because of their status.

The rest of your analogy falls apart because a privilege is not comperable to a right.

What would happen if suddenly judges across the US suddenly said that it was unconstitutional for blind people to be deprived of the right to drive? What if certain states started handing out drivers licesnces to blind people?

Are blind people capable of performing the actions required of driving? No.
Are homosexual people capable of performin the actions required of marraige? Yes.

But what about their jobs? How are they supposed to get food? What about visiting family? These are real challenges for sure, but handing them drivers licences wouldn't solve them.

True, because they'd still be physically incapable of driving.

Why then are we looking at the problems of homosexuals and trying to solve the issues they're having by handing out licences? Sure there are real issues to face for these people, no doubt. There are issues of property, health care, and children, but granting married status is not the best way to solve them.

It's absolutely the best way to solve them. Make one small change that has no effect at all on heterosexual marriage, and in one fell swoop, all of those rights and protections that come with marriage are ours.

Much like the rest of the motorists on the road would object to having blind people driving along in traffic because they lack the ability to drive, so too are those who believe that marriage should be for those who have the capacity to fulfill a marriage, for most this means having children.

Your analogy is deeply flawed. The ability to safely operate a motor vehicle safely is a minimum requirement for a driver's license. The ability to have children is not a requirement of any marriage license anywhere in the United States.

And while yes, homosexual couples can raise children, they cannot conceive, together, their own, no matter how hard they might try.

For the most part you're correct. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Many heterosexual couples cannot conceive, together, their own [children], now matter how hard they might try.

Also, this is not, and never has been, a prerequisite for marriage. In fact sterility is a legal requirement for certain couples in some states, which prevent first cousins of child-bearing age from marrying, but allow it for those who cannot concieve.

Any children they do raise would still be the product of a hetorosexual union.

Absolutely right. This is bad because . . .

By the way, children raised in households let by homosexual parents turn out about the same as those in heterosexual households.

Now, does society accommodate blind people and their transportation needs? Yes, most of the time. There's oftentimes public transportation or friends and family who help out with the responsibilities. So too with homosexual couples, at least for the most part. For them, they too can get to the same destinations as married couples by taking certain provisional measures. If they want to share an estate or grant power of attorney, this is easily done in about an hour at a courthouse. Many healthcare providers have changed their status to allow for extended coverage to other dependents. Hospitals have begun changing the rules for visits by people other than family. While not perfect just yet, think of it more as the universal access laws that made handicapped parking and ramps mandatory. To me, this is the more productive place to be.

You could say the same of heterosexual couples. They could get all of those protections through the means you list. But they don't, they get them through marriage. All we want is equal treatment.

Gilda

Gilda Dent

11-30-2005, 01:52 AM

Cam63

11-30-2005, 03:43 AM

You have the internet. That's better than mutant powers. You can talk to the world, listen to music, play games and there's dirty pictures.

That's all very well and I'm extremely grateful, but I want to be telekinetic, dammit !

the4thpip

11-30-2005, 04:02 AM

New British law provides legal protections

06:25 PM CST on Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Associated Press

LONDON – George Michael said Tuesday that he and his longtime partner will make their relationship official under new British legislation offering gays many of the legal protections available to married couples.

“I'm sure Kenny (Goss) and I will be doing the old legal thing, but we won't be doing the whole veil and gown thing,” Michael said at a screening of a documentary about his career. “It'll be relatively soon after it comes in, probably early next year.”

The legislation creating civil partnerships becomes effective Dec. 21.

The singer said he and Goss, who have been a couple for nearly ten years, planned a “small, private ceremony.”

“I'm not very romantic about it to be honest,” he said. “I think Kenny probably would be if I let him, but it's just not me.”

Goss, a graduate of Trinity High School and the University of North Texas, opened an art gallery in Dallas last year. He and Michael split their time between Texas and England.

The Civil Partnerships Bill passed by Parliament last year gives same-sex couples the right to form legally binding partnerships and entitles them to some of the same tax and pension rights married couples have.

“We want to do it, just in case,” Michael said. “You never know, I could get hit by a bus and the poor man could have nothing.”

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/113005dnentmichaelgoss.25eb21f4.html

Congratulations, George. Hope it can soon be transferred into a fully equal marriage.

west3man

11-30-2005, 05:15 AM

Agnosticism tends to fall more within the realm of "I don't know what I believe."
Nope. I'm surprised you'd even say that.

What login suggests is on-point.

There is a planet out there, somewhere, Jeffrey, that may or may not have a certain variety of life on it. Now, neither of us can see that planet. I say it may or may not be there, which is not the same as saying I don't know what I believe. You might say it's definitely not there, when you know no such thing.

west3man

11-30-2005, 05:19 AM

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Proof? When does a belief need any proof? Isn't the point of a belief the idea that you don't need any evidence to believe in it? It usually helps to substantiate one's beliefs.

In this case, login's talking to someone whose stance is strongly tied to empirical evidence or the lack of same. It makes sense, then, that login would frame his/her response in such terms.

More and more lately, I've seen Christians trying to find proof that their beliefs are true. That's not what login's doing in the post your quoted.

But I feel that's contrary to the concept of a belief. You don't need proof to believe in God and athiests like Jeff don't need proof to believe there are no gods.

So asking for proof of someone's beliefs doesn't seem very constructive.It's highly constructive, particularly when one is speaking to someone with Jeffrey's opinion and attitude on the topic.

Ian Boothby

11-30-2005, 05:20 AM

Nope. I'm surprised you'd even say that.

What login suggests is on-point.

There is a planet out there, somewhere, Jeffrey, that may or may not have a certain variety of life on it. Now, neither of us can see that planet. I say it may or may not be there, which is not the same as saying I don't know what I believe. You might say it's definitely not there, when you know no such thing.

I'm an agnostic. I know what I believe and it's that I know enough to know I don't know. Odds are God isn't real. Odds are incredibly incredibly small that God exists in the way organized religion defines it.
People claiming they know God's motivations and feelings about the way people behave are fine as long as they don't try and bring their views into the real world and affect laws and the like.

west3man

11-30-2005, 06:22 AM

I'm an agnostic. I know what I believe and it's that I know enough to know I don't know. Odds are God isn't real. Odds are incredibly incredibly small that God exists in the way organized religion defines it.
People claiming they know God's motivations and feelings about the way people behave are fine as long as they don't try and bring their views into the real world and affect laws and the like.Why are you telling me this?
Especially that last part, since I said nothing about affecting laws in those post.

My point was solely in response to what was being discussed, right then and there - which was not laws.

JeffreyWKramer

11-30-2005, 06:57 AM

How then do you explain love? What have been your experiences?
It's an emotion. It's no more magical or mystical than any other emotion. It is the result of innate capacities for bonding and affection tempered by experience and moderated by various neurobiochemical factors.

JeffreyWKramer

11-30-2005, 07:02 AM

Regarding the "Does God exist" debate:

I have certain religious and spiritual beliefs on which I base how I live my life, which are a product of my faith.

I have no proof that my wife and I have spirits that are joined. There is none I need none. I have faith.

In my opinion, requiring proof demonstrates that one lacks complete faith to some degree.

The existence of God cannot be proven nor disproven logically or by the use of empirical evidence.

For individual beliefs, that's all fine and good. The problem is, all arguments against gay marriage and gay rights essentially come down to religious ones, and if people are going to assert that such religious beliefs should be the basis of public policy, they'd damn well better be able to offer some reasoning why beyond "I have faith this is true." Unfortunately for them, there is no actual evidence to support their claims of truth - and thus, there is no legitimate basis for stating that religious doctrine should be used as a justification for law, and particularly not in a pluralistic, diverse society.

What passes as acceptable for individual choice doesn't necessarily cut the muster when applied across society. Rule of law works best when it is based on objective evidence, not faith and belief.

JeffreyWKramer

11-30-2005, 07:03 AM

Nope. I'm surprised you'd even say that.

What login suggests is on-point.

There is a planet out there, somewhere, Jeffrey, that may or may not have a certain variety of life on it. Now, neither of us can see that planet. I say it may or may not be there, which is not the same as saying I don't know what I believe. You might say it's definitely not there, when you know no such thing.

No, I wouldn't say that about such a planet, because I have nothing upon which to base belief or lack thereof. In contrast, I have ample reason to disbelieve in the existence of God.

west3man

11-30-2005, 07:08 AM

No, I wouldn't say that about such a planet, because I have nothing upon which to base belief or lack thereof. In contrast, I have ample reason to disbelieve in the existence of God.
If there's no evidence of such life ever existing anywhere else in the universe, you'd have no reason to believe it exists.

How does that differ from your "ample reason to disbelieve in the existence of God?"

Tadhg

11-30-2005, 07:13 AM

If there's no evidence of such life ever existing anywhere else in the universe, you'd have no reason to believe it exists.

How does that differ from your "ample reason to disbelieve in the existence of God?"

Because the possibility of a planet with life on it falls in line with known science. Planets exist, Under the right circumstances, life can develop. The concept of God isn't analogous to the belief in a planet. God falls outside of the scientific world.

west3man

11-30-2005, 07:23 AM

Because the possibility of a planet with life on it falls in line with known science. Planets exist, Under the right circumstances, life can develop. The concept of God isn't analogous to the belief in a planet. God falls outside of the scientific world.
Not exactly. I'm talking about an unknown type of life that we have no reason to believe actually exists - kinda like God.

With respect, it's important that I get, not just anyone's response*, but Jeffrey's. Obviously, you're free to respond to whatever you wish, but this is one of those times that who answers about as important as how they answer.

* - (well thought-out though they may be)

Ian Boothby

11-30-2005, 07:25 AM

Why are you telling me this?
Especially that last part, since I said nothing about affecting laws in those post.
.

You were resonding to Jeffery's definition of what an agnostic is. I thought I'd define what it meant to me.

west3man

11-30-2005, 07:29 AM

You were resonding to Jeffery's definition of what an agnostic is. I thought I'd define what it meant to me.
Yes. And yours is similar, if not identical, to mine.

Thanks, in any case.

JeffreyWKramer

11-30-2005, 07:34 AM

If there's no evidence of such life ever existing anywhere else in the universe, you'd have no reason to believe it exists.

How does that differ from your "ample reason to disbelieve in the existence of God?"

We have no evidence of much of anything about other planets, and what may or may not be there, so we simply have no basis for strong opinions as to whether or not they hold life, either in general or of a specific sort. In contrast, we have lots and lots of information about how reality works on our own planet, and all available evidence suggests it works by natural principles which can be explained by science, as opposed to supernatural principles. Given that we have so much information, the lack of any evidence for the supernatural gives good reason to believe the supernatural does not exist.

Look at it this way. If I go into a home, search that home thoroughly, catalogue what is in there and spend lots of time observing and getting to know the home, if I never see a tiger in there, there is good reason to believe there is no tiger in the home. If my observations re: lack of tiger are confirmed by others who have spent a lot of time in the home - both now and in the past - my certainty of the "no tiger here" conclusion can be more firm. Now replace "home" with "world" and "tiger" with "God."

west3man

11-30-2005, 07:44 AM

We have no evidence of much of anything about other planets, and what may or may not be there, so we simply have no basis for strong opinions as to whether or not they hold life, either in general or of a specific sort. In contrast, we have lots and lots of information about how reality works on our own planet, and all available evidence suggests it works by natural principles which can be explained by science, as opposed to supernatural principles.

Given that we have so much information, the lack of any evidence for the supernatural gives good reason to believe the supernatural does not exist.The definition of "supernatural" has narrowed over time, as we've learned more about this universe in which we reside.

Look at it this way. If I go into a home, search that home thoroughly, catalogue what is in there and spend lots of time observing and getting to know the home, if I never see a tiger in there, there is good reason to believe there is no tiger in the home. If my observations re: lack of tiger are confirmed by others who have spent a lot of time in the home - both now and in the past - my certainty of the "no tiger here" conclusion can be more firm. Now replace "home" with "world" and "tiger" with "God."This would be more accurate if you went a little further and acknowledged that you've only searched one or a few homes, but you're claiming that there's no tiger in the entire neighborhood - or universe.

BcAugust

11-30-2005, 07:46 AM

My question isn't "Why is there suffering" at all. Not in this context, at least. My question is, why does a system created by a supposedly perfect and beneficient entity not work a lot better, in humans and in animals? Why are the anus and vagina in such close proximity as to make cross-contamination problematic (a major factor in UTI)? Why do we have organs that don't do anything other than cause us problems (tonsils, appendix)? Why are some animal species so prone to joint or back problems? Why didn't a panda just get a thumb rather than a jury-rigged wrist bone?

Um, Jeff. You do realize that they've discovered that the appendix and tonsils do work at something? Admittedly, mostly in childhood(again a case with the spleen), but they do serve a useful purpose for the immune system, as doctors have recently found out. Quite frankly, wisdom teeth would be a better example, especially given how many of us have "defective" ones from the start.