|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
 |
|
"AC" <mojo214@telus.net> wrote in message
news:slrng44e14.75e.mojo214@rotten.egg.sandwich...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 29 May 2008 08:18:32 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"AC" <mojo214@telus.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3s4jd.a7v.mojo214@rotten.egg.sandwich...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 20:37:12 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"AC" <mojo214@telus.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3rb1u.a7v.mojo214@rotten.egg.sandwich...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:35:36 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"AC" <mojo214@telus.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3r8rn.a7v.mojo214@rotten.egg.sandwich...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:31:58 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"AC" <mojo214@telus.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3r4t8.a7v.mojo214@rotten.egg.sandwich...
On Wed, 28 May 2008 17:04:54 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3qto8.rpr.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-05-28, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
It's entirely different, because there is no evidentiary
aspects
of
religious
belief.
Yes there are but the evidentiary aspects are outside science.
"Evidence" has no meaning outside of science. But feel free to
contradict
and provide an example.
You've never heard of circumstantial evidence?
How precisely is circumstantial evidence not approachable by
science?
Someone is killed and the police find out that a man was seen
running
from
the house where the killing took place at about the time the
killing
took
place. Please tell me what science that the police use to decide
he's
a
suspect?
The basic inference that behaviors can betray something about
previous
actions. This goes back to other points I've tried to make with
you,
that
just because a methodology isn't formalized doesn't mean that it's
magical.
However, I think you're also using something of a Perry Mason-esque
version
of circumstantial evidence. The critical factor in circumstantial
evidence
is that it is not *direct* evidence. No one saw the man commit the
crime,
and yet he was seen near the scene fleeing. Experience informs the
investigator that people who have done bad things frequently try to
get
away
as fast as possible. Now this singular data point isn't enough to
arrest
the guy, but it is enough to call him in for questioning. But
here's
the
key, it is still a data point.
This is little different than saying "no one has ever seen an
electron,
and
yet we can measure a discernible field which our theory suggests is
based
upon a subatomic particle".
All very interesting but what *science* is involved in the police
deciding
he's a suspect.
Perhaps if you had bothered reading one of my previous posts, you
would
have
understood this. You're quibbling, and you damn well know it.
Science
is
a
formalized naturalistic methodology, but there are less formalized
methodologies as well, such as "If I cross a busy freeway there's a
good
chance that I'm going to be hit by a car." Science(tm) may not have
been
used, but a less formalized methodology was used.
So you were agreeing it was not science.
It is an emperical methodology. If it isn't science, as I said, it's
right
next door.
What it ain't, my friend, is your magical mumbo jumbo. It is a
naturalistic
methodology.
Why not for once deal with what someone is saying, rather than this
pathetic
and tired game of handwaving.
You are the one doing the handwaving handwaving by tring to dilute the
standard definition of science. Come off the fence for once and say
whether
or not circumstantial evidence requires science.
The question doesn't even make sense.
It's a simple question - you just pefer to sit on the fence.
Does baking a cake require science?
No.
It sure requires a methodology,
Yes
and understanding of the interactions of
various ingredients (a somewhat simplified chemistry).
No it doesn't. It requires the ability to follow instructions in the form
of
a recipe, you don't have to understand the interactions involved.
And yet those interactions occur because of chemistry. What's lacking is
the understanding.
Cakes don't get
baked by miracles.
And baking cakes isn't science.
It's an applied science,
|
So King Alfred was an Applied Scientist.
| Quote: |
rather like engineering.
|
Hmmm ... I seem to remember a rather heated argument here a while back about
whether or not engineers are entitled to call themselves scientists; AFAIR
the overwhelming verdict was "no".
| Quote: |
Just as various kinds of
courtroom evidence are in fact tangible evidence, but with some
recognition
that some evidence may not be clear enough to draw a specific conclusion
from by itself. Science in fact deals with just those sorts of evidences
as
well.
|
Of course it does, but that does not make the evidence itself scientific.
| Quote: |
So I'm afraid circumstantial evidence is just another form of evidence.
|
Which is exactly what I said originally so I don't see your point.
| Quote: |
do you have any other kinds of evidence you'd care to bring to the table
at
this point
|
I can think of at least one other type but that is beside the point.
| Quote: |
or do you wish to continue playing this idiotic game?
|
If anybody is playing an "idiotic game", it is you. Mark asked me to give
an example of evidence that is not scientific. I gave him circumstantial
with the specific example of the police making somebody a suspect because he
was seen running from the scene of the crime. Your detour into cake making,
whilst interesting in itself, has done nothing to show any scientific
element to the example I gave or circumstantial evidence in general having
to be scientific in nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB16603BB09lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ahpvvF2s5ijdU1@mid.individual.net:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng40539.13o1.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
As Vercotti said, "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks,
dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and...
satire. He was vicious."
All good ways to prove your point.
So when Creationists mock evolution as saying that monkeys gave birth
to humans, they are proving their point.
No. But as seems to be the pattern in this thread, the point is something
you have once more missed.
|
The underlying point to the parts of this thread that I have been involved
in is that *nothing* in my religious beliefs is in contradiction to any
accepted scientific evidence, theories or conclusions.
Despite lots of handwaving about Gods of the Gaps, you have not been able to
demonstrate otherwise. Parodying my religious beliefs does not change that
basic point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ahqdtF36lrmjU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tuWdnW4N4-OHst3VnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Mark VandeWettering <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in
I'm still not sure why it's worth it emotionally to you to spend
years at a time posting actively here while dodging any questions
that get to the substance of your position. My working theory is that
it's some sort of "If I don't overtly LOSE, I must be winning" thing.
Indeed. This is precisely the basis that I see underlying his
theology as well. "As long as science doesn't explicitly show to my
personal satisfaction that my religious beliefs are absolutely
impossible, then my beliefs are just as rational and reasonable as
anyone else's!!!! So there!"
I've come to realize that it's the "heads I win, tails you lose" aspect
of AlwaysDodgingQuestions that really annoys me. If some bit of science
seems to support his beliefs, then yea science, he's all for it. But if
another piece of data _with exactly the same grounding_ seems to
contradict him, then data is irrelevant and only faith matters.
So let's see you give even one example of "another piece of data _with
exactly the same grounding" that I have said is irrelevant.
|
People coming back to life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ahsqnF37o8s8U1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB16603BB09lurker@195.188.240.200...
No. But as seems to be the pattern in this thread, the point is
something you have once more missed.
The underlying point to the parts of this thread that I have been
involved in is that *nothing* in my religious beliefs is in
contradiction to any accepted scientific evidence, theories or
conclusions.
|
Because your religious beliefs include an ominipotent god. Given that, then
by definition nothing your religion tells you to believe, no matter how
insanely bizzare, could possibly be against scientific evidence, because
all you need do (and have done) is say "that's the way god wants it".
| Quote: |
Despite lots of handwaving about Gods of the Gaps, you have not been
able to demonstrate otherwise.
|
How can I? Your god can do anything. We bring up the impossibility of
people coming back to life, you say (to paraphrase) "well, that's just the
way god wanted it". We point out how extraordinarily unlikely it is that a
man walked on water, you say "well, you can't prove he didn't". How can
anyone argue with that? It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling
(that's jello to our colonial cousins).
I like to think I'm a very patient person overall, but I can't carry this
one, you're just too frustrating. Take that as an admission you've won if
you must, but in truth, I'm just getting beyond irritated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng40539.13o1.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
| Quote: |
On 2008-05-30, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAE517EC33Elurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6a80hhF364outU1@mid.individual.net:
Ilas wrote:
Does that about sum it up?
No it doesn't and you know that, having run out of real arguments
No, I've run out of patience. And I'm quite a patient person.
you
are just trying to make the whole thing look silly.
I know - how on earth could I possibly make Catholicism look silly. Let
me
count the ways....
Resorting to parody may be humorous but not a great way of proving your
argument.
As Vercotti said, "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic
irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was
vicious."
All good ways to prove your point.
|
So when Creationists mock evolution as saying that monkeys gave birth to
humans, they are proving their point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"chris thompson" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b25dd5b9-9528-43ef-bf45-68213289ba41@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 30, 5:31 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3u4pq.10ur.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-05-29, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com
wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2008-05-29, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng3scq6.urf.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-05-28, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So are you sticking by your claim that evidential based science is
the only
way we can understand things?
Sure. Why not?
This one needs to be put to bed as it underlies everything else we
are debating.
No, it really doesn't.
Yes it does. You asked me what evidence I had to support my religious
beliefs. I told you that the evidence I have is non-scientific. If you
are
going to rule out everything except evidential based science then you
are
ruling that any evidence I have cannot even be admitted to the debate.
You are the one playing definition games here, not I.
You were the one ruling things out.
You asked me to give you an example of evidence outside of science.
I gave you circumstantial. Would you care to explain how
circumstantial evidence is scientific?
Circumstantial evidence _is_ a kind of scientific evidence.
"A kind of" means that it's not but you don't want to admit it.
Let's try this out:
A Doberman is a kind of dog.
By your reasoning, a Doberman isn't a dog.
Would you like to try again?
Please tell me how many "kinds" of science there are - I only know of one
"kind", the one that is based on things like testable evidence and
falsification.
Actually, there's at least two kinds of science. You're referring here
to Popper's idea of science, which requires attempts at
falsification. There's another whole branch of science called (by
Campbell & Reece) "Discovery Science". It's also been labeled
"Observational Science". Very few people would call Jane Goodall a
poor scientist, but she hardly ever did anything in the way of
experiments, nor did she do anything in the way of falsifying
hypotheses. But her observational work on the Gombe chimp populations
is invaluable.
|
So please explain to me why Jane Goodall's research into animal behaviour is
science but Rupert Sheldrake's research into animal behaviour is not.
BTW, you need to be careful with this floor you are painting, there's a
corner over there into which Michael Behe rather embarrassingly painted
himself at Dover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark VandeWettering
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng48t81.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng48h7q.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng48eri.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng47vdr.1f6f.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng408pg.13o1.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-05-30, Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote
in
We are important to god. We are his chosen ones. However, he
did
not
interfere with evolution to make sure we appeared, although he
knew
we would. Evolution is therefore undirected, except when it is
directed.
Anyway, none of that matters because god can do what he wants.
Does that about sum it up?
No it doesn't and you know that, having run out of real
arguments
you
are just trying to make the whole thing look silly.
This would be a good time for you to spell out _how_ his
making-it-look-
silly description differs in substance from the true and
not-at-all-silly
description. I mention this purely out of reflex, not from any
expectation that you'll take me up on it.
I'm still not sure why it's worth it emotionally to you to spend
years
at
a time posting actively here while dodging any questions that get
to
the
substance of your position. My working theory is that it's some
sort
of
"If I don't overtly LOSE, I must be winning" thing.
Indeed. This is precisely the basis that I see underlying his
theology
as
well. "As long as science doesn't explicitly show to my personal
satisfaction
that my religious beliefs are absolutely impossible, then my
beliefs
are
just as rational and reasonable as anyone else's!!!! So there!"
I expected better of you than blatant lies.
This isn't a lie. You may not like this characterization
You have made up stuff that I didn't say and put it into quote marks
as
if I
did say it. That is a lie.
Liar.
Really? You can easily show me to be one, all you have to do is point
out
the post where I said the stuff you quoted me as saying.
Why would I bother to extend such a courtesy to someone who is a liar?
You would if you could.
Anyway, one of the good things about Usenet is that the record is public
so
everybody can see it.
'Bye, liar.
I suspect that everyone *else* managed to discern my aim in the
last little exchange, but once again, what is apparent to nearly
everyone else seems to have eluded you, so I'll spell it out for you in
excruciating detail so you can, well, let's be honest, you'll likely
still be too obtuse to understand it, but I will have at least given it
an honest try.
First of all, what I said in quotes wasn't a lie. A lie implies that my
intent was to deceive, and that is obviously not the case. It is clear
from the context that my use of quotations
So what exactly do you think the word "quotations" means?
was my own paraphrase of
your statements,
When paraphrasing somebody, it is conventional to indicate it is a
paraphrase; it is certainly NOT conventional to put a paraphrase into
quotation marks.
and you would have to be a simpleton of extraordinary
magnitude to think otherwise. You might reasonably claim that that is
not an accurate paraphrase of your position, but that makes me mistaken,
not a liar.
I would probably put this down to sloppy writing except that I have had to
pull you several times already in this thread for misrepresenting what I
said.
|
I didn't misrepresent what you said.
| Quote: |
Secondly, your accusation that I was lying did nothing to state what you
think I was lying about. You are trying (and given how often you have
resorted to this tactic, I suspect premeditatedly) to blunt criticism
by rejecting criticism of your position by feigning moral outrage.
If my characterization of your position were wrong in some way, you
could still point out where I made the mistake, even if you think I am
lying about it. Indeed, given that there might be casual observers who
haven't read all about your position throughout this thread,
Which is precisely why it is dishonest of you to put *your* paraphrase of
what I said into quotation marks as if *I* had said it.
it behooves
you to clarify these misunderstandings, even if I am lying.
Thirdly, while you may not like my paraphrase of your position, it does
seem to be accurate in its details.
No it's not.
|
Yes, it is.
| Quote: |
I will provide some direct quotes
for comparison:
AA> When there are things we do not understand and we have only
AA> limited evidence which cannot give us a true/false answer,
AA> then we can go one of two ways; in my case, I've decided that
AA> a higher power makes more sense to me and provides a better
AA> overall explanation for many things; if I've read you right
then
AA> you have decided that even though science cannot provide all
the
AA> answers, it has shown enough answers for you to believe that
AA> there is no reason to think in terms of anything except natural
AA> explanations.
AA> At that point, we are both into the realms of personal opinion
AA> which to me is the same as belief.
or perhaps:
AA> I'm not aware of any cracks in Christ's divinity that have
AA> been created by science.
or maybe:
AA> Nor is there any compelling evidence that God does not
AA> exist. The likelihood is that there will nver be any compelling
AA> evidence either way and it will always be a matter of personal
AA> belief.
or maybe:
AA> I fully support science and accept its findings.
juxtaposed with:
AA> Science tells us that the *normal* procedure is that
AA> when people die, they stay dead. That is precisely
AA> why the Resurrection is regarded as an exceptional,
AA> superrnatural event - its whole importance is based on that
AA> exceptionality.
If you'd like to explain how these quote materially differs than my
paraphrase of your position (except, perhaps by your misleading comments
about science), then by all means do so.
Where in any of those quotes do I describe my beliefs - and I have
emphasised many times that they are *beliefs* - in terms of rationality or
reasonability as explicitly stated as in your paraphrase or compared them to
the rationality or reasonability of other beliefs?
|
I'll requote since you obviously missed it:
AA> At that point, we are both into the realms of personal opinion
AA> which to me is the same as belief.
This is a direct comparison.
| Quote: |
Lastly, my exchange beginning with "Liar." was meant to illustrate to
you just how unproductive exchanges that begin by impugning people's
integrity are likely to be.
I called you a liar because I have already politely pulled you several times
for misrepresenting what I said and you ignored it.
|
I haven't misrepresented what you said.
| Quote: |
From my perspective, you are holding
a deeply irrational position,
A perspective that I have said several time that you are fully entitled to
hold with the single proviso you don't claim it is based on science where
science has not produced the evidence.
|
Of course it is based upon science. There is no other (forgive me)
reasonable choice to judge "reasonableness". People don't rise from the dead.
People don't change water into wine. Virgin birth doesn't happen. To hold
that such things are possible is an unreasoned position.
| Quote: |
one that is perhaps even more deeply
irrational than the kind held by creationists, in that it requires that
you actually hold views which are in direct conflict with one another.
If they seem that way to you then you have misunderstood them.
You have consistently cherry picked what evidence you are willing to
accept, what conclusions of science you are willing to accept
What "conclusions of science" have I cherry picked? We debated abiogenesis,
I said that science has not yet reached anything near a conclusion, people
insisted that it has; I asked them to tell me which of the many hypotheses
is going to give us the answer theybelieve we are so close to. I'm still
waiting for an answer.
I queried the claim that neurology was close to explaining the things that
religious believers consider to be part of the "soul"; the other Mark
suggested I go to a neurological conference and talk to the participants; I
gave a report of such a recent conference and it was full of ifs and buts.
|
None of which make your position any more reasoned.
| Quote: |
So please tell me - what scientific conclusions have I refused to accept?
|
That dead people stay dead, for one.
| Quote: |
and what
theology you are willing to accept without any consistent rational
basis. When forced to try to think about these things rationally,
you ultimately have to resort to calling other people "liar" rather
than try to address the honest questions that people have put to you.
This has been a long thread with many questions put to me; there are very
few that I have not addressed and most of those few were for self obvious
reasons
|
The obvious reason would be that they make you uncomfortable.
| Quote: |
There is little doubt that you and I hold different views.
I have no problem whatsoever with that but you seem to have major problems
with it.
I believe
that the best that could be said of religion is that it is mostly
harmless, and that all too often, it isn't harmless at all. I believe
that holding something to be true, that defending it against all attacks
in the absense of any evidence to support it isn't good for humanity.
I also believe that holding that your own particular God is the one
"reasonable" exception that you defend while pretending to accept what
science teaches us is inherently hypocritical. It's just ordinary
special pleading, and is perhaps more disturbing that just remaining
ignorant of science in the first place.
|
Mark
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
Mark VandeWettering <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in
news:slrng49e1c.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
| Quote: |
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng48t81.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng48h7q.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng48eri.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng47vdr.1f6f.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:slrng408pg.13o1.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
On 2008-05-30, Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote in
We are important to god. We are his chosen ones. However,
he did
not
interfere with evolution to make sure we appeared,
although he knew
we would. Evolution is therefore undirected, except when
it is directed.
Anyway, none of that matters because god can do what he
wants.
Does that about sum it up?
No it doesn't and you know that, having run out of real
arguments
you
are just trying to make the whole thing look silly.
This would be a good time for you to spell out _how_ his
making-it-look-
silly description differs in substance from the true and
not-at-all-silly
description. I mention this purely out of reflex, not from
any expectation that you'll take me up on it.
I'm still not sure why it's worth it emotionally to you to
spend years
at
a time posting actively here while dodging any questions
that get to
the
substance of your position. My working theory is that it's
some sort
of
"If I don't overtly LOSE, I must be winning" thing.
Indeed. This is precisely the basis that I see underlying
his theology
as
well. "As long as science doesn't explicitly show to my
personal satisfaction
that my religious beliefs are absolutely impossible, then my
beliefs
are
just as rational and reasonable as anyone else's!!!! So
there!"
I expected better of you than blatant lies.
This isn't a lie. You may not like this characterization
You have made up stuff that I didn't say and put it into quote
marks as
if I
did say it. That is a lie.
Liar.
Really? You can easily show me to be one, all you have to do is
point out
the post where I said the stuff you quoted me as saying.
Why would I bother to extend such a courtesy to someone who is a
liar?
You would if you could.
Anyway, one of the good things about Usenet is that the record is
public so
everybody can see it.
'Bye, liar.
I suspect that everyone *else* managed to discern my aim in the
last little exchange, but once again, what is apparent to nearly
everyone else seems to have eluded you, so I'll spell it out for you
in excruciating detail so you can, well, let's be honest, you'll
likely still be too obtuse to understand it, but I will have at
least given it an honest try.
First of all, what I said in quotes wasn't a lie. A lie implies
that my intent was to deceive, and that is obviously not the case.
It is clear from the context that my use of quotations
So what exactly do you think the word "quotations" means?
was my own paraphrase of
your statements,
When paraphrasing somebody, it is conventional to indicate it is a
paraphrase; it is certainly NOT conventional to put a paraphrase into
quotation marks.
and you would have to be a simpleton of extraordinary
magnitude to think otherwise. You might reasonably claim that that
is not an accurate paraphrase of your position, but that makes me
mistaken, not a liar.
I would probably put this down to sloppy writing except that I have
had to pull you several times already in this thread for
misrepresenting what I said.
I didn't misrepresent what you said.
Secondly, your accusation that I was lying did nothing to state what
you think I was lying about. You are trying (and given how often
you have resorted to this tactic, I suspect premeditatedly) to blunt
criticism by rejecting criticism of your position by feigning moral
outrage. If my characterization of your position were wrong in some
way, you could still point out where I made the mistake, even if you
think I am lying about it. Indeed, given that there might be casual
observers who haven't read all about your position throughout this
thread,
Which is precisely why it is dishonest of you to put *your*
paraphrase of what I said into quotation marks as if *I* had said it.
it behooves
you to clarify these misunderstandings, even if I am lying.
Thirdly, while you may not like my paraphrase of your position, it
does seem to be accurate in its details.
No it's not.
Yes, it is.
I will provide some direct quotes
for comparison:
AA> When there are things we do not understand and we have
only AA> limited evidence which cannot give us a true/false
answer, AA> then we can go one of two ways; in my case, I've
decided that AA> a higher power makes more sense to me and
provides a better AA> overall explanation for many things; if
I've read you right
then
AA> you have decided that even though science cannot provide
all
the
AA> answers, it has shown enough answers for you to believe
that AA> there is no reason to think in terms of anything
except natural AA> explanations.
AA> At that point, we are both into the realms of personal
opinion AA> which to me is the same as belief.
or perhaps:
AA> I'm not aware of any cracks in Christ's divinity that
have AA> been created by science.
or maybe:
AA> Nor is there any compelling evidence that God does not
AA> exist. The likelihood is that there will nver be any
compelling AA> evidence either way and it will always be a
matter of personal AA> belief.
or maybe:
AA> I fully support science and accept its findings.
juxtaposed with:
AA> Science tells us that the *normal* procedure is that
AA> when people die, they stay dead. That is precisely
AA> why the Resurrection is regarded as an exceptional,
AA> superrnatural event - its whole importance is based on
that AA> exceptionality.
If you'd like to explain how these quote materially differs than my
paraphrase of your position (except, perhaps by your misleading
comments about science), then by all means do so.
Where in any of those quotes do I describe my beliefs - and I have
emphasised many times that they are *beliefs* - in terms of
rationality or reasonability as explicitly stated as in your
paraphrase or compared them to the rationality or reasonability of
other beliefs?
I'll requote since you obviously missed it:
AA> At that point, we are both into the realms of personal
opinion AA> which to me is the same as belief.
This is a direct comparison.
Lastly, my exchange beginning with "Liar." was meant to illustrate
to you just how unproductive exchanges that begin by impugning
people's integrity are likely to be.
I called you a liar because I have already politely pulled you
several times for misrepresenting what I said and you ignored it.
I haven't misrepresented what you said.
From my perspective, you are holding
a deeply irrational position,
A perspective that I have said several time that you are fully
entitled to hold with the single proviso you don't claim it is based
on science where science has not produced the evidence.
Of course it is based upon science. There is no other (forgive me)
reasonable choice to judge "reasonableness". People don't rise from
the dead. People don't change water into wine. Virgin birth doesn't
happen. To hold that such things are possible is an unreasoned
position.
one that is perhaps even more deeply
irrational than the kind held by creationists, in that it requires
that you actually hold views which are in direct conflict with one
another.
If they seem that way to you then you have misunderstood them.
You have consistently cherry picked what evidence you are willing to
accept, what conclusions of science you are willing to accept
What "conclusions of science" have I cherry picked? We debated
abiogenesis, I said that science has not yet reached anything near a
conclusion, people insisted that it has; I asked them to tell me
which of the many hypotheses is going to give us the answer
theybelieve we are so close to. I'm still waiting for an answer.
I queried the claim that neurology was close to explaining the things
that religious believers consider to be part of the "soul"; the other
Mark suggested I go to a neurological conference and talk to the
participants; I gave a report of such a recent conference and it was
full of ifs and buts.
None of which make your position any more reasoned.
So please tell me - what scientific conclusions have I refused to
accept?
That dead people stay dead, for one.
|
Funny, when I was being brought up, and amongst the practising Catholics
I know, this is the one that is held on to most tightly (understandably,
as it underpins their entire religion). It's as crazy as creationism or
Scientology or any other crackpot cult, but AAQ will not see that - "come
on, obviously everybody else dies and stays dead, but this one time it
didn't happen. I mean, it's because he's god, isn't it? How do we know
he's god? Well, he died then came back to life. Whadya mean, that's
circular reasoning? Anyway, it's only this one lunatic unscientific idea
we're asking for. And some walking on water, perhaps. Oh, and maybe a bit
of matter changing. No, our beliefs are not irrational, not like those
crazy creationists. Oh, and could you allow us some miracle cures,
transubstantiation and virgin birth too? I mean, you can't actually
*prove* they didn't happen, now can you?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrng49e1c.1ffu.wettering@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
| Quote: |
On 2008-06-02, alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com
wrote:
|
[...]
| Quote: |
Indeed. This is precisely the basis that I see underlying his
theology
as
well. "As long as science doesn't explicitly show to my
personal
satisfaction
that my religious beliefs are absolutely impossible, then my
beliefs
are
just as rational and reasonable as anyone else's!!!! So there!"
I expected better of you than blatant lies.
This isn't a lie. You may not like this characterization
You have made up stuff that I didn't say and put it into quote
marks
as
if I
did say it. That is a lie.
Liar.
Really? You can easily show me to be one, all you have to do is point
out
the post where I said the stuff you quoted me as saying.
Why would I bother to extend such a courtesy to someone who is a liar?
You would if you could.
Anyway, one of the good things about Usenet is that the record is
public
so
everybody can see it.
'Bye, liar.
I suspect that everyone *else* managed to discern my aim in the
last little exchange, but once again, what is apparent to nearly
everyone else seems to have eluded you, so I'll spell it out for you in
excruciating detail so you can, well, let's be honest, you'll likely
still be too obtuse to understand it, but I will have at least given it
an honest try.
First of all, what I said in quotes wasn't a lie. A lie implies that my
intent was to deceive, and that is obviously not the case. It is clear
from the context that my use of quotations
So what exactly do you think the word "quotations" means?
was my own paraphrase of
your statements,
When paraphrasing somebody, it is conventional to indicate it is a
paraphrase; it is certainly NOT conventional to put a paraphrase into
quotation marks.
|
So, no response to your misuse of quotation marks.
| Quote: |
and you would have to be a simpleton of extraordinary
magnitude to think otherwise. You might reasonably claim that that is
not an accurate paraphrase of your position, but that makes me mistaken,
not a liar.
I would probably put this down to sloppy writing except that I have had
to
pull you several times already in this thread for misrepresenting what I
said.
I didn't misrepresent what you said.
Secondly, your accusation that I was lying did nothing to state what you
think I was lying about. You are trying (and given how often you have
resorted to this tactic, I suspect premeditatedly) to blunt criticism
by rejecting criticism of your position by feigning moral outrage.
If my characterization of your position were wrong in some way, you
could still point out where I made the mistake, even if you think I am
lying about it. Indeed, given that there might be casual observers who
haven't read all about your position throughout this thread,
Which is precisely why it is dishonest of you to put *your* paraphrase of
what I said into quotation marks as if *I* had said it.
it behooves
you to clarify these misunderstandings, even if I am lying.
Thirdly, while you may not like my paraphrase of your position, it does
seem to be accurate in its details.
No it's not.
Yes, it is.
|
[irrelevant quotes snipped]
| Quote: |
Where in any of those quotes do I describe my beliefs - and I have
emphasised many times that they are *beliefs* - in terms of rationality
or
reasonability as explicitly stated as in your paraphrase or compared them
to
the rationality or reasonability of other beliefs?
I'll requote since you obviously missed it:
AA> At that point, we are both into the realms of personal opinion
AA> which to me is the same as belief.
This is a direct comparison.
|
So after all the quotes you previously gave, it's now down to a single quote
which refers to neither rationality nor reasonability - the core of what you
now claim was a paraphrase of what I said.
| Quote: |
Lastly, my exchange beginning with "Liar." was meant to illustrate to
you just how unproductive exchanges that begin by impugning people's
integrity are likely to be.
I called you a liar because I have already politely pulled you several
times
for misrepresenting what I said and you ignored it.
I haven't misrepresented what you said.
|
Yes you have - you can't even give a quote containing the things that you
claimed were a paraphrase.
I've already told you I don't debate with liars - I've only stayed with this
to give you a chance to correct what you said if it was indeed a mistake.
You are insisting on maintaining your lie which is simply compounding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB24F0A61FE9lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
Mark VandeWettering <wettering@comcast.net> wrote in
|
[...]
| Quote: |
So please tell me - what scientific conclusions have I refused to
accept?
That dead people stay dead, for one.
Funny, when I was being brought up, and amongst the practising Catholics
I know, this is the one that is held on to most tightly (understandably,
as it underpins their entire religion). It's as crazy as creationism or
Scientology or any other crackpot cult, but AAQ will not see that - "come
on, obviously everybody else dies and stays dead, but this one time it
didn't happen. I mean, it's because he's god, isn't it? How do we know
he's god? Well, he died then came back to life. Whadya mean, that's
circular reasoning? Anyway, it's only this one lunatic unscientific idea
we're asking for.
|
Sigh .... I've lost count of how many times this one has been hammered to
death (no pun intended), but anyway, for the last time ....
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually means - I
understand that science struggles a bit with with that, just as it does with
defining life, hence the debate on when to turn off life support machines.
Three years ago, bacteria that had been frozen for 32 million years was
brought back to life - was that bacteria dead or did it just oversleep?
1) Please explain how, contrary to what you have claimed, science has
actually given us the ability to bring dead people back to life and it
happens many times every day in operating theatres and with paramedics; at
the moment, that ability is restricted to about 15 minutes after death but
I'm not aware of any science that says that may not be extended some time in
the future or that we can rule out some other form of intervention that we
do not yet know about that is more effective than an electric shock. (And
yes, I do realise that this could impinge upon the miraculous nature of the
Resurrection.)
2) You claim that the Resurrection is anti-science. OK, tell me the science
it is opposed to - "dead people stay dead" isn't science, it's human
experience of what normally happens when people die. If you want to argue it
on a scientific basis, please cite any published scientific work that rules
out the Resurrection of Christ or Lazarus - just one will do.
3) My religion - in fact every religion I can think of - agrees that the
normal procedure when somebody dies is for them to stay dead, that if
somebody doesn't stay dead then that is a by definition a miraculous event
outside of normalilty and requiring supernatural action; how is agreement on
what *normally* happens in opposition to science?
That enough to get you started? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6akcckF37iepdU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
Funny, when I was being brought up, and amongst the practising
Catholics I know, this is the one that is held on to most tightly
(understandably, as it underpins their entire religion). It's as
crazy as creationism or Scientology or any other crackpot cult, but
AAQ will not see that - "come on, obviously everybody else dies and
stays dead, but this one time it didn't happen. I mean, it's because
he's god, isn't it? How do we know he's god? Well, he died then came
back to life. Whadya mean, that's circular reasoning? Anyway, it's
only this one lunatic unscientific idea we're asking for.
|
I promised myself I wouldn't answer, but this is just too good to
miss....
| Quote: |
Sigh .... I've lost count of how many times this one has been hammered
to death (no pun intended), but anyway, for the last time ....
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually means
|
Nope. You can't go down that route. Even your "special" word-of-god book
admits the man was dead.
| Quote: |
- I understand that science struggles a bit with with that, just as it
does with defining life, hence the debate on when to turn off life
support machines. Three years ago, bacteria that had been frozen for
32 million years was brought back to life - was that bacteria dead or
did it just oversleep?
|
Jesus was a bacterium? Must have been a small cross.
| Quote: |
1) Please explain how, contrary to what you have claimed, science has
actually given us the ability to bring dead people back to life and it
happens many times every day in operating theatres and with
paramedics; at the moment, that ability is restricted to about 15
minutes after death but I'm not aware of any science that says that
may not be extended some time in the future or that we can rule out
some other form of intervention that we do not yet know about that is
more effective than an electric shock. (And yes, I do realise that
this could impinge upon the miraculous nature of the Resurrection.)
|
Yes. The disciples had some advanced 25th century medical equipment.
That'll be it. It's even mentioned in Luke - "on the first day they came
to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared and the polonium powered
quantum laser ressurection force field generator, and they found the
stone moved from the tomb". How did we all miss that?
| Quote: |
2) You claim that the Resurrection is anti-science. OK, tell me the
science it is opposed to - "dead people stay dead" isn't science,
|
Oh, I think you'll find it is. No amount of special pleading will change
that. Your belief in miracles is as irrational as creationism (and a
whole lot less logical too, as a by the way). No, that gap's closed, I'm
afraid. The one you're looking for is "it happened 2000 years ago, so you
can't prove it, nyer-nyer-nyer!".
| Quote: |
it's human experience of what normally happens when people die. If you
want to argue it on a scientific basis, please cite any published
scientific work that rules out the Resurrection of Christ or Lazarus -
just one will do.
|
And in one magnificent leap, he shoots right through from the
sublime.....
| Quote: |
3) My religion - in fact every religion I can think of - agrees that
the normal procedure when somebody dies is for them to stay dead, that
if somebody doesn't stay dead then that is a by definition a
miraculous event outside of normalilty and requiring supernatural
action; how is agreement on what *normally* happens in opposition to
science?
|
.....to the utterly ridiculous.
Either you genuinely can't see how inane your arguments are, or you've
been winding us up something rotten. If it's the former, then I'm sorry.
If it's the latter, then well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2BB93DEA7Blurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6alcisF37vq2bU1@mid.individual.net:
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Fye1k.3684$xZ.1575@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Occam's Razor tells me that
It tells you which of several answers is more probable with no
guarantee that the suggested one will be right. BTW, Occam's Razor
could also be argued either way in this case - have you actually
thought about what would have been involved in such a deception?
For 1) to be true, you need to first posit an all knowing, all powerful,
evidence free god. Are you sure you still think Occam's Razor applies to
that? We have plenty of evidence of people making up strange events; we
have no evidence of any gods.
|
I sometimes wonder if people who think it was a hoax - and I'm not including
you in that - ever actually think of the complexities involved in such a
hoax - were the Roman soldiers involved, was Pilate involved, how did Paul
get bluffed or did he willingly buy into it, why did the four gospel writers
fall for it, etc. And the big one question - what was the motive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2BC23B1130lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6alc3rF38ne4uU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2B35E947CClurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6akfboF380jerU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB26300BDDA2lurker@195.188.240.200...
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually
means
Nope. You can't go down that route. Even your "special" word-of-god
book admits the man was dead.
If science doesn't even know whether he was dead or not then an
argument about it being opposed is meaningless.
Your book claims he was dead. It was 2000 years ago, so how could
science possibly have anything to say about it?
Ah ... the penny's dropped at last.
Oh, it dropped ages ago. In fact, it was never undropped. But by your
logic, we can't know if any of the billions of people who have died stayed
dead. By your logic, maybe it happens all the time- after all, we weren't
there. The problem is, you only want it to apply in one single case.
|
You claim that science can't possibly say anything about it but you want to
argue that it is against science .... yet you are the one who accuses me of
making inane posts.
| Quote: |
Having said that, you now seem to be arguing that perhaps he wasn't dead
after all. You may want to check Catholic teaching before going down that
route.
|
I was obviously being much too subtle, my point seems to have gone right
over everybody's head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ilf1k.3695$xZ.1349@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
On 6/3/2008 10:16 AM, alwaysaskingquestions went clickity clack on the
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
|
[...]
| Quote: |
Suffice to say, it's a crock and there's no other conclusion to be made.
So that's *your* belief - fair enough.
Based on actual evidence, not on what some people want to believe.
|
Based on the absence of evidence which is what makes it a belief.
| Quote: |
May I make a suggestion? Start a prayer journal. Record what you pray
about and what you don't pray about and see how much prayer actually
affects what happens in your life. If you are honest, truly honest, you
should see some interesting results. No equivocations allowed.
|
I already have seen plenty of interesting results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:46:00 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB369C595092lurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6an0muF37rso1U1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2BC23B1130lurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6alc3rF38ne4uU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2B35E947CClurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6akfboF380jerU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB26300BDDA2lurker@195.188.240.200...
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually
means
Nope. You can't go down that route. Even your "special"
word-of-god book admits the man was dead.
If science doesn't even know whether he was dead or not then an
argument about it being opposed is meaningless.
Your book claims he was dead. It was 2000 years ago, so how could
science possibly have anything to say about it?
Ah ... the penny's dropped at last.
Oh, it dropped ages ago. In fact, it was never undropped. But by your
logic, we can't know if any of the billions of people who have died
stayed dead. By your logic, maybe it happens all the time- after all,
we weren't there. The problem is, you only want it to apply in one
single case.
| | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
