Gemma Therese

<<<<<Tell us, Gemma Therese, do you have anything more substantive to tell us than "I believe in God and you should too"??>>>>>

Where did I say this?

himynameisPwn

Gemma, not so much said as implied. Read over your posts.

Samhain

It has nothing to do with what you literally said. Broken down, this is what all of your statements amount to. You've made no logical arguments, you've given no proofs, you've taken arguments from "great spiritual thinkers" and expect us to roll over for Thomas d'Aquinas, et. al. even though their arguments are not valid, you've done little to prove your case here, and from what I can derive I've seen little that has even been attempting to prove much of anything. Thus, your posts amount to little more than preaching and the idea that we should follow what you say because you say so (since that seems to be the only reason that you've given us thus far) is implied.

Typhon

Gemma,

Ah, now we have at least a discourse. Thank you for finally answers some of my questions, I hoped that if I persevered, you might.

OK, that's what I wanted. It's a start, but incomplete, for at least what I'm trying to get at.

Why do you trust what these people have told you? Have you read these books that these people cite? Have you yourself attended any courses on the subject? I ask this because it bears on why you trust a source of information.

Gemma, I would ask you to be careful about what you accuse me of saying, if you are implying that I said any such thing.

I do not understand fully, for example, neurology. I do however know that it is roughly the study of " morphology, physiology, and pathology of the human nervous system." I also know that there are courses, university, peer review groups, scientific publications, and a number of highly intelligent folk who have made it their life's work and study. I've taken an undergraduate class on the subject. I've read a total of two books and three or so articles on the subject by authors who hold their doctorates in the field, and appear, to the best of my ability, to be well cited, respected, peer reviewed members of their area of study.

I also know that neurology does not make claims for which, as few fields of science do, that it can not present at least credible evidence and testifiable results.

Does this make me an expert in neurology? No. Would I accept as truth, what someone said simply because they know more on the subject than I do, without the need for peer review, credible evidence to back up their claims, and the ability to explain the mechanics of the process in terms that if not I, at least others accredited in their field can understand? No.

I do not have FAITH in science, I have requirements. Reasonable ones to be assured, but requirements all the same. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the requirements.

Also, if I really wanted to be sure of something related to neurology for example, I would do everything I could to understand and learn about it. I would take courses, I would read the available published material, I would talk with those who are experts in the field. I would do my own research.

I would know what I know, and have a good chance of being right, instead of simply accepting something on blind faith.

This is inadequate for me. It borders on the meaningless. If you had extensive knowledge of god, experience of god, verifiable, repeatable, peer reviewed evidence of god. If god did not contradict with the facts that we do know about the world, then you might have good reason to believe AND feel secure that your belief was valid.

You can believe in all sorts of nonsense by simply having faith.

Children typically believe in Santa Claus, even though the evidence for his existence is more than spotty.

Some people believe faeries are real. Others think that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck.

These are all examples of taking something, more or less on faith. On the part of children, I have to say they're not entirely at fault, as parents often go to great lengths to "trick" the poor bairns into believing this, going so far as lie, dress up as Santa and eat the cookies. However, this is simply explained as make-believe later on, just like ghost stories, pirate yarns, and fairy tales. Religion, I'm sad to say, is just another of these, but without the socially accepted (yet) punch line.

Why do you have faith that your god's existence is likely, let alone certain?

See my example of neurology above. I understand that the human mind IS understandable, even if it is not fully, currently understood by me. Is god fully understandable by me, or several lifetimes of me, studying, testing, and exploring the field, in this world?

Too bad this was not discussed with the inhabitants of the Languedoc. The sword has traditionally been more the favored implement of Christian conversion than the pin…

"Show mercy neither to order, nor to age, nor to sex....Cathar or Catholic. Kill them all... God will recognize his own....". – attributed to the Papal legate, Arnold Aimery at the siege of Beziers.

.T.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Automaton

Obviously, I was talking from an epistemic and not ontological stance. But of course some events occur with ontological probability, i.e., the actions of quantum particles. A careful reading of my original post would have revealed this.
But I was saying it does not bother me, because I have the same certainty of this fact as I am certain my knowledge of logic is sound. What I was admitting to, and I hope you can do this as well, is there's always the chance that one is wrong. My logical capabilities may be thoroughly flawed and I would simply be deluding myself into thinking they were reasonable. The world outside my head also could simply not exist in reality. But the chance of these things is so small that it does not worry me in the slightest.
Thank you, for confirming my suspicion that Christianity is not rational, and simply based on emotion and wanting to believe.
To obscure your logical faculties so it appears to be that atheism is undoubtedly true because of your presupposition that atheism is undoubtedly true, one must first start with the belief (the very definition of presupposition) that atheism is true. This cannot be the case if one starts with the belief that theism is true! Your diatribe that theists become atheists because atheism is "easy" (note, one does not select beliefs on their "ease" value, and it is extremely rare that one even "selects" their beliefs in the first place) has not shown me where my reasoning went wrong.

This is also hypocracy on your part. If you want to slam atheists for alledgedly disbelieving out of emotion, then why do you hold that it is fine for Christianity to be based almost entirely out of emotion?
Nothing -- to rephrase: "It is not dependent on any being's will or essence."
Morality itself did not "originate." Humanity's ability to conceive of morality, like mathematics and abstract concepts, was evolved because it is obviously for the good of the species to know what is actually good for the species.
The same thing that makes mathematics objective. Again, if God said raping babies was moral, would you consider it moral, or would you be outraged on a higher, dare I say objective, basis?
Because of empathy and compassion. Often this "incentive" turns out to be evil (or even contradictory to other "incentives",) as is the case of many Divine-command theistic dictators and murderers over the centuries.
That's like asking, "Without God, who is to say what 1+1 equals?" Have I answered well enough?
No, the very idea that you probably will get caught is mostly sufficient enough to prevent people from doing it (assuming they have no moral faculties.)
And there are many things which aren't immoral, but are illegal. I never said society was perfect, I was just refuting the notion that without God there is nothing to hold you back.
I will refrain from comment, I still don't know where I stand on this issue.
Why are these "immoral," aside from your ridiculous Divine-command theory?
Sin is the key word here. It is an imaginary construct masquerading as morality.
Globally, it is closer to 15-20% nonreligiousity. I was talking about USA.
Atheism is never popular, except in perhaps communist countries, when that is simply blind allegience to the government. Almost everywhere, the majority of people think there is something wrong with atheists or worse.
And your hate-filled straw man rantings were?
Christian music is one of the highest grossing genres. That a few "cool" musicians profess atheism, doesn't make atheism itself cool.
Touched by an Angel, 7th Heaven, and other shows (I could probably name dozens off the top of my head, even in fairly secular Australia) with Christian messages are extremely popular, and very rarely is there a show espousing anything close to atheism. Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and numerous other televangelists and fundamentalist preachers are also very popular, when was the last time you saw an atheist preacher (or talk show host for that matter, where are Oprah's tears for the atheists?) on TV?
Movies have always been secular, but those few who take a stance on religion are almost always in the affirmative.
Hardly. This has echos of the vast Evil Atheist Conspiracy theory.
If you think this, too bad. If I were a theist, I'd have no problem with a natural process of design in a natural, created world.
Not among the people who actually study it.
I think you mean solipsism. Atheism would only become untenable to those who believe in a scientific account of the natural world. This doesn't mean it would be advanced by fallacious reasoning (sophistry.) Atheism is simply disbelief in gods, I think you mean metaphysical naturalism as the philosophy to suffer the blow, (even though it is true that most atheists are metaphysical naturalists.) To this I disagree, there could be some other undiscovered creative force. There have been many atheistic philosophers in history before evolution was even conceived of, and even recently, agnostic quack/mathematician Fred Hoyle disbelieved in Darwinian evolution.
Of course atheistic evolutionists would defend evolution!
Anyone who disagrees with heliocentricism is also ridiculed. The arguments against evolution deserve nothing less.
This is true with every community of like-minded individuals when faced with someone of the opposing viewpoint in the public arena! And anyway, this being true, it refutes your notion that theists are the silent, oppressed minority (puh-lease .)
So you admit the only reason you disbelieve in Santa is convenience? Huh? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

NumberTenOx

Samhain, I read this quote several times and I can't quite understand it. From your argument below the quote, it sounds like what Hume is saying is that either God is infinite, so - game over - we can't make any assertions, or God is not infinite so we can pull him into the realm of science and deconstruct him into an understandable set of testable assertions.

But isn't there a third possibility, that God is infinite, but he has chosen to expose a finite set of instructions to us that we should follow? This does not mean he is not "perfect", because how are we to know the infinite? This way you get to hide behind the infinity argument yet still deal with a finite set.

Yours in the BB tradition of holding several orthogonal conversations in the same thread,

Ox

Kamchatka

Ion,

You said, "Assertion #1-'In conscious life there are only logic and reason'.

"Follows:
"Proposition #1-"Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects."

This is where your god inference begins. According to proposition #1 science and technology are the creators of this reality. They are not systems/tools used by men to build things, they are entities that build everything, presumably with their human tools or minions.

Proposition #1 is clearly fallacious. Men utilize science and technology to build empirical tangible objects, not the opposite.

"and:
"Proposition #3-'. . . I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology."

This is supposed to be a proof that "in conscious life there are only logic and reason"? Have you ever seen a beehive? How about a tree? A mountain? A human being? Are those included in your "conscious life"? This is supposed to infer the truth of Assertion #1? I know you don't seriously believe that this represents good logic.

Assertion #1 infers that logic and reason are consciousness which further infers that they are somehow omnipotent. Sounds like a god inference to me.

Your logic is so fundamentally flawed that I won't waste another minute deconstructing your illusion.

I do not claim to be a master of logic and reason. They are also not my masters. They appear to be your masters according to your argument.

You build things (and I respect you for that) they don't build you.

By the way, there are plenty of builders, engineers, scientists etcetera, that utilize logic and reason and don't feel conflicted believing in their god at the same time.

Maybe Gemma will be one of those.

Samhain

Hume's quote, reduced and simplified, deals with the proposition that "God" cannot be proven, and that basically, the only evidence that one has of "God" may or may not bear some resemblance to human intelligence. The argument basically states that the only thing a rational and truthful (in context of being true to oneself and to others on the matter of god-worship) person can state about "God" is that he/she/it may or may not exist, and if he/she/it does exist, the only thing which we can create an analogy (though the analogy will be imperfect and incomplete) on is human intelligence. Further, it can be taken in the way that I have said. Since we cannot attempt to even understand "God" in the remotest sense because of these reasons, we must conclude that the god-arguments are moot.

The argument has nothing to do with conceptions of "God's" reasons, but it has to do with conceptions of "God" itself. You've basically restated the point I've made, only with different words with this sentence: "This does not mean he is not "perfect", because how are we to know the infinite?" The point is that if we cannot logically understand "God" (as "God" is an infinite being, and thus transcends the human mind and all laws of reason, logic and science), then there is no point arguing for or against "God" for there is no possible way to understand "God", "God's" motives, "God's" actions, etc. The Bible (being that it is the only evidence that we have of the JC god; and even at that has been proven to be a faulty authority) does not portray a "perfect", "infinite", or "infallible" god, so, where does this argument come from? Regardless of that even, there is no point logically arguing the existence of something that logically holds no meaning and is not even comprehensible to the human mind. Thus we are left with the two propositions as posed earlier: either "God" is subject to logical scrutiny as a being, or the word "god" itself is beyond human understanding so any arguments for or against such a god are moot points as there is no way to logically understand "God" in his/her/its perfection.

Hoping that clears it up a bit,

Samhain

brighid

Gemma,

I will repeat the question - do you believe in seven headed dragons and unicorns?

B

MrDarwin

I was not quoting you, Gemma Therese, I was paraphrasing you--my apologies for suggesting it was a direct quote. But if I have misprepresented your position, then feel free to prove me wrong.

Gemma Therese, you have yet to address one of the most pressing questions: why should we pay any heed to your faith when we have Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, and members of any number of other religions, sects, or cults also telling us about their faith? What makes yours any different, or any more compelling, than theirs? You have given us precious little to go on.