Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Science / Re: religion and the damage done
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 12:49:10 PM »
I'm beginning to think that evangelism should be regulated, the same as how we regulate advertisements aimed at children.

Reading that second article linked, I find it disturbing that they're repeating the same old nonsensical schlock that a lot of evangelicals like to recite about how secularists shouldn't care what their children are taught "because it won't matter once they're dead".  Pure sophistry.  Beliefs can be perpetuated just like anything else, and wrong beliefs are far more harmful than these people would have us believe.

Especially telling:  "Each lesson uses a black heart to vividly symbolize a child's inner self.  The black heart impresses children with a deeply personal sense of their own inadequacy and sordidness."

This doesn't symbolize anything except how utterly despicable these evangelicals are.  Take a child, shatter their self-esteem with such tripe, and of course they'll cleave to your beliefs if it lets them reclaim it.
I'm not sure, is this how you picture a discussion?
I'm sure that jaimehlers never pictured discussing anything with anyone quite so obtuse.

That's one way to look at it. It's a twisted way, it is one nevertheless.
Imagine, if I was to say : "For example, take the research at the LHC.
That is as far as anyone would need to read. As you have no idea whatsoever about the LHC, you feel that you can substitute reality with any fairytale that suits your purpose.

The Higgs Boson and LHC are the new "science term" that Christians feel that they can throw into any discussion as an Argument from IgnoranceWiki. And no one does ignorance like Catholics.

What did I say that allows you to affirm that? (since you base your claims on what I said)
I disagree. If they examined other cures explainable by science, they'd find that God was involved simply by prayer and that he did not directly act upon this world.
No, because they are all high ranking Catholics and they get paid a fortune, and they like the money and the status, so they all say, "Yes, that was God." If they had all been Jains or Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, New Age, or atheists, do you think for one moment that they would have come to the conclusion that Yahweh did it?

Do you see that there might just be a connection between these "Inspectors of Miracles" all being catholic and all of them saying, "Yes, God, who is a Catholic, did it."?
What is your counter argument here? Can you prove to us that it is not just your thoughts on the subject? Something you invented because you are running out of counter arguments?
I feel at least a little bad for Luk and others who come here to debate because first, they have to debate a position which can't be backed up by evidence, and second, they have to take on multiple challengers, all of whom are quite versed in the subjects.

Still... it's pretty clear here that Catholic Miracles can be categorized as such when a certain level of scientific explanation fails, and then religious leaders feel that there's a theological explanation.

No/weak scientific evidence against?   Church leaders debate and agree that god might have had a reason?   = Miracle

At least Catholics have higher standards than most competing religions but it still comes down to God of the gaps.   

The thing for me that puts Luk in the worst position is that these miracles aren't things that are "clear" in any way...   a statue rolls its eyes?  a guy can supposedly fly?  a statue cries?   blood turns solid/liquid?

Even if it was supernatural, it's not guaranteed that the message there is, "What you guys are doing is right. Be THAT religion!"

Theology is still the study of these gaps... when something can't be explained, theology tries to step in and debate about it and come up with theories... but theology doesn't use the scientific method, it's done in a similar way to an editorial documentary.   People get together and decide on a good message based on the best assumptions they can make, and then present it.

Theology and science are as different as writing and math.   Math has set, correct answers, even across multiple languages.  Writing is subjective and while there are various objective ways to rate writing, no two people can really agree on the exact best writings or best ways to write.
Adam and Eve could have had infallible brain and still make this choice.
The Bible makes it absolutely clear that Adam and Eve had incomplete brains. Brains that lacked what our brains now possess - a moral dimension.

Of course, as I have often said, as a Catholic, you would not know much about the Bible, but, if you want (and if your priest agrees that you may) you can look at a Bible and see

Ge:3:22a & b: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Theologically, this is a difficult point: it shows that God did not give us morals, rather that we gained morals by disobedience to God and listening to the serpent.

Ask your priest for an answer to that conundrum, I am no longer much interested in your "guesses" which have proved unreliable both theologically and in reality.
That's funny because I had the same question when I was younger.
The capacity of knowing right from wrong, we were created with. If not we wouldn't be able to do it. So God created us with the moral dimension in our brain.
We just didn't use it, following him blindly. And this was good.
One day we chose that we knew better than God our creator what was better for us. That's when we ate the forbidden fruit and were cast to earth.
When God says "one of us" I understand "one of those with the capacity to say no to God" like angels and the trinity.
Debate Room / Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 11:58:02 AM »
You, of all people, have no business whatsoever complaining about other people being unreasonable, Lukvance.  Not when you've driven someone like me - arguably one of the most reasonable people on the forum - to the point where I simply don't care how people treat you!  Do you have the first idea - the slightest clue - of just how furious I am with the way you act towards me and others?  You're pedantic, asinine, extremely annoying, totally convinced that you're right, and that's just scratching the surface.  Frankly, if it were up to me, you'd be banned outright for the way you've been acting towards other people.

And the worst part is that, as far as you're concerned, it's all justified as long as you don't lose an argument.  Winning (and 'proving' that your beliefs are right) is all that matters to you.  You don't care how upset other people get as long as you can say at the end that you 'won'.  Even though, most often, this is how you look to others:

Yes, that's you.  Lukvance, the Black Knight.  If this were actually a physical fight, you'd be cut to worse shreds than the actual Black Knight was.  But since it's just words, you can ignore and dismiss what your opponent says and keep spouting the same inane arguments which they've countered a dozen times.


I do not believe that love is an entity that can act on its own; it is an emotion that people act on.  And that's why your comparison is false.  If your god is the same as an emotion, then it exists (inside your head), but is no more a person than love is.  It cannot do anything on its own; all it can do is provoke you to act in some way.

That's why you lost the debate, because you were so focused on proving that your god was as real as an emotion that you didn't think through the repercussions of making such an analogy.  If you want to prove that your god is an actual entity that can act on its own, you must prove that it is more real than an emotion, because emotions are simply names we've given to hormones in our bodies that provoke certain responses.

That's why OAA is withdrawing from the debate.  Because by 'proving' that your god is equivalent to an emotion, you've done his work for him.  You had to show that your god was an entity that could act on its own in the real world in order to actually win the debate.  By arguing that your god was equivalent to an emotion, you played right into his hands.  He doesn't have to prove that your god is less real than an emotion in order to come out ahead.
I see this one as quite easy for me...the alleged "God" needs to show up and be around consistently, such that ALL can see, test, and verify that this 'thing' is real and clears out hospitals by healing every sick person and putting the medical, pharmaceutical, and health insurance companies out of business for good. Of course, such an occurrence would be so world altering that it would be broadcast live on every news channel constantly and would be common knowledge. Case closed.
1) Please define "fallible" and "infallible" as you are using it.
2) What kind of brain did your god originally create mankind with - using your definitions from (1).
3) Does mankind still have the same type of brain as god created mankind with?
4) If there has been a change, is this change part of your god's plan or intention?
1. Fallible brain : A brain that can be wrong. Would it be morally or not.
Infallible brain : A brain that can never be wrong. it cannot make mistake in any form. Omniscient.
2. A fallible brain.
3. No, our brain evolved. I don't believe that Adam and Eve were made of mater (meaning they are characters in a story, not historical characters)
4. Yes. But I'm not sure.
Debate Room / Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Last post by median on Today at 11:45:37 AM »
That's a good way to get out of a debate. Calling the opposite side names and throwing the towel claiming that you win.
I'm more than ever proud of my signature. It really represent you.

NOPE. I was there to watch the entire thing. You lost - fair and square. Your arguments were irrational and your equivocations on terms more than apparent. You were defeated and the moderator agreed. Stop crying.
Lukvance, you never responded to my response to you on the previous page. Please do so thank you.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: 99% of us is failure
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 11:40:19 AM »
For instance, humans have a gene to have hair all over our bodies like chimps, yet this gene is turned off towards the end of pregnancy.  If a designer didn't want us to have hair all over our bodies like a chimp, why give us a gene for it and then turn it off?  Just don't include the gene.

Do you program? When you use a DLL or other similar "chunk" of code, how often do you use ALL of its functions? Also consider interpreted languages like Perl, Javascript, or VBA. What's the chance that an interpreted program will exercise every function of the interpreter? Dormant code is very common in human designed software. Hardware also often has unused features. For example, it is very common for printed circuit boards to have provisions for components that are not installed. This can be because a single PCB is used for several different versions of a product, or because some parts are only installed on prototypes for testing or experimentation and it just wasn't worth the time, cost, and risk to remove the harmless unused circuitry from the design. Practically every product that contains an FPGA has unused gates. Practically every product that contains a microprocessor or microcontroller leaves some of the chip's features unused.

In all of those instances there is some manifest intent behind the left over 'junk'.  In some of those instances, there is some cost/benefit analysis that drives the decision to leave the junk remaining (that is, in order to remove the junk, there would be a non-zero detrimental cost associated with it).

In the case of a shared library, it is because the designer of the library intended to have those additional functions available, regardless of whether or not the designer of a particular application utilizing some of that library intends to use it.  If there is deprecated and unreachable code that still exists within the binary of the library, that is a mistake on the library designer's part.  The case of an interpreted language is the same.

In the case of hardware, that is typically more of a cost/benefit analysis scenario.  If there were no cost associated with having custom revisions of PCBs for multiple product lines, then a designer would prefer to do that - to leave off things like open pads for configuration zero-ohm jumpers, DNP[1] components like additional, different regulators, over-redundant protection circuits, various connectors, etc...all things that add a negligible yet non-zero increase in risk and points of failure.  If were a choice between making the PCB out of FR-4 or another material that had dielectric properties perfectly suited for my application, and there is no cost difference and no difference in risk between the two, I'm going to pick the latter.  Frankly, you could extend this justification to software as well - if I want to convert a UNIX timestamp into a human-readable ASCII string, I can either utilize a library that may or may not exist on the target systems, and potentially have a slightly different implementation than I am expecting, or I can write my own function to do such a thing, knowing exactly how it is implemented, knowing for certain that the function will be available for my application at runtime and do exactly what I expect it to do.  In resource-constrained land, the appropriate design decision is to not spend the time writing/debugging a UNIX timestamp conversion function and to go ahead and accept the (rather small) risks associated with the use of the shared library that is outside of your control.  Because, similar to the hardware situation, the cost associated with eliminating the (rather small) risk is greater than the benefit.

This kind of thing happens all the time. It's is a natural consequence of design reuse and standardized components.
It is a natural consequence of having limited resources that leads to design reuse and standardized components being the best general approach to many, many design.  Really, the only benefit to design reuse is reduction in resources and time necessary for accomplishing a task.  Which is a pretty awesome benefit for fundamentally limited designers.  I do not see the benefit of design reuse for an entity that expends zero resources designing.
 1. Do not populate.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10