quote:Originally posted by King of Men: \Would you like to point to a post around here which disrespects you, personally, as opposed to your beliefs? I'll make no bones about it: I do not respect your belief, because I think it is false. But that cuts both ways: You likewise do not think I am correct, and therefore do not respect my belief in any usual sense of that word. I understand that you respect my right to have that belief, but this is not the same thing, and besides, that respect is perforce returned. Now we are discussing whether we respect each other personally. Again: Would you like to point out where anybody has dissed you, as a person?
KoM hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just googled Jay's recent posts, and found out that he hasn't ever posted in a thread, he just starts them... And I'm sure everybody here already knew it.
Which meant I was being an idiot when I said you guys were scary and so he may have stayed away for that reason.
Whoops. He really is a troll.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think, at the end of the day, this is the sanest form of religion. On the other hand, taken a little further, it ceases to be religion at all.
Would you still call it not a religion if there is still a belief in an after-life, eternal progression, and intelligent guidance along the path towards goodness, wisdom, and love?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: KoM hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.
Nu, love may be a little strong. Let's say, I'm prepared to let the sinner continue to exist in the same universe as me, under appropriate supervision and perhaps paying some extra taxes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, it is easy for religion to be mocked because it makes declarative statements that can't be proved, as Hobbes has said. Also, it is a lot easier to mock, criticize, and tear down than it is to build something, no matter what the ideology or philosophy. Science is the only thing exempt because it doesn't declare anything that is not repeatable and provable. It just comes with the territory.
Since all people believe in more than science as a function of being human, all people have beliefs that can be chipped at. While I might disagree or even disrespect other people's ideologies, I don't go around seeking to tear them down, whatever they may be. I think that is disrespectful.
I just try to clear up misconceptions where they exist, I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe as I do. Belief is a personal thing, and people gravitate towards what rings true for them.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A religion asks for faith, belief without evidence
No it doesn't, some religions ask for belief without evidence. Sweeping generalizations, generally, aren't true.
I think it's interesting to watch this discussion develop. The high percentage of LDS respondents on the "faith side" certainly leads the conversations in unique ways.
quote:Would you still call it not a religion if there is still a belief in an after-life, eternal progression, and intelligent guidance along the path towards goodness, wisdom, and love?
No. I'd call that a faith or a belief. I wouldn't call it a religion; religions incorporate beliefs, but require other things as well.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, Tom. What about traditional tribes? I'm thinking of a Masai-related group in Africa that believes that your soul lives in your liver, or of other groups with other beliefs.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by 0megabyte: If one doesn't look at the evidence, or refuses to look at the evidence, that's not exactly a positive trait. If one outright denies the evidence's implications, and decides to continue to live in a world where the facts don't matter, such a trait seems downright dangerous.
The notion you don't seem capable of entertaining (and when you are so 100% certain, why should you be capable?) is that some of us look at the evidence you present, see the parts that you are leaving out, and then determine for ourselves that you are interpreting the evidence with some basic difference that allows you to see pretty much all of existence in a completely different way.
As far as my specific denial of Macro-evolution goes, it could not be more obvious to me that it is a brilliantly designed, yet nonetheless false construct. Why? I have no choice but to conclude that, at the very least, you are not seeing something that is so apparent to me. It's hard to not feel superior, and truth be told, I do sometimes. So don't feel too bad if you feel smarter than me because you know what you do and I can't see it for some reason.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh...what's being left out? Can you please give examples? I have an open mind and would like to see for myself.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I'd call that a faith or a belief. I wouldn't call it a religion; religions incorporate beliefs, but require other things as well.
Of course, I left out some other things as well that would probably qualify it as a religion in your book. A belief in canonized scritpure, priesthood authority, ordinances, living prophets, and modern revelation.
Oh, and a belief that God sent Christ to atone for our sins.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by 0megabyte: [qb]If one doesn't look at the evidence, or refuses to look at the evidence, that's not exactly a positive trait. If one outright denies the evidence's implications, and decides to continue to live in a world where the facts don't matter, such a trait seems downright dangerous.
The notion you don't seem capable of entertaining (and when you are so 100% certain, why should you be capable?) is that some of us look at the evidence you present, see the parts that you are leaving out, and then determine for ourselves that you are interpreting the evidence with some basic difference that allows you to see pretty much all of existence in a completely different way.
I'm going to echo Javert's question. Can you point out some of this evidence that we're "leaving out"? Peer-reviewed citations only, s'il vous plait.
Based on your performance on previous threads, I anticipate that you'll either (a) trot out the same tired arguments that folks both here and elsewhere have debunked repeatedly or (b) ignore our request completely.
Incidentally, your ad hom on Tom and KoM ("I just know that some of them (cough*Tom*hack*KoM*ahem) do") earlier in the thread doesn't speak well of your own objectivity on this subject. That you keep claiming some sort of humility high ground ("evolutionists and atheists in general actively believe that they are either privy to information that we are not, or that they are simply smarter than us") in this discussion is pretty darned funny to me. For once, can you drop the delusion of victimization and actually engage us on the level of the evidence? Y'know, like you keep claiming to without actually doing so?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ... As far as my specific denial of Macro-evolution goes, it could not be more obvious to me that it is a brilliantly designed, yet nonetheless false construct.
It occurs to me how wonderfully "meta" this could be. For many people, the theory of evolution is not intuitive due to the timescales and the scale of the numbers involved. Dawkins makes a brief one sentence aside to pretty much this effect in the Blind Watchmaker.
Its kind of interesting the parallel between the two statements, "creation is so complex, it must have a designer" and the "the theory of evolution is so brilliantly complex, it must have had a designer/constructor."
An interesting parallel or circularity.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't seem very interesting to me. Of course the theory of evolution has a designer, or rather a bunch of designers. So does any scientific theory. That doesn't say anything about its validity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Different people are interested in different things. I find it interesting what determines what people find intuitive. Dawkins expands on that aside here.
In some sense, I would not really say that the theory of evolution is purely designed if it is true. I think of it more as a process of discovery, unearthing and understanding how the world really developed. I would contrast this with the active creative process that most people associate with the phrase "intelligently designed."
I have no idea how you're jumping to a conclusion as to whether my previous post had a stance on the validity of evolution either way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Resh: evidence? Go on. Show it. If I'm missing it, if it's as convincing as you claim, if this empirical evidence you've got that the scientists and I are all overlooking, show it.
Show the world! Come on, if it's so big, so certain, you'd almost certainly win a Nobel Prize if you just showed it in a clear manner!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: We have the best potluck dinners.
Do you really expect to be able to make such nonsensical claims without some sort of proof? Hmph!
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I was just thinking, it's been a long time since I've engaged in the subject of religion on a forum. I tend to find it a bit exhausting.
My disagreements, my views, seem that venomous to you, I apologize.
But: I'd like to see some evidence. I've described why personal feelings don't work for me in the past. But I'll try to do it better now, hoping it won't upset you.
Human perception is flawed, simply. I know this through many experiences. First of all, there are my own experiences. Time my perceptions were flawed, times I thought I heard or saw something when I didn't, and further, times I've fallen into the flaws of confirmation bias. I've made connections of causation, thought coincidences meant a purpose. I've seen things that weren't there!
Understanding that the things I see, hear, feel, taste and smell are not the actual world, but my mind's simulation of the world, and that these simulations are subject to misfiring neurons, tricks of the eyes, and completely false sensations, I see how the mind can be falsified.
That's just from my own experience. Then I look at other people, both physically around me, as well as data from more objective sources. I see people around me make the same mistakes I do, and make other mistakes I do not make, while never making some of the mistakes I do. I read about how this is not just common in people I know, but in general.
I learn that electrical signals in the right part of the brain can trigger religious experience. I learn how hallucinations occur, and I learn more and more about the tricks the human mind can play on itself, both intentionally and unintentionally.
Then, seeing flawed human perception, I see something else. I notice how many contradictory views people have. People say contradictory things about the world, some people believe it's flat, some that it's round. Some that there's a God. Some that there are many gods. Some that people go to heaven or hell when you die. Some that you get reincarnated. Some that crystals have magic powers, and that people can read others minds, and that the stars affect human affairs. Some believe in a god called Allah, others in a savior named Jesus, others believe in addition some new guy in the 19th century is the first of the new prophets. Some believe that humanity started due to alien intervention, or that the trees and animals and rocks have ephemeral, intelligent spirits.
Seeing all of this, I wonder, and wondered: why do all these people believe such contradictory things? Why do they ALL (well, not all, but many of the most devout of each religion) say that they're absolutely right, and that every other one of these beliefs is in error?
They all say similar things, about feeling it, about being certain, about it helping them. About miracles, for every religion, always of a similar kind, always either coincidental, mundane things or else placebo type things, which seal the deal for them, which make them certain their religion is true.
I've probably read hundreds of testimonials, of multiple different religions. None of them have ever, ever shown any proof to be anything outside of the individual. None of them have shown, at least to me, to be anything other than the things I've seen or learned of. None.
Sure, there could be some that aren't. But whenever I ask, no one ever has them. Nobody ever shows me something that isn't more reasonably coincidence or else WANTING it to be a sign, or an illusion, hallicinations (those happen to all of us, not just crazies!) or whatever.
I mean, if strength of feeling, strength of conviction was enough to prove anything, what of the strength of conviction of all those other religions? Theirs is just as strong. They'd be just as clear that you're wrong, that they're right, and would have no less conviction that their religion is special, that their experiences are unique to their religion, that hteir truth is greater than yours.
Of course, learning this, I already knew about science. I already found that science, unlike religion, explains, gives not just anecdotal evidence, not just personal testimonies, but instead, carefully recorded data, carefully pieced together records, theories based on these pieces of data, to explain them, which are confirmed or falsified by new data, and new tests. Further, science has a great track record of actual physical results in the real world.
While prayer and 'miracles' may seem to help some people, some of the time, medical science can be objectively shown to save lives. It can reattach limbs, which no miracle has ever been shown to do. It can repair damage that would kill someone if you just prayed for them. It can do things more certainly than any miracle has ever been able to do.
Antibiotics are much more effective than prayer. That's been shown, time and again. If my life is on the line, I'll trust my life to a doctor, not a priest, of any religion, either Christianity or New Age or Hindu.
Science answers the questions religion never answered for me satisfactorily. I ask what the sun is as well as the moon and the planets and stars, science tells me, and then gives far more detail than I could ever need to know, and shows how it found out. Religion... well. Different religions say different things, and those things have changed since science came on the scene. The harmony of the spheres should sound familiar, though.
Further, science does this on pretty much every subject. From why things fall, to the makeup of the human body, to why the lights work, to the internet, to the way sound works, and further, human nature, human tendencies, how our minds work, how we act and why we're social... science gives explanations for all, rational ones, that can be tested, that I myself can go out and test myself, to see with my own eyes.
Recorded observations, thousands, millions of tests which agree with previously created theories, predictions which actually come true, not in a vague manner, but precisely, to a vast degree, and tests I can go and perform myself, as many times as needed, and the ability to change wrong theories due to new evidence... that kind of thing works for me! That kind of thing I can trust, at least, more than my easily fooled feelings. If my mind is not right for the first test, the second through twentieth tests will show otherwise. Personal experiences, though, don't usually have that capacity for testing, for observation, for recording, for outside verification.
How can I accept those personal feelings, when I've been shown something that can both explain those feelings, point out how I feel them, give good reasons as to why I possess them, show at least some of the inner workings of those feelings (and discovers more about them all the time!) shows how they're useful, and points out the ways in which they can fool me, in a manner that I can use to recognize my errors and not fall for them the next time?
That's why I don't accept the strength of personal conviction, the feelings of love and joy that comes fro mbelieving in God, the silent whispers people claim to get (others claim to get whispers from other entities, some of them contradictory to God's existence, others simply crazy), the intense feelings of rapture that I have also observed both in nonreligious activities, as well as read about being shown in the lab.
If you can show me real evidence, however. Like, say, verified evidence of a prayer having a dramatic result, say, reforming an arm, or bringing the dead back to life, in the dramatic fashion Jesus is claimed to do, please show me! I think, if Jesus could give such things during his lifetime, and feel no problem using those to prove his power, he could do so again no problem, if he's still around.
I'm like doubting Thomas. But unlike Thomas, I've not been shown something that could incontrovertable prove God or Jesus's existence. If it was okay for Thomas to ask, and recieve real, physical evidence (that's what's said, whether it's what truly happened is another question) then it should be okay for me.
I don't mean a feeling, or coincidence, or whatever. I mean physical evidence that I can count on. Something I could examine. Something others could see and examine as well. Not done in secret, but in front of witnesses, neutral ones. Such things are all over the Bible, as well as all the other scriptures of different religions.
But in the world we live in, why do they never, ever appear?
You claim my statement about religion not giving evidence is untrue.
Then show it! Real evidence! The real thing, not the same old miracles and feelings that people of contradictory religions also give as reasons for their religion's truth! Why don't you, if you have it? Why are you holding out on me?!
If it seems to you that this is pride, then so be it. You speak of your feelings, I see the flaws of human understanding, the flaws in human perception, which can produce false evidence, and respond with skepticism. You speak of your feelings, and I note that others with contradictory beliefs speak of similar feelings.
If false and true religions give the same kind of evidence, and neither of them show anything that can't be explained as something mundane and not in any way supernatural by the same processes (the scientific method) which have given us electricty, the internet, communication sattelites and the medicines that have saved the lives of me and others, how am I supposed to react? Which do you really think I would rationally put my money on? Which should I trust? The one that answers my questions in an actually satisfactory way, or the one which says that God is a mystery, and that mystery, that lack of understanding, is divine?
With what I've seen, how do you expect me to take that any more seriously than the claims of one random tribe or another that witches have extra organs, and fly around at night causing diseases? Why should I treat your claims to have felt God with any less skepticism than their claims to see the witches flying in the sky, casting curses?
I must admit, though. If strength of conviction had any bearing on truth, you Mormons would be the way to go. You're so sure. You believe so strongly. If that had a bearing on reality, yours would be the safe bet, no doubt.
But believing something has nothing to do with reality. People have believed so many things. Why trust beliefs, when I can look at evidence instead, and feel the joy of understanding the natural processes that cause everything?
Anyway, I don't care about the things done under the banner of religion per se. I rejected them as religion's fault when I was religious, I still reject them as solely religion's fault now. All I care about is evidence. Why is yours better than a new age healer's?
As for what you claim I deign... I don't deign anything. I ask the same of all religions. Until I've been shown valid evidence for one of them, why should I assume any of them are true? It has nothing to do with looking into them. I've looked, though of course not quite to the extent that I've looked into Christianity, what with being born into it and all.
It really isn't that Christianity let me down. It's that I refuse to believe something without evidence anymore! I won't believe something just because one asserts it. At least, I'll try. And religion is really conspicuous about that, and makes some pretty huge claims. So, of course I'll focus my questioning on those claims, what with their size and all.
I can't prove God doesn't exist. I can't prove any of the gods don't exist. But until I see evidence of them, why should I assume any of them are true, any more than I do not assume Santa Claus is true, or assume that string theory is true? (I don't know, I haven't read enough, I don't know any evidence about it, so I can't tell.)
My default position is to not assume something is true until evidence is shown. And if I look for evidence, especially if I make a strong search, and none is forthcoming... why act like that thing is true? If those who claim they have evidence have failed to produce something plausible, time and time agian (show me I'm wrong! I'd love that! Really!), why assume that they have it when they still claim to have evidence?
In the end, God knows how to reach me. He knows my mind and heart, and, if he's real, and is as Christianity says, knows my entire nature, and probably chose to have me come into existence, instead of the millions of other possibilites. He knows my thought processes, and knows I'd readily believe, if he showed himself.
But I won't put my life on hold while waiting, any more than I'll put my life on hold for string theory. Assume something is not true until reasonably shown it is.
But perhaps I should make my heated views on evolution clear and separate: I believed in evolution, and had an equally heated view, back when I believed in God. My reaction then is the same as now.
I've seen evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution occurs. Those who deny it outright kind of annoy me. Especially when they use bad arguements and logical fallacies.
I like truth. I like learning truth, and I care passionately about it. To see people disregard it annoys me. It's just my nature, and was the same before as now. That hasn't changed.
Anyway, I hope that helps. When yuo see how you see God, I wonder, very curiously, where you're getting the ideas. It really makes me curious why you get these, and others get totally different messages, too, you know.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, I left out some other things as well that would probably qualify it as a religion in your book. A belief in canonized scritpure, priesthood authority, ordinances, living prophets, and modern revelation.
In the interest of pith, I lumped all those things in with the "clubhouse" aspect of religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ome of us look at the evidence you present, see the parts that you are leaving out, and then determine for ourselves that you are interpreting the evidence with some basic difference that allows you to see pretty much all of existence in a completely different way.
You wanna know the critical difference? They're using evidence. You're using the smug self-satisfaction that you're right because you know you're right.
It's all well and good to play the faith jockey and claim that your dismissal of their evidence is because you have this miraculous ability to pick it apart or tell a vast consensus of people who are actually competent in their scientific fields what they're leaving out. You offer no demonstratively plausible alternatives and when you attempt to use the paradigm of logic and scientific critiques to say 'this is why your scientific postulate is wrong,' you fall flat on your ass.
Other people would have more humble recourse. Other people would actually have enough sense to not act so smug when they've actually not done very well in being convincing and have a record as a serial flop in most all contentious debates, to a point where one starts crying foul over the volume of people telling them to shut up. But you, man, you're stumbling through this thread going "Ah, but I, Resphecobiggle, cannot help but feel Superior from time to time, I am just so Endowed with the Truth, you know" like some cartoon picador or a contemporary of Bean Counter.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet I am required to treat all of you with respect, even love.
My heart bleeds for you. Would you like to point to a post around here which disrespects you, personally, as opposed to your beliefs? I'll make no bones about it: I do not respect your belief, because I think it is false. But that cuts both ways: You likewise do not think I am correct, and therefore do not respect my belief in any usual sense of that word. I understand that you respect my right to have that belief, but this is not the same thing, and besides, that respect is perforce returned. Now we are discussing whether we respect each other personally. Again: Would you like to point out where anybody has dissed you, as a person?
I just spent some time looking for one thread in particular, unfortunately many threads simply say, "topic not found" and as I did not make mental notes of when I have ever been insulted personally I can't provide you with the proof you asked at this time. I can remember quite distinctly you popping into a thread to say some pretty rotten stuff to me which people called you out on, but hey you don't have to take my word for it.
I'm sure even you have to admit that on occasion you've been downright unfriendly with religious posters in this forum. I have noticed that your behavior in the last few months seemed to be markedly better. I still very much enjoy much of what you have to say KOM, but since you operate under the assumption that you can't be wrong on the question of religion, it seems futile to respond to comments you make in threads of that topic.
0Megabyte: Though I will probably post small to moderate posts throughout the day, I have not forgotten your very long post. I'll either email you directly or reply to it in thread when I get home from work. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, You've called me a liar when I posted things that you didn't know about but didn't want to believe were true. I think that might be relevant to the conversation at this point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, You've called me a liar when I posted things that you didn't know about but didn't want to believe were true. I think that might be relevant to the conversation at this point.
That occasion escapes me, I'd thank you to link me the thread, if that is not possible, quote me, or at the least give me some context to the statement.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but I don't call people liars lightly.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, BB and I just had a conversation (here's another, not with BB) about the ex-gay movement and how, in it's 30 or so years of their concerted efforts to turn religious gay people who really wanted to change into heterosexuals, they've yet to be able to give evidence for success in any matter except for a questionable and vanishingly small sample. In this thread, I demonstrated that I was aware and well versed in these "therapies", which would go along with my constant demonstration that, especially when I'm talking about psychological subjects, I am well versed in the things I represent myself as well-versed in. And yet, he responded with:
quote:Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
I have to wonder, how much is it going to take?
from this thread. We go on to discuss how saying the specifc you saying that I didn't have the experience that I claimed to (you know, lying about it) a page later.
---
I've got to wonder, did you ever look into the issue like you said you would?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Random stuff on how I engage religious argument...
I do a fair amount of eye rolling and shoulder shrugging, but that's all on my side of the monitor. I can't help that I feel my position is more reasonable - it would be silly to hold an opinion that I don't believe is the best one I can form - but I "get" that everyone who disagrees with me feels similarly about their own opinions.
I'm married to a very faithful Mormon. We talk about religion often but fight about it never. I don't so much respect her beliefs as I respect that these are beliefs are important to her.
It's like my friend that collects McDonald's Happy Meal toys and displays them in a glass case. I ignore my normal protocol for handling cheap toys when I'm at his place because it clear that they have value to him beyond the small value that these toys have in other contexts. I can still consider (and even remark on) the poor quality of construction or cheesy design, but I ask his permission to pick them up and I handle them gingery.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you prove this? Or is this your own subjective observation?
Out of curiosity, what is your theory on why this might be, considering the gospel message encourages one to love their enemy, turn the other cheek, share with all, and in all other ways hold yourself to a higher standard than your neighbor?
Maybe the message is too painful to be popular.
Do you see the majority of Christians out there heeding or giving great weight to those verses? Do you see the Sermon on the Mount as something that people have tried to model their society and their lives on? I don't. I don't think, in many cases, it is so much a matter of the dictates being too hard as it is people care or know very little about what the religion actually says.
As for my evidence and my theories, I think I covered them pretty extensively in this thread. I'm having problems figuring out exactly how to link specific parts of a thread, so I think my part of the discussion that is applicable here really starts a few pages after the part I linked. It's long though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: I have ideas but am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this. In those threads I was not trying to call you a liar, though I in fact did so do. I apologized for it, and told you that I would learn more about programs like Exodus, and the like. edit: I incidentally do know quite a bit more then I did about those sorts of programs.
What has that got to do with the price of rice in China might I ask? Or are you trying to paint me as somebody who wildly fires accusations that have little merit because I thought you overstated your credentials in one thread?
doubt edit: Or that I am not honest in what I say I will do, and therefore can be taken less seriously?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, You didn't actually appologize for calling me a liar, you know.
I'm trying to point out that your description of your past behavior and some instances of your past behavior don't match up all that well.
---
Plus, you know, I really don't like getting called a liar, especially with such little justification and I deserve an apology.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't describe my past behavior in this thread, you did. The only things behavior wise that I have mentioned are what I am expected to do (not always what I actually do) and what I see opponents of religion doing.
quote:Plus, you know, I really don't like getting called a liar, especially with such little justification and I deserve an apology.
If the following was not what you wanted,
quote:Liar wasn't really the label I was going for. Overstater? Or exaggerator? In anycase I am willing to admit that for the time being you know more on the topic then I do, and your statement that gay therapy attempts have been fruitless is more tenable a position then my ignorance. I apologize if you felt I was going after you as a person rather then the issues you were presenting
I am sincerely sorry. It was wrong of me to so hastily call your integrity into question, even if we ignore the fact that I was wrong in my accusation. I will honestly try very hard to never make such a mistake like that ever again. I hope you will not continue to hold that mistake against me in the future.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, It's hard not to doubt how seriously you regarded this, given that you didn't even remember doing it. But, for what it's worth, I accept your apology.
---
I read you wrong. You seemed to me to be asserting that you treated people according to how you are supposed to, rather than just noting that you are supposed to treat them a certain way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, It's hard not to doubt how seriously you regarded this, given that you didn't even remember doing it. But, for what it's worth, I accept your apology.
When I read the thread it all came back to me, but I'd attribute not recalling what you were talking about more to I didn't realize that incident had not been fully resolved. I can see how that makes my apology harder to take seriously, but I mean it for what it's worth, thanks for accepting it.
quote:I read you wrong. You seemed to me to be asserting that you treated people according to how you are supposed to, rather than just noting that you are supposed to treat them a certain way.
If God rolls up and says my mimcry is perfect, you will be the first to know. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but since you operate under the assumption that you can't be wrong on the question of religion, it seems futile to respond to comments you make in threads of that topic.
I make no such assumption. But I do make the assumption that, if people are going to convince me of something, they will be able to show some evidence. You have never done so, nor has any other theist poster. If you feel the request for evidence is an unreasonable one, please say so now and we can agree to ignore each other in religious threads, as I already do with kmb.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: If you only accept evidence (are you restricting evidence to that of a physical or observable nature?) as permissable I am still willing to continue discussing religion with you.
Mr S: I just sat down for a minute before my classes start but to start, I disagree with their belief that all homosexuals can be completely reoriented towards heterosexuality in this life. I am also convinced that the methods devised to accomplish rehabilitation are misguided at best and counterproductive, even reprehensible at worst. But to be fair, I really don't think that methods to accomplish that aim have had the time neccessary to be effective even if we assume that it's right to do what they want to do in the first place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Exodus has been around since 1976 without demonstrating that their methods work (although lying about their sucesses often enough). How much time would you consider necessary?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: KOM: If you only accept evidence (are you restricting evidence to that of a physical or observable nature?)
I'm a make a wild guess here and say something akin to rational skepticism: physical? maybe. Testable? preferably.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then it will be tough. Speaking only for myself, I can offer nothing but evidence that is collected, for lack of a better word, on an individual basis only. I really don't see that as an issue, things that happen only to me, or to which I'm the only one present are just as real in my life as things which are visible (or audible, or whatever) to others. However, if you want to define evidence as it relates to you that way of course that's your prerogative. I'm happy to agree that if you define evidence as something observable by others, I'll be unable to answer your request for that kind of evidence when it comes to deity.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Exodus has been around since 1976 without demonstrating that their methods work (although lying about their sucesses often enough). How much time would you consider necessary?
I really can't answer that. But diciplines like psychology are still coming to terms with MANY disorders. Who knows when Aspergers syndrome, or it's bigger brother Autism will get the treatment they need?
As an aside my church just came out with a new pamphlet on homosexuality. I think it was a step in the right direction. Significant changes on previous church policy were,
1: The cause of homosexuality is not stated, and indeed it is admitted that some of the causes may never be clearly identified in this life.
2: Homosexual desires are identified as not sinful in the pamphlet, which I think is true.
3: There is a strong admonition to the membership to treat those who are homosexual in and out of the church with love and compassion. Something I think needed to be written on something official.
Here is a link if somebody wants to read the pamphlet in its entirety.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But diciplines like psychology are still coming to terms with MANY disorders. Who knows when Aspergers syndrome or it's bigger brother Autism will get the treatment it needs.
I have no idea why that would be relevant in this specific instance. [edit:]That is, why would the inability to cure certain conditions be relevant to a 30+ year failure to do what you set out to, in the context of there just hasn't been enough time for their therapy to work.[/edit] Could you explain?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
