quote:Oh and I suppose you have evidence that shows my assumption is not justified?
In fact I do, but let's not go there quite yet. Why this sudden passionate defense of assumptions? Why is this particular assumption so important to you that when it is pointed out that it is an assumption, you become belligerent, not merely on its behalf, but on behalf of all assumptions? If you had evidence, would you not rather try to convert your assumption into a well-supported proposition, instead of this tu quoque stuff?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would like to point out that a theist is only risking his body and earthly life when he joins the military. An atheist is risking the only life he's got.
Only if you admit that the theist is correct. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was talking about what people believe when they make the decision to join up. If you really believe that you will have an eternal life, then you're not risking (in your internal calculation) anywhere near so much as an atheist, or rather a-soul-ist. (Is there a nice Greek/Latin term for someone who doesn't believe in a soul? Adaimonist, perhaps?)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I am certain that if some sort of medication was devised that would suppress homosexuality, people would be screaming that if anyone took it, they'd be denying their very humanity.
If a treatment was devised that turned a black man into a white man, do you think people would be wrong to scream about it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or to use examples that I know are controversial among Mormons: if a mother could take a pill that'd change the sex of her fetus, or if a full-grown man could someday opt for a surgery and chemical treatment that make him fully and indistinguishably a functional female, would people be justified in objecting to it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's where 99% of human error comes in. People assume that the world is the way they wish it were, and then they bend all the evidence to fit their favorite wishful model.
Without assumption, no real exchange of ideas could take place.
This isn't about communication. It's about the fact that "I really like this idea, it makes me feel good" is a lousy way of figuring out what is true.
quote:I do understand that an assumption doggedly held to can create alot of misery and unhappiness.
I don't see that you do, since you quite openly admitted that you currently hold to an assumption that causes a lot of misery and unhappiness, and you don't seem to mind that.
quote:No it isn't, you seem to be confusing the fear one who lacks understanding in their religion feels when challenged by things they cannot refute, with the unwillingness of another believer to easily forfeit what he feels is right.
Right. It all comes down to you "feeling right". It doesn't matter how many gay people destroy themselves trying to become what your "right feelings" say they should become. Because you "feel right" about the necessity of them doing so, you will keep advocating that they destroy themselves, keep blaming them for not trying hard enough, not "using all the tools they could be using" trying to live up to what your "feelings" say they should be doing.
People "feel right" all the time about factually wrong things. All the time. And your only rebuttal to that is "But I feel really right", which is less than persuasive.
quote:
quote:You've got your scripture telling you everyone can be straight, and the evidence of real people saying "No, we can't be. We can act straight, but we've tried, and tried, and had every incentive in the world to be straight, and with every evil consequence imaginable if we aren't, and we can't do it". (Plus the evidence of straight people saying "We couldn't be gay if we tried".)
I've seen that evidence yes,
But you haven't allowed it to invalidate your assumptions, have you?
quote:but I have also seen people who insist that they "need" to experience multiple partners, and that they can't limit their sexual forays to one person. Or that they are bisexual and need people from both sexes to feel complete.
Okay...why does this evidence preclude the gay people from being right about their situation?
quote:There are those who are bi-polar and before medication existed for it, they lived out their lives not knowing how to control their emotions and thoughts, and yet they were expected to learn how to do just that as best they could.
Ah. So you think that homosexual people are by defnition as disordered as untreated bipolar sufferers.
That's an insult to real people who suffer from real brain chemical issues.
Gay people who aren't trying to destroy themselves according to your wishes are prefectly mentally healthy. They have friends, hold jobs, find love, raise families. People with severe mental issues can't do that, that's why they need treatment, so that with better brain chemitry, they can do all those things.
quote:But I am certain that if some sort of medication was devised that would suppress homosexuality, people would be screaming that if anyone took it, they'd be denying their very humanity.
Well, yes. And if there were a drug that took straight people and ripped away their sexuality, it would be denying their humanity.
quote:
quote:But this evidence violates your assumption, so rather than dismiss the assumption, you dismiss the evidence, and the reality and experiences of real people.
Dismiss is hardly the term I would use, I'm still listening.
What, you want more stories of gay people trying and failing to become straight?
Do you want links to those, because I'm sure people can find some for you.
Heck, just ask straight people if they chose to be straight. No one is going to tell you that it was a hard choice, that they had to fight to be interested in the opposite sex.
quote:Apparently you have dismissed my entire belief system and for what reason? Because your assumptions do not match mine?
Because your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence. You've got some "feelings" which are perfectly explicable by the fact that you are a social organism, some events which are going to be explicable by chance, and you've grown this into a belief that one particular guy who founded one particular church was right, and everyone else is wrong, and that since he says everyone really, is straight, that gay people can be straight if only they try hard enough.
I've got an aquaintance who's got cancer. God could give you the structure of the next blockbuster anti-melanoma drug. Or the structure of a good malaria vaccine. Did God help any charity beat the stock market this year?
No. God's never done any of that stuff. That's why I reject your premise. Because when put to make-or-break test, the results look like ordinary chance, not divine anything. And no amount of "good feelings" can make up for that.
quote:Please don't patronize me, I respect your ability to think for yourself, I don't appreciate you stating that I am incapable of it. What in my words has lead you to believe that I am beyond reasoning with?
I read what you wrote. Gay people have literally killed themselves trying to be what you want them to be, and you still think that they just aren't trying hard enough. It's not like more examples is going to change that fact. So clearly, you aren't capable of accepting the conclusion that the reason they are failing is because what they are being asked to do is impossible. Because you can't bear the implications of that conclusion.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I was talking about what people believe when they make the decision to join up. If you really believe that you will have an eternal life, then you're not risking (in your internal calculation) anywhere near so much as an atheist, or rather a-soul-ist. (Is there a nice Greek/Latin term for someone who doesn't believe in a soul? Adaimonist, perhaps?)
Nope, you are risking exactly as much as they are....they just aren't aware of the fact.
Death is death for all of us, and this world is gone one way or another (more seriously), Pain is the same, dismemberment is the same. I'd say trying to qualify one person "more brave" than another in that case is pointless.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I disagree. If you sincerely believe that, after dying, you have a pleasant afterlife to look forward to, the prospect of death is less terrible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about what's really going to happen; bravery depends on overcoming your fear, and fear depends on belief. The man who really, genuinely believes that he is immune to fire is not brave when he walks into a burning building.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact I do, but let's not go there quite yet. Why this sudden passionate defense of assumptions? Why is this particular assumption so important to you that when it is pointed out that it is an assumption, you become belligerent, not merely on its behalf, but on behalf of all assumptions? If you had evidence, would you not rather try to convert your assumption into a well-supported proposition, instead of this tu quoque stuff?
I think its pretty clear that the reason BlackBlade was defending assumptions was because you were insinuating that his religion was less justified simply because it was based on some assumptions. That logic doesn't follow though, because major assumptions are ALWAYS necessary for any evidence to be useful in any way. Science is based on assumption too.
Assumptions are a place where errors can be made, but nevertheless without assumptions there can be no reasoning whatsoever.
quote:It's not about what's really going to happen; bravery depends on overcoming your fear, and fear depends on belief. The man who really, genuinely believes that he is immune to fire is not brave when he walks into a burning building.
Fear often exists in spite of beliefs. For instance, I may believe 100% that a rollercoaster is safe, yet still be afraid of riding it, because emotions sometimes act out of line with beliefs. It could even be argued that bravery is following one's beliefs when fear contradicts one's beliefs - like when your rational mind says going to war is the right thing to do, but your emotions make you terribly afraid of getting killed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Fear often exists in spite of beliefs. For instance, I may believe 100% that a rollercoaster is safe, yet still be afraid of riding it, because emotions sometimes act out of line with beliefs.
I would suggest that if you are sincerely afraid of riding it, you don't actually believe 100% that it is safe. You may be telling yourself that you do, but perhaps you only believe 99% that it's safe, and that 1% is enough to scare you into not riding it, no matter that you prefer to deny the 1% (or .001%, or 13%).
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think its pretty clear that the reason BlackBlade was defending assumptions was because you were insinuating that his religion was less justified simply because it was based on some assumptions. That logic doesn't follow though, because major assumptions are ALWAYS necessary for any evidence to be useful in any way. Science is based on assumption too.
Are there assumptions that an atheist might make that a theist would not?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Fear often exists in spite of beliefs. For instance, I may believe 100% that a rollercoaster is safe, yet still be afraid of riding it, because emotions sometimes act out of line with beliefs.
I would suggest that if you are sincerely afraid of riding it, you don't actually believe 100% that it is safe. You may be telling yourself that you do, but perhaps you only believe 99% that it's safe, and that 1% is enough to scare you into not riding it, no matter that you prefer to deny the 1% (or .001%, or 13%).
I disagree. If I really thought a coaster were unsafe, I would be at least as nervous about my kids riding it. And I'm not.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there may well be a different KIND of nervousness experienced before getting on a coaster you're confident is safe but which may well startle, alarm or sicken you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are there assumptions that an atheist might make that a theist would not?
Yes, plenty of them - the atheist position on religion is built on assumptions, some of which are not shared by most theists. First and foremost for this topic, atheists often make the assumption that if there's no logically compelling evidence of God then we should conclude God doesn't exist.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Science is based on assumption too.
Could you please elaborate on this? I don't disagree, but I question the validity of comparing the assumptions utilized in science versus, say, assuming the truth of a particular religion. They differ in type, scope and/or falsifiability.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are there assumptions that an atheist might make that a theist would not?
Yes, plenty of them - the atheist position on religion is built on assumptions, some of which are not shared by most theists. First and foremost for this topic, atheists often make the assumption that if there's no logically compelling evidence of God then we should conclude God doesn't exist.
I think an atheist would state it differently: ''I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe that there are invisible flying elephants in the parking lot. To be consistent with the absence of equivocation on the non-existence of invisible flying elephants and other such entities, I will not equivocate on the non-existence of God."
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I disagree. If I really thought a coaster were unsafe, I would be at least as nervous about my kids riding it. And I'm not.
Ah, but you're talking about nervousness. Tresopax said "fear", which I consider a different animal. Being nervous about riding a rollercoaster is a response to the anticipated excitement, speed, acceleration, and so on.
Being genuinely afraid of riding the rollercoaster, I argue, must come from a belief that the coaster is somehow unsafe, even if one is unwilling to admit the basis of the fear.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:First and foremost for this topic, atheists often make the assumption that if there's no logically compelling evidence of God then we should conclude God doesn't exist.
I'd reword that to "If there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a thing, then it's appropriate to behave as if the thing does not exist."
"God is an exception to the above rule." is added by theists.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Science is based on assumption too.
Could you please elaborate on this? I don't disagree, but I question the validity of comparing the assumptions utilized in science versus, say, assuming the truth of a particular religion. They differ in type, scope and/or falsifiability.
Drawing any conclusions from the scientific method requires a set of assumptions. One major assumption is that the same laws that hold true today will continue to hold true tommorrow. Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it. And then there are many other assumptions that relate to any given scientific model - for instance, most scientific models assume that matter exists, or that certain basic forces exist, etc. And since most scientists build upon the work done by others (rather than going back and redoing every experiment ever done to support every theory their model relies upon), science often entails assuming that previous studies and/or evidence are generally accurate and not fictitious.
quote:I think an atheist would state it differently: ''I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe that there are invisible flying elephants in the parking lot. To be consistent with the absence of equivocation on the non-existence of invisible flying elephants and other such entities, I will not equivocate on the non-existence of God."
Fair enough - it's still a major assumption that many atheists would make that many theists would not.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: One major assumption is that the same laws that hold true today will continue to hold true tommorrow.
Sure, induction. Notice though that there are very few sane people who don't make this assumption in order not to get through everyday life.
quote: Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it.
I don't think this is formally true. There is no reason to ever state that a given model actually describes the world. I agree this distinction is not made in a scientist's everyday work.
quote: And then there are many other assumptions that relate to any given scientific model - for instance, most scientific models assume that matter exists, or that certain basic forces exist, etc.
a)The underlying assumptions of models are often themselves empirically justified. b)There is a well-defined method for falsifying models - and when the happens the assumptions themselves are again called into question.
quote:And since most scientists build upon the work done by others (rather than going back and redoing every experiment ever done to support every theory their model relies upon), science often entails assuming that previous studies and/or evidence are generally accurate and not fictitious.
Previous scientific results are always implicitly under scrutiny whenever a model relies on them. This assumption is never formally made.
quote:
quote:I think an atheist would state it differently: ''I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe that there are invisible flying elephants in the parking lot. To be consistent with the absence of equivocation on the non-existence of invisible flying elephants and other such entities, I will not equivocate on the non-existence of God."
Fair enough - it's still a major assumption that many atheists would make that many theists would not.
See Matt's response. The onus is on you to show why belief in god is different from belief in these other entities. Theists add an assumption to explain this exception.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I disagree. If I really thought a coaster were unsafe, I would be at least as nervous about my kids riding it. And I'm not.
Ah, but you're talking about nervousness. Tresopax said "fear", which I consider a different animal. Being nervous about riding a rollercoaster is a response to the anticipated excitement, speed, acceleration, and so on.
Being genuinely afraid of riding the rollercoaster, I argue, must come from a belief that the coaster is somehow unsafe, even if one is unwilling to admit the basis of the fear.
I am quite literally terrified of roller coasters. At the very notion of riding one, my palms get damp. Watching other people riding and picturing myself with them causes my breathing and heart rate to increase markedly. If pressured to ride by someone, I have been known to have a panic attack.
None of these symptoms occur when my daughter rides one and I watch (again, unless I picture myself riding or am pressured to also ride).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Drawing any conclusions from the scientific method requires a set of assumptions.
Yes, but there is a huge, huge, gigantic difference beween assumptions that you have to draw in order to function in this world, like that physical reality stays fundamentally the same all the time, and assumptions that you can do without and still function fine, like the idea that there is a big ego in the sky and that everything written in this book about him is absolutely true, and should be followed.
That's the heart of the conversation here...does it make sense to hold those extra assumptions in the absense of real tangible proof that they are true, and in the absence of hard reality testing that would detect if they were false?
quote:One major assumption is that the same laws that hold true today will continue to hold true tommorrow.
It stops being merely an assumption when it's verified day after day after day, and resists every effort to falsify it.
There are differences between belief that science works, and makes true statements and predictions, and belief that faith works and makes true predictions. It's painfully obvious that you have staked your whole argument on denying this, but it's profoundly unpersuasive.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it.
I don't think this is formally true. There is no reason to ever state that a given model actually describes the world. I agree this distinction is not made in a scientist's everyday work.
quote:I am quite literally terrified of roller coasters.
So what is it that you are afraid of?
I ask because when someone who believes he is immune to fire walks into a burning building, he does so without fear because he is not afraid of fire. If you are not afraid that a roller coaster will kill you, but you are still terrified of roller coasters, the question becomes: what about the roller coaster experience is what you fear?
The fear you experience is not the same kind of fear experienced by someone who believes a roller coaster might kill her.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:See Matt's response. The onus is on you to show why belief in god is different from belief in these other entities. Theists add an assumption to explain this exception.
quote:I'd reword that to "If there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a thing, then it's appropriate to behave as if the thing does not exist."
"God is an exception to the above rule." is added by theists.
It isn't a matter of exceptions. I think many theists (myself included) would say that its often appropriate to believe in something even if you don't have evidence that "compels" belief in it. (I believe in my cousin that I've never met, for instance, and the only evidence I have of her is hearing a few stories from relatives - less evidence than I have of God, actually.)
quote:Yes, but there is a huge, huge, gigantic difference beween assumptions that you have to draw in order to function in this world, like that physical reality stays fundamentally the same all the time, and assumptions that you can do without and still function fine, like the idea that there is a big ego in the sky and that everything written in this book about him is absolutely true, and should be followed.
You are correct that there is a difference between assumptions that are practically necessary in life vs. assumptions that are not. But many theists would say the assumptions underlying their faith in God are necessary in a practical sense to live life rightly.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it.
I don't think this is formally true. There is no reason to ever state that a given model actually describes the world. I agree this distinction is not made in a scientist's everyday work.
It is formally true in a certain sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers . Note, though, that there is an underlying assumption that the mathematics accurately describes reality.
I assume you're a Bayesian?
I would say, in situations in which the conditions required by the LLN are met, then the increase in trust is not by assumption, but as a corollary to a theorem.
Also, it doesn't require that mathematics accurately describe reality, only that the data points really be samples of an r.v. with certain properties. The 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is an a posteriori observation. Formally, the only reason to think that using mathematical models is a good idea is the obvious utility gained by using them.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't about communication. It's about the fact that "I really like this idea, it makes me feel good" is a lousy way of figuring out what is true.
By itself I can agree with you that that is true.
quote:I don't see that you do, since you quite openly admitted that you currently hold to an assumption that causes a lot of misery and unhappiness, and you don't seem to mind that.
I said in this very thread in regards to keeping the tenets of Mormonism, "As for difficulty, yes it is difficult, and again a person might try very hard to obey and ultimately give up, becoming a shell of who they used to be in the effort."
I embarked on a two year mission and it was the possibly the hardest thing I have ever endured, rivaled only by marriage. I often felt that nobody wanted me there. I saw fellow missionaries struggle to keep up, and after failing once too many times they went home ashamed and disgraced. I myself reached the brink of sending myself home, and barely found it within myself to keep going.
quote:Right. It all comes down to you "feeling right". It doesn't matter how many gay people destroy themselves trying to become what your "right feelings" say they should become. Because you "feel right" about the necessity of them doing so, you will keep advocating that they destroy themselves, keep blaming them for not trying hard enough, not "using all the tools they could be using" trying to live up to what your "feelings" say they should be doing.
People "feel right" all the time about factually wrong things. All the time. And your only rebuttal to that is "But I feel really right", which is less than persuasive.
My only rebuttal is not "well it feels right." I don't pretend that my feelings are more valid than theirs. When I used feel in that statement I meant it more like Obi Wan Kenobi saying to Luke about whether to run back and save his parents, "You must do what you feel is right of course." Feeling meaning you take all your knowledge, thoughts and impressions and make a calculation, a calculation that you feel you can live with.
And furthermore *I* am not requiring that they live that way, I do not run my church much less Christianity, much less the universe. Quit trying to frame argument as I am forcing homosexuals to conform to my beliefs in order for them to live in society. If a homosexual does not wish to live as a Mormon lives that is their prerogative. There is room in my life for homosexuals, don't confuse the opposition to homosexuality in principle as tacit approval of emotional or physical assault on homosexuality.
quote:But you haven't allowed it to invalidate your assumptions, have you?
It has invalidated some of my assumptions absolutely. I used to be afraid of gay people through no fault of my parents or church. I just assumed that because homosexuality was supposedly a sin that people practicing it must be evil people. It was an incorrect assumption, one that I have discarded in the face of new evidence. I never felt a strong feeling from God that homosexuals are evil people, it was purely a construct of my own mind.
quote:Okay...why does this evidence preclude the gay people from being right about their situation?
Is there any real difference between those three groups of people other than orientation?
quote:Ah. So you think that homosexual people are by defnition as disordered as untreated bipolar sufferers.
That's an insult to real people who suffer from real brain chemical issues.
When we are talking about an idea being insulting then we really are feeling rather than thinking.
quote:Gay people who aren't trying to destroy themselves according to your wishes are prefectly mentally healthy. They have friends, hold jobs, find love, raise families. People with severe mental issues can't do that, that's why they need treatment, so that with better brain chemitry, they can do all those things.
Again they are not my wishes. People with Bi-polar disorder have friends, hold jobs, find love, raise families. There are gay people who find ways to accomplish all that without acting on that impulse. Some decide for themselves that they can't. I'm not in a position to say they are right or wrong. Again I am content to let God tell each individual why He has dealt with them thus.
quote:Well, yes. And if there were a drug that took straight people and ripped away their sexuality, it would be denying their humanity.
Not necessarily, if a pedophile elected to take such a medication because they couldn't ordinarily resist that impulse I don't think you would stand in their way. If a Catholic priest or nun opted for that medication would you be opposed? Buddhist monks? Mormon missionaries? What if a Christian gay man concluded they'd rather be celibate then continue trying to be straight and opted to take such medication?
quote:What, you want more stories of gay people trying and failing to become straight?
No, such stories only tend to invoke emotions rather than a serious discussion on the matter. At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic.
quote:Because your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence. You've got some "feelings" which are perfectly explicable by the fact that you are a social organism, some events which are going to be explicable by chance, and you've grown this into a belief that one particular guy who founded one particular church was right, and everyone else is wrong, and that since he says everyone really, is straight, that gay people can be straight if only they try hard enough.
You say they are explicable, but you yourself have not actually experienced them. You can suppose that you understand but you have no business saying you know they are in fact explicable. Just as a side note Joseph Smith as far as I know made no comments on homosexuality or gender identity. Those tenets come from the Bible and statements made by prophets who succeeded Joseph Smith.
quote:I've got an aquaintance who's got cancer. God could give you the structure of the next blockbuster anti-melanoma drug. Or the structure of a good malaria vaccine. Did God help any charity beat the stock market this year?
No. God's never done any of that stuff. That's why I reject your premise. Because when put to make-or-break test, the results look like ordinary chance, not divine anything. And no amount of "good feelings" can make up for that.
So now because God does not do good where you think it could be done that therefore He isn't doing anything? Or that because God does not actively inform you what He is doing, he must therefore be doing nothing?
Just because you don't understand God, does not mean he cannot be understood or that he must not exist, that is an assumption I do not think can be justified. I of all people would expect to be rendered unable to think for a long time if all there was to be understood about God was suddenly revealed to me in full.
quote:I read what you wrote. Gay people have literally killed themselves trying to be what you want them to be, and you still think that they just aren't trying hard enough. It's not like more examples is going to change that fact. So clearly, you aren't capable of accepting the conclusion that the reason they are failing is because what they are being asked to do is impossible. Because you can't bear the implications of that conclusion.
Again with the you. Why have I become the avatar of the idea you hate? I can abide the idea that there are homosexuals who in this life will not be able to shrug off that part of themselves, just as I have accepted that those who are born autistic will likely not get better, or that person with paralysis would most likely do better to learn to live with the condition rather than pray it away. I am not them, I cannot fully empathize, I have my own challenges and obstacles to overcome. The only beings that I believe fully understands the challenges all men face are Jesus and God the Father, and so I leave it to them to justify how they treat each of us their creations. Perhaps I will find out that men can only be created in the manner God has done it, and that process necessitates that some people will come out homosexual and heterosexual. Even if all the evilness that exists in humanity is a necessity of creation I think it is worth creating.
-----
KOM:
quote:Why this sudden passionate defense of assumptions? Why is this particular assumption so important to you that when it is pointed out that it is an assumption, you become belligerent, not merely on its behalf, but on behalf of all assumptions? If you had evidence, would you not rather try to convert your assumption into a well-supported proposition, instead of this tu quoque stuff?
Belligerent? I am surprised you would use that adjective to describe me. Maybe it's the fact that emotions are difficult to convey in this medium but I assure you I am not angry. I was alittle annoyed that you phrased my position in terms you knew I would strongly disagree with.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The law of large numbers is perfectly compatible with frequentist statistics. One could even say it is the foundation of frequentist statistics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belligerent? I am surprised you would use that adjective to describe me. Maybe it's the fact that emotions are difficult to convey in this medium but I assure you I am not angry. I was alittle annoyed that you phrased my position in terms you knew I would strongly disagree with.
I did not know anything of the kind. I remind you of my exact words:
quote:You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
I had the impression that we had just agreed that this is true, and restated it explicitly to check that we did in fact agree. Apparently I overestimated something you said. Are you now saying that your evidence does justify your assumption?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Tresopax: It isn't a matter of exceptions. I think many theists (myself included) would say that its often appropriate to believe in something even if you don't have evidence that "compels" belief in it. (I believe in my cousin that I've never met, for instance, and the only evidence I have of her is hearing a few stories from relatives - less evidence than I have of God, actually.)
'Compelling belief' is a pretty tough burden. Atheists would probably be satisfied with evidence that makes the belief reasonable to those who don't already share that belief (e.g., beautiful sunrises don't count).
quote: You are correct that there is a difference between assumptions that are practically necessary in life vs. assumptions that are not. But many theists would say the assumptions underlying their faith in God are necessary in a practical sense to live life rightly.
How would the theists argue their case here?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: We may have to backtrack then. Based on your statement,
quote:You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
In order to agree with that I would have to reword it thus, "I now agree that my belief in theology includes assumptions, which my evidence does not necessarily justify."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Blackblade meant was his belief is based partially on assumptions - but is not solely an assumption.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The law of large numbers is perfectly compatible with frequentist statistics. One could even say it is the foundation of frequentist statistics.
That wasn't my point. Many, many, many physical laws are deterministic in nature i.e. the LLN is not applicable. My comment was meant as a joke reflecting the frequentist view that Bayesians are willing to assign a probability to almost anything.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would the theists argue their case here?
Many different ways, depending on what their specific religious beliefs were. Some would talk about the afterlife to make the case. Some would says morality comes from an understanding of God. Some would point to personal experiences. Etc.
I personally am not sure whether a belief in God is absolutely necessary to live life rightly. I certainly think one can be moral without believing in God.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, we have found no physical laws that are completely deterministic in nature. We have found some that, due to the short span of the universe, will almost certainly always appear so, though.
And of course Bayesians are willing to assign probabilities to almost anything. Most things are uncertain Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As far as I know, we have found no physical laws that are completely deterministic in nature. We have found some that, due to the short span of the universe, will almost certainly always appear so, though.
And of course Bayesians are willing to assign probabilities to almost anything. Most things are uncertain
Fair enough. I should probably have said deterministic models.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would the theists argue their case here?
Many different ways, depending on what their specific religious beliefs were. Some would talk about the afterlife to make the case. Some would says morality comes from an understanding of God. Some would point to personal experiences. Etc.
I personally am not sure whether a belief in God is absolutely necessary to live life rightly. I certainly think one can be moral without believing in God.
I missed the 'right' part of the original post. I think the 'morality in the absence of religion' discussion is a fun and interesting one to have, but I don't think the motivations some have for making choices in the moral sphere relevant to the question of whether or not the assumptions leading to belief in god are reasonable.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. It all comes down to you "feeling right". It doesn't matter how many gay people destroy themselves trying to become what your "right feelings" say they should become. Because you "feel right" about the necessity of them doing so, you will keep advocating that they destroy themselves, keep blaming them for not trying hard enough, not "using all the tools they could be using" trying to live up to what your "feelings" say they should be doing.
People "feel right" all the time about factually wrong things. All the time. And your only rebuttal to that is "But I feel really right", which is less than persuasive.
My only rebuttal is not "well it feels right." I don't pretend that my feelings are more valid than theirs.
When gay people say "It's impossible for us to be straight", and you say "Nothing in the scriptures is impossible", then you are saying that their feelings are wrong.
quote:Feeling meaning you take all your knowledge, thoughts and impressions and make a calculation, a calculation that you feel you can live with.
Now you've substituted "good feelings" with "can live with". This is not an improvement in the logical support of any argument you are making.
quote:Quit trying to frame argument as I am forcing homosexuals to conform to my beliefs in order for them to live in society.
This isn't about living in society at all. This is about there being tons of evidence that gay people can't 'convert' to being straight, and you ignoring that evidence, and refusing to accept the obvious conclusion from that evidence, because of your prior belief that the scripture can't be wrong.
quote:don't confuse the opposition to homosexuality in principle as tacit approval of emotional or physical assault on homosexuality.
You say that gay people who try and fail to become straight are failing to use all the tools at their disposal. How is telling people "If you tried harder, you'd be straight", not an emotional attack?
quote:It has invalidated some of my assumptions absolutely. I used to be afraid of gay people through no fault of my parents or church. I just assumed that because homosexuality was supposedly a sin that people practicing it must be evil people. It was an incorrect assumption, one that I have discarded in the face of new evidence. I never felt a strong feeling from God that homosexuals are evil people, it was purely a construct of my own mind.
But you still cling to the idea that gay people aren't using all the tools available to them if they try and fail to become straight, as your favorite scripture says is possible.
Telling a heartwarming story about how you decided that innocent people weren't evil doesn't change that. Especially when you use "but I didn't have 'good feelings' about that idea, so I was okay rejecting it". That sheds no light whatsoever on whether all the "good feelings" you have on other topics are well-placed.
quote:
quote:Okay...why does this evidence preclude the gay people from being right about their situation?
Is there any real difference between those three groups of people other than orientation?
Yes. There's no such thing as an orientation to being promiscuous. There are just people of whatever orientation who are promiscuous.
quote:
quote:Ah. So you think that homosexual people are by defnition as disordered as untreated bipolar sufferers.
That's an insult to real people who suffer from real brain chemical issues.
When we are talking about an idea being insulting then we really are feeling rather than thinking.
No, it's an insult to tell a perfectly healthy gay person with a partner, a job, a circle of friends that he is as disordered as a bi-polar person who has run off all his friends, lost his job, divorced his spouse, and can't even keep his thoughts coherent.
It's another example of you ignoring all the evidence to keep the conclusion that your favorite scriptures makes for you. Your scripture says that gay people are disordered, so you ignore all the evidence that gay people are fine (when people aren't telling them that it's their fault for not using all the available tools to become straight), and keep concluding that they are as badly off as people with real mental health issues, because your scriptures says so, and you won't face the fact that your scripture is wrong here.
quote:There are gay people who find ways to accomplish all that without acting on that impulse.
Well, of course, being gay doesn't prevent you from having any of those things. Neither does expressing one's sexuality in physically and emotionally healthy and safe ways.
It will keep you from having an honest marriage with a person of the opposite sex, but that's it. Why are so many religous people keen on people having dishonest marraiges?
quote:Some decide for themselves that they can't. I'm not in a position to say they are right or wrong.
But you already did. You already concluded that because the scripture says they can change, that they can.
But this isn't about them. This is about whether or not you are letting your "good feelings" about scripture keep you from drawing conclusions from evidence.
quote:Not necessarily, if a pedophile elected to take such a medication because they couldn't ordinarily resist that impulse I don't think you would stand in their way.
Probably not but I wouldn't do so lightly. And I would do so only when the evidence showed that less drastic measure wouldn't be enough to safeguard the rights of innocents to be safe, because altering a person's brain is about as invasive as it can be, and people have a right to their own brains that can only be overriden in the most serious of situations.
quote:What, you want more stories of gay people trying and failing to become straight?
No, such stories only tend to invoke emotions rather than a serious discussion on the matter.[/quote] At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic.[/quote]
Are you of the opinion that your beliefs about the facts of homosexuality and gay people are supported by the scientific consensus?
quote:You say they are explicable, but you yourself have not actually experienced them.
No. I've never experienced God stepping down to tell me the structure of the next blockbuster anti-malaria drug. Have you?
For all you know, I have experienced the same "good feeling" about something. Then the batter struck out, and I realized that my "good feeling" didn't amount to much.
We know that with chemicals, we affect people's brains, and make them feel all kinds of things. And we know the kind of tricks that the brain plays on itself with regard to drawing unsound conclusions. The reasonable answer is not that "good feelings" come from some undetectable ego in the sky, who happened to inspire this one guy to write scriptures which are therefore, 100% true, but that the "good feelings" are just that.
quote:Just as a side note Joseph Smith as far as I know made no comments on homosexuality or gender identity.
You wrote of your church's stance towards gay people:
"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
That's what I'm addressing. The authorship isn't the issue.
quote:God could give you the structure of the next blockbuster anti-melanoma drug. Or the structure of a good malaria vaccine. Did God help any charity beat the stock market this year?
No. God's never done any of that stuff. That's why I reject your premise. Because when put to make-or-break test, the results look like ordinary chance, not divine anything. And no amount of "good feelings" can make up for that.
quote:So now because God does not do good where you think it could be done that therefore He isn't doing anything?
I think my "wheres" are pretty reasonable. Sick children and the like.
You think that the Steelers are a more worthy target of God's intervention?
quote:Just because you don't understand God, does not mean he cannot be understood or that he must not exist,
But that's not the sticking point, really. The sticking point is the whole lack of evidence thing. The whole letting poor children die is merely an extra point against the existance of a nice omnipotent God.
quote:Again with the you.Why have I become the avatar of the idea you hate?
You wrote:
"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
Why shouldn't I hate a mindset that has led to the misery and yes, death, of innocent people?
Why don't you?
quote:I can abide the idea that there are homosexuals who in this life will not be able to shrug off that part of themselves, just as I have accepted that those who are born autistic will likely not get better, or that person with paralysis would most likely do better to learn to live with the condition rather than pray it away.
That's brilliant. Gay people are like the physically paralyzed. Yes, the empathy is really showing.
quote:The only beings that I believe fully understands the challenges all men face are Jesus and God the Father, and so I leave it to them to justify how they treat each of us their creations.
So what this means is that there is no evidence that would force you to change your mind about anything that you have "good feelings" about, because you will just say "I don't have to understand how to reconcile my beliefs with the evidence, oh well."
Well, history shows that this is a stance that leads to being very very wrong. That's why everyone arguing against you thinks it's a bad one.
quote:Perhaps I will find out that men can only be created in the manner God has done it, and that process necessitates that some people will come out homosexual and heterosexual.
So you won't change your mind until someone proves the negative. Brilliant. Way to show your open-mindedness.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
You seem very focused on this statement, and it seems to be at the core of what you disagree with me on. Again I thought I addressed this by saying, "I can abide the idea that there are homosexuals who in this life will not be able to shrug off that part of themselves."
I don't believe that all homosexuals who cannot manage to live a heterosexual lifestyle aren't "trying hard enough." I do believe that ultimately a way is opened to them, but again it may not be in this life. I know that does not provide much comfort but it's as far as I can say with any confidence.
quote:Now you've substituted "good feelings" with "can live with". This is not an improvement in the logical support of any argument you are making.
I am not sure what you are saying here. I was only trying to reinforce the idea that I don't believe you can feel your way through life. The inspiration I feel from God while often a feeling or impression is not the same as an emotion.
quote:This isn't about living in society at all. This is about there being tons of evidence that gay people can't 'convert' to being straight, and you ignoring that evidence, and refusing to accept the obvious conclusion from that evidence, because of your prior belief that the scripture can't be wrong.
So are you saying then that you believe all people who feel same gender attraction are ultimately confined to seeking out a partner of the same gender? That they have no choice in the matter whatsoever. I do not think the scientific evidence or even common sense is in favor of such a statement. I doubt this is what you are trying to say, but it keeps coming across that way to me.
quote:I think my "wheres" are pretty reasonable. Sick children and the like.
I think they are pretty reasonable too, but I can see reasons for adversity such as cancer to exist without God simply removing everything that might hurt us. I do not fully understand why every particular evil that exists in the world does, but I can allow that a good reason is plausible and in fact exists.
quote:For all you know, I have experienced the same "good feeling" about something. Then the batter struck out, and I realized that my "good feeling" didn't amount to much.
You are right, but I don't deign to pretend to know whether your experiences rightly affirm the conclusion you have made on this matter.
quote:We know that with chemicals, we affect people's brains, and make them feel all kinds of things. And we know the kind of tricks that the brain plays on itself with regard to drawing unsound conclusions. The reasonable answer is not that "good feelings" come from some undetectable ego in the sky, who happened to inspire this one guy to write scriptures which are therefore, 100% true, but that the "good feelings" are just that.
And yet when somebody like me says they know what good feelings are and that they are not exactly the same thing as inspiration you think you know better than we do about how they are feeling. Sorta like how you condemn me for believing things about homosexuality that they themselves don't necessarily believe.
quote:Why shouldn't I hate a mindset that has led to the misery and yes, death, of innocent people?
There are millions of good ideas that lead to the death of the innocent. I'm sure the revolutionary war lead to the needless death of innocents. Civil Rights has lead to riots and counter riots. Joseph Smith was abused and murdered for an idea. I still fail to see what about my mindset makes it impossible for homosexuals to live near me without hating themselves and dying.
quote:That's brilliant. Gay people are like the physically paralyzed. Yes, the empathy is really showing.
I do not consider homosexuality to be a good thing, how then can I lie and say it's different than a disorder? If people are born with an inclination that is not optimal it's not an intended insult to say something is wrong. You have no problem believing that those who believe homosexuality is wrong are all fools or worse dysfunctional.
quote:So what this means is that there is no evidence that would force you to change your mind about anything that you have "good feelings" about, because you will just say "I don't have to understand how to reconcile my beliefs with the evidence, oh well."
That is simply untrue, I already said in the same post, "At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic." Which leads to your statement,
quote:Are you of the opinion that your beliefs about the facts of homosexuality and gay people are supported by the scientific consensus?
I don't think there is much consensus on homosexuality in the scientific community. We aren't even sure what causes it. With such a hole apparent we can't say much affirmatively about it.
quote:It will keep you from having an honest marriage with a person of the opposite sex, but that's it. Why are so many religous people keen on people having dishonest marraiges?
You know this is not what I believe is acceptable. I've never so much as hinted at the idea that homosexuals should be ashamed or afraid to admit to themselves and other they have that trait. I've never suggested that they hide, or that they should pretend it does not exist and just try to get married anyway and hope all goes right.
I don't believe you are interested in really having this conversation with me. It seems to me that you wish to simply posture and seek to humiliate me. I understand that this topic is important to you and you feel that I cause harm to people you empathize with. I'm honestly trying to find the best way in this predicament, but if you feel I am a threat to the peace of society and that nothing will change that except abandonment of my religion, I'm afraid I cannot satisfy that requirement.
I don't feel inclined to continue discussing this topic with you now or in the future if you are so completely convinced that I am at best incapable of seeing the truth, or at worst evil. I have always believed that if mutual respect does not exist between parties meaningful discussion cannot take place.
If you can find it in you to at least try to disagree without being disagreeable I will do my best to make our conversation productive. If not I bear you no ill will I'd just rather not talk about this particular topic with you. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am quite literally terrified of roller coasters.
So what is it that you are afraid of?
I ask because when someone who believes he is immune to fire walks into a burning building, he does so without fear because he is not afraid of fire. If you are not afraid that a roller coaster will kill you, but you are still terrified of roller coasters, the question becomes: what about the roller coaster experience is what you fear?
The fear you experience is not the same kind of fear experienced by someone who believes a roller coaster might kill her.
It is a completely irrational fear. If there is a specific root to it, I am not consciously aware of it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It is a completely irrational fear. If there is a specific root to it, I am not consciously aware of it.
It makes sense to be afraid of riding a rollercoaster, even irrationally. There must be some root to the fear, even if you're not consciously aware of it. For the sake of argument, I am assuming that you aren't irrationally afraid of cotton shirts, goldfish, the moon, state lines, or other innocuous things.
If you're not afraid of the moon falling on your house, or wearing a cotton shirt, it's because you know, at every level both conscious and unconscious, intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally, that there is nothing to fear from these things.
Some things, like rollercoasters, there is some level of fear, which has a justification, and which you may or may not be able to easily overcome. At some level, you believe that the experience of riding the rollercoaster is something to be afraid of.
That said, I would argue that if a person claims to know with 100% certainty that he will go on to another life which will be better in every way than the current life, he has no basis for fearing death.
If one does then fear death, it stands to reason that there is a cognitive disconnect between that claim of certainty and the actual fact of doubt.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving the question of certainty aside, I believe there are a number of significant ways in which mortal life is superior to the next world. Among others, the ability to act and choose to do good things.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but even if the value of this life is x and the value of the next one were x - y, a person who believes death brings them x - y perceives less personal risk than the person who believes death brings 0.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that you are comparing the value of mortal life and an afterlife. That comparison is not really germane. In comparing the perceived risk when risking one's mortal life from the perspective of a theist vs an atheist, what matters is whether an afterlife has a greater percieved value than death with no afterlife. Caveats about hell notwithstanding, most people would agree that it is better to experience an afterlife than to not.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Caveats about hell notwithstanding, most people would agree that it is better to experience an afterlife than to not.
The jump from that to the notion that the atheist risks more is where you lose me.
Would you similarly say that a parent of three children risks less when a son is a soldier than the parent of one child?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that the atheist risks more, it's that the atheist percieves greater risk. From his perspective, death brings oblivion. From the theist perspective, death brings continued existence in some form. Of course the actual risk may not reflect the percieved risk, but bravery tends to be determined by what the percieved risks are, not the actual risks.
Aside: I'm not any more a fan of the "atheists risk more" argument than the "no atheists in fox holes" argument. I'm just persuing this to see where it goes.
posted
Ok. Would you claim that the perceived risk of the parent of three is less than that of the parent of one?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
