Seeing dead people?

[Reccum]

Not every religious person is intollerant, you are a case in point Krins. But Pali is not wrong in that people in many places all over the world are doing bad things in the name of religion. In those cases he is right that is matters what you think and why you think it. You have to remember that not all countries have equally good educational institutions or systems in place to protect human rights.

To me, major religions are similar to big business. They are very powerful, can do a lot of good, but are equally capable of terrible things.

[KRins]

I mean... there are people doing terrible things in this world in the name of gymnastics too. Once again... tools are tools, what they do is and will always be determined by the user. I happen to believe that if I stop and think about something... denying gay rights for instance, and I feel it is wrong... then it is wrong. I don't mean petty things like having to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. I mean if you have a question of true morality, you listen to your conscious. How is it that most everyone has that little voice that says stealing is wrong but helping someone carry a heavy package up a flight of stairs is right? Sure you can say learned behavior over hundreds of years... but I refuse to believe that. Life would be easier if I could just steal everything I wanted. If I could just gun down anyone who tried to steal what I had stolen, life would be more dangerous, but easier than banging on a keyboard in a cubicle. I am convinced our conscious is Divine. I mean... giving up your worldly possession to teach in Botswana is practically completely opposite of the proper survival behavior. Why would people do that? Maybe they are damaged or maybe they suppress their survival behaviors... but why does my inner voice say that's a truly benevolent and human act? I am sure there is a scientific formula for what happens in a person like that's mind... but why did their brain decide to fire differently than just about every other person in the world? Of course there are people who want to warp what we are taught to make us in their religious mold. I mean... people want to take over the world too. Human beings desire power. Outside of turning your surroundings into a dictatorship with yourself as monarch... the best way I can think to exert power over people would be to make them live how I want them to. Terrible people will appear in all fields, be it a pulpit or a voting ballot.

You are right... I don't have any more physical evidence than someone who says gays don't deserve to live as they wish. I do have a conscious which says that I am right however. I am willing to wager that a lot of people we would both consider "good people" would agree with me and a lot that would disagree. This is a fight I can't win... but I can't lose it either.

To address the prostitution thing, I think its wrong to cheapen the act of sex by paying for it... that being said, I've had an ONS or two. I am not morally perfect... in fact, I am probably fairly far from it. My opinion is its wrong... not for tax purposes, not because a book tells me its wrong. I happen to believe its wrong because there are physical, emotional, and psychological issues that people may or may not even be aware of when they have sex, and I've seen exactly how far down those issues can bring someone. If you decide to have sex... it should be for you, not for a C-note. That doesn't even broach the subject of UNTREATABLE and NIGH ON UNIVERSALLY FATAL diseases already running rampant or the abused/abandoned unwanted or unplanned children of this world. Once again... no physical evidence, just my opinion... or what I believe... or my faith... whatever you want to call it. I don't think you get that my religious view is mine and I'm not the sort to cram it down someone's throat.

Basically my ABSOLUTE LAST WORD (I'm not getting dragged back into it) is... none of us has evidence of anything, and as such ZERO right to tell anyone they are wrong on this topic. You are a man of science and I can commend the logic in that. I know many people who are creationists, and they do amazing works for others selflessly and I commend their philanthropy. I choose to walk the middle road, I agree with many things from both sides. I don't think we just appeared here 3000 years ago, but I also don't think a fistful of billion years ago BANG BOOM! HAPPY ACCIDENT! Planets, stars, comets, and eventually people. Maybe I'm more of a Voltairian Deist than I thought... I am of the opinion this existence is too complex to have just happened... so I chose to believe the Supreme Being loaded up all those cosmic gases and let the Big Bang chips fall where they may. I mean... if a Deity didn't do it... where did those cosmic gases come from? We can chicken or the egg this until we both have carpal tunnel... or we can agree that I'm not going to renounce my faith because you say its illogical and you won't be at Mass on Sunday because I say its how you should act. I personally enjoy having functional and pain free hands, imagine you do too.

[Pali]

Once again... tools are tools' date=' what they do is and will always be determined by the user.[/quote']

You missed a very important point here. Science is ONLY a tool. Faith is a motivator. What people believe based on faith, based on the teachings of their religion, can cause them to do very strange things, like assume that God hates heresy and so heretics should be burned. Yes, people have done crazy things in the name of all sorts of non-religious goals as well, ranging from sports to politics to simple greed... I'm not laying all bad things at religion's foot here, honestly. But I do think that faith-based thinking is particularly dangerous because unlike many of these other causes, faith is never expected to at some point undergo a reality check - and so it can justify anything and never need to show that it's right to do so.

To address the prostitution thing, I think its wrong to cheapen the act of sex by paying for it... that being said, I've had an ONS or two. I am not morally perfect... in fact, I am probably fairly far from it. My opinion is its wrong... not for tax purposes, not because a book tells me its wrong. I happen to believe its wrong because there are physical, emotional, and psychological issues that people may or may not even be aware of when they have sex, and I've seen exactly how far down those issues can bring someone. If you decide to have sex... it should be for you, not for a C-note. That doesn't even broach the subject of UNTREATABLE and NIGH ON UNIVERSALLY FATAL diseases already running rampant or the abused/abandoned unwanted or unplanned children of this world. Once again... no physical evidence, just my opinion... or what I believe... or my faith... whatever you want to call it. I don't think you get that my religious view is mine and I'm not the sort to cram it down someone's throat.

So you are willing to legislate your morality, and cram it down the throats of prostitutes by making their work illegal? Who are you to determine what sex should be for people? What gives you the right to be making this kind of personal determination for other people? Maybe it's a risk - but do you really think it is your place to tell people that they can't take that risk just because you think they shouldn't? If you think people shouldn't drink, that it's risky, that it can cause psychological issues and degeneration of health, are you willing to make it illegal for others to do it? I'm not trying to be mean to you here, but I am quite serious about this - you are advocating suppressing the freedom of adults to engage in consenting sexual behavior because you think it's a bad idea to screw for money. The proper course of action for you here is then to not screw for money, not for you to tell everyone else that you don't think they should be allowed to. I think it's incredibly stupid for people to box, but I'm not going to tell anyone they can't.

And again... whether you think people should be doing this or not, the fact is that they do, and keeping it illegal just makes it much more dangerous for all involved and clogs our justice system with perpetrators of victimless crimes.

where did those cosmic gases come from?

If a deity did do it, where did he come from? You aren't explaining anything by positing the deity here, because the deity's own origins aren't explained. The honest answer to your question is simply this: we don't know, and we may never know because our understanding of physics does not apply within a singularity. To jump from "We don't know" to "God did it" is not justified by the lack of an answer for origins, because God's origins aren't any more explained than the universe's currently are. If you're going to posit that something always existed, you may as well stick with the universe always existing in some form or another.

[Imoutgoodbye]

You missed a very important point here. Science is ONLY a tool. Faith is a motivator.

I've seen the Quest for Knowledge drive men insane and cause some of the worst kinds of Pain.

If we believe Science were only a Tool everyone'd be a Fool.

Who are we to say the Risk is too Buff? Who are you to say it's not Enough?

Morality and Faith in the same bed, Over the Laws the Ten Commandments are spread.

Science is alone for it's so bold it's downright cold.

Empathy is sweet, a handshake to the meek.

*bows*

[KRins]

I think the huge idea you are missing here is that I don't especially care what other people do. I might not approve of what people do, but I don't think I am so smart that what I think needs to be what everyone thinks. If you want to go get a prossy... then do it. I couldn't give two flying leaps. My ENTIRE reason for even getting involved in this is when you say "lack of evidence from believers" it comes across as "lack of intelligence because you are a believer." and that cannot stand. I keep my ideas on the topic off you, keep yours off me. I wasn't trying to debate, I was making my point and not especially caring about yours. Much as you don't care about my reasons for having a certain version of faith. For the FOURTH time... you do it your way and I'll do it mine and one day, when something... be it a Deity, old age, or a Mack truck causes us to shuffle off this mortal coil then AND ONLY then is this EVER going to end. Faith is by its very nature something you can question till the cows come home. I don't, you do... good for you for seeking greater understanding, I don't have the energy or feel the need to microscope and analyze this on the molecular level...because I have the answer that works for me.

[Pali]

I've seen the Quest for Knowledge drive men insane and cause some of the worst kinds of Pain.

Science is a tool we use on the quest for knowledge - it is not the quest itself. Those same people would have been using alchemy or "dark arts" a thousand years ago rather than science in their quest.

Morality and Faith in the same bed, Over the Laws the Ten Commandments are spread.

Yes, because keeping the Sabbath holy and not worshiping graven images are such important moral concerns...

If you want to go get a prossy... then do it.

You previously seemed to be implying that you support prostitution being illegal. If you do not, my apologies for misunderstanding.

when you say "lack of evidence from believers" it comes across as "lack of intelligence because you are a believer."

It should come across more as a lack of rationality than intelligence. Smart people are incredibly good at rationalizing things they came to believe through non-smart reasons.

[The-Nameless]

There is a difference between acceptance, and tolerance. I do not accept the idea that my god does not exist, I tolerate others believing it. Krins does not accept the idea of prostitution, but he tolerates that it exists.

[Twinblades713]

He, but Pali doesn't know when to stop talking.

[The-Nameless]

http://pogpog.com/v/quantum-physics-double-slit-experiment-jaw-dropping-results/

Yay. Science is unable to explain this. Particles can't exist to US until they do

[Imoutgoodbye]

I knew if I started arguing in vague rhymes he'd have to to take shots in the dark to counter and he couldn't stop himself from doing so.

[Pali]

http://pogpog.com/v/quantum-physics-double-slit-experiment-jaw-dropping-results/

Yay. Science is unable to explain this. Particles can't exist to US until they do

*smirks* You need to do a bit more research into quantum physics. EDIT: A quick thing I want to mention here though is this: I am not a scientist. I have a decent layman's understanding of most scientific fields, but I simply do not have the knowledge to actually teach people evolution, or quantum physics, or even atomic theory and plate tectonics. If you have an honest desire to learn things about these fields, I am not the person you should be asking - you should go read science books written by experts in the related field and talk to scientists about the work they do. However, it is very important that you make sure you're asking the right experts questions about the right fields... an evolutionary biologist is a great source for information when it comes to evolution and biology, but he is very much the wrong person to ask about details of quantum mechanics or Big Bang cosmology.

P.S. Valek, I simply enjoy showing people the differences in our styles of argumentation - namely, that I am actually making logical arguments in favor of my positions, when most of the rest of you are not.

[Imoutgoodbye]

P.S. Valek, I simply enjoy showing people the differences in our styles of argumentation - namely, that I am actually making logical arguments in favor of my positions, when most of the rest of you are not.

I'm going to take that by the winky face you know it's hard for any of us to make a "logical" argument when each side is trying to be both participant and judge.

[Pali]

How so? What choice do any of us have when evaluating ideas rather than to make arguments in favor of them and determine if the counterarguments others make against them make sense? My previously stated standards of evidence for accepting the proposed existence of something are there for this exact purpose, so that I can change my mind when I encounter good reasons for doing so. It's designed to filter out as many of my own biases as I can, by appealing to what is objectively demonstrable about the world and/or can be argued according to the rules of logic - neither of which are up to me or my intuitions.

[Mindflayer]

Wow, this is still going on? Hah! The poor dude's kid was just seeing dead people

[H&R]

Wow' date=' this is still going on? Hah! The poor dude's kid was just seeing dead people [/quote']

lol

[Imoutgoodbye]

It's designed to filter out as many of my own biases as I can' date=' by appealing to what is objectively demonstrable about the world and/or can be argued according to the rules of logic - neither of which are up to me or my intuitions.[/quote']

ROFLMAO! OMG! I'm gonna die from laughing so hard.

The bias IS the method. Yours or mine. These are OUR standards which we have chosen to adopt. These standards are what are setting the rules on which we have decided. Thus why we are all trying to be judges as well as participants in this debate which will never have a drawn conclusion as long as we draw breath.

And no, you can't say "The scientific community" or "great minds" or "the rest of the world" for the same reasons I can't go on saying "Most of the Ten Commandments are found in our general laws of society". All would be true statements, but none of them are relevant to the fact that each method is bias.

EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is this discussion is now officially worse than someone beating a dead horse with a stick.

EDIT2: And I have an article to write. Write some articles with us, Pali!

[Pali]

The bias IS the method. Yours or mine.

In case you have missed the general theme of my posts, it is exactly which method we should be using that I have been trying to argue in favor of this entire time. I'm well aware that this is the focal point of our disagreement, and it's what I've been trying to address. My point was that my method is superior at filtering personal biases from judgments. Is this a bias? I suppose, in the sense that I have a personal bias in favor of selecting an epistemology that is better than any other available at filtering out my other personal biases when rendering judgments on reality.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Reality is a debate all its own. But I don't wanna debate no more.

*pokes Pali and runs away*