WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

by yourselves; the majority consensus would disagree I'd wager.

No, can't- he can no more respect a belief system which silenced scientists who dared to have a different opinion than I can. Nor can we respect it for trying to hush or sweep under the carpet a history of abuse; I would post that rather epic Tim Minchin song right now, but no doubt you'd say I was just taking another cheap shot; cheap shot or not, it's still true.

Philosophy on it's own is no means or method by which to test a hypothesis. C-, must try harder...

 

Philosophy justfies science, and therefore is essential to science - it doesn't prescribe the action of it, it just gives justification for why one can trust the results found via the method.

F. Must learn more philosophy.

 

I think you're worrying too much about the why, rather than the how; if you understand the how, the why takes care of itself ( as Billy Connelly quite rightly says, regards evolution atleast ).

 

<removed> - spec

 

edited by spec to remove thehippoz from history

 

That's a pretty brazen approach to debating.

 

Well that didn't take long. TheHippoz, you're now recieving a two week ban. The next one will be three weeks, the one after that four. If you intend on simply getting yourself banned every time you are allowed back, feel free to just let me know and I'll permanently remove your account to save you checking back in at increasing intervals. Otherwise, you might want to take the hint.

 

Oh I see, so if an engineer were to say "This bridge is structurally sound" he doesn't mean "This bridge is structurally strong", he in fact means "This bridge is structurally a bridge"?

If that is so, then by all means, provide us with an example of one of these tests regarding the existence of gods. Go on, demonstrate your logic and reason...

 

Oh yeah, forgot to add this earlier:

'Theism is testable by logic & reason, because theism is logical & reasonable'- that is the less 'fussy' way of wording your statement. Not only is that circular reasoning essentially, it's also an opinion / hypothesis with no scientific basis, it relies purely on your own personal interpretation of what theistic persons consider logical in the absence if science.

( Philosophy may well give rise & substance to science, but by your ( and Specs ) own reasoning you can't have one without the other- I just place different importance on them both depending on the situation; you don't need Plato to tell you how a rainbow works, if you get my drift. )

I find it an entirely illogical & irrelevant way of circumventing proper analysis ( the god theory I mean ). Very weak argument...

 

he didn't post, did he, you know the the most famous ass on the interweb.

 

The Why explains why you can trust your understanding of the How to be valid.

Look, it does you no favours if you challenge Lenny on his interpretation of philosophy and science if you yourself have a shaky understanding of philosophy and science. I've seen both of you going at it for several pages now, and you are both not quite getting it right, which is why you have arrived at an impasse.

Lenny: theist beliefs on the existence of God are not logical, sorry. You cannot logically assume the existence of something that cannot be proved or disproved any more than you can logically assume the non-existence of it. You cannot base an argument on what you don't know. What we do know however is that the existence of God is not required to explain, understand or make reliable predictions about life, the universe and everything as it exists today. Sure, there's the "what caused the Big Bang" question, but any opinion on that is again what is philosophically known as an 'argument from ignorance'.

Some pages ago we argued about morality. I stated that I define "evil" as "an act or intent by a human to deliberately harm other humans". You said that this was irrational because there is nothing inherently evil about harming people; it's just how I chose to subjectively interpret it. I explained that this is correct, and in fact inevitable: all frameworks that have an internal logic must still start with a first axiom, which must always be arbitrary. So it was my first axiom on which my logical framework of morality is based.

Your framework for the existence of God has an internal logic, but it is still based on a first axiom that God exists. This is again arbitrary (that's what makes it a belief). Other people may have an equally arbitrary first axiom that God does not exist. Science, on the other hand, simply doesn't go there at all. God is untestable, so there is no point making scientific hypotheses about Him. And as it happens, we can reliably understand, explain and and predict the universe without doing so.

There is no logic in arguing over personal belief or opinion. If I like chocolate and you don't, it is not possible to have a rational, logical debate over who's personal preference is more "true" or "valid".

 

I had to post this here:



Sorry.

 

...but I love chocolate...

It's a shame hipoz jumped in with both feet first; he actually added something earlier and I had high hopes of some new totally-random-crazy-off-the-wall direction once he was allowed back on, instead. He did what he does best, when he's at his worst.

 

There are a lot of posts in here that make me feel better about not ever discussing religion. Some of these posts actually make me ashamed of labeling myself as an atheist. I won't name anyone in particular, but there is one poster in here who seems to think he/she is better than everyone else simply because they do not believe in religion/god/flying spaghetti monster/whatever. And you can call it debate all you want, but I don't see it that way. And some of it is backhanded ways of calling religious people stupid, which is shameful (not saying the religious people have been any better. Lol)

 

You've taken a quote completely out of context there and deleted what I said in between to change the meaning of what I said. I wrote "We have a theory of evolution that works to describe the world and make verifiable predictions. There is no need for a God." I did not say "There is no need for a God ... That is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact." I could do the same thing to you

I'd rather be part of a group of individuals that occasionally get frustrated with religious people than part of a group that has tortured, killed, raped and mutilated those who disagree with them

 

This evidence would also apply to paedoephiles would it not?

 

No; paedophillia is a different story yet again.

Homosexuality is wired into the brain. In less enlightened days, attempts at psychological/psychiatric treatment of homosexuality were made but they failed dismally. You cannot change someone's sexual orientation any more than you can change their gender identity. It's wired.

Paedophilia is the result of aberrant sexual experiences (as in: sexual abuse) and psychological immaturity resulting from an abusive childhood. It's not wired in; psychosexual development is arrested. With appropriate psychological support people can restore and resume this development, but we are essentially talking about severe psychopathology so it takes quite some work.

Homosexual activity is not a problem, because it is a private act that occurs between two consenting adults. Paedophile activity is a problem, because by definition one party is not adult, and therefore unable to give valid and informed consent.

 

So simply put this doesn't apply to paedophiles because they can be rehabilitised by changing the way they think. How is this not the same as homosexuality?

 

I really, really hope that you're not equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

 

Homosexuality is neurologically wired in. You cannot change it any more than you can change someone's gender identity. Moreover it is a natural sexual orientation: 50% of the human population is attracted to a particular gender; it's just that 5% of them are of the same gender.

Paedophilia is a psychopathology; it is not a functional, naturally occurring orientation.