1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Serious' started by StingLikeABee, 5 Mar 2012.

  1. Shichibukai

    Shichibukai Resident Nitpicker

    Joined:
    29 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    137
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's just your opinion once again that my sources are biased and yours aren't, science is allowed to totally ignore the aspect of a spiritual world, obviously it has no priori beliefs.

    "Scientifically reputable" sources are always unbiased and accurate...I suppose that swampland is prime real estate too.

    There you go post growing again when I'm replying :p

    21% coming from 2% of the population...kiss that foot better. It's interesting this question of how if they're "really gay" only comes from you when it supports your view.

    Ah ha, was just about to post and I see what you mean here, but FRC is not misrepresenting the study.

    The authors of this article took the opinions of the test subjects and included them in the study itself and the ages above are averages. How can you even stand by this and call it science? Wouldn't truely rigorous science use the exact ages of the persons in the pictures and totally disregard opinions?

    If the raw data that showed the exact ages of the persons in the pictures was provided, you can clearly say FRC is lieing, since that's not the case we simply don't know.

    I read well enough to comprehend how they logically go from hypothesis to conclusion.

    And what has changed since the last time we spoke on this topic? Any point to continuing?
     
  2. Shichibukai

    Shichibukai Resident Nitpicker

    Joined:
    29 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    137
    Likes Received:
    4
    Aww <3

    Your opinions are polished turds on your chocolate cake of guilt, enjoy.

    :rolleyes:

    Until you can answer a question of the most basic level you should probably get back to your cake son.
     
  3. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    Swampland is only useless if you lack vision.
     
  4. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    Probably true, but it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that people generally take on the beliefs of the culture that they belong to as opposed to the beliefs of a different culture. Whether or not the beliefs are true is not pertinent to this observation.

    This is stating the obvious. Christians are called to be missionaries and to preach the gospel to people who would otherwise not hear it. What exactly are you arguing against? :)

    Careful now... atheism is not a belief system yet you're talking about it like it's a religion. You can't compare non-religion with religion the way that you are comparing them; it makes no sense. Of course atheism is independent of geography; it's not preached, and it's not cultural...it's purely individual.

    I didn't say that they were ;) I'm defending the consistency and logicality of the faith-based belief that the Bible is inspired. It cannot be proved that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can be proved that it is reasonable to believe so, even if people don't like to hear it.

    No harm done :thumb:

    Essay time. :) As a child, I simply believed what I was told; I did have a conviction, but you know what kids are like - I thought Catholics were "wrong." :D I was with a Roman Catholic girl when I was studying at uni, and I got myself the Catechism of the Catholic Church (still on my bookshelf) and read it voraciously to better understand her religious position. By this time I was already developing a strong interest in philosophy and Christian apologetics; I had a good understanding of the Bible, and the CCC just seemed ridiculous to me (no offence meant to Catholics here, btw).

    Curious why Catholics believe what they do, I studied the history of the papacy and their belief in continued revelation and dogma etc, and basically I realised that the crucial difference between the RCC and the reformers are their respective theologies - they are incompatible, despite apparent similarities.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Well, yes, science and spirituality deal with totally different domains (the physical and metaphysical, respectively). :confused: So science has no a priori beliefs. It does not do beliefs. It is a discipline: a way of acquiring knowledge about the physical world.

    Again, don't mix up your conditionals. They are considered reputable because they are unbiased.

    Like sample sizes only matter when they don't support yours? :p Please. How do you explain the marriages? The heterosexual relationships and families? How do you decide whether someone is gay? Really think about it.

    Yes! Now you're thinking! It has never been made clear what age the persons in the pictures actually were. Originally the ages were attributed by one of the researchers. Then it was decided that this was too unreliable and the opinion of six research subjects was used. Although it could be argued that an interrater reliability coefficient of 0.93 would suggest a narrow deviation from the mean (think it over: to reach a mean of 18, for every person that rates a face as 15 there has to be another that rates the same face as 21 --quite a difference), if the study is that flawed, what was Dr. Dailey/FRC thinking even referring to it?

    More to the point: neither do they --because they did not critically evaluate the research! But with an ambiguous and flawed study they just chose an interpretation that suited their a priori beliefs, rather than to decide, like you and I now do, that the results are too ambiguous to draw any firm conclusion. In fact, they critique studies that do not support their position in some detail, so it is even more remarkable that they let this one slip by. And that is what makes Dr. Dailey/FRC biased, see?

    As you are fond of saying: in your opinion. But the more you have been challenged, the more you have had to read, and the more problems you are starting to identify, in diagnosis/classification, in sample sizes, in research methodology... Scientific research, it is tricky, no? But you're starting to get the idea.

    Nope, I think we are done. :) We both know that this debate was never going to change your beliefs, because we have been debating science, and your beliefs were never about the science. You are free to believe what you want, and so is everybody else.
     
    Last edited: 2 May 2012
  6. SuicideNeil

    SuicideNeil What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,983
    Likes Received:
    345
    Truth hurts, again. You don't like what I stated so you dismiss it- you are nothing but a hypocrite and should hang your head in shame.

    What's the matter, too lazt to back up the point you are trying to make? Thought so.

    I just did- can't help it if you don't like, accept or understand the answer.
     
  7. Porkins' Wingman

    Porkins' Wingman Can't touch this

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    2,897
    Likes Received:
    129
    Aww shucks - I tried in my last post to open up some discussion about the future, but looks like its dead now :(
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    We can revive it again. Were you wanting to consider the future of different religions in an increasingly globalised culture?

    Keeping in mind that Islam has been around for 1300 years, Christianity for 2000 years, Buddhism and Judaism for more than 2500 and Hinduism of 3700, I think it is safe to assume that religions have a bit of staying power. Moreover they have all remained fairly distinct. Sure: globalisation is something of the last few decades, but people travelled in those days too, and religions had thousands of years to get around and mix. But they didn't, because their very nature resists mixing and promotes rivalry.

    My feeling is that religions change in character as they develop. Christianity is starting to gradually mellow out into an adult ideology and facing up to what that means. Islam is where Christianity was 700 years ago --all fire in its belly, Sturm und Drang, like a teenager who has discovered idealism, but not yet good ideals. Buddhism and Judaism are like people in their late middle age, doing their own thing, a bit stuck in their ways perhaps. Hinduism is like your eccentric grandmother who likes to wear bright colours. :p

    Japan (and now China and India) are showing us how modern cultural concepts are being seamlessly integrated into existing, age-old cultural frameworks. I think that this is what will happen all over the world. St. Mary of the Neon Cross; confessions by SMS, virtual prayer services as the celestial switchboard buzzes with prayers sent by smartphone (there's an App for that...). The rituals will change, the ideology will lose its rough edges and polish smooth with time as a pebble in the stream of life. And, as Galileo once observed, the Earth continues moving.
     
  9. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    You're behind the times, Nexxo! :p

    Though, since the app only assists confession rather than replacing it altogether, I suppose there is still some ground to cover. Next thing you know they'll be offering mass via live YouTube stream, and passing out browser cookies instead of the Eucharist. :hehe:
     
  10. asura

    asura jack of all trades

    Joined:
    22 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,748
    Likes Received:
    78
    Interestingly enough I just read a PJF novella titled Timestop which deals with the forced dissolution of a fictitious religion-as-state in the near future (2500ish, near future due more to the lack of leaps and bounds in technology rather than the passage of time). Said religion was, being a tyrannical state religion, the only overground practise, both metaphorically and literately. Being an early PJF book, the plot is a device for character development rather than the other way around. Nevertheless it brings up some interesting ideas about prophesy, control, and the erosion of morals within the upper echelons.

    Kayne, I recall reading something about one of the gospels being based off two of the others? I forget which gospel it was, or which book I read it in, most likely a beginners book for biblical archaeology, or it could have been in the introduction of a translation of the dead sea scrolls... Regardless, I've always been curious about why four so similar (yes similar not different Neil) gospels were chosen for the NT.

    At the moment my schedule is fairly full (two 35h jobs on the go at the moment) and reading is relegated to relaxation so a bit of light discussion and a couple of recommended titles would be awesome!
     
  11. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    I don't see much point in discussing the future because it's very hard to predict what will happen considering so much of our understanding of the present is based on opinion - informed and uninformed alike. But since you asked...

    It is your (uninformed and clearly biased) opinion that the Bible does "nothing but gather dust" - it continues to be the best-selling book in the world; it changes lives every day.

    What makes an atheist pick up the book and convert to Christianity? Opinion varies on this one; a guy at Richard Dawkins' forum was converted, and basically they accused him of deceit - that he had always been a Christian and was "playing them." LOL. The only thing that can possibly change the heart of a sceptic is God himself, and I firmly beleive that he does - all the time.

    It's all just musing... I think it's virtually impossible to predict what will happen; perhaps there'll be a Christian revival. :D

    Plus, when you say that globalisation has exposed religions for what they are, can you cite sources and substantiate/clarify your claim?
     
  12. KayinBlack

    KayinBlack Unrepentant Savage

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    533
    There are the concepts of Quelle and Secret Mark, but they're not fully supported by the evidence. Both are also attempts to discredit the authors, so just remember that when reading about the theories. Basically the more copies we find, the less they hold up.

    As to confession by phone and such, I fully expect this to happen, and don't think it's a bad thing at all, but some parts of the experience are in-person deals and as such will likely remain as they are. Concept of the numinous response and all.

    Funny, I have little problem working within the framework of the Bible in today's society. I'm not always the most popular for it, but I try not to be the most offensive either. And what's unpopular might surprise you. I'm blasted more by my friends for rejecting the objectification of women than I am for having a belief in a deity. Or my outright rejection of the race to see who has the most stuff, my total lack of interest in Hollywood (I can't even name most actors/actresses I see any more) and my general interest in what I can do for others rather than what I can do for myself. I derive more joy in life from seeing people help each other than I do from new parts. I must say, it's an unpopular view, even amongst mainstream Christians.

    I'm not making any attempt to "stay relevant" to today's society. There's so much wrong with it that I just don't care. Especially with my condition keeping me more at home in a chair or in bed than anything else, it's been rather easy for me to reject today's materialism and voyeuristic tendencies. I don't mind the advance of science or technology. I understand that helping them along might help me. It's the "you should be drunk right now" mentality, or the "back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich," or "did you hear what so-and-so did last night" that I reject. I'm far more concerned with how we treat each other every day than what a group of scientists run up on in a lab. Around here, that makes me decidedly unpopular. And I don't care at all.

    Also, I dunno why everyone is so up in arms about drinking, I mean you can't even buy alcohol here. Have to go back into town for that, and that's only six days a week.
     
  13. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    Kayin - to pick up on a question of mine earlier, do you believe that God changes? If so, why?
     
  14. Shichibukai

    Shichibukai Resident Nitpicker

    Joined:
    29 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    137
    Likes Received:
    4
    A truck and bicycle are different, doesn't mean they can't travel side by side on the same road. The idealistic scientific method has no prioi beliefs, but scientists who carry out scientific research do.

    Fixed.

    I didn't bring that up because it would be getting back more and more into the last time we spoke and you already know my view on small sample sizes. Likewise you already explained those relationships, where did I disagree with your explanation?

    If it was never made clear, how can this study be misrepresented If they admit ages range from 15-50? This study was done to address deficiencies in another study as shown by your original quote.

    They were rating 3 faces in every age group so not necessarily. The study used the average age for 3 faces for each age group.

    This was not an interpretation that suited beliefs, it was directed at something else if you read your original quote again. We haven't been arguing about the results of the study either but mainly the age of the persons in the picture.

    The study said ages varied 15-50 and Dr Dailey said they included persons ages as young as 15. Saying "as young as 15" is not the same as saying, "they included 15 year olds", if he said the latter then he would definitely be making an unfounded assertion. Therefore this still isn't sufficient to brand him and the entire organisation totally biased.

    Good science in this respect shouldn't be tricky at all.

    Implying your beliefs were ever subject to change.
    ====================================================

    Rolling in pain here -> :lol:

    You keep doing it man...

    If you keep answering "Red" to "What year is it?", I believe I'm justified in not liking or acccepting you stupid answer.
     
  15. SuicideNeil

    SuicideNeil What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,983
    Likes Received:
    345
    You really must have poor reading comprehension if you don't think I've answered your puerile questions enough times already. Why don't you try answering mine instead for a change?
     
  16. KayinBlack

    KayinBlack Unrepentant Savage

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,913
    Likes Received:
    533
    It's less an issue of God changing as our perceptions. Humans have a very hard time with the concept of something never changing-and on the timescales that God has revealed Himself in, most people are unable to piece together how He is the same. However, when God speaks of being the same, He is talking about not arbitrarily changing His mind all the time as well.

    http://news.yahoo.com/odd-ways-mind-warps-time-215118575.html

    As you can see, we don't all handle time the same. And generally speaking, we don't handle the issue of an eternal being that well either. So it's a difficult thing, determining who changes here. Humanity does the changing, but perceptually we don't see it as such-nor do we often grasp that certain things are not as much His change as His plan all along. It's hard for transient beings to fully grasp eternity.
     
  17. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Poor analogies aside, absolutely do scientists have beliefs, and so does the FRC. Hence science as a discipline --done correctly-- safeguards against subjective biases. Which is why we are nitpicking over research methodology: has the science been done, and interpreted, correctly?

    No I don't, honestly. You criticised a study with a sample size of 269 as too small to be representative, but mentioned in support of your view a study with a sample size of about 127 (well, two matched samples of about 64 really), so you can see how I'm confused.

    But you agree that you cannot simply label a male as homosexual just because he molested male children, not rely on a self-statement about their sexuality, without looking at the actual sexual relationships they have (had) in their daily life? Good.

    They don't. One researcher attributed that age range, then six subjects attributed a different one. And can a flawed study address another flawed study?

    You do know how means are calculated, right? Think about it. The three faces were grouped together in the same age group by the researcher. So you say that he put three faces with an apparent age range varying from 15 to 21 together in the same group? The problem remains.

    They mentioned the study to "prove" their position that homosexual men prefer underage sexual partners (This is an error in itself --by the authors this time-- since participants were asked to rate sexual attractiveness, not preference as sexual partner, which are two different things. I may consider some 20-year old girls sexually attractive, but that does not mean that I would consider them appropriate sexual partners). Moreover the actual ages of the faces are unknown. The age of 15 is based in the subjective judgement of one of the researchers, not the research participants (whose perception is the subject of the study, after all). What the youngest age is that they attributed is again unknown. Big difference, kinda.

    But you agree at least that the result of the study was misrepresented also? Good.

    The study says (right there in the Abstract) that the apparent age range is 18-60. But OK, please tell me the difference between "including persons' ages as young as 15" and "including 15 year olds"? :confused:

    The correct statement would have been "including images of faces appearing to be as young as 15 according to the subjective judgement of one of the researchers" or "including images of faces appearing as young as [lowest age estimate given] according to at least one of six independent raters asked to estimate their age". But that doesn't sound as punchy, does it?

    Interestingly in the introduction Silverthorne and Quincy's study also mentions studies like Korthase & Trenholme (1982) and Brandshaw et al. (1994) which conclude that heterosexual men, independent from their age or culture consistently preferred women age 15-25 to be the most physically attractive. No mention is made of this by FRC. Possibly because it would weaken their argument?

    And as I said before, this is just a few of many misrepresentations in that paper. I could go on.

    For instance:
    OK, let's, as you say, kiss that foot better. The statement contains two statistics that need examination: the prevalence of homosexuality in he average population (2%) and the prevalence of homosexuality amongst child sex offenders. How did FRC determine whether they are really gay?

    The FRC goes to length to explain that homosexuality in the general population should be counted by people who have exclusively homosexual relationships:
    In fact, they drive the point home that exclusivity of such relationships is important in deriving the "true" statistic:
    However, when we come to the study of Jenny et al. (1994), which identified only 2 of 269 child molesters as homosexual (less than 1%), the FRC levies the criticism:
    So if you want the count homosexuals in the general population, only people who have exclusively homosexual relationships will do, otherwise they are not really gay. But if you want to count homosexuals amongst pedophiles, the only requirement is that they molested a child of the same gender at least once --suddenly the fact that they have heterosexual marriages, relationships or sexual activity should be ignored: they are still gay. Double standards much?

    The reason for this double standard is clear: the FRC wants to make homosexuality in the general population appear to be a rare occurrence, a freakish aberration, so it narrows the criteria as much as possible. But it wants to make it look common amongst pedophiles for the same reason, so it widens the criteria as much as possible and lambasts Jenny et al. (1994) for, ironically, using the same criteria that the FRC used to determine homosexuality in the general population. So the classification criteria shift depending on the numbers that they want to achieve. Bad, bad science.

    Do you think scientific researchers go to University for six years just for kicks? Ever done a PhD? Please, tell me how good science should not be tricky.

    Our beliefs were never the subject of discussion. Only the science by which you try to justify yours.
     
    Last edited: 5 May 2012
  18. SuicideNeil

    SuicideNeil What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,983
    Likes Received:
    345
    How exactly, by what mechanism?

    I find it more likely that such changes of heart are down to fear of death ( perfectly natural as one gets older and starts thinking about such things ), a 'revelation' such as experiencing a traumatic or life-altering event; many people who turn to God do so because they realise they have lead a less than admirable life so far ( death row inmates for example ), or because they saw a friend of loved one suffer for no particular reason and interpreted it as a sign from God to change their ways.

    The reality is nothing so extraordinary- bad things happen for any number of reasons, whether you interpret it as a divine message or just think of it as a wake up call to stop being such a douche means the difference between being irrational & superstitious vs logical & sensible.

    Ofcourse, that's just my 'opinion'...
     
  19. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Fan Fan

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    887
    Theism is often presented as being irrational and superstitious, and whilst this is very definitely true of nominally religious people, I believe Kayin and myself have adequately demonstrated that a lot of thought and consideration goes into what is a rational and reasonable theistic worldview. We cannot prove it or coerce others to believe it, but to dismiss any personal experience of God (conversion or otherwise) as irrational or superstitious is just ignorant and prejudiced.

    The question of mechanism asked by somebody who clearly doesn't believe in spirituality seems like a bit of a non-question; the means by which God reaches people is spiritual, pure and simple.
     
  20. SuicideNeil

    SuicideNeil What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,983
    Likes Received:
    345
    'Spiritual'; that isn't really any kind of answer- something clicks in your mind and suddenly you've seen the light? Anything can cause you to have an epiphany, why does it have to be 'God'? ...

    I don't see my views as ignorant or prejudiced at all- I'm asking sincere questions and making observations; why do such intelligent people feel the need to worship something they can't be sure even exists, why can't they just accept the life cycle of an organic being instead of adding some extra layer 'magic' on to in order to give meaning & a non-finite outcome at its end?

    'Life's a bitch and then you die' as the old saying goes, not 'life's a bitch, then you die and live forever'. Don't fear the reaper, just be happy you've lead a good life on your own terms and did it without having to be told how..
     

Share This Page