RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang

RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 5:58:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens You might have more luck being taken at face value if you would lose this signature quote. It is a facile and hypocritical remark that by its own logic can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence that it is true. It is also profoundly foolish. THE PICNIC Eyewitness: Stop, don't go in there. I saw a bear in the woods. Hitchens: There are no bears in these woods. Eyewitness: It sure looked like a bear! Hitchens: Do you have any evidence that it was a bear? Eyewitness: Well... no. Hitchens: Get out of my way, I am going on a picnic. K. There are some problems with your example. First, the Eyewitness gives a personal account of having seen a bear in the woods. While not the most reliable form of evidence it is a form of evidence so your example doesn't apply to the quote. Second, knowing what we do about bears and woods based on evidence it's likely that there are bears in the woods. So once again the example doesn't apply. Third, there being bears in the woods isn't a good reason not to picnic in them.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 6:13:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens You might have more luck being taken at face value if you would lose this signature quote. It is a facile and hypocritical remark that by its own logic can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence that it is true. Also, to dismiss the quote without evidence is an implicit declaration of it's accuracy.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 9:54:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The motivation behind both were politics and greed. The tool used in both was religion. How hard is that to understand? Looks like a question to me. Then again, you are good at avoiding most questions. By all means ignore what I'm actually saying in order to attack me. An observation grounded in fact is far from an attack. Try again. quote: I'm generally good about answering your questions, certainly better than you are at answering mine. I know that I haven't been as prompt of late and that's been frustrating for you. Sometimes in this thread I've gone one whole day without responding to you. Please understand that I'm in the last couple of weeks of prep before setting out on a 2,175 mile hike. Good for you. Maybe the air will clear your thinking. quote: As for your position above, I feel no more need to argue with you about that then I do to argue with rule about circumcision. How hard is that to understand? Ah, so when a question YOU pose is answered, and a question is asked in return, you feel no need to respond. How.. quaint. [;)]

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 11:40:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel While not the most reliable form of evidence it is a form of evidence so your example doesn't apply to the quote. Yes it does. Hitchens is talking about hard evidence, not merely anecdotal reports. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel there being bears in the woods isn't a good reason not to picnic in them. Please be my guest at your earliest opportunity. [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 11:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel to dismiss the quote without evidence is an implicit declaration of it's accuracy. No it isn't. The quote is self-contradictory. You should be familiar with that concept. [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 2:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Unh... when did self-defense become an unconscionable crime? When it results in the killing of innocent bystanders... A nuclear first strike does not simply "result" in innocent deaths; it is a knowing and premeditated killing of innocents, in which even the predicated "guilty" haven't done anything yet. When did that become "self-defense"? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 3:03:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel While not the most reliable form of evidence it is a form of evidence so your example doesn't apply to the quote. Yes it does. Hitchens is talking about hard evidence, not merely anecdotal reports. K. While it is difficult to interpret the quote without knowing its context, my first reaction was that Hitchens was talking about formal knowledge, as opposed to say, common sense knowledge. If this is valid, his assertion is certainly valid.

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 4:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle While it is difficult to interpret the quote without knowing its context, my first reaction was that Hitchens was talking about formal knowledge, as opposed to say, common sense knowledge. If this is valid, his assertion is certainly valid. I must confess, I have no idea what you have in mind by introducing the concepts of "formal" knowledge and "common sense" knowledge into this context. But what Hitchens means, and what I meant by "hard" evidence, is scientific evidence. He made the statement about the proposition that there is a God. We can dismiss anything we like by claiming a lack of evidence, of course. We need only define what we are willing to accept as "evidence" to suit the circumstances. But by any definition, there remains the inconvenient detail that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 5:38:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata . But by any definition, there remains the inconvenient detail that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Absolutely. That's why no-one can tell me that God isn't a chicken and bacon sandwich. Furthermore, I saw this as the Truth (with a really, really big capital 'T') as I was lying the bath. Some people might choose to believe that I just dozed off and woke up hungry - but I'll burn them if they say so. Tomorrow I'm going to start growing a really long beard and go out and buy a silly costume. Then my Truth will have an even bigger capital 'T'. Bonzer! [:D]

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 5:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer That's why no-one can tell me that God isn't a chicken and bacon sandwich. Sure they can. [:D] K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 6:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Sure they can. [:D] Well, they could say it . . . but I'd only smile smugly at them and use every available device I can to convince them that I've reached a higher truth that their mere reasoning could never touch. Piece of cake. [;)]

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 6:49:34 PM)
The correct response is to call them narrow minded and vilify them for attacking your faith.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 7:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ah, so when a question YOU pose is answered, and a question is asked in return, you feel no need to respond. How.. quaint. [;)] You want me to comment on the idea that using religion makes religion not religion? I mean really, especially after you explain to me that person attacks aren't person attacks as long as they are "observation grounded in fact". Which apparently includes calling someone an idiot if you disagree with their position. OK I'm game, using the Tazzy standards of intellectually honest discourse, I've determined that the correct answer to your question is: "fat idiot". [sm=idea.gif]Are you sure that this is how intellectually honest discussions are supposed to work, something seems off to me?

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 7:44:35 PM)
quote: Kirata We can dismiss anything we like by claiming a lack of evidence, of course. We need only define what we are willing to accept as "evidence" to suit the circumstances. But by any definition, there remains the inconvenient detail that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Hitchens, if he follows Dawkins in this area, relies on a relentless empiricism. As I understand it, Dawkins attempts to marry scientific empiricism and methodology with the philosophical concept of Truth. For me, this attempt fails. Scientific methodology cannot generate Truth - Truth (whatever it may or may not be) lies beyond the limits of empiricism or reductionism. So we agree that Hitchens' quote applies only within the limits of science, and is iunsuitable for application outside science's parameters. It can then be asserted confidently that in the case of a proposition for a God-entity, physical evidence might not be necessary to establish a case. However I hope that you will agree its absence makes the case far harder to establish let alone prove. Given the potential ramifications of the proposition, it would be grossly imprudent to fail to adopt a certain scepticism and to set the barrier as high as it will go. So sorry Peon, a chicken and bacon sandwich doesn't do it for me. Perhaps though, if you slipped some avocado in there it might be more appealing. Definitely tastier IMHO! [:D]

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 8:34:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Well, they could say it . . . but I'd only smile smugly at them and use every available device I can to convince them that I've reached a higher truth that their mere reasoning could never touch. Piece of cake. Well of course... And rather obviously, therefore, only a total fool or a complete asshole would try telling you such a thing. [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 8:41:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel The correct response is to call them narrow minded and vilify them for attacking your faith. Attacking a person's faith deserves to be called what else? What precisely is the practical difference between an atheist ridiculing someone's faith and insulting their intelligence, and a religious bigot ridiculing someone's (different) faith and insulting their intelligence? Nobody but another like-minded bigot is going to invite either to their next cocktail party. K.

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/9/2011 9:49:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It can then be asserted confidently that in the case of a proposition for a God-entity, physical evidence might not be necessary to establish a case. However I hope that you will agree its absence makes the case far harder to establish let alone prove. Given the potential ramifications of the proposition, it would be grossly imprudent to fail to adopt a certain scepticism and to set the barrier as high as it will go. Actually, the physical and psychological benefits of belief in a God who cares about you are documented, and obviously independent of whether or not such a God exists. So it might not be unreasonable to go easy on belief, and confine our objections to bigotry. It also bears mention that while the inadequacy of any physical proof makes it impossible, not just harder, to prove the existence of a transcendent reality to someone else, it remains possible to prove it to yourself, and "belief" is not a prerequiste. Those who proclaim such a reality false, and refuse to undertake the necessary discipline, can be compared to those who knew Galileo was wrong and refused to look through his telescope. There is nothing to be gained from bothering to listen to people like that. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 2:28:38 AM)
quote: Kirata It also bears mention that while the inadequacy of any physical proof makes it impossible, not just harder, to prove the existence of a transcendent reality to someone else, it remains possible to prove it to yourself, and "belief" is not a prerequiste. Oh yes! Ultimately, all 'proof' is that - something that is proved to the satisfaction of the person upholding that truth, whatever the criteria used or their 'objective'/subjective status. Proof for an individual is whatever that individual considers proof. Proof for a group is whatever that group agrees is proof. I am unaware of any method available to humans that ultimately escapes this limit. But if I am to accept this description, the whole problem of what you termed 'bigotry' then becomes reducible, it seems to me, to one of communication. If this were valid, there are several successful remedies available and the whole issue would have been solved long ago. But it seems to me that there is a lot more involved if we widen the parameters a bit, and take a look at the issue on a culture-wide basis. To me, it appears that there is a clash of two competing 'truth' generating (or production) systems. And the winner gets an glittering priceless social prize - the power to pronounce the Truth. If Truth is the highest value in a culture, then the power to pronounce Truth has an almost infinite potency..... there can be no more prestigious status in a culture, there is no argument that can contradict the Truth, there is no force that can withstand its seduction. The existence of, and the obligation on Catholics to accept Papal infallibility doctrine is one example of this. Infallibility. Historically and cross-culturally, that power has been abused systematically ruthlessly and consistently....... Perhaps not always .... but certainly enough times to cause concern. So if such a Truth were available, could humans be trusted with it? Would that be desirable? Or disastrous?

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 6:04:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ah, so when a question YOU pose is answered, and a question is asked in return, you feel no need to respond. How.. quaint. [;)] You want me to comment on the idea that using religion makes religion not religion? I mean really, especially after you explain to me that person attacks aren't person attacks as long as they are "observation grounded in fact". Which apparently includes calling someone an idiot if you disagree with their position. OK I'm game, using the Tazzy standards of intellectually honest discourse, I've determined that the correct answer to your question is: "fat idiot". [sm=idea.gif]Are you sure that this is how intellectually honest discussions are supposed to work, something seems off to me? Wrong question. Try this one. quote: The motivation behind both were politics and greed. The tool used in both was religion. How hard is that to understand? To which you responded with this... quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The motivation behind both were politics and greed. The tool used in both was religion. How hard is that to understand? Looks like a question to me. Then again, you are good at avoiding most questions. By all means ignore what I'm actually saying in order to attack me. I'm generally good about answering your questions, certainly better than you are at answering mine. Im STILL trying to see the attack there. Point it out for me. quote: You want me to comment on the idea that using religion makes religion not religion? I mean really, especially after you explain to me that person attacks aren't person attacks as long as they are "observation grounded in fact". Which apparently includes calling someone an idiot if you disagree with their position. OK I'm game, using the Tazzy standards of intellectually honest discourse, I've determined that the correct answer to your question is: "fat idiot". Are you sure that this is how intellectually honest discussions are supposed to work, something seems off to me? Again, show me the attack you are referring too... not an attack a week ago... or a month ago... show me the attack in direct correlation to your posts above. But, we both know you wont, because you cant. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of attacking you. Instead, you throw a fit. You are so certain you are right, but you cannot prove you are right. Frustrating, I would imagine. Regardless, I gave you plenty of time to address anything you desired. Instead, all you could do is cry that I attacked you and ignored any question that might have led to a discussion. Take care of you, Steel. And i really do hope you enjoy your hike.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/10/2011 7:27:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata A nuclear first strike does not simply "result" in innocent deaths; it is a knowing and premeditated killing of innocents, Hence Harris's condemnation of the act. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata in which even the predicated "guilty" haven't done anything yet. Except of course making nuclear weapons and enacting a plan to destroy the United States. As long as you ignore all that, yeah absolutely nothing. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata When did that become "self-defense"? quote: ORIGINAL: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1474/Justification-Self-Defense-Risk-innocent-bystanders.html "If a defender, who is justified in using force against an attacker, instead (or also) accidentally harms (or risks harm to) an innocent bystander, the defender does not lose the justification for harming the aggressor. Is the defender's harming the bystander also justified? Generally, the defendant's harm to the innocent bystander is also justified (Smith v. State, 419 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)). But the defendant may not be justified if he acts carelessly or endangers a large number of bystanders. Under the MPC, recklessly or negligently harming an innocent bystander would not be a justification for an offense in which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability (section 3.09(3)). The issue becomes more difficult where it is unclear whether the innocent is a bystander or part of the threat. A famous hypothetical supposes that an aggressor is driving a tank, with a baby strapped to the front, at you intending to run over and kill you. Your only defense is to fire an anti-tank gun which you know will kill both the aggressor and the baby (Nozick). While the moral forfeiture theory would not find your killing the baby justifiable because the baby has not forfeited its rights by any culpable wrongdoing, the personal autonomy theory might justify the killing of the baby so as to prevent Wrong triumphing over Right. A utilitarian theory might also find that the killing of two to save one is not justified." Sam Harris is talking about our launching nuclear weapons in order to defend ourselves from the nuclear weapons an Islamic regime is about to launch. He’s acknowledging that we are doing so not because we hate the innocent children, or want a new landing strip for the space shuttle or would get a kick out of watching a big explosion but so that we ourselves won’t die. He’s not advocating the action, or condoning it, he’s acknowledging that the action would be taken out of a desire to defend ourselves and he’s condemning the collateral damage as an unconscionable crime. So, when does self defense become a crime, well the way you use the word I suspect the answer is never. However that's clearly not quite how Sam Harris is using the word as he calls an act both self defense and a crime. Even if his definition of the word self defense was completely invalid that wouldn't make him a monster just someone who would benefit from spending some more time reading a dictionary. This is a case where you're foisting a position on Sam Harris based on your connotations of the word self defense. Connotations which based on a number of things he's actually saying aren't valid.

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625