Prove God herewith

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

I haven't heard a definition of "extraordinary" either, but in the case of something like a snake-handler's claim to venom immunity, I think I get the idea. I've heard of a fair number of cases where people were bitten by poisonous snakes and got sick or died, and I've never heard of people being immune to snake venom, so I feel as though a claim to have gotten sick from a snake bit would be an ordinary claim. I'd accept such a claim without too much evidence. A claim to be immune to snake venom, however, seems extraordinary, because it departs from  my baseline of what's ordinary. I'd want a lot more evidence before believing that claim.

A claim that some transcendent being created everything, though? I don't see how that can be extraordinary, because I have no baseline for the ordinary scenario on this issue. It's not as though I can say, "Well now, I've lived through dozens of universes, and none of them were created by anyone—so your claim that someone created this one is extraordinary!"

I'm not saying the claim for a creator is true or plausible or anything. Just that calling it "extraordinary" seems to be beside the mark.

Well sure- anything outside of "ordinary" is "extraordinary"

It is no different than the word "true"-  or "obscene" or really any adjective when you think about it. We know how to use it in context, we get it right in common speech etc but it is undefinable except in relative terms.

How big is "big"?   How ordinary is "ordinary"?   How important is "important"?  How do we define what is more than ordinary to be extraordinary (got tired of making quote marks) or just ordinary?

How blue is blue and where is the line to aquamarine?  Surely we know the difference between blue and pink, but what about red and orange or red and pink?

It's semantics and that is why it's a very poor argument.

For what it's worth I do not believe God is "transcendent" either but that is another meaningless word, mostly.   All I know is that it is the opposite of "immanent".

It's really weird to me that all these guys who call themselves skeptics are not even relativists- they think they know what truth is and exactly what is "logical" or "reasonable" but they never can define any of these words or give a model of what "reasonable" is.   They throw around words like "evidence" without definition.

What evidence do we have that murder is wrong?  Oh well I guess it's ok to go out and kill people then right?  Obviously atheists are as moral as anyone else but they do not even seem to be aware of these issues.

The ones that do understand see nothing wrong with religion for the most part, they just don't accept it in their lives.   Fine that is their decision.  

Either the belief in God is a force in your life or something else takes its place.  Maybe we want World Peace or work against Global Warming or Social Justice- all of which is undefined as much as "God" is

Even some total dictator will see himself as one who is a world-historical figure seeking power over others or see themselves as immune to the rules of the "little people" and that it is perfectly fine to use others for your purposes- BUT they still have their purposes!

I mean even guys like Hitler and Stalin had values which could not be justified rationally- world domination for them and their cohorts.  Their ethics consisted of doing what ever was necessary to further their goal.

Fine, but they still had a goal and a reason to get out of bed in the morning which had no "rational" basis other than some passion for some cause within them.

The bottom line is that we are all driven by passions, like it or not.   We figure out how to make them "reasonable".  We all want to see ourselves as "reasonable" because that after all is "good".  It is "intelligent" to be "reasonable" and "logical" and all of those make us feel good about ourselves if we know anything about those subjects or not.

When you actually study those topics you realize that it's all semantics, and the ego portion pretty much goes away when you realize that you are as stupid as everyone else.

I just like making others realize that they are just as stupid as I am.  Philosophy is more of an affliction than anything else.  If knowing that you know nothing is wisdom then I suppose it is all wisdom, but you still know nothing.

That's why I left academia.   Them guys thought they actually had answers.

 

[pogi]

On 9/7/2017 at 7:06 AM, DemonsAway said:

Not that I think it matters too much as far as personal beliefs go. It's when a religion is claiming something like gay marriage is wrong or any other religious specific views and want to get involved in making laws against it, then they need to prove their claims. Because that's what some or even the majority of people believe God wants isn't a good answer to the people it affects and that's where the burden of proof is really relevant, imo.

I am free to believe in whatever I want (as you say) without any burden of proof.  I am also free to vote according to my beliefs without any requisite burden of proof.  People in the minority might not like the legislation (that's how it goes), but so long as it is found constitutional, nothing else needs to be proven (as if anything could be proven with certainty). 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/7/2017 at 6:06 AM, DemonsAway said:

Not that I think it matters too much as far as personal beliefs go. It's when a religion is claiming something like gay marriage is wrong or any other religious specific views and want to get involved in making laws against it, then they need to prove their claims. Because that's what some or even the majority of people believe God wants isn't a good answer to the people it affects and that's where the burden of proof is really relevant, imo.

Honestly this is about the .....least informed.... statement I have heard around here in a long time.

And how pray tell do you prove YOUR claim that gay marriage is RIGHT???

Since the 18th century- did you get that??  THE EIGHTEENTH century it has been known that one cannot LOGICALLY infer that any statement about what "OUGHT" to be (ie: gay marriage is right OR wrong) from evidence.

A simple statement of this is that one cannot conclude the way things "OUGHT" to be from the way things ARE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

For your argument to work, you would need to solve this problem.  You appear to not even be aware that the problem exists.

It's your religion vs the Mormons- neither you nor they have a "reason" for this belief other than feelings.

But that's ok for the Mormons, since "feeling the spirit" IS the basis for their claims- your claim has NO basis.

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Atheist shouldn't even be a word.

I love it

Call the word POLICE!

[DemonsAway]

17 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Could you define "extraordinary" in this context?

Which claim by theists is it that you consider extraordinary? Some theists have claimed things that I also consider extraordinary, like the ability to survive poisonous snake bites. If that's all you mean, then I think I know what you mean by "extraordinary". If you mean that theism itself is an extraordinary claim, though, then I'm puzzled as to why you call it that. It might be many things as a claim, including wrong, but I'm blanking on any sense in which it's exactly extraordinary.

 Most of the realm of religion is an extraordinary claim. If you believe in the biblical miracles I would call those extraordinary claims. Communicating with God, a living prophet, a 7 or more accurately 6 day creation, a virgin birth, the power of prayer to name just a few.

Example, I wouldn't call it extraordinary to claim there was a man named Jesus. Whether you believe the evidence to be credible or not, it's still not a particularly extraordinary claim. But to go on and claim him as divine and his resurrection is quite a bit more extraordinary.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I'm sure you've heard this quote by Carl Sagan. Sure you can challenge what extraordinary means and there are theists who do challenge that phrase but I don't think it's too hard to define extraordinary if you think about it.

What makes it extraordinary in another sense is that a lot of theists except God as fact, when with our present knowledge can be considered a theory at best. It's one thing to have the idea or possibility of God, it's another to extrapolate that into knowing God's wishes. Making claims of God's will, without the slightest way of demonstrating it is quite remarkable.

[DemonsAway]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly this is about the .....least informed.... statement I have heard around here in a long time.

That happens when you don't understand the argument in to begin with. You are just all over the place. You're asserting I'm making arguments about things I'm not arguing at all. I would suggest reading and understanding what I'm arguing in the first place.  

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And how pray tell do you prove YOUR claim that gay marriage is RIGHT???

Since the 18th century- did you get that??  THE EIGHTEENTH century it has been known that one cannot LOGICALLY infer that any statement about what "OUGHT" to be (ie: gay marriage is right OR wrong) from evidence.

A simple statement of this is that one cannot conclude the way things "OUGHT" to be from the way things ARE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

For your argument to work, you would need to solve this problem.  You appear to not even be aware that the problem exists.

It's your religion vs the Mormons- neither you nor they have a "reason" for this belief other than feelings.

But that's ok for the Mormons, since "feeling the spirit" IS the basis for their claims- your claim has NO basis.

 

I'm not talking about whether or not gay marriage is wrong I'm talking about how we come to conclusions about laws that are going to affect everyone and the one way I think burden of proof is relevant. I'm not talking specifically about Mormonism either.

What if we made laws based literally on the Bible? Stoning people to death for various stupid reasons. There are a decent number of countries where you can be still be executed for being gay or an atheist. In the way you're arguing they would be as justified in their belief as you are. When do we stop and say, prove your claims? If I claimed that my God wants all left-handed people put to death, am I as justified in that belief as someone who believes their God is against gay marriage? Do I have a right to enforce this belief on other people? Hopefully someone would ask for proof of my claims.

We're talking about laws that affect everyone. Who's interpretation of God's will do we go by? Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals? The best approach is to base them in logic, reason, and rational debate. What are the pros and cons of allowing or denying gay marriage? Who is it affecting, who is it hurting by allowing or denying it? That sounds a lot more logical than leaving it up to anyone's interpretation of what they believe God wants.

[DemonsAway]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I am free to believe in whatever I want (as you say) without any burden of proof.  I am also free to vote according to my beliefs without any requisite burden of proof.  People in the minority might not like the legislation (that's how it goes), but so long as it is found constitutional, nothing else needs to be proven (as if anything could be proven with certainty). 

I agree for the most part but I'd say most of what you're referencing is covered in personal beliefs, so I'd say no big deal anyways. My post before this one gets more into what I'm talking about and where I think burden of proof is relevant.

[DemonsAway]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I love it

Call the word POLICE!

Somehow you managed to miss the point again.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

We're talking about laws that affect everyone. Who's interpretation of God's will do we go by? Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals? The best approach is to base them in logic, reason, and rational debate. What are the pros and cons of allowing or denying gay marriage? Who is it affecting, who is it hurting by allowing or denying it? That sounds a lot more logical than leaving it up to anyone's interpretation of what they believe God wants.

You are still not getting it.  There IS no "best" way- I was talking about that you cannot conclude what is "best" and my comments had nothing to do with gay marriage except to use it as an example

Still you are acting as if there ARE "logical principles" by which these things can be decided.

There are not

Logic is mathematics- rules of inference- how can math tell you if gay marriage is right?   It can't

Who has defined what is "rational" or not?   Carl Sagan???  He knows nothing about philosophy and is clearly a naive positivist regarding truth.

Nevermind- you are not getting this

[Physics Guy]

3 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

 Most of the realm of religion is an extraordinary claim. If you believe in the biblical miracles I would call those extraordinary claims. Communicating with God, a living prophet, a 7 or more accurately 6 day creation, a virgin birth, the power of prayer to name just a few.

What makes it extraordinary in another sense is that a lot of theists [accept] God as fact, when with our present knowledge can be considered a theory at best.

Okay. I'm still interested in trying to pin down exactly what "extraordinary" means; I'm suspicious that it may be nothing more than a synonym for "dubious to me". But I don't really have time right now to thresh out my own precise definition of "extraordinary", and I'll agree that I would also call virgin birth and resurrection extraordinary, whatever precisely I mean by it. We've seen a lot of births, and there has always been a father; we've seen a lot of deaths, and nobody's come back. A claim of a case that defies such strong patterns is a claim that I would also call extraordinary.

And I'd also agree that the existence of God is a theory. As evolutionary biologists frequently explain to creationists, "theory" means more than just a whimsical notion; but it falls short of fact.

I'm still confused by your original statement that, "The theist is making an extraordinary claim and the atheist is not [emphasis added]."  If you had said "the Christian" or "the Lutheran" or "my fundamentalist neighbor", then I'd have no quarrel with this, but theism per se does not entail anything like those claims you mentioned just now, which we agree are extraordinary. And in fact it would be weird in my experience—extraordinary, even—for a dispute over theism as such to even involve more specific religious claims like those. There could be a dispute over, say, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the person on one side of that argument might be an atheist, but they wouldn't be arguing over theism itself in that case.

Religious beliefs, like most theories, have an ordering by logical importance. Biology, climatology, cosmology, particle physics—they all have their basic big ideas and their small details. The small details are usually less clear; they often shade off into speculative hypotheses that form the working assumptions of particular research communities but are far from being well established as valid. To people who are professionally committed to one particular sub-topic, the small details may still be very important, but the fact that, say, some little fossil somewhere seems inconsistent with one school of thought about evolution does not overthrow all of evolutionary biology. In the same way the doubtfulness of Jesus being born of a virgin does not really say anything about the existence of God.

Of course it is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist religion to insist that everything in the religion is of equal importance because it is all tied together in one big bundle. People believe in Young Earth creation, even though 6000 years might just as well be six trillion for all the difference it actually makes to them, because their pastor has told them that if they don't believe everything literally, then they can't even believe God so loved the world. To me, though, that conflation of degrees of importance is a big part of what's bad about fundamentalist religion. Anyone rejecting religion in general should make sure to reject this bundled kind of thinking as well.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Physics Guy

[DemonsAway]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Okay. I'm still interested in trying to pin down exactly what "extraordinary" means; I'm suspicious that it may be nothing more than a synonym for "dubious to me". But I don't really have time right now to thresh out my own precise definition of "extraordinary", and I'll agree that I would also call virgin birth and resurrection extraordinary, whatever precisely I mean by it. We've seen a lot of births, and there has always been a father; we've seen a lot of deaths, and nobody's come back. A claim of a case that defies such strong patterns is a claim that I would also call extraordinary.

And I'd also agree that the existence of God is a theory. As evolutionary biologists frequently explain to creationists, "theory" means more than just a whimsical notion; but it falls short of fact.

I'm still confused by your original statement that, "The theist is making an extraordinary claim and the atheist is not [emphasis added]."  If you had said "the Christian" or "the Lutheran" or "my fundamentalist neighbor", then I'd have no quarrel with this, but theism per se does not entail anything like those claims you mentioned just now, which we agree are extraordinary. And in fact it would be weird in my experience—extraordinary, even—for a dispute over theism as such to even involve more specific religious claims like those. There could be a dispute over, say, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the person on one side of that argument might be an atheist, but they wouldn't be arguing over theism itself in that case.

Religious beliefs, like most theories, have an ordering by logical importance. Biology, climatology, cosmology, particle physics—they all have their basic big ideas and their small details. The small details are usually less clear; they often shade off into speculative hypotheses that form the working assumptions of particular research communities but are far from being well established as valid. To people who are professionally committed to one particular sub-topic, the small details may still be very important, but the fact that, say, some little fossil somewhere seems inconsistent with one school of thought about evolution does not overthrow all of evolutionary biology. In the same way the doubtfulness of Jesus being born of a virgin does not really say anything about the existence of God.

Of course it is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist religion to insist that everything in the religion is of equal importance because it is all tied together in one big bundle. People believe in Young Earth creation, even though 6000 years might just as well be six trillion for all the difference it actually makes to them, because their pastor has told them that if they don't believe everything literally, then they can't even believe God so loved the world. To me, though, that conflation of degrees of importance is a big part of what's bad about fundamentalist religion. Anyone rejecting religion in general should make sure to reject this bundled kind of thinking as well.

Okay, here's how I meant it in the context of what I was originally talking about which was burden of proof. When the position is taken that God views homosexuality as wrong, a sin, whatever word you want to use that's one thing and I don't see a problem if you choose to believe that or not. It's an “extraordinary” claim because it would require communicating with God to know this and that's how I mean extraordinary. But to go on and try and push this law on people who do not share that position, especially gay people themselves. Well I would say they deserve some pretty good evidence from the person making these claims if laws are going to be made against it and I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. I'm definitely not going to take anyone's word for it that they speak for God. Hence why I think the believer is in a position of burden of proof in this scenario. This really applies more to the ones in leadership positions of a religion since they are the ones who speak for their respective religions.

Outside of this scenario I would say that burden of proof isn't an issue. Otherwise I'm fine calling it a theory and allowing the possibility of future evidence to be discovered and we can all live in harmony. I hope this makes more sense and I apologize if I'm not communicating it properly.

Edited September 14, 2017 by DemonsAway
grammar

[Physics Guy]

I don't find the concept of "burden of proof" all that useful in arguments between private citizens. Instead of saying, "The burden of proof is on you!" one could just say, "I'm not going to change my mind on this unless you really impress me." I think that means all the same things. If there are legal consequences, though, then burden of proof can be very important. Its role in a court case can change your life.

If somebody claims that the state should forbid gay marriage because God is against it, then I'd agree that this opinion simply has no place in secular law. If a group of citizens wants to define their own religious rite and exclude gay couples from it, then I believe they have that right, but marriage as a civil contract is a secular matter. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

I'm not sure whether I'm rejecting the religious claim to forbid gay marriage on grounds of it being an extraordinary claim with unmet burden of proof, though. My immediate reaction is that that particular reasoning doesn't sound right, but I admit that I haven't thought it through carefully. My other reasons on this subject seem good enough to me that I haven't bothered to analyse just how strong the additional ones are.

My main reason for supporting gay marriage is probably George, who was Senior Warden of my old church in Boston. I got to know him when I was also on the church council, and he was so clearly a good man and a good Christian that after I learned he was gay I could no longer take seriously the idea that God didn't want him to marry his partner. George was empirical data, and that decided this issue for me. Theism is compatible with changing one's mind.

[DemonsAway]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

I don't find the concept of "burden of proof" all that useful in arguments between private citizens. Instead of saying, "The burden of proof is on you!" one could just say, "I'm not going to change my mind on this unless you really impress me." I think that means all the same things. If there are legal consequences, though, then burden of proof can be very important. Its role in a court case can change your life.

If somebody claims that the state should forbid gay marriage because God is against it, then I'd agree that this opinion simply has no place in secular law. If a group of citizens wants to define their own religious rite and exclude gay couples from it, then I believe they have that right, but marriage as a civil contract is a secular matter. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

 I agree with everything you've said here. You are expressing the same argument I am and I'm fine if we don't want to call it “Burden of proof” and say it some other way and yes amongst private citizens it's not really necessary. You're second paragraph is my view exactly and I'm fine with religion excluding who they want within their religion.

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

My main reason for supporting gay marriage is probably George, who was Senior Warden of my old church in Boston. I got to know him when I was also on the church council, and he was so clearly a good man and a good Christian that after I learned he was gay I could no longer take seriously the idea that God didn't want him to marry his partner. George was empirical data, and that decided this issue for me. Theism is compatible with changing one's mind.

I'm glad to hear you support gay marriage and it's amazing how knowing good gay people makes all the difference in the world. Though I clearly support gay marriage I wasn't necessarily trying to argue the issue. It's just the easiest example in what I was originally talking about.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I don't find the concept of "burden of proof" all that useful in arguments between private citizens. Instead of saying, "The burden of proof is on you!" one could just say, "I'm not going to change my mind on this unless you really impress me." I think that means all the same things. If there are legal consequences, though, then burden of proof can be very important. Its role in a court case can change your life.

If somebody claims that the state should forbid gay marriage because God is against it, then I'd agree that this opinion simply has no place in secular law. If a group of citizens wants to define their own religious rite and exclude gay couples from it, then I believe they have that right, but marriage as a civil contract is a secular matter. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

I'm not sure whether I'm rejecting the religious claim to forbid gay marriage on grounds of it being an extraordinary claim with unmet burden of proof, though. My immediate reaction is that that particular reasoning doesn't sound right, but I admit that I haven't thought it through carefully. My other reasons on this subject seem good enough to me that I haven't bothered to analyse just how strong the additional ones are.

My main reason for supporting gay marriage is probably George, who was Senior Warden of my old church in Boston. I got to know him when I was also on the church council, and he was so clearly a good man and a good Christian that after I learned he was gay I could no longer take seriously the idea that God didn't want him to marry his partner. George was empirical data, and that decided this issue for me. Theism is compatible with changing one's mind.

George was empirical data that God thinks gay marriage is good because George is a good man.

Oh my gosh.

Tell that to your physics teacher class whatever it is that you do with physics.

Wait no I don't want you to lose your job.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

 I agree with everything you've said here. You are expressing the same argument I am and I'm fine if we don't want to call it “Burden of proof” and say it some other way and yes amongst private citizens it's not really necessary. You're second paragraph is my view exactly and I'm fine with religion excluding who they want within their religion.

I'm glad to hear you support gay marriage and it's amazing how knowing good gay people makes all the difference in the world. Though I clearly support gay marriage I wasn't necessarily trying to argue the issue. It's just the easiest example in what I was originally talking about.

So now there are two who reason alike.

There is no God but because gay people are good then God must approve of their marriage.

Wow. Just plain wow. And that is empirical evidence. Do you know what the words empirical evidence mean?

I have no problem with gay people being good or gay people getting married but I am dumbfounded at that reasoning.

Edited September 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Physics Guy]

"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

I heard a sermon once which pointed out that the following verse in Matthew, which interprets "the sign of Jonah" as the Resurrection because Jonah spent three days in a fish, makes no sense. If it isn't an interpolation, it makes the whole passage say, "It is wicked to insist on a miraculous sign, so you won't get a sign, except for a really big one! Yeah!"

The interpolation about the Resurrection is missing from the Luke version, which instead goes on more coherently to uphold Jonah's Ninevites as people who repented at a preaching that touched their hearts even though it came without any signs. The repentance of the Ninevites at the mere hearing of the word is the plot climax of the Jonah story, and for Jesus to refer to the Jonah story as an example of faith without signs would have been sound exegesis on his part.

That's how empirical evidence is supposed to work with God. If God were into spectacular signs, supernovas would spell out commandments in the sky every night. Instead you hear something, or you get to know someone, and it changes you.

[DemonsAway]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So now there are two who reason alike.

There is no God but because gay people are good then God must approve of their marriage.

Wow. Just plain wow. And that is empirical evidence. Do you know what the words empirical evidence mean?

I have no problem with gay people being good or gay people getting married but I am dumbfounded at that reasoning.

I am agreeing with the argument Physics Guy was actually making in regards to what I was talking about, which were his first two paragraphs. The last half were his own thoughts on which there's nothing really to argee or disagree with because he wasn't really making an argument.

I'm an atheist and I would say the more appropriate term would be secularist if I had to attribute a label to myself, so his paragraph about George doesn't really reflect the position I'm coming from. I don't have a problem with what he said though because it's his opinion of what decided the issue for him.

Let me put it to you this way, I'm a lot more comfortable with someone's position on gay marriage being based on their experiences with actual gay people than I am taking a position because it's your church's position.

I'm not saying there is no God, I'm saying the evidence isn't there. I'm not saying because gay people are good that God must approve, but God sure hasn't provided the reasoning for why it is wrong.

I'll take it further, from the LDS perspective how do we know what the rules are? Of course it's not just pointing to a book and saying these are God's laws. Anyone could point to any book and make the same argument. It's based on revelation through the holy spirit, right? How does one receive revelation? Through faith. So you have to believe in order to even have access to the rules or the truth from an LDS perspective. That's a very inefficient and unfair way to handle things and seems quite fallacious to me. If God can't make the rules/laws clear to everyone then he's in no position to judge anyone or to be called a god, and if we still called him God we'd have to admit that he's an unjust god.

[pogi]

On 9/14/2017 at 12:36 AM, DemonsAway said:

I agree for the most part but I'd say most of what you're referencing is covered in personal beliefs, so I'd say no big deal anyways. My post before this one gets more into what I'm talking about and where I think burden of proof is relevant.

 

On 9/14/2017 at 12:19 AM, DemonsAway said:

I'm not talking about whether or not gay marriage is wrong I'm talking about how we come to conclusions about laws that are going to affect everyone and the one way I think burden of proof is relevant. I'm not talking specifically about Mormonism either.

What if we made laws based literally on the Bible? Stoning people to death for various stupid reasons. There are a decent number of countries where you can be still be executed for being gay or an atheist. In the way you're arguing they would be as justified in their belief as you are. When do we stop and say, prove your claims? If I claimed that my God wants all left-handed people put to death, am I as justified in that belief as someone who believes their God is against gay marriage? Do I have a right to enforce this belief on other people? Hopefully someone would ask for proof of my claims.

We're talking about laws that affect everyone. Who's interpretation of God's will do we go by? Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals? The best approach is to base them in logic, reason, and rational debate. What are the pros and cons of allowing or denying gay marriage? Who is it affecting, who is it hurting by allowing or denying it? That sounds a lot more logical than leaving it up to anyone's interpretation of what they believe God wants.

You say that you agree with me that it is fine to have personal beliefs without requiring burden of proof, and that you are ok with people voting on legislation according to their personal beliefs, yet you insist that we are not justified in enforcing our personal beliefs on others without proof?  Do you see the contradiction?  

Anytime a law is voted in, then the popular personal beliefs will be enforced on the minority who have different personal beliefs.  That is how it works.  You may not like the system, but that is the system.  We don't need proof or reason, so long as it is found constitutional.  That is the point of voting - to have the people's voices (personal beliefs) heard!  

What you are proposing is that the voice of the people be suppressed in favor of "reason, logic, proof, etc."  But I have to ask - who's reason, logic, and proof should we trust? What you don't get is that reason, logic, and proof are in the eye of the beholder. There are only opinions and interpretations, i.e. "personal beliefs".

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

You say that you agree with me that it is fine to have personal beliefs without requiring burden of proof, and that you are ok with people voting on legislation according to their personal beliefs, yet you insist that we are not justified in enforcing our personal beliefs on others without proof?  Do you see the contradiction?  

 

Sounds kind of like the church's directive of "it's ok if you don't believe the right way.  But you can't tell people what you think or feel or we'll have to send you packing" type of stuff to me. 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds kind of like the church's directive of "it's ok if you don't believe the right way.  But you can't tell people what you think or feel or we'll have to send you packing" type of stuff to me. 

First, that is quite the opposite of what I am saying and sounds more like what DemonsAway is calling for.  He is saying that personal beliefs have no place in legislation and should be suppressed.  My point is that all legislation is based on personal beliefs, and that all voices should be heard, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. 

Second, I think you are making a false accusation against the church.  They will only "send you packing" if you teach your way as doctrine (if it is contrary from professed doctrines of the church).  Culturally, you may not fit in very well if you have completely different beliefs from the norm, but they will not send you packing. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

I am agreeing with the argument Physics Guy was actually making in regards to what I was talking about, which were his first two paragraphs. The last half were his own thoughts on which there's nothing really to argee or disagree with because he wasn't really making an argument.

I'm an atheist and I would say the more appropriate term would be secularist if I had to attribute a label to myself, so his paragraph about George doesn't really reflect the position I'm coming from. I don't have a problem with what he said though because it's his opinion of what decided the issue for him.

Let me put it to you this way, I'm a lot more comfortable with someone's position on gay marriage being based on their experiences with actual gay people than I am taking a position because it's your church's position.

I'm not saying there is no God, I'm saying the evidence isn't there. I'm not saying because gay people are good that God must approve, but God sure hasn't provided the reasoning for why it is wrong.

I'll take it further, from the LDS perspective how do we know what the rules are? Of course it's not just pointing to a book and saying these are God's laws. Anyone could point to any book and make the same argument. It's based on revelation through the holy spirit, right? How does one receive revelation? Through faith. So you have to believe in order to even have access to the rules or the truth from an LDS perspective. That's a very inefficient and unfair way to handle things and seems quite fallacious to me. If God can't make the rules/laws clear to everyone then he's in no position to judge anyone or to be called a god, and if we still called him God we'd have to admit that he's an unjust god.

You are not understanding me at all and I suppose that is my fault, but it seems you just cannot conceive what I am talking about

There are secular religions, without God.  Evidence has nothing to do with religion OR secularism.  It's like comparing basketball and knitting

Here is an article I hope you actually read and understand written by one who's religious beliefs do not include belief in God and who is a secularist.

It was written just before he passed away and captures it all.

I won't be bothering you any more unless you want to discuss this article, AFTER you have read it.  THIS is my view of religion- they only place I disagree with Dworkin is whether or not the belief in God is a useful belief in life.

I find the belief in a Human God who is the Ideal Human highly useful in organizing my world view.

But honestly I do not think you will understand this article or take it to heart, or reconsider you ill advised understanding of "religion"

Let me put this bluntly.  I totally agree with this guy except I believe in God AND the PHILOSOPHY of the LDS church

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

 

Quote

 

I said, just now, that the religious attitude rests finally on faith. I said that mainly to point out that science and mathematics are, in the same way, matters of faith as well. In each domain we accept felt, inescapable conviction rather than the benediction of some independent means of verification as the final arbiter of what we are entitled responsibly to believe. This kind of faith is not just passive acceptance of the conceptual truth that we cannot justify our science or our logic or our values without appealing to science or logic or value. It is a positive affirmation of the reality of these worlds and of our confidence that though each of our judgments may be wrong we are entitled to think them right if we have reflected on them responsibly enough.

In the special case of value, however, faith means something more, because our convictions about value are emotional commitments as well and, whatever tests of coherence and internal support they survive, they must feel right in an emotional way as well. They must have a grip on one’s whole personality. Theologians often say that religious faith is a sui generis experience of conviction. Rudolf Otto, in his markedly influential book, The Idea of the Holy, called the experience “numinous” and said it was a kind of “faith-knowledge.”⁸ I mean to suggest that convictions of value are also complex, sui generis, emotional experiences. As we will see [in a later section of the new book, Religion Without God], when scientists confront the unimaginable vastness of space and the astounding complexity of atomic particles they have an emotional reaction that matches Otto’s description surprisingly well. Indeed many of them use the very term “numinous” to describe what they feel. They find the universe awe-inspiring and deserving of a kind of emotional response that at least borders on trembling.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, that is quite the opposite of what I am saying and sounds more like what DemonsAway is calling for.  He is saying that personal beliefs have no place in legislation and should be suppressed.  My point is that all legislation is based on personal beliefs, and that all voices should be heard, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. 

Second, I think you are making a false accusation against the church.  They will only "send you packing" if you teach your way as doctrine (if it is contrary from professed doctrines of the church).  Culturally, you may not fit in very well if you have completely different beliefs from the norm, but they will not send you packing. 

I disagree with pretty much all you said.  But that's ok.  I'm still quite fond of you.  of course the Church will send you packing, excommunicate, if you continue to share your thoughts and feelings and teach them, particularly if you influence other members.  Thus, the directive, if you believe differently, that's ok.  But keep silent about your thoughts and feelings.  People might think you have an interesting point. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree with pretty much all you said.  But that's ok.  I'm still quite fond of you.  of course the Church will send you packing, excommunicate, if you continue to share your thoughts and feelings and teach them, particularly if you influence other members.  Thus, the directive, if you believe differently, that's ok.  But keep silent about your thoughts and feelings.  People might think you have an interesting point. 

What about my first point do you disagree with?

Yes, if your teachings in church are in repudiation of, or in contradiction to, the church's established teachings then you can be excommunicated.  I acknowledged that (teaching your opinion as doctrine or TRUTH).  However, you will not be excommunicated for having an opinion or expressing your opinion so long as it is not taught as "the truth".  

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

What about my first point do you disagree with?

That it's the opposite. 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, if your teachings in church are in repudiation of, or in contradiction to, the church's established teachings then you can be excommunicated.  I acknowledged that (teaching your opinion as doctrine or TRUTH).  However, you will not be excommunicated for having an opinion or expressing your opinion so long as it is not taught as "the truth".  

So if you say "my opinion is that the Church is dead wrong to have made the Nov 2015 policy change."  You're cool?  But if you say, "the Church is dead wrong to have made the Nov 2015 policy change", then see ya later, bro.  You out.  The second statement is obviously an opinion of he/she who states it.  The first one is obviously an opinion that the person making it is thinking he/she is teaching the truth. 

Not an easy line to draw it seems to me.  Quite arbitrary and pretty useless, in fact.   

[pogi]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That it's the opposite. 

This is the point I made:

Quote

 My point is that all legislation is based on personal beliefs, and that all voices should be heard 

This is what you said in response:

Quote

Sounds kind of like the church's directive of "it's ok if you don't believe the right way.  But you can't tell people what you think or feel or we'll have to send you packing" type of stuff to me.

That sounds nothing like what I was saying.  It sounded to me like you are accusing me of suggesting that voices should be suppressed.  That is indeed the opposite of what I was suggesting, which was this - that no voice or personal belief should be suppressed when it comes to making legislation in favor of the "reasonable, logical, and proven voices."

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So if you say "my opinion is that the Church is dead wrong to have made the Nov 2015 policy change."  You're cool?  But if you say, "the Church is dead wrong to have made the Nov 2015 policy change", then see ya later, bro.  You out.  The second statement is obviously an opinion of he/she who states it.  The first one is obviously an opinion that the person making it is thinking he/she is teaching the truth. 

Not an easy line to draw it seems to me.  Quite arbitrary and pretty useless, in fact.   

 No, you are not out.  You can say that and not be excommunicated.  Now, if you start using your voice as a tool to persuade others to leave the church because of the policy, and in repudiation of and opposition to long established teachings/doctrines, then you are on sandy ground.  

It is not always an easy line to draw, you are right.  Intention, purpose, spirit, and context matters.  That is what church courts are for.