Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

fm wrote-

Quote:

The evidence is quite compelling spendi. Youd have to have your nose firmly up your ass to deny it. The John JAy report, commissioned by the Conf of Bishops had revealed (remember this is an internal document), That certain facts are indesputable

1. There are over 4390 priests accused of molestation, with a resultant "payout after judgement" of over 6 Billion Dollars by the Church (hardly a trivial amount and not one disputed by the church)

2The church had established a practice of "serial reassignment" for molesters, thus keeping their acts from "piling up" at any one diocese

3The church has consistently failed to report incidents to the cops

4There are several plots uncovered where the diocesan "bigwigs" were guilty of concealing evidence

5Over 600 million of quiet "payouts" were made to alleged victims to keep cases from ever seeing a court

If it quacks like a duck...

The only compelling evidence relates to the state of the Catholic Church in America and that has nothing to do with this subject.

0 Replies

aidan wrote-

Quote:

the issue of 'goodness', which in Alex's case was not something inherent in his nature and was forced upon him - and he became almost robotic or mechanical in carrying that 'goodness' out. It was simply a mechanism of his survival instead of something that he really believed in.

Which Mr Burgess had seen is the alternative method to moral teaching. A Pavlovian solution.

Quote:

Is that the point you're trying to make Spendius?

More or less. That atheists have no answer to the problem that they are prepared to explain.

Quote:

That maybe the one out of three Christians who have integrated and are truly intent on living a moral life as Christ taught (again, only using Christianity as an example- I'm aware there are other religions that at least try to offer a moralistic credo)- might have the means of maintaining a more constant moral compass than those who rely on the lessons taught by their own experiences in a world which is constantly changing, especially in terms of what is acceptable in terms of morals, values and behavior.

But there is Orwell to worry about but I don't recommend you doing so.

Quote:

And you're applying this to children, who as I think we all can agree (I hope this isn't an assumption, assertion or naturalistic fallacy) are extremely malleable and may not have the means to make the right choice or decision, and are exceptionally vulnerable to the pressure of their peers and maybe other less than moral adults around them.

Yes.

Quote:

And that since school is the one compulsory event in their young lives - that might be a good place to try to give them some sort of road map for negotiating through life- along with teaching them their abc's.

Yes.

Quote:

I thought this was kind of interesting: I was reading another book and the author talked about 'kindness' which I think is akin to 'goodness' and this author said he used to think that kindness can be learned, but that now he believes it's more like an allotment or endowment - in other words that some people are 'gifted' with it as an aspect of their personality and others aren't.

That's a very complex question to put it mildly.

Quote:

And I am genuinely interested in exploring whether this might be true. I think it could be interesting on two levels - as an adjunct to the discussion of morality as inherent in an organism as well as looking at it as a function of evolution of the species.
And what purpose does it serve?

To the individual or to society; seen as circles with the individual as centre?

Quote:

Would the kinder organism be looked at as more or less evolved?
It seems that in today's moral climate - kindness is viewed more as an evolutionary weakness than strength.
At least that's my take.

It's not my take. It is a strength. In an atheist society, by which I mean everybody thinks atheistically, kindness would be pathetic. I can't see where it would come from in such a society. I don't think there is any natural organic disposition to kindness.

I've read Clockwork Orange. I've seen the movie, which I didn't like and I have read most of Mr Burgess's output including his autobiogs.

He was messing around with language technicalities in the main. He was an expert in that field. He said Kubrick didn't understand the moral he had in mind. Burgess was a lapsed Catholic.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
(By LAURA BEIL, The New York Times, June 4, 2008)

"When you consider evolution, there are certainly questions that have yet to be answered," said Mr. Fisher, science coordinator for the Lewisville Independent School District in North Texas.

But, he added, "a question that has yet to be answered is certainly different from an alleged weakness."

A phrase worth remembering: "a question that has yet to be answered is certainly different from an alleged weakness."

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Youve been a consistent apologist for the CAtholic Church and waaaay back in the dim Pliocene, I accusd you several times of being a defrocked priest who still maintains a "priestly" lifestyle. You have , several times in the past, attempted the diversion of our attention from this issue and have played a "so what" kind of game.
Just to remind some of the newcomers that spendi is temporally consistent in several of his core beliefs. (I guess thats why we call them core beliefs)

I'm an apologist for nothing fm. I support the basic social teachings of the Church. The actual Church over the years has manifested many faces but the core teachings remain and doing without them looks fraught with danger to me.

This phrase was used in a recent Sunday Times Book review-

Quote:

prescient of the American disaster to come.

It was odd how little it shocked.

I will be temporally consistent whilever I live in time.

0 Replies

I think that people who are looking at pedophile/priests and attributing their pedophilia to religion are looking at it backwards.

A person is not a pedophile because he's a priest - he becomes a priest because he's a pedophile. And the two have nothing more to do with each other than do pedophilia and boy scouts. Would people say that the philosophy of boy scouts is somehow linked to or attributable to pedophilia?

There's no defense of it - and I do think it's particularly interesting that it seems to be such a uniquely American issue-present mainly in the American Catholic church... which I hadn't realized before now.

I have my own theories of why that might be - since forty or fifty years ago being gay was something to be hidden and ashamed of - maybe the priesthood presented an acceptable way for a male to maintain a veneer of heterosexuality while pursuing an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Maybe it was the mores of our society which placed such constraints as would position these people in positions of power over vulnerable children.
But even still - I guess you'd have to ask why they didn't have sex with each other and preyed upon vulnerable children...and that's a whole different phenomenon and in fact pathology (which I don't view homosexuality as being).

I don't think kindness is a weakness - I meant it was/is my take that it is viewed as being an evolutionary weakness- but maybe that's uniquely American too - it's a real dog eat dog society we live in these days.

I know what purpose kindness serves in a society - I'm just wondering if it's really kindness if someone practices it simply because it serves a purpose. By definition, it would seem to me that it can only be true kindness or goodness if it's not self-serving - and that's why I tend to agree that true kindness is an endowed personality characteristic rather than any learned pattern of behavior.

So I still stick on the point that an atheistic person or non-believer is not capable of inherent goodness or kindness.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

So I still stick on the point that an atheistic person or non-believer is not capable of inherent goodness or kindness.

What evidence do you have for such a belief?

0 Replies

Mr S wrote-

Quote:

Now of course none of this is in any way my attempt to show that catholics are somehow worse than other people, but rather that this is a specific case strongly hinting at refutation of your own ideas about Christianity being both the best and in some ways only moral guide, which I will repeat you have completely and utterly failed to support.

That's for others to judge.

Quote:

Concerning the abuse ruining lives, that's on a sliding scale. I would bet that a decent number of the cases resulted in revulsion, etc, and likely some other issues, but not life-ruining levels. I would also bet that there were some clear cases of serious damage and if you are attempting to minimize those cases, it is quite despicable.

I wasn't attempting to minimize anything.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
There are millions, some say billions, of lives that are ruined around the world on a permanent basis. The focus on the well-to-do American victim is caused by media catering to a market which is obsessed with sex and anything to do with sex and on undermining the RC Church. Thus there's a "cocktail" of forces swirling around the subject which only those taking a deep and abiding interest in it have any chance of getting to the bottom of.

Anything to rationalize an unfavorable reality, huh? Nice try at trying to change the subject, though. Oh, and this isn't just about America, there are cases in England and Ireland as well that received quite a bit of attention - in fact, the Fern Report was over in your neck of the woods.

They are in the courts here when cases come up. Some are in prison. You obviously didn't understand the point so it follows that I'm tragically incorrect again. How could it be otherwise?

Quote:

spendius wrote:
The food price increases are caused by the American demand for oil distorting the price of that commodity and making it unaffordable to poor countries. And the lives of the people in those countries are being ruined objectively and on such a scale that these faked displays of outraged indignation can easily be seen as an expression of the fascination with such matters as priests being alleged to have done "something" which I have no idea whether they have done. And neither have you or c.i..

Nice, still trying to change the subject. I'm not biting.

I can't say I blame you. Mirror gazing is quite comforting I'm told.

Quote:

And you've strongly implied that the allegations are untrue, you did it just a couple paragraphs ago when you tried to minimize the damage caused by the molestation, sheesh.

I did no such thing.

Quote:

You've also attempted to cast doubt on the facts of a subject which is very, very easily researched, but that was because you think all the allegations are true, right?

I have not. I would imagine most of the allegations are true. We live in a world of compensation lawyers who are on a %. It looks like you believe everything they tell their clients to claim. Some people walk away from things unscathed which others claim have wrecked their lives.
Do you dispute that?

I think you just like talking about child molestation for whatever reason.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
There are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of cases where allegations are not defended because to do so causes the stigma and embarrassment involved to be a worse outcome than letting it go.

I had to read this a couple times to make sure you were really trying to make that argument. You think the church doesn't defend the allegations because there's more stigma and embarassment than when they settle and/or just let the accusations sit there? Seriously?

Again, I said no such thing. I don't know why the American church does what it does. blatham gave a case he had experienced of the very thing I'm talking about a long while back. The guy in that case let it go. It's a money machine preying on the prurience of the audience.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
If you, or c.i., are concerned with preventing lives being ruined forever I think you ought to shift your attention to other matters otherwise it could be alleged that you are not concerned with that in the least and are much more interested in reading and thinking about sex scandals and jacking your egos off.

Yes, I know that you want to change the subject, but you're not vulgar enough yet. Please reference scat porn next, but only in reference to our egos.

I'll reference scat porn for you if you wish and from a scientific point of view. If you clear it with the mods I mean. Mailer and Greil Marcus brought it up and then shirked it. Joyce didn't shirk it.

I'll quote a biologist if you like. But check with the mods.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

"Very often over the last 10 years, we've seen antievolution policies in sheep's clothing," said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism.

What is the NCSE in favour of wande. As it stands it's only against something. Does it support abortion, homosexuality, gay couples adopting, adultery, group sex, bestiality, open ended consensual perversions, deregulation of media, gladiators, drug taking without limits on the caveat emptor principle, price gouging, gun running, insider trading, vote rigging, bribery etc. What has an atheist to say about any of those things that makes the slightest sense outside his own selfish interests?

Explain to me will you? The scientific principle I mean for any objection the NCSE might raise to any or all of those which can't be laughed at.

Quote:

Yet even as courts steadily prohibited the outright teaching of creationism and intelligent design, creationists on the Texas board grew to a near majority. Seven of 15 members subscribe to the notion of intelligent design, and they have the blessings of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican.

One assumes these people were elected in open competition. Which suggests they have majority support doesn't it.

Quote:

The word itself is open to broad interpretation.

How very jolly for the legal profession. Papal infallibility is cheaper I think you will find. That doctrine is designed to prevent the whole GNP being expended on a tower of Babel. (see Rabelais).

Quote:

The Cambrian Explosion was a period of rapid diversification that evidence suggests began around 550 million years ago and gave rise to most groups of complex organisms and animal forms. Scientists are studying how it unfolded.

Well--it's good money and no productive work which is, according to Veblen, "up there", as Andy Warhol phrased it. And you all want to be "up there" I gather.
.

"

Quote:

My personal religious beliefs are going to make no difference in how well our students are going to learn science," he said.

He can get one thing right then.

Quote:

Views like these not only make biology teachers nervous, they also alarm those who have a stake in the state's reputation for scientific exploration. "Serious students will not come to study in our universities if Texas is labeled scientifically backward," said Dr. Dan Foster, former chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

Oh dear. They follow the money do "serious students". And non serious ones too.

Quote:

Mr. Fisher points to the flaws in Darwinian theory that are listed on an anti-evolution Web site, strengthsandweaknesses.org, which is run by Texans for Better Science Education.

"Many of them are decades old," Mr. Fisher said of the flaws listed. "They've all been thoroughly refuted."

Obviously they have been refuted. They are only the "cute" itsy-bitsy flaws which the ladies won't get all in a fluster over.

0 Replies

aidan wrote-

Quote:

So I still stick on the point that an atheistic person or non-believer is not capable of inherent goodness or kindness.

I never said they weren't. I was referring to an atheistic society. I was not referring to an atheist in your society which is, despite your "dog eat dog" expression still fundamentally Christian.

An atheist in an atheist society I meant.

Goodness and kindness can be seen as strategies for insecure people to get by with. Have been so seen.

Spiro Agnew said that the meek will inherit the earth when people like him have finished with it. I think Mathos has said something similar.

And the soaps have taught everybody the lines and the skills to act almost any part with an authenticity which beggars belief.

It's a minefield aidan.

Quote:

Things are seldom what they seem,
Skim milk masquerades as cream;
Highlows pass as patent leathers;
Jackdaws strut in peacock's feathers.

Gilbert and Sullivan.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I know what purpose kindness serves in a society - I'm just wondering if it's really kindness if someone practices it simply because it serves a purpose. By definition, it would seem to me that it can only be true kindness or goodness if it's not self-serving - and that's why I tend to agree that true kindness is an endowed personality characteristic rather than any learned pattern of behavior.

So I still stick on the point that an atheistic person or non-believer is not capable of inherent goodness or kindness.

Why would an atheistic person not be capable of inherent goodness or kindness? What is it about being a religious believer that makes one inherently good or kind?

Hitler was a Christian, but you couldn't say his actions were good or kind. Even if you don't believe he was a Christian, that still doesn't change the fact that the majority of Germans who served him were Christians. It doesn't change the fact that Martin Luther was a Christian, a vehemently anti-Semitic Christian who said that Jews were a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth" and that "[w]e are at fault for not slaying them."

The man whom inspired the Protestant Reformation, without whom you would be a Catholic (assuming, of course, that you aren't a Catholic), was just as anti-Semitic as Hitler.

I can point to the Spanish Inquisition, to Torquemada, to Savonarola, all Christians, all of them rather unpleasant.

What does this prove? Only that Christianity cannot be the source of morals. That bad people can be Christians.

In contrast, I can point to the following good agnostic/atheistic people...

Zackie Achmat, South African anti-HIV/AIDS activist.
Baba Amte, Indian social activist known for his work with lepers.
Saraswathi Gora, Indian social activist who campaigned against the Indian caste system.

You might object to the other good people, because externally, they don't fit your definition of truly kind people. Thing is, how would you know? How would you know that Zackie Achmat wasn't campaigning for better HIV/AIDS treatment because he or someone he knew had it?

Religion can't be the only source of morals, and Spendius' line that atheists can only be good in a religious society is pure nonsense. He is affecting religion some kind of special status that it does not have, which it should be obvious to anyone if they go to a theocratic dictatorship.

Goodness is independent of religion.

I dislike people who instantly dismiss atheistic attempts at kindness, saying we can't be truly kind people, we can't be truly good people, as if we're degenerates. Though, spendius says he is not talking about the individual atheist, I think he is.

What difference does it make if the atheist is alone in a sea of religious people or living in an atheistic society? There is none, unless you want to say that the atheist cannot be a truly kind or truly good person, unless there were religious people all around him/her, pushing their ideals of goodness onto him/her.

What about empathy? I don't give money because I think it might benefit me if the homeless man had something to buy food with. I give because I think it's wrong that he should go hungry.

0 Replies

Goodness is not even a concept without religion. You would have to have obedience without religion. A built in one maybe or a surly, grudging obedience.

We are not good you see. We wouldn't be where we are if we were good. We would probably be swinging in the trees if we were good.

Some of us sometimes think it might not be so bad a thing.

So a parade of badness is hardly surprising now is it? And you can't have badness either without religion.

By parading badness you are recognising religion.

Some say "**** happens". Or "It'll all come out in't wash". The former is American usage.

0 Replies

Or as Dave FAstovsky said.
"Science stands or falls regardless of the disposition of the scientist"

IDers should really pay better attention to their methods classes.

0 Replies

spend, The "christian" religion was created about two thousand years ago - following the Hebrew god.

Also, if you know anything about the christian bible, the man-made god is a jealous god who can smite whole cities from his "anger," killing innocents along with the sinners.

What lesson do you get from the bible about the lessons on tolerance, equal rights for all - including homosexuals, and a "loving" god that would create a world-wide flood to kill all humans - including innocent babies and children?

The christian god is pretty small-minded; even Bush claims "each life is precious!"

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Also, if you know anything about the christian bible, the man-made god is a jealous god who can smite whole cities from his "anger," killing innocents along with the sinners.

Innocent of what? Clint Eastwood said.

He was a bastard c.i. There can be no doubt about that. Then his Son comes in and says look lads you going about it the wrong way. They should have offed him first up and you would now be in the er er deep shite. Wattle and daub (****) huts I shouldn't wonder.

But he got his message out and it's that that he gave his life for. And it's a hard to take message. Inhuman almost. But have we any hope without it.

The old God was in man's image. They extrapolated themselves. The Son is not in man's image. Man should learn to be in His image. I should imagine that the only thing He thought about homosexuality was that He didn't much fancy it.

Would you laugh at the Sermon on the Mount as some cynics do. Pull the other one they say. You'll be toast in a week.

Even aidan said it's dog eat dog.

0 Replies

fm quoted---"Science stands or falls regardless of the disposition of the scientist"

I'm not sure I understand that. I sniff an ambiguity.

What's your take fm?

Does it mean Science has to go carefully.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

aidan wrote:

So I still stick on the point that an atheistic person or non-believer is not capable of inherent goodness or kindness.

What evidence do you have for such a belief?

I mean stick ON- get stuck on - not stick TO CI.

I mean that I don't believe belief in a god is mandatory or required in order for someone to be a good or kind person.

The evidence I have is my personal experience with friends (most of whom are non-believers by the way) who have exhibited great kindness and good heartedness.

That supports my belief that kindness or goodness of spirit is more inherent than learned.

I think there are an awful lot of people who use a belief in god and religion and the bible to support their wish or inherent tendency to be cruel. It's almost like they're given a holy sanction to judge and punish and condemn - as THEY interpret it and see it.

I think unkind people who then would call themselves Christians reject the kindness, mercy and forgiveness that is a part of Christ's message. They choose to focus on other parts of scripture which support their own personal leanings and tendencies.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

How can I possibly answer all these points. I have a busy company to run.

Slowly? With thought put into the responses?

doodoodoo.... *snip*

spendius wrote:

I have seen videos of American policemen clubbing people on the ground . Six on one once. I don't run around assuming that the institution of the Police is evil on that score.

Good. I hope you don't think that applies to my argument somehow.

spendius wrote:

Extraordinary Rendition, judging from how it is described, is a far worse problem that this one is because it is "official". It is done in all your names. A comparison, if fair, would mean that the Church hierarchy actively encourage sex abuse.

Still trying to change the subject... *queues the changing-the-subject song*

spendius wrote:

And what human beings do says nothing about the basic teachings of the Church which are what I think you are all trying to discredit for personal reasons. The Church cannot recruit angels.

The rates of reported abuse are comparable to the general public's reports, iirc. This is about testing against the null hypothesis, eh? I'll ask that you quote me in the future when you think you know what my point is, since you miss it so very often, even when I explicitly contradict you.

spendius wrote:

I was taught by priests in a school with 600 boys and I never saw or heard the slightest indication of anything like this.

I had a P.E. teacher and had no indication that he installed creepy mirrors so he could aim his creepy eyes in a creepy way at the 9-12 year old girls changing in there until many years later when he was fired. After talking to my cousin, who is almost ten years older than me, he had apparently been doing it since she was in school.

So that's at least 15-20 years of creepy P.E. teacher not getting caught, even when the girl students obviously knew (and told no one besides each other).

spendius wrote:

Those who have a disposition to children will soon find out if an organisation is easy to penetrate and will "act" accordingly.

Rationalize some more, it's hilarious Very Happy

. I know that you realize that you're inventing all of these things for the sake of your argument. I don't think you realize that it doesn't actually rebut my points.

spendius wrote:

Anybody here who seeks a job involving children is vetted. Even taxi drivers.

Same here, although it's not entirely rigorous and moving from state to state can shield one from some scrutiny, iirc. I work at a job that deals with children (and the general public) and I think they attempt to avoid this kind of thing by hiring more women, besides the automatic background check. I'm unaware of the rigor involved in the UK.

spendius wrote:

It's a complex matter but I'm not sitting still for the Church's basic teachings being discredited when other factors are in play which have nothing to do with that teaching.

The factors which you have invented as rationalizations that don't address the point?

spendius wrote:

Your eagerness to dwell on these matters is sufficient evidence to me that you have hidden agendas.

LOL. My agenda isn't hidden, I've stated it from the beginning and repeated it often: these are examples that hint at refuting your notions of Christianity bestowing greater moral aptitude/whatever in people. I believe you've compared a lack of it to requiring corporal punishment.

You repeated attempts to change the subject are really obvious and really funny.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
aidan wrote:

So I still stick on the point that an atheistic person or non-believer is not capable of inherent goodness or kindness.

What evidence do you have for such a belief?

I mean stick ON- get stuck on - not stick TO CI.

I mean that I don't believe belief in a god is mandatory or required in order for someone to be a good or kind person.

The evidence I have is my personal experience with friends (most of whom are non-believers by the way) who have exhibited great kindness and good heartedness.

That supports my belief that kindness or goodness of spirit is more inherent than learned.

I think there are an awful lot of people who use a belief in god and religion and the bible to support their wish or inherent tendency to be cruel. It's almost like they're given a holy sanction to judge and punish and condemn - as THEY interpret it and see it.

I think unkind people who then would call themselves Christians reject the kindness, mercy and forgiveness that is a part of Christ's message. They choose to focus on other parts of scripture which support their own personal leanings and tendencies.

I read your revision in a totally different way from your original statement. Thanks for the expansion.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
spendius wrote:
I refer you to Setanta's post on that. Severity of torture was routine for all manner of activities. Life itself was torture.

I recommend that you educate yourself on this matter. The severity and brutality of the specific tortures used were quite distinct. Comparing the tortures of the Inquisition to life itself being torture is degrading, frankly.

Try not to be so silly as to imagine that deliberately misconstruing what I have said is of any interest to me. That's the Obtuse Pedant fallacy.

Sheesh, religious types on here just love to supply me with comedy. Did you really not notice the irony when you made a claim about me "deliberately misconstruing" what you said all while completely ommitted the context? I've reestablished it in the quote. You quite clearly were attempting to minimize the torture in the Inquisition, even going so far as to say, 'life was torture'. Deliberately misconstruing? I think not.

spendius wrote:

Ask fm. If he denies it I'll explain.

OK. farmerman, what is spendius talking about?

spendius wrote:

And get going on the Chinese communism thing willya? Don't ask about it--get my okay on it--drop it--and then declare me providing no context.

I already addressed that. I guess I have to quote myself to get you to pay attention.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Then I think we both understand your grasp of what being "on-topic" means, don't we?

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
As for "cutting the ping-pong", I think we all know that it's just your laziness

Don't be ridiculous. I have no choice you silly sod. And a lot of your stuff is ping-pong. It isn't my problem if you can't see it.

Like I said... labeling back-and-forth as "ping-pong" just lets you be lazy. If you're having trouble replying to my posts, take a bit more time if you need it. Complaining about having to deal with more criticism than can be dealt with in a couple sentences doesn't make sense on a *forum*.

I'll wait Wink

.

spendius wrote:

You are as well, Big Boy. It's an illusion that you are Mr Brain Box.

Squeeky squoop.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
spendius wrote:
I have already conceded your correctness in all matters past, present and future. Do you not remember?

I remember it reeking of dishonesty. But that would be unChristian, wouldn't it? Quick, run from the moral vacuum!

Why wouldn't I concede what I did. There's no question about it. There's nothing going to shift you one iota. So I might as well concede. You win the argument. You win all the arguments you involve yourself with. There's nothing to be done about it. Your mind has snapped shut.

I've fixed the nested quotes for you, you might want to work on that for clarity's sake.

You didn't really challenge my claim of dishonesty, did ya? In fact you seem to be implicitly trying to justify it. I don't accept your concession, it again reeks of dishonesty and is entirely shallow. You obviously don't accept it, either. Good job on taking this as an opportunity to say my "mind has snapped shut", though. Is that how you rationalize ignoring big parts of my arguments? My mind is closed? Wink

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
Or have you never wondered why there are science and math classes?

I've taught both at graduate level.

That doesn't exactly contradict my point, does it? I was making a rhetorical point: the existence of science and math classes in public schools support my claim about school preparing students for economic and societal/communal competence as one of its main goals. Their existence does not support your claim that they are to establish a "Moral compass". To make that claim you'd *really* have to start reaching.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
Then how do you justify bringing up during that topic.

If I supply the context for that I have to go back a few times to different pages copying and pasting and that's out. You know the answer if you have been paying attention. The thread is the context.

Yes, it is, and I've read it. It supports my implications.

spendius wrote:

You are simply trying to avoid answering my question about pilfering because you can't.

Not at all, I've tried addressing it in two ways because you were anything but clear in your point and supplied replies to your responses.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
spendius wrote:
Shirakawasuna wrote:
Or are you actually pretending that society would fall apart and people would simply stop acting ethically without Christianity, such that corporal punishment is the only thing in the 'atheist's toolbox'? I guess I'll have to remind you that for both everything you've listed explicitly and implicitly, you've listed no or very little support.

What is in the "toolbox" then? Ref-pilfering.!

I'll take that as a "yes".

You are incorrect. I never said society will fall apart without Christian morals. There are other means of preventing society falling apart. They are means you are loathe to go into for obvious reasons.

I've restored context again to support my conclusion that you were conceding. I must again recommend working on making your points more clear if you expect anyone to understand you.

I'm not loathe to go into anything, you are simply unclear in your responses. Go back and check my original response, you'll find I replied in two ways because it wasn't clear what you were trying to say. I went into both, including what I just quoted above. I obviously disagree that without Christianity all you have is the corporal punishment you listed, although naturally you're attempting to shift the burden of proof on Christianity's benefit to society: you haven't established it as necessary for ethical actions yet.

spendius wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
spendius wrote:
Shirakawasuna wrote:

I've already explained my use of ad hominem, you were tellingly silent after the explanation. (psst, it's not fallacious)

It isn't intended to be to the man appealed to.

The phrase, "Donkey honks the car" makes about as much sense as that last sentence. What's the 'it'? Who's the 'man'? What does the appeal have to do with the context?

No. It means you can't read properly. The "it" is the ad hominem which is ridiculous if not intended to appeal to the sentiments and prejudices of the person addressed and to change the subject. The person addressed in your case is the viewer here who you think shares your sentiments and prejudices. It's elementary. To get your claque cheering.

I can read just fine, thanks. Ask anyone else to figure out your sentences.

So by substitution, this is what you were saying: "[The ad hominem] isn't intended to be the [viewer] appealed to." Yeah, I still don't get it. Ask someone else if they do. I could guess, but we can see that's unproductive as you then accuse me of deliberately misconstruing what you say. Heck, I will guess, but if you accuse me of being dishonest in my guess, we'll all see how that claim fails: you seem to be claiming that my ad hominem is intended to get me some points with other people viewing this? I suppose that is a part of it, although not the entirety: without some of that ad hominem in response to some less-than-honorable insinuations, they will retain far too much legitimacy to a casual reader. Of course, that ignores the other reasons I've already listed.

You like to ignore my explanations of my usage of nonfallacious ad hom, don't you? I use it in order to establish some sense of shame and grasp at some sense of dignity. It's usually in response to condescension or arrogance which will run rampant if unchecked.

A "claque"? I think most people around here are annoyed that I'm feeding a troll Wink

.

0 Replies

Setanta: Interesting story on the B17 history. SJ Gould called it "cardboard textbook" history, although I don't know if he invented the term Very Happy

.

The thing I have trouble with is finding some authorities on the subject who I can use as an intellectual crutch - it seems the only answer for getting a good understanding of history is brute personal research. Many and varied citations, particularly source material, is always a good sign, though.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know