Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[dharveymi]

I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?  I'm not saying you have to believe what I say, but being unkind is not likely to lead to understanding.  Maybe the problem is that you have met so many people like me.  It's easy to fit this peg in a hole.  I'm sorry, no one is a peg.  It's just not nice.  Would it be such a crime to just say, "I don't believe that for such and such a reason."[/quote]

It's not because you claim to be a Christian.  It's because, like Gene in many ways, you've been ducking and dodging honest questions and challenges (I'm not talking about Brokor, he's plainly been being a dick), and people don't have a lot of tolerance for that sort of thing.  We were doing okay talking about morality, but when it comes to the subject of your own belief in God and beliefs about God, you don't seem willing to say "I believe in God and believe that he is a certain kind of being but don't have any reason to do so which I can rationally justify," which is what it boils down to. 

So you are looking for me to say certain words.  Just say that up front.  "Before I can respond to your posts, you need to admit this..."  You can give a few reasons if you choose and then leave it at that.

any reason to do so which I can rationally justify

I don't think we are going to get very far in this conversation though.  You seem to reject any evidence that is not gained through scientific exploration.  Eye-witness isn't evidence, the Bible isn't evidence, cultural traditions are not evidence.  I believe it to be irrational to reject a whole body of human knowledge because it is outside of scientific exploration (I know you say it's not, because science has "debunked" each of these, but not by adopting the methods of it's exploration, but by rejecting them.)  I won't reject this whole body of knowledge on the word of a few modern people whose credentials I question.  I just don't trust "science" or "scientists" on anything or real import.  I think science is much more likely to be motivated by money than any quest for the truth.  This is not to say that I reject the scientific method or logic.  I just recognize the limitations of science which you are unwilling to admit.

Can you admit that, "Scientific claims should be limited to things that can be repeated."  I didn't think so.  We are at an impasse.  I will stop short of saying you are being unreasonable, stupid, or a believer in modern mythology, because that's just not very nice.

I honestly don't have a problem with a theist who acknowledges frankly that their theism is not justified, and they "just have faith."   It's when they try to argue that it is, or argue that I have the same kind of beliefs but don't acknowledge it, or-- this is a great one-- that I was never really a Christian because I stopped being one, or that non-theists are morally bankrupt, or that people who reject the god in the Bible haven't read the Bible properly-- that I tend to get annoyed. 

Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.  I am truly mystified by arguments to the contrary.  I'm sorry you have a problem with me because of that, but it is an intellectual debate; I don't understand why you would have a problem with me because of it.

I was never really a Christian because I stopped being one

I don't know what this means but I never made this claim.

non-theists are morally bankrupt

I never made this claim.  But it's been made of me.

people who reject the god in the Bible haven't read the Bible properly

I really didn't say this, although you thought I had.  I was angry that you were telling me what I must believe, because I believe in the Bible.  Because you have studied the Bible, doesn't mean I haven't.  It also doesn't make your interpretation the correct interpretation. (Admittedly, this applies to me as well.)

So, I'm sorry if you are annoyed.  If it bothers you so much, just don't respond to me.  If enough people do that, I guarantee, I'll go away.  I'll get bored.  I hope you will not.  I have enjoyed some of our discussions.

[dharveymi]

yada...yada

Do you disagree with me in some way?

[ChristianAnarchist]

I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?

You wanna really stir up the pot?  How about this... "homosexuality" is silly and unreasonable (that'll kick it up a notch)...

After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

[dharveymi]

Actually, dharvey wins.

I appreciate the vote of support.  I know we don't agree on everything, I hope we somehow find some space to discuss or respective beliefs.

I admire your devotion to freedom, and loved the gun story you told on air.

[dharveymi]

I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?

You wanna really stir up the pot?  How about this... "homosexuality" is silly and unreasonable (that'll kick it up a notch)...

After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

Good point.  I don't want to suggest that we are intolerant in any way.  That would be horrible.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I think when a person is being reasonable, it's reasonable to response in a similar fashion.  Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?

You wanna really stir up the pot?  How about this... "homosexuality" is silly and unreasonable (that'll kick it up a notch)...

After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

Good point.  I don't want to suggest that we are intolerant in any way.  That would be horrible.

Yes, the intolerance can be left to the atheists and homosexuals.  It's something they seem to excel in...

[Rillion]

Do you really think you can respect me as a human being while calling my beliefs silly, unreasonable, etc.?

Yes, I do.  I can be polite to you, and wholeheartedly support your right to say what you want, while simultaneously criticizing the content of what you say.

So you are looking for me to say certain words.  Just say that up front.  "Before I can respond to your posts, you need to admit this..."

I've been responding to your posts without you saying what I want, so obviously that's not the case. 

Can you admit that, "Scientific claims should be limited to things that can be repeated."

I can admit that scientific claims should be limited to conclusions that can be reached via the scientific method.  Why should I do otherwise?

Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.

You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 

I was angry that you were telling me what I must believe, because I believe in the Bible.

I assumed that when you said you believe in the Bible, that you meant that you believe what the Bible says.  Can't say I can apologize for that. 

Because you have studied the Bible, doesn't mean I haven't.

I never said otherwise.  In fact, you  have alleged as much to me.

[ladyattis]

Yes, I do.  I can be polite to you, and wholeheartedly support your right to say what you want, while simultaneously criticizing the content of what you say.

I think you've been too generous, Rillion. This fellow acts like me but in a subversive manner. At least you know when I'm being a jackhole. This chap wants to worm his way to being "your friend." I say that because I know his type. He tries to use psychological tactics to win rather than facts and values.

You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means.

He can't without producing a contradiction.

-- Brede

[Rillion]

After all, it defeats the purpose of "nature" which so many here seem to think is important.  Sexual organs are for reproduction (oh yeah, that will get disputed).  Homosexual behavior DOES NOT result in reproduction.  Therefore, homosexuality is silly and unreasonable...

There are examples of homosexual intercourse in other species too, that's not for procreation. Why does God hate homosexuals when he created the min the first place? Your God's a bastard.

You can point out the existence of homosexuality in other species, but in a way that affirms the naturalistic fallacy-- that for some reason, we are "supposed" to serve nature, that somehow nature has opinions about how we should act which should be followed.  But in fact there is no such thing as a "crime against nature," and so that argument is complete crap. 

...not that Gene would ever let such an idea sink through his skull, of course.  You're better off arguing with a log.  It's interesting that, outside of the Catholics, you hardly ever meet a "sex organs are for reproduction" homophobe who has a problem with birth control. 

[ladyattis]

By Gene's logic, it's bad that we use vaccines since they are not inherent to Nature in that hey require the integration of concepts and values for life to make them so. Or how about a building, a gun, a car, a human toy, and so on.

The naturalistic fallacy is in itself a fallacy, but on the grounds that supposes no moral proposition can be grounded in reality. I say all moral propositions are grounded in reality since either the moral proposition says something about life to its benefit or antithesis. If it says neither, then it's not a moral proposition. Either way, that means even Gene's argument fails big time because one cannot subscribe good or bad to states of nature such that they do not require volition to occur, thus his suggestion implies that morality is to be in conflict with existence rather than in harmony with it such that anything not volitional is not im/moral. Ayn Rand made that point long ago, and so did many folks before her. No one has yet countered it.

-- Brede

[dharveymi]

I've been responding to your posts without you saying what I want, so obviously that's not the case. 

I was recommending it as a course of action.

Can you admit that, "Scientific claims should be limited to things that can be repeated."

I can admit that scientific claims should be limited to conclusions that can be reached via the scientific method.  Why should I do otherwise?

And yet you criticize people who do not accept that the origin of species is evolution (short-hand for what you believe, insert correct verbiage, if mine is lacking.)  Which of course cannot be repeated.

Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.

You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 

I'm sure your are referring to the latter statement, and this is what we've been arguing about for days.  You just don't like my arguments.  Sorry.

I was angry that you were telling me what I must believe, because I believe in the Bible.

I assumed that when you said you believe in the Bible, that you meant that you believe what the Bible says.  Can't say I can apologize for that. 

I do believe in what the Bible says, but you certainly must understand the concept of "context".  Taken out of context, I have admitted that there are many disturbing things in the bible, as there are probably such disturbing statements in any anthology.  I'm not asking you to apologize, but because you don't feel like to should apologize, does not mean that I was unjustifiably angry.

Because you have studied the Bible, doesn't mean I haven't.

I never said otherwise.  In fact, you  have alleged as much to me.

But, you implied it.

[dharveymi]

By Gene's logic, it's bad that we use vaccines since they are not inherent to Nature in that hey require the integration of concepts and values for life to make them so. Or how about a building, a gun, a car, a human toy, and so on.

The naturalistic fallacy is in itself a fallacy, but on the grounds that supposes no moral proposition can be grounded in reality. I say all moral propositions are grounded in reality since either the moral proposition says something about life to its benefit or antithesis. If it says neither, then it's not a moral proposition. Either way, that means even Gene's argument fails big time because one cannot subscribe good or bad to states of nature such that they do not require volition to occur, thus his suggestion implies that morality is to be in conflict with existence rather than in harmony with it such that anything not volitional is not im/moral. Ayn Rand made that point long ago, and so did many folks before her. No one has yet countered it.

-- Brede

Yeah, I think you miss the point.  Gene was saying that homosexuality was silly, unreasonable, etc.  Not morally "bad."  Although, he might believe that as well.  Personally, I believe that only the practice of homosexuality is immoral, not the state of homosexuality, but that's not really the point.  Homosexuality is silly, unreasonable, irrational, etc.

[Rillion]

And yet you criticize people who do not accept that the origin of species is evolution (short-hand for what you believe, insert correct verbiage, if mine is lacking.)  Which of course cannot be repeated.

I hope you're not operating under the bizarre belief that something which happened in the past can't be studied scientifically-- are you throwing geology and archeology out as well?  Vast amounts of astronomy?  Besides, speciation has  been observed-- many times.  I've already pointed that out to you, as a matter of fact.  And if you're talking about the origin of ALL species, that's called abiogenesis and doesn't fall under the domain of evolution anyway. 

Besides the semantic difference we have for the word faith, I have admitted as much.  I claim I have no proof for the existence of God.  I do believe that a naturalistic philosophy has no inherent justifiable basis, by definition.

You can claim to believe that, but you've provided no argument for it whatsoever-- for that matter, you haven't provided an argument for why anything  has an "inherent justifiable basis," whatever that means. 

I'm sure your are referring to the latter statement, and this is what we've been arguing about for days.  You just don't like my arguments.  Sorry.

What latter statement?  I confess, I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.  And you haven't made any arguments against naturalistic philosophy for me to dislike. 

I do believe in what the Bible says, but you certainly must understand the concept of "context".  Taken out of context, I have admitted that there are many disturbing things in the bible, as there are probably such disturbing statements in any anthology.

Wow, if you're shooting for the Top 10 Most Repeated Ridiculous Statements from Christians, you're doing pretty well.  I've heard this one hundreds of times-- if there's something in the Bible that appears to be disturbing, it must be taken out of context!  Any time God is described as slaughter mass numbers of people or ordering them to be slaughtered?  Out of context.  Any time God orders somebody to kill their child for him?  Out of context.  Any time God hands down sadistic punishments for minor infractions?  Out of context.  Any time Jesus yells at someone or threatens them with hellfire?  Out of context.  Very convenient, that. 

[ladyattis]

I'm still looking for a causality based argument that shows homosexuality is wrong. Why causality based? Because there is no explicit declaration in reality to duty to anything.

-- Brede

[dharveymi]

I'm still looking for a causality based argument that shows homosexuality is wrong. Why causality based? Because there is no explicit declaration in reality to duty to anything.

-- Brede

Yeah! Once again, silly not wrong.