zapatos

If one goes off though, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. Knowing who is responsible won't help the cleanup much. It may be a people problem, but when designing the solution what is easier to do? Fix all the people who may be a problem, or remove the tool from reach?

No, my fault. I was arguing from an inferior position and did not realize it. Usually I recognize when I am in over my head and keep quiet. After JillSwift got to the core of what I misunderstood, I went back to read your previous post and realized I was wrong to interpret it as I did. I appreciate your, JillSwift's, and Edtharan's explanations.

Excellent! Nice explanation and very likely covers many of those I felt were being unreasonable.

mooeypoo -- I believe the comment was made in jest. Er, um. Look! Behind you!! Sorry, couldn't help but jump back in. I assume you could also say: The only way to take the "indirect evidence" as evidence against god is to make as a priori the decision that there is no god. That's to make a conclusion then find evidence to support it. This necessarily means to exclude evidence that isn't supportive. It's not logical in the least. But I don't think either side is taking the 'indirect evidence' as evidence. They are just trying to figure out what is going on with the information they have. Both the theist and atheist are in the same boat. Huh. I didn't know you could be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. And do you mean to say that "The actual answer to "Does god exist?" is "I don't actually know..." if you are agnostic? Because I think if you are an atheist the answer is 'no'. Also, I'm speaking in general terms. When I say 'atheist' or 'theist', etc. I do not mean to imply all or under all circumstances. Don't leave out the rest of the possibilities: -- c. X can affect our world in some way but chooses not to -- d. X can affect our world but only did so once (creation) -- e. X can affect our world and does so but we do not recognize it as an act of X -- f. ... So long as it's claimed that god is not testable, then even if god does not exist it is irrelevant. But again, I'm not arguing whether or not God exists. My position is simply that no matter where you stand, you have no empirical evidence to support your belief. And if you have no empirical evidence to support your position, I feel it is a bit arrogant to criticize someone else's position just because they arrived there with no empirical evidence.

Your response is an excellent example of what I am talking about. In my previous post I stated that "I don't understand how theists can ignore the cold hard facts of science over an ancient text that has many glaring errors." I then brought up the question of "Does God exist" and suggested it was outside the purview of science and could neither be proven nor disproven empirically, and if you did come up with an answer is was simply based on personal experience, education, etc. I then concluded that I didn't understand how believers on one side of the debate (with no empirical evidence) could not accept that believers on the other side of the debate could reach a different conclusion (with the exact same lack of empirical evidence). You then proceed to deride my post with ridiculous examples of Donald Duck, the implication that my post suggests the world could suddenly become an illusion, collapsing floors, human activity collapsing into paralysis, a moon made of green cheese, everyone but me a robot, and somehow finding in my post that I suggest you abandon scientific perspective and adopt mystical ways. Nowhere did I ask you to adopt the beliefs of the theists. I simply suggested trying to understand another's perspective before responding. It seems to me you did not even read what I said. You just jumped into your boilerplate ridicule of theists. By all means, describe to me the independent empirical test to determine whether or not God exists.

Someone on this site has the tagline "When you are a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails". Most of the religion discussions on this site are coming from scientists, who use their science hammer to view the world from a scientist's eyes. And since there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of God, there is no reason to believe. Which makes perfect sense, especially if you are a scientist. That is how they've learned to think, it works, and they've bought into the concept. And in areas that are covered by science I don't understand how theists can ignore the cold hard facts of science over an ancient text that has many glaring errors. But not all areas are covered by science. For example, 'Does God exist?'. Science has no business addressing that question since there is no way to test it. It is supernatural and outside the purview of science. However, based on a scientist's background and science's track record, many scientists come to the logical conclusion that God does not exist and are very comfortable in that position. But of course they don't know God doesn't exist. How could they? But they take (what they believe to be) the indirect evidence around them, along with their experiences, background, and all the rest, and come to that conclusion. Very logical. And of course there are theists who don't know God exists. How could they? But they take (what they believe to be) the indirect evidence around them, along with their experiences, background, and all the rest, and come to the conclusion that God exists. Very logical. What I see happen so often on this site is that the scientists tell the theists that their conclusion is flawed. The science hammer comes out and they try to apply it where it cannot be conclusively used. I'm not surprised the hammer comes out. You use what you have. But that does not mean it will necessarily work. To me it looks as if the scientist is unable or unwilling to look at things from the perspective of the theist. Not to buy into it, but to listen and try to understand before coming up with their next argument. If they were making that effort I think I'd see a lot more of "I don't agree with you but I do understand your perspective". Instead I just see a lot of "You are wrong". I don't understand why scientists have such a tough time accepting the fact that someone can come to the conclusion that God exists, when the scientist has no more evidence of non-existence than the theist has of existence. I don't understand why it is so hard to accept that someone can honestly and logically come to a different conclusion. (Note: I don't mean all scientists, or all theists, or in all cases, etc. And I'm sure on a religious site the slant would be the exact opposite. I'm talking about what I see here.)

I completely missed the insult. All I heard was a knowledegable person make a judgement call on which of two subjects was the more complex. I think perhaps you are finding insult where none was intended.

Yeah, good point. I guess the answer you get often depends on who you ask. And when you ask.

They are not stupid. I'm quite sure that when a census is done they address these questions, and many others, and set the parameters for who to count and how to classify them.

It seems clear to me that you have concluded that your frame of reference is the correct one and that the way theists think and reason is in some ways flawed. Apologies if I misstated your position. I tend to feel that scientific thought and theistic thought are really two very different things, and one is really in no way qualified to suggest to the other how to reason. Kind of like baseball players not really being qualified to pass judgement on how soccer players approach their sport. Since the dialogue seems to me to be breaking down and neither of us is budging, I'll go ahead and call it quits. Thanks for the debate!

No, my intent was to say that I have yet to meet someone who claims to know the best way of doing something, and then tells me that they don't use that method. Reminds me of a line from "Meet Me in St. Louis"; "Wasn't I lucky to be born in my favorite city?" --Tootie. If you had been born to very religious people in the mountains of Pakistan you would in all likelihood be making very different arguments than if you had been born to scientists in Paris. And you would be just as confident in both cases. As you demonstrated previously.

I do realize you can spin a statement to make it sound as if it favors your position. I could have said you have 'confidence or trust in a person trying to make money by selling another overpriced text book', where a theist has belief in a person 'who took a vow of poverty and is dedicating his life to study and the betterment of mankind'. But that wouldn't have been fair. When you get right down to it you decide who and what you want to believe and why. As does the theist. But you have also decided that you are just and he is a fool. Despite your implication, there is no 'contrary evidence' to the existence of God. Given the lack of evidence either way it seems unreasonable to deny the theist his beliefs.

(For illustrative purposes only -- Don't really know you so I'm just picking a topic. Could be any subject you believe but do not have first hand experience with.) Do you believe in DNA, that it exists, that it is responsible for traits and how people develop? (Hoping the answer is yes.) Have you ever worked with DNA, helped map a genome, done cloning, worked in a microbiology lab? (Hoping the answer is no.) What is your evidence of its existence? Because someone else said so? Do you have faith in those strangers who write papers or talk online regarding the subject? So even though you lack the evidence, you have faith that it is true. Does that feel like pure fiction to you? Do you feel like you are fabricating a belief? Is it that much of a stretch for you to be allowed your faith in what strangers are telling you is true, but not to understand how someone can have faith in God?

I must have missed it. What is Zarnaxus' final test of the "Australia hypothesis"? Seeing it from space and actually being threre were not enough for him to be 100% certain. It sounds to me like he believes he can never be 100% certain. Someone who believes in God can make up for the lack of evidence with faith. Zarnaxus has enough evidence for Australia's existence, yet uses faith in the slim possibility of "The entire world is a conspiracy against you, making you believe that Australia exists!!" to maintain his bit of doubt. While their respective faiths may cover different amounts of evidence territory, I don't see much difference between the two. One doubts with evidence; one believes without evidence.

It seems to me that you should have directed these comments toward Zarnaxus. He is the one who doesn't seem to have complete faith that Australia truly exists. I do have complete faith it exists. I am questioning his logic in doubting the existence of something so clearly defined, and at the same time not understanding how someone else's logic can lead them to believe in God. Seems to me to be opposite sides of the same coin. One is unsure of some existence despite the evidence, the other is sure of some existence despite the lack of evidence.

I was responding to your question, "you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?".

Do you believe Australia exists? I mean, maybe not 100%, but enough so that you believe it is probably so? Confident enough that you would buy a plane ticket, board the plane, and put your life at risk, since if it is not there you are going to have to land in the middle of the ocean? Will you act out your life as if it exists, talking about Sydney without a smirk on your face, believing people when they tell you they've seen koalas and kangaroos on their vacation to Australia? Would you be willing to bet all your worldly possessions that it exists? I'll take a chance that the answer to these questions is yes. So how can you have so much faith in the existence in a hunk of rock you've never seen, yet find it so incomprehensible that someone else can have the same faith that God exists?

Wait, did you say you did this in outer space?

Try looking in the link you provided.

The dead person and their dead relatives don't care. The further in time you move from when the person died, the less the opinion of their decendants (or others with a vested interest) matters. The less effort the relatives (or others with a vested interest) put into caring for the remains, in other words if they effectively abandoned the remains, the less their opinion matters. Any display of remains should be respectful. From my perspective the decision on whether or not (and how) to display remains should in large part be based on the above.

Yes, I'm sure you must be right. http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/8100000/Sarcasm-the-big-bang-theory-8135257-500-281.jpg

Click on the down arrow next to your name in the upper right hand corner of the screen to get the drop down. Choose 'My Content'. You can also find it by choosing 'Find My Content' on your profile page. Now that you have a post you ought to be able to find it.

I don't yet understand this very well, but it seems it is not uncommon for people who lose their vision to hallucinate. It seems that the brain expects visual input to process, and if it doesn't get that visual data it makes something up. I'm wondering if the process of dreaming is any way related. The brain receives data all day long and then that input is suddenly shut off. Is it possible the brain is inventing data in a similar fashion to the way it is invented for people who have lost their vision?

My mother has been going blind over the past two years due to problems associated with age and diabetes. She is completely blind in one eye, and within the past couple of weeks her vision sometimes drops to almost zero in the other eye. She now has regular hallucinations, usually of people, little girls in particular, as well as flowers and other things she is familiar with. Doesn't matter if her eyes are open or closed. The hallucinations of the little girls are particularly vivid. She can tell me what they are doing, what they are wearing, and they often come up and pat her on her hand. She cannot feel the hand patting or hear them; only the visual hallucination. She is well aware that they are hallucinations although sometimes it takes her a while to figure it out if the person seems to fit in with her environment, such as seeing someone walking down the same hall she is in. The other day when we were talking she suddenly said "This is really wild! I wish you could see this." She was watching two girls playing. Has anyone had any similar experience or been around someone who has been through this? Can we expect this to fade over time? Any likelihood she might have disturbing hallucinations associated with blindness? We knew this could occur but didn't realize the extent, and I would like to hear anything anyone has to say. Thanks.

I work with a person who finds that nearly everyone she has to work with is basically a total jerk. She is always amazed that so many people can be like that. Interestingly enough no one else from work seemes to have problems with any of the others at work. They only have difficulties with her. It's interesting that even though she is the common denominator, it never occurs to her that perhaps the problem may be with her, and not all of them.