What form of religion isn't harmful?

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
hammegk,
As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.

Not in the sense you mean the word. Scary when you think of that isn't it? Do you dispute the body counts involved, which exceed all historical religious (your definition) conflicts by orders of magnitude.

Quote:

I never said they did. When did ever say, or even imply, that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things?

Stimpy: "Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should."

Quote:

The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.

So true, and when you accept that secular humanism/science/usually-atheism is a valid religion we would completely agree.

Quote:

That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.

Dr. Stupid

Yes, logic is nice. What do you dispute with "Agnosticism is the only Logical stance".

Conversely 100% certainty seems an odd position for any belief. I give you 99.9%; would that be enough? 99.9999999%? Or is 100% all you can accept?

Re god: once you have defined an existent entity you are no longer discussing god. BTW, I do agree that dualism makes no logical sense.

----
Oppenheimer was made director of the Los Alamos lab, and in 1943 he gathered about 200 of the best scientists in the field to live and work there.
----


What part of that are you having trouble parsing?

If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it.

I doubt you, or anyone else, can, which supports my view.


----
To have arrived at such a conclusion based upon empirical evidence, you must have somehow compared the amount of work being done on the atomic bomb in that time period with the amount of work being done in all other branches of science in the same time period. Did you, in fact, make such a survey?
----


Yeah, I made an informal survey, very informal.


----
Seems like you haven't been paying attention. I have made no such claim.
----


I understand that you haven't made the claim. And I still doubt you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time.

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it.

I doubt you, or anyone else, can, which supports my view.

Nope. You made the claim. It's your responsibility to demonstrate that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". You cannot do that by citing only the work done on the bomb. You have to compare it with other work being done.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Yeah, I made an informal survey, very informal.

Present the facts that support your claim, then.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
I understand that you haven't made the claim.

Then why did you assert that I had done so?

LucyR,


----
Well, it was a pathetic attempt to provoke Whodini. However, he insists on remaining polite, although somewhat inarticulate.

Clearly, I'm a poor hand at this 'trolling' business.
----


Here are some tips:

1) Make fun of my name. Can you do that now LucyRectum? I thought you could!

2) Invent things that I claim. You know, just like you have that proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using arithmetic.

3) Bring racial issues, religion, and other hot-topics into the post, no matter how removed they are from the original post. For example, just mimic what those stupid black Mormon's do on a daily basis.

4) Claim academic superiority over anyone and anything. My 3 degrees prove that you are a dufus. I am smarter than mother nature.

5) Be exceedingly obtuse. You want my references? You know where to find them. They are over that way. Warmer.

6) Ask a flurry of questions. How did you know that? Where is your peer-reviewed scientific study? Where is the evidence? Can I see it? Where was it published? It wasn't? What is the physical basis for what you claim?

7) Talk down to the person. You can figure out this one all for your little self. Good girl!

8) Talk up to the person. The opposite of 7). You are so so wise LucyR, please teach me to be as rational as you are. May I study at your feet?

9) Witty insults and semi-ad-homs.

and last

10) Listing of logical fallacies, no matter what the content of the post was. Nice ad hom and begging the question there LucyR! Perhaps an apriori assumption and a tu quoblah blah there?

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
LucyR,

......deleting interesting stuff.......

LOL.

C'mon LucyR, get back here & go to it!

Unas,


----
It's your responsibility to demonstrate that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". You cannot do that by citing only the work done on the bomb. You have to compare it with other work being done.
----


No kidding, and I have.


----
Present the facts that support your claim, then.
----


Hey, it was such an informal survey that I don't have the results written down any more.

Frankly it isn't worth my time. Manhattan Project during WWII was the science done by the main scientists at the time.

This is such basic knowledge, if you disagree, you find proof of the contrary.


----
Then why did you assert that I had done so?
----


You know I didn't assert that. I said:


####
If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it. Seems like you are the one making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time.
####


That is quite different from me saying:

"You are claiming that...", or "You are making the claim that..."

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
No kidding, and I have.

False. You have not presented any comparative data on other scientific work done during the period in question.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Hey, it was such an informal survey that I don't have the results written down any more.

In short, you cannot provide factual support for your claim.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Frankly it isn't worth my time.

Evasion noted. It was worth your time to make the claim, but not worth your time to back it up, is that what you are telling us? Then it's not worth anyone else's time to investigate, either. It's just another fact-free assertion from someone who doesn't have the facts to back it up, and such, eminently worthless.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Manhattan Project during WWII was the science done by the main scientists at the time.

So you say. But you still haven't presented any convincing evidence for your claim. Repetition of a claim is not evidence of that claim.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
This is such basic knowledge, if you disagree, you find proof of the contrary.

No. You are responsible for proving your own assertions. Do so -- or continue to evade.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
You know I didn't assert that. I said:

####
If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it. Seems like you are the one making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time.
####

That is quite different from me saying:

"You are claiming that...", or "You are making the claim that..."

You have just quoted yourself stating that I was "making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time". Yet in the same post, you deny having done so. Do you really wonder why your unsupported claims are not being accepted as gospel truth?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Quote:

Because science is not a system of beliefs.
----

Are you Eliza in disguise Stimpson? It is true that science hypotheses can be tested, but think of all the assumptions that go into science. Assumptions = beliefs.

Science is a logical framework, and as such, it is based on some axioms. Those are assumptions. But science is not a system of belief, any more than mathematics (which is also based on axioms), or any other logical framework. Remember that the set of assumptions that science is based on is itself a testable hypothesis. The belief that those assumption are correct is based on evidence, not faith.

In any event, science can hardly be considered a system of beliefs. Every claim that science makes about the way things are, must be backed up by reliable evidence.

Quote:

And beliefs don't equate with 'bad'. If you are claiming they do, you need to prove this, because you certainly haven't provided any proof yet.

I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad. Beliefs which are backed up by reliable evidence are just fine.

Quote:

Science doesn't tell us what to do or how to act at all. It just provides us with knowledge.
----

Science can and does provide ways to predict things, and suggests courses of action. This happens all the time in the medical field, among others.

If someone said, hey, look, our science tells us that when flouride was in the water system the children got 11% less cavaties than children in places where there wasn't flouride in the water system. So, based on SCIENCE you use products with flouride in them for you and your children.

That is an example of a person using the knowledge that science has given him to help make a decision. Please note that the decision was made based on values that have nothing to do with science, though. The decision was made based on the fact that people value the health of their children.

Once again, science did not tell people what they should or should not do. It just provided knowledge. How a person chooses to use that knowledge depends on their own values and philosophies. Science does not have any preference either way.

Quote:

Look at the world around you.
----

This is just as absurd as a believer saying 'God exists! Want proof? Look around you!!!'

No, what is absurd it you actually claiming that people don't do bad things because of their religious beliefs. History, and even the modern World, are loaded with examples of people doing terrible things, because their religious beliefs told them they should. How can you possibly deny this?

Note that I am not claiming that religious beliefs are the only reason people do bad things. Simply that it is a very common one.

Quote:

People do terrible things due to their religion all the time.
----

See, look at the double-standard here folks.

When a religious person does something bad, it is because of their religion. When a science person does something bad, it is not due to their science, of course, since science is just a tool, etc.

No, what I see is a blatant strawman on your part. Religious people may do bad things for religious reasons, or for nonreligious reasons. Nobody does anything bad because of science, because science does not give any reason to do anything bad (or good). Science is morally neutral. Religion is not.

Quote:

You assume, apriori, that belief is bad, then find examples that show belief is bad to reinforce your beliefs. (which is ironic)

I have not assumed that beliefs are bad. I have concluded that irrational beliefs are bad.

Quote:

Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should.
----

Many of these people are doing and have done these terrible things because science guided them to do so.

Atom bomb?
Tuskeegee?

C'mon nah!

Please explain how science could possibly guide anybody to do anything. Science provides knowledge. That is all it does. Science does not provide moral judgments. It does not provide incentives for actions to be taken. All of those things must come from somewhere else. The only role science plays in any decision, is to give the person making the decision knowledge which he can use to determine which course of action best fits with his goals and values. Science does not, and cannot, provide those goals and values.

Quote:

As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.
----

Oh but they certainly had beliefs. One could even argue that their beliefs (sorry, LACK of beliefs... ) bordered on religous.

I have beliefs too, and I am not religious. What's your point?

Are you claiming that their actions were based on the fact that they didn't believe in God? Any evidence to back up that claim? If not, then what are you suggesting? What does the actions of either of those people have to do with science? As far as I know, neither of them were scientists. I also don't know of any evidence indicating that science in any way motivated anything they did. Is that what you are claiming?

Quote:

it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence).
----

I should have said logitistic instead of scientistic...

Yep, I have this silly notion that a persons beliefs should be rational.

Quote:

Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way,
----

You've just construced a tautology.

Beliefs-->Actions

when you apply the function Irrational() to both sides, you, unsurprisingly, get:

Irrational Beliefs-->Irrational Actions

But this is just something you've constructed Stimpson.

In history there have been MANY MANY MANY examples of rational people doing irrational things.

Like what? Why would a rational person do something irrational? For that matter, if a person behaves irrationally, by what possible abuse of the English language could you possibly claim that he is a rational person?

Or are you claiming that there are "many many many examples" of people who hold no irrational beliefs doing irrational things? Any evidence to back that up?

And even if that is the case, how is it relevant to my argument? I only said that irrational beliefs are likely to cause a person to behave irrationally. I never claimed that such beliefs are the only reason a person might behave irrationally. Clearly things like mental illness, and simple loss of emotional control (losing your temper, depression, etc...) could do this as well. So what?


Hammegk,

Quote:

As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in the sense you mean the word. Scary when you think of that isn't it? Do you dispute the body counts involved, which exceed all historical religious (your definition) conflicts by orders of magnitude.

I don't know whether your numbers are accurate or not, but it is irrelevant. If they were acting on religious beliefs, then that just supports my point. And if they were not, then it doesn't relate to my point at all, because I never claimed that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things.

Quote:

I never said they did. When did ever say, or even imply, that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpy: "Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should."

And??? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "many"? Many people die in car accidents. Does that mean that nobody dies of any other cause?

Quote:

The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So true, and when you accept that secular humanism/science/usually-atheism is a valid religion we would completely agree.

Secular Humanism is a belief system, and under some definitions of the term, could even be considered a religion. Science and atheism are not belief systems, and cannot be considered religions at all. In any event, those three things are very different concepts. The fact that you lump them all together says alot about your understanding of them.

Quote:

That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, logic is nice. What do you dispute with "Agnosticism is the only Logical stance".

What do you mean? I am agnostic. I do not claim that agnosticism is the only logical stance, though. I merely claim that, based on the evidence that I have seen, agnosticism is position that must be logically concluded.

Quote:

Conversely 100% certainty seems an odd position for any belief. I give you 99.9%; would that be enough? 99.9999999%? Or is 100% all you can accept?

I am not 100% certain about anything. Such certainty could only come about as a result of irrational belief.

Quote:

Re god: once you have defined an existent entity you are no longer discussing god.

Do you realize that the above is logically equivalent to saying that either God does not exist, or the concept of God is incoherant? That sounds like something a hard atheist would say. Me, I am just a soft (agnostic) atheist.

Quote:

BTW, I do agree that dualism makes no logical sense.

Congratulations. What does this have to do with the current discussion?

Dr. Stupid

[LucyR]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
LucyR,


----
Well, it was a pathetic attempt to provoke Whodini. However, he insists on remaining polite, although somewhat inarticulate.

Clearly, I'm a poor hand at this 'trolling' business.
----


Here are some tips:

1) Make fun of my name. Can you do that now LucyRectum? I thought you could!

2) Invent things that I claim. You know, just like you have that proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using arithmetic.

3) Bring racial issues, religion, and other hot-topics into the post, no matter how removed they are from the original post. For example, just mimic what those stupid black Mormon's do on a daily basis.

4) Claim academic superiority over anyone and anything. My 3 degrees prove that you are a dufus. I am smarter than mother nature.

5) Be exceedingly obtuse. You want my references? You know where to find them. They are over that way. Warmer.

6) Ask a flurry of questions. How did you know that? Where is your peer-reviewed scientific study? Where is the evidence? Can I see it? Where was it published? It wasn't? What is the physical basis for what you claim?

7) Talk down to the person. You can figure out this one all for your little self. Good girl!

8) Talk up to the person. The opposite of 7). You are so so wise LucyR, please teach me to be as rational as you are. May I study at your feet?

9) Witty insults and semi-ad-homs.

and last

10) Listing of logical fallacies, no matter what the content of the post was. Nice ad hom and begging the question there LucyR! Perhaps an apriori assumption and a tu quoblah blah there?

Whodini, you flatter me, you really, really do! Besides I only have two degrees.

Seriously, I apologize if I've irritated you. My remarks were intended as nothing more than a gentle tease.

How so? Science simply provides us with knowledge about how things work. It does not in any way provide an incentive for using that knowledge in harmful, or beneficial ways.

My point with the Tuskegee experiments was to demonstrate that it is sometimes the pursuit of knowledge that is in itself harmful. I'm sure there are many other examples. I just read tonight about the big AIDS / HIV test being done. How ethical is it to have a control group that gets a placebo AIDS vaccine? Especially if it proves to work.

What does that have to do with science?

It regards the limits to the pursuit of knowledge... how far are we willing to go to "know?" Infecting a sample population?

Your statement seems to be more in line with my position than with Whodini's. Whodini is claiming that science is responsible for the atomic bomb, not the people who made it, or the ideologies they followed.

I think my earlier post may address this. I'm not convinced we can easily separate people from their ideologies. I think it can be done, but we are hardly in a position to draw the lines. With the A-Bomb the lines are hazy at best. With the Tuskegee experiments they are not.

Flick

[LucyR]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk

LOL.

C'mon LucyR, get back here & go to it!

Deleting interesting stuff? Me?! I wouldn't know how.

By the way, what does LOL mean?

Unas,


----
False. You have not presented any comparative data on other scientific work done during the period in question.
----


LOL. Unas, you are asking for something like a list of all the types of sciences done at that time in the US, and then somehow a list of numbers, which will show the amount of time spent on each science?

Here is a fact:

"During the war, the Manhattan Project employed approximately 200,000 people and expended some $2.2 billion. New production facilities, towns, and research laboratories were set up at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; and Los Alamos, New Mexico. Scores of contractors across the nation contributed to an effort that was unprecedented in size, scope, and sense of urgency. The results were the plutonium implosion bombs tested at the Trinity shot near Alamogordo, New Mexico, in July 1945 and used at Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945, and the uranium gun bomb dropped three days earlier on Hiroshima, Japan. "

You can moan all you want that I haven't presented any proof, etc. These are all facts in the public domain.

I haven't heard of any other sciences in that time get any more press. If I am wrong, please, find a counter-example. Else, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not I.


----
Evasion noted.
----


Annoying comeback noted (for the 5th time).


----
It was worth your time to make the claim, but not worth your time to back it up, is that what you are telling us? Then it's not worth anyone else's time to investigate, either.
----


Your lest sentence doesn't follow. It is convenient for you though- that means you get to be lazy and not follow it up. Prove me wrong big girl- find a counter example that will shut me up.

Your evasion noted.

Stimpson,


----
Science is a logical framework,
----


You can call it whatever fancy title you like, but science is not on par with mathematics as far as axioms and being belief-free, etc.

Science has nothing like a+b=b+a.


----
In any event, science can hardly be considered a system of beliefs. Every claim that science makes about the way things are, must be backed up by reliable evidence.
----


What are some of the ways people have estimated the Hubble Constant?


----
I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.
----


Can you prove that?
A response more than just 'it is obvious', PLEASE.


----
Nobody does anything bad because of science, because science does not give any reason to do anything bad (or good). Science is morally neutral. Religion is not.
----


Absurd! Some peoples' entire worldviews are based on science!


----
I have concluded that irrational beliefs are bad.
----


That is a great opinion. Have any proof? I have a lot of irrational beliefs (no comments, please...! ) that don't cause any harm whatsoever to me or to anyone else.


----
Please explain how science could possibly guide anybody to do anything.
----


It guided parents to have their kids use flouride.
It guides people to recycle.
It guides people to get their cars checked at a DEQ.
It guides people to get physicals and dental checkups every year.
It guides weapons theory, design, producing, and delivery, like it did for abombs.


----
Yep, I have this silly notion that a persons beliefs should be rational.
----


No, you have a silly notion that irrational beliefs are bad, but you haven't proven jack.

Quote:

Originally posted by LucyR

Whodini, you flatter me, you really, really do! Besides I only have two degrees.
Seriously, I apologize if I've irritated you. My remarks were intended as nothing more than a gentle tease.

LucyR,

I'm not insulted or irritated in the slightest! I'm just playing around too.

-Whodini

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.

So far, so good. I strongly agree with you that religious belief, throughout history, has influenced actions.

I also would strongly agree

(a) that religious people have often done harmful things; and
(b) that often the reason given for doing harmful things has been religious belief.

This seems obvious.

It is your next point, however, that I have some trouble with:

Quote:

That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.

You speak of behavior which is "to the detriment of yourself, society, and others." Actions which cause unnecessarily harm is pretty much how I define immoral behavior, so I'm using "harmful" "to the detriment of others", and "immoral" pretty much interchangeably in the context of this thread.

If I've mistaken your point, I apologize. In reviewing my post before submitting it, and reading your words more closely, I see you may be talking about detriment in a different sense here -- that irrationality tends to lead to less-optimal results than rationality, rather than that irrationality tends to lead to harmful results. The latter is the point I am trying to address.

As a person who is personally quite fond of rationality, and who wishes more people were rationalists, I would like to agree with your point. It sounds reasonable that irrationality leads to harm. However, the fact it sounds reasonable does not mean it is true. Many things which sound reasonable turn out, on investigation, not to be so. Reality is often counter-intuitive. That's why it's important to investigate even the obvious, and to base even obvious conclusions on evidence rather than notions.

(1) What is the relationship between irrational belief and immoral behavior?

I'm inclined to believe it is rational for me to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally. For me, personally, then, irrationality and immorality are largely synonymous.

That, however, does not let me conclude it is rational for others to behave morally, or irrational for them to behave immorally.

I believe it is immoral for me to insult people, for example, and I believe insulting people is generally irrational behavior as well. But is it always irrational for everyone?

Xouper made a good point in a different thread some time back that it is irrational to insult people if you are trying to communicate with the person you are insulting but not if your actual interest is in communicating to others who are listening to the exchange.

In a rational world, insults would be of little value because those listening to an exchange would give less weight to the words of people who use insults (as well as various other irrational rhetorical devices) to make their case. We live, however, in a world filled with people who often respond well to irrational (but lively) speeches and respond poorly to rational (but unspiced) ones. If a person's goal is to sway people to one's side, then the use of immoral rhetorical devices could be seen as rational.

George W Bush, for example, made many appeals to unreason during his presidential campaign (as did Al Gore). His superior skill at doing so may be one reason he is president today. I look at many political races, and too often the candidate better at dishonesty and manipulation is the one who wins.

Rational behavior is more likely to help us achieve our aims than irrational behavior. But unless our aims are moral, then rational behavior is not necessarily moral behavior.

(2) If rationality is not the same as morality, and irrationality is not the same as immorality, then (a) are people who are inclined to irrational beliefs more prone to immoral behavior than people inclined to rational beliefs? And (b) are people who are inclined to rational beliefs more inclined to moral behavior than people who are inclined to irrational beliefs?

[The 2 parts of that question are not necessarily the same. Certain actions may seem clearly immoral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions moral, or simply not immoral? Likewise, certain actions may seem clearly moral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions immoral, or simply not moral?]

It seems to me that what is called for here is some empirical evidence. Are people who hold irrational beliefs (belief in astrology, for example) more prone, less prone, or equally prone to participate in or support immoral actions (training soldiers in the methods of torture, for instance)?

It should be possible to conduct research of this sort, but I am not familiar with studies that actually have researched it. And since there are a wide variety of types of irrational beliefs, and a wide variety of types of immorality, I'd want to see a large number of studies, investigating this question in a wide variety of ways, before drawing conclusions.

It's quite possible that irrational beliefs unrelated to moral questions (such as belief in homeopathy) lead to different behavior than irrational beliefs related to moral questions(such as belief in guardian angels[/b]). Not only would it be interesting to know if people with a propensity to believe in guardian angels are more prone to cooperate with a Hitler than people who don't, it would be interesting to know if a belief in angels makes one more prone to such behavior than, say, a belief in leprechauns. I would be fascinated to see the results of such research, but I don't believe it has been done to any significant extent yet.

I'd also like to see research into the other side of the question. Are people with irrational beliefs more, less, or equally prone to moral behavior? This gets tricky, as agreeing on what's moral may be harder than agreeing on what's immoral. Mother Theresa, for example, is an example of someone I believe to have been prone to irrational beliefs; she's often used as an example of someone doing very moral things, but I'm not sure I would agree that her actions were moral. (Likewise, groups that I consider to be engaged in moral works are often criticized as being immoral by social conservatives.)

That means doing research that can help resolve this question may be difficult. That, however, does not justify reaching conclusions before such empirical evidence is available.

Another thing complicating such research is the high ratio of irrational belief to rational belief in the world at large. My impression is that, throughout history, there has been a much larger number of people inclined to irrational belief than to rational belief. If so, the prevalence of people inclined to irrational belief among those engaged in immoral behavior might lead people to suspect a link that didn't exist. Likewise, the prevalence of people prone to irrational belief among those engaged in moral works might lead people to suspect a link there which also didn't exist. We need actual studies rather than anecdotal evidence to see whether there is an actual link or simply the appearance of one.

I'd like to emphasize that I am not arguing that the idea irrational beliefs lead to immoral actions is wrong. I think it likely is right -- although in what ways and to what extent I do not know. What I am saying is that I do not think adequate research has been done yet to show that this is what actually happens in real life, and until it is done we should be wary of drawing conclusions.

[Yahzi]

Nova Land
I have a great deal of respect for the Society of Friends. In the future, when you see me trashing religions, please remember to include the "except for Quakers and some Buddhists" clause that I never bother to explicitly state, because they are so rarely members of my audience.

I agree that the Quakers have a great track record of actually believing their beliefs, and thus annoying the heck out of the rest of the Xians. It is the only Xian faith I have ever been exposed to that actually considered hypocrisy to be a moral failing.

However, as much as I respect them, they still fail the ultimate test. You asked what divine revelation was unquestionable in your religion, and I think I have the answer: you presuppose the idea that religious experiences are not all merely hallucinations. What is sacred and unquestionable in your faith is that religious experiences - at least some of them - are real.

If this is not true, please let me know.

I think you understand science well enough to see that science does not have that weakness. Scientists don't so much believe in a material, consistent, objective world as accept it. Every angle of attack is met by the same wall, the same results. The religious experience, however, only produces religioiusity when approached from a certain angle - the angle which presupposes the reality of spiritual experiences.

I also think you understand how small a minority Quakers are. If they represented the typical religion, then I would have a lot of apologizing to do. But sadly, they do not.

Quote:

Are people who hold irrational beliefs (belief in astrology, for example) more prone, less prone, or equally prone to participate in or support immoral actions

The argument is that holding a belief not correlated to reality is in itself more prone to cause unnecessary suffering (i.e. immoral action). You've already agreed to this, so defending the pious fraud is kind of a waste of time. Sure, a religious theory can be so close to reality that it cause very little harm very rarely, or could accidentally cause more good than bad; but a theory that was closer to reality would cause less. And now, thanks to science, we have that theory.

Your argument would have been inassailable 50 years ago. Alas, science marches on, and the final gap (where does consciousness come from?) is being answered (Win and the dualists nonwithstanding). You can still make the pragmatic argument that Quakerism is the best approximation that we can hope to achieve any time soon, given the scientific illiteracy of the peasantry. I would even agree to that argument - by all means, please convert all the Xians to Quakers! But it is merely a pragmatic argument, and thus has no place in this philosophical tower.

To make your moral superiority argument work, you would have to show that Quakers were responsible for all the moral advances. If it is possible to derive moral truths without Quaker beliefs, then Quakerism is not a superior (meaning more correlative to reality) moral theory, but simply an equivalent one. Again, pragmatism, while we are discussing idealistic positions.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Flick,

Quote:

How so? Science simply provides us with knowledge about how things work. It does not in any way provide an incentive for using that knowledge in harmful, or beneficial ways.

My point with the Tuskegee experiments was to demonstrate that it is sometimes the pursuit of knowledge that is in itself harmful.

Well of course the pursuit of knowledge can sometimes be harmful, as can any human endeavor that is not done responsibly. That is what we have ethics for.

Quote:

I'm sure there are many other examples. I just read tonight about the big AIDS / HIV test being done. How ethical is it to have a control group that gets a placebo AIDS vaccine? Especially if it proves to work.

Those are ethical issues, not scientific ones. Science doesn't tell us what experiments we should and shouldn't do. All it does is inform us of what types of experiments could potentially yield knowledge, and how to extract the knowledge from the results of those experiments. It is up to people to decide (based on ethics, morality, and personal responsibility), which experiments should and should not be done.

It seems to me that you are mixing up science (a method) with scientists (people). Obviously scientists can be harmful, as can anybody.

Quote:

What does that have to do with science?

It regards the limits to the pursuit of knowledge... how far are we willing to go to "know?" Infecting a sample population?

Once again, that is an ethical question, not a scientific one. It depends on how much we value knowledge, compared to how much we value other things. Science does not address values one way or the other.

Quote:

Your statement seems to be more in line with my position than with Whodini's. Whodini is claiming that science is responsible for the atomic bomb, not the people who made it, or the ideologies they followed.

I think my earlier post may address this. I'm not convinced we can easily separate people from their ideologies. I think it can be done, but we are hardly in a position to draw the lines. With the A-Bomb the lines are hazy at best. With the Tuskegee experiments they are not.

I would agree that it is difficult to separate people from their ideologies. The point is that science is not an ideology.


Whodini,

Quote:

Science is a logical framework,

You can call it whatever fancy title you like, but science is not on par with mathematics as far as axioms and being belief-free, etc.

"logical framework" is not a fancy title. It is a term which has a very specific meaning in formal logic. As for science being belief-free, it is. You do not need to believe any of the axioms of science in order to use it. Of course, any conclusion you draw from the scientific method is only valid if the axioms of science are valid. That is how logical frameworks work. The point is that my belief that the axioms of science are correct is not necessary in order for science to work. Science is not based on, or in any way dependant on, beliefs.

Quote:

Science has nothing like a+b=b+a.

You are wrong at a very deep level here. Science is actually very much like a mathematical framework.

Quote:

In any event, science can hardly be considered a system of beliefs. Every claim that science makes about the way things are, must be backed up by reliable evidence.

What are some of the ways people have estimated the Hubble Constant?

What am I, Mr. Astronomy? Go read a damn book!

Quote:

I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.

Can you prove that?
A response more than just 'it is obvious', PLEASE.

What do you mean "prove"? Saying that something is bad is a judgement call. If you want me to explain why I make that judgement, fine. I say that holding irrational beliefs is bad, because such beliefs are likely to cause you to behave in an irrational way, which can be very harmful to both yourself, and others.

Quote:

Nobody does anything bad because of science, because science does not give any reason to do anything bad (or good). Science is morally neutral. Religion is not.

Absurd! Some peoples' entire worldviews are based on science!

Only people with absolutely no values, morals, or ethics. I have never met such a person. My morals, ethics, and values, are based on Humanism, not science. I only use science as a tool to determine how best to comply with those values.

Quote:

I have concluded that irrational beliefs are bad.

That is a great opinion. Have any proof? I have a lot of irrational beliefs (no comments, please...! ) that don't cause any harm whatsoever to me or to anyone else.

See above.

Quote:

Please explain how science could possibly guide anybody to do anything.

It guided parents to have their kids use flouride.

Wrong. The fact that they value their children's health did.

Quote:

It guides people to recycle.

No, the fact that they value the environment does.

Quote:

It guides people to get their cars checked at a DEQ.

Ditto.

Quote:

It guides people to get physicals and dental checkups every year.

No, the fact that they value their health does.

Quote:

It guides weapons theory, design, producing, and delivery, like it did for abombs.

No, the fact that people value such weapons does.

All of the above are examples of people using the knowledge science gives them to forward their values. If they had different values, their use of that knowledge would have been different.


Nova,

Quote:

It is your next point, however, that I have some trouble with:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You speak of behavior which is "to the detriment of yourself, society, and others." Actions which cause unnecessarily harm is pretty much how I define immoral behavior, so I'm using "harmful" "to the detriment of others", and "immoral" pretty much interchangeably in the context of this thread.

Me too.

Quote:

If I've mistaken your point, I apologize. In reviewing my post before submitting it, and reading your words more closely, I see you may be talking about detriment in a different sense here -- that irrationality tends to lead to less-optimal results than rationality, rather than that irrationality tends to lead to harmful results. The latter is the point I am trying to address.

Nope, that is exactly what I am saying. Irrational beliefs can, and often do, lead to harmful results.

Quote:

As a person who is personally quite fond of rationality, and who wishes more people were rationalists, I would like to agree with your point. It sounds reasonable that irrationality leads to harm. However, the fact it sounds reasonable does not mean it is true. Many things which sound reasonable turn out, on investigation, not to be so. Reality is often counter-intuitive. That's why it's important to investigate even the obvious, and to base even obvious conclusions on evidence rather than notions.

(1) What is the relationship between irrational belief and immoral behavior?

For one thing, what a person considers "moral" depends on his beliefs. We both equate "immoral" with "harmful", but a person with irrational beliefs may consider things which are beneficial (like contraception) to be immoral, and things which are harmful (like killing non-believers) to be moral.

Quote:

I'm inclined to believe it is rational for me to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally. For me, personally, then, irrationality and immorality are largely synonymous.

That, however, does not let me conclude it is rational for others to behave morally, or irrational for them to behave immorally.

Of course not. A person may behave immorally for rational reasons. Or vice-versa.

Quote:

I believe it is immoral for me to insult people, for example, and I believe insulting people is generally irrational behavior as well. But is it always irrational for everyone?

Not at all. Insulting a person, like any action, is only irrational if it is not likely to produce the outcome that you want. If you think that insulting somebody will elicit a response that you want, then the insult is rational, even though it may very well not be moral.

Quote:

Xouper made a good point in a different thread some time back that it is irrational to insult people if you are trying to communicate with the person you are insulting but not if your actual interest is in communicating to others who are listening to the exchange.

Exactly my point. If your goal is communication, then insults are not productive. But your goal may not be communication. For example, I don't think that Franko's behavior on this board is irrational at all. I think that his goal in posting all the insults he does, is to elicit exactly the types of responses that he is getting.

Of course, the beliefs he is presenting (and claiming to hold) are quite irrational.

Quote:

Rational behavior is more likely to help us achieve our aims than irrational behavior. But unless our aims are moral, then rational behavior is not necessarily moral behavior.

Even if your aims are not moral, rational behavior will be more productive that irrational behavior. An irrational person who believes he is doing good can be very dangerous. A rational person who is actively trying to do evil is far more dangerous.

Quote:

(2) If rationality is not the same as morality, and irrationality is not the same as immorality, then (a) are people who are inclined to irrational beliefs more prone to immoral behavior than people inclined to rational beliefs?

Not necessarily. The difference is that a moral person with irrational beliefs is much more likely to cause harm even though he is trying to do the right thing. If you are an immoral person, then you are likely to cause harm in either case.

Quote:

And (b) are people who are inclined to rational beliefs more inclined to moral behavior than people who are inclined to irrational beliefs?

No. Some of the most despicable people I have ever met were very rational people. As an example, about six years ago I knew a conman. He was the most cold and calculating person I ever met. Everything he did was carefully considered, based on the results he wanted to achieve. He was a very rational person, but also very immoral. He is also one of the most dangerous people I have ever met.

Quote:

[The 2 parts of that question are not necessarily the same. Certain actions may seem clearly immoral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions moral, or simply not immoral? Likewise, certain actions may seem clearly moral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions immoral, or simply not moral?]

I would say that behaving in a way that is inconsistent with your values, is immoral.

Quote:

It seems to me that what is called for here is some empirical evidence. Are people who hold irrational beliefs (belief in astrology, for example) more prone, less prone, or equally prone to participate in or support immoral actions (training soldiers in the methods of torture, for instance)?

Well, probably not anything as blatant as your example, but consider this: Most Catholics I know are very moral people, but almost all of them support immoral behavior (meaning behavior that is contrary to the values they hold), because their irrational beliefs tell them that this behavior is actually moral. The contraception issue I mentioned above is just one example.

Quote:

It's quite possible that irrational beliefs unrelated to moral questions (such as belief in homeopathy) lead to different behavior than irrational beliefs related to moral questions(such as belief in guardian angels[/b]).

I disagree. Belief in Homeopathy leads to a lot of immoral behavior. People ho give their sick children homeopathic remedies, instead of real medical care, are causing harm to their children. They think they are doing the right thing, but they are really causing harm. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

Quote:

I'd like to emphasize that I am not arguing that the idea irrational beliefs lead to immoral actions is wrong. I think it likely is right -- although in what ways and to what extent I do not know. What I am saying is that I do not think adequate research has been done yet to show that this is what actually happens in real life, and until it is done we should be wary of drawing conclusions.

I think that their is plenty of evidence for the conclusions I have drawn. The examples I cited are just a few of many.

Dr. Stupid

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Unas, you are asking for something like a list of all the types of sciences done at that time in the US, and then somehow a list of numbers, which will show the amount of time spent on each science?

If you are going to make a claim that the work on the atomic bomb was the "main science" being done -- i.e. that there was more work being done on the bomb than on anything else -- then you must compare the work on the bomb to other work. You simply cannot make such a claim regarding relative magnitudes without doing such comparisons. You have not shown any evidence that you have done any comparisons. You have done nothing more than make a bald, unsupported claim, and expect everyone to agree with you Because! You! Said! So!

Try again. This time, bring real evidence.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
You can moan all you want that I haven't presented any proof, etc. These are all facts in the public domain.

Yes, they are facts. They are not proof of your claim -- for the simple reason that, alone, the amount of work done on the bomb does not tell us if that amount of work exceeded that done on any other scientific endeavor.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
I haven't heard of any other sciences in that time get any more press.

Your self-admitted ignorance isn't proof of your claim.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
If I am wrong, please, find a counter-example.

No. Proving your claims is your responsibility. That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Else, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not I.

I haven't made a claim. I have pointed out that your claim is not supported by any proof - thus far.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Annoying comeback noted (for the 5th time).

If you keep evading, I will keep pointing out your evasion. Don't like it? Stop evading.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
It is convenient for you though- that means you get to be lazy and not follow it up.

I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims. You are responsible for backing them up. That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Prove me wrong big girl- find a counter example that will shut me up.

I am not interested in shutting you up. Is that what you think these forums are about?

I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims. You are responsible for backing them up. That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Your evasion noted.

Your dishonesty noted. I have evaded nothing.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Stimpson,


----
Because science is not a system of beliefs.
----


Are you Eliza in disguise Stimpson? It is true that science hypotheses can be tested, but think of all the assumptions that go into science. Assumptions = beliefs.

And beliefs don't equate with 'bad'. If you are claiming they do, you need to prove this, because you certainly haven't provided any proof yet.


----
Science doesn't tell us what to do or how to act at all. It just provides us with knowledge.
----


Science can and does provide ways to predict things, and suggests courses of action. This happens all the time in the medical field, among others.

If someone said, hey, look, our science tells us that when flouride was in the water system the children got 11% less cavaties than children in places where there wasn't flouride in the water system. So, based on SCIENCE you use products with flouride in them for you and your children.

There are so many examples.


----
Look at the world around you.
----


This is just as absurd as a believer saying 'God exists! Want proof? Look around you!!!'


----
People do terrible things due to their religion all the time.
----


See, look at the double-standard here folks.

When a religious person does something bad, it is because of their religion. When a science person does something bad, it is not due to their science, of course, since science is just a tool, etc.

You assume, apriori, that belief is bad, then find examples that show belief is bad to reinforce your beliefs. (which is ironic)


----
Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should.
----


Many of these people are doing and have done these terrible things because science guided them to do so.

Atom bomb?
Tuskeegee?

C'mon nah!

Soderqvist1: The origin to the war between Israel and Palestine stems from their scriptures! But, why the atom bombs in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were dropt, cannot be found in the atom bomb formula, and for the same reason, science cannot be found guilty there, but a reasonable assumption about the soldiers instigation was their patriotism, and hence; to beat the enemy, and save America!
Some ideology; religious or political can instigate to violence, and misuse of science as a mean to their ends!

Quote:

The Bible, 2 Chronicles, chapter 15
13: That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

The Koran
IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, we will give him a handsome reward.”

"3.85": And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

5.51": O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

"4.56": (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"4.74": Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

"8.12": When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

"9.5": So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

English Religious Resources by university of Virginia!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html

Soderqvist1: Buddhists are in general peaceful because these things cannot be found in their scriptures, as far as I know!

Stimpson,


----
As for science being belief-free, it is.
----


Yeah, you keep repeating that, but haven't demonstrated that.


----
Science is not based on, or in any way dependant on, beliefs.
----


See?


----
You are wrong at a very deep level here. Science is actually very much like a mathematical framework.
----


Fine, show me something in science like a+b=b+a.


----
What am I, Mr. Astronomy? Go read a damn book!
----


You'll discover that Hubbles Constant has been estimated with MANY univerifiable assumptions thrown in. They might be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions, beliefs.


----
What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.

What do you mean "prove"? Saying that something is bad is a judgement call.
----


So I claim something and have to prove it and submit my proof to you, but you don't have to prove any of your claims nor submit them to me?


----
Wrong. The fact that they value their children's health did.
----


LOL. The fact that science determined that flouride help is what guided the parents to make the decision that it is a good idea to use flouride.

Unas,


----
You simply cannot make such a claim regarding relative magnitudes without doing such comparisons.
----


Of course I can! Who are you, the forum police? If I snap my fingers will you wake up from your hypnosis session?

If I have no reason to conclude that other sciences were done more at that time, then I have a PERFECTLY RATIONAL reason to conclude that, until I get further evidence, that atomic bomb research was done the most at that time.


----
I am not interested in shutting you up.
----


C'mon Unas... find a counter example and stick it to me.

Yes, it is my claim, that I understand. What you don't understand is that I am challenging you to find a counter example.

It should be easy, right Ken?

Peter,


----
The origin to the war between Israel and Palestine stems from their scriptures!
----


How come you say it stems from their scriptures and not from politics?


----
But, why the atom bombs in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were dropt, cannot be found in the atom bomb formula,
----


Absurd conditions. You are saying that for me to be right, that the reasons the bombs were dropped have to be found in the formula? hahahaha, get real.


----
science cannot be found guilty there,
----


Of course not....

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini

Quote:

Originally posted by Unas
You simply cannot make such a claim regarding relative magnitudes without doing such comparisons.

Of course I can!

Allow me to rephrase. You can make the claim, of course -- but you cannot support it without making the comparisons.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
If I have no reason to conclude that other sciences were done more at that time, then I have a PERFECTLY RATIONAL reason to conclude that, until I get further evidence, that atomic bomb research was done the most at that time.

You are essentially admitting that your claim is based on your own ignorance of the overall state of science at the time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
What you don't understand is that I am challenging you to find a counter example.

What you don't understand -- or wish to ignore -- is that you made the claim, and you are therefore responsible for supporting it with evidence.

[Unas]

Franko continues his unending campaign of lies...

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
Now explain to me why you believe you have magic “free will” powers?

I have never stated any belief in 'magic “free will” powers'. Explain to me why you have chosen to lie -- again.

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
Why do you CLAIM that there is no evidence for “God”?

I have never claimed that there is no evidence for 'God'. Explain to me why you have chosen to lie -- again.

[Franko]

Quote:

Unas:
I have never stated any belief in 'magic “free will” powers'.

I have never claimed that there is no evidence for 'God'.

Well the A-Theists aren’t gonna to stay friends with you for long with that kind of talk.

No wonder you are forced to “hide” your identity. Frankoly, I find that as absurd as arguing with yourself (or arguing with a figment of your imagination).

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
Well the A-Theists aren’t gonna to stay friends with you for long with that kind of talk.

Why don't you simply admit that you lied, apologize, and we can go on to have a pleasant debate? Are you really so wedded to the tactic of lying that you cannot conceive of conducting an honest discussion?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Quote:

As for science being belief-free, it is.
----

Yeah, you keep repeating that, but haven't demonstrated that.

I explained exactly why it is belief free. If you have a problem with my explanation, then address it. Don't just pretend I didn't provide one.

Of course, if you disagree, you could simply tell me what you think it is necessary for somebody to believe, in order for them to apply the scientific method.

Quote:

You are wrong at a very deep level here. Science is actually very much like a mathematical framework.
----

Fine, show me something in science like a+b=b+a.

The naivety of that question just proves at what a fundamental level you are wrong at. Are you not aware that mathematics is based on axioms, just like science? What you have stated above (a+b=b+a) is one of the axioms of arithmetic. Do you believe it is true? Or do you understand formal logic well enough to realize that statements derived from the axioms of arithmetic are only valid if the above axiom is assumed to be true?

Didn't you say you had a degree in mathematics? Or am I thinking of somebody else?

Quote:

What am I, Mr. Astronomy? Go read a damn book!
----

You'll discover that Hubbles Constant has been estimated with MANY univerifiable assumptions thrown in. They might be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions, beliefs.

Are you aware that there is a difference between an assumption and a belief? I don't have to believe something is true, in order to draw logical conclusions from the assumption that it is true. All that means is that I acknowledge that the validity of the conclusion is dependent on the validity of the assumption. That is done all the time in science. You make assumptions, draw conclusions from those assumptions, and then test those conclusions. You decide whether or not to believe the assumptions only after reliable evidence has been produced, through testing.

There are many aspects of modern cosmological theories that have not yet been empirically demonstrated to be accurate, or false. That doesn't mean scientists believe them as a matter of faith. On the contrary, it means that we don't believe them at all. We admit that we don't know yet.

Quote:

What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.

What do you mean "prove"? Saying that something is bad is a judgement call.
----

So I claim something and have to prove it and submit my proof to you, but you don't have to prove any of your claims nor submit them to me?

Which claim are you talking about? The claim that science is harmful is not a judgement call, it is an objective claim that is demonstrably false. As I already pointed out, science is neither beneficial nor harmful, by the very nature of what it is.

Quote:

Wrong. The fact that they value their children's health did.
----

LOL. The fact that science determined that flouride help is what guided the parents to make the decision that it is a good idea to use flouride.

You are completely missing the point. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, because I know you aren't this stupid. As I already stated, all science did was give them knowledge. How a person chooses to use that knowledge depends on his values. The knowledge is neutral.

Once again, if you disagree, then explain why. How can knowledge be considered to be beneficial or harmful, when any piece of knowledge can be used for either beneficial or harmful purposes? That is like saying that my foot is harmful, since I could use it to beat somebody to death.

Dr. Stupid

Unass,


----
you cannot support it without making the comparisons.
----


And I did make the comparisons. I just didn't do a scientific peer-reviewed double blind placebo controlled study and didn't save the results so a fool called Unas could pick it over.


----
that you made the claim, and you are therefore responsible for supporting it with evidence.
----


So you won't take up my challenge Ken? Figures.

Stimpson,


----
The naivety of that question just proves at what a fundamental level you are wrong at. Are you not aware that mathematics is based on axioms, just like science?
----


Yes, that is what you keep on repeating. So prove it already.


----
Didn't you say you had a degree in mathematics?
----


Yes, I do. Almost two.


----
You are completely missing the point. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, because I know you aren't this stupid. As I already stated, all science did was give them knowledge. How a person chooses to use that knowledge depends on his values. The knowledge is neutral.
----


Then religious knowledge is neutral. How a person decides to use religious information depends on his or her values.

You cannot have it both ways Stimpson.

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
And I did make the comparisons.

Then share the data you used.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
So you won't take up my challenge Ken?

So you cannot support your claim with evidence? Figures...

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
Unas, how are Your lies actually my lies?

Stop lying, Franko. You have yet to document a single lie that I have posted. I have documented several of yours. Your lies are your lies, Franko. You have again demonstrated that you lack the maturity to take responsibility for your own words.

[Franko]

Quote:

Unas: (severely delusional, retarded, brainwashed A-Theist)
You simply cannot make such a claim … You have not shown any evidence … nothing more than make a bald, unsupported claim … expect everyone to agree with … Because! You! Said! So! … This time, bring real evidence … not proof of your claim … Your self-admitted ignorance isn't proof of your claim … Proving your claims is your responsibility … hard concept for you to grasp, apparently … I haven't made a claim … your claim is not supported by any proof … you keep evading … I will keep pointing out your evasion … Don't like it? Stop evading … I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims … You are responsible for backing them up ... That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently ... I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims ... You are responsible for backing them up ... That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently ... Your dishonesty noted

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Now explain to me why you believe you have magic “free will” powers? Why do you CLAIM that there is no evidence for “God”? Isn’t Fatalism the evidence for “God”?

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

Aren’t you more self-aware (conscious) than your CAR? So how can TLOP be less conscious than YOU? TLOP controls YOU, by definition that makes Her MORE self-aware (conscious) than YOU are.

If you are saying this is incorrect, then explain how you believe it works?

I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims ... You are responsible for backing them up ... That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently ... Your dishonesty noted

[Franko]

Quote:

Unas: (cowardly sock-puppy)
Why don't you simply admit that you lied, apologize, and we can go on to have a pleasant debate? Are you really so wedded to the tactic of lying that you cannot conceive of conducting an honest discussion?

Unas, how are Your lies actually my lies? I don’t understand, could you explain it too me, or must I simply take you word for it???

(take my word for it! creedo of the Mystics)

Quote:

Originally posted by Unas
Then share the data you used.
So you cannot support your claim with evidence? Figures...

I never said I kept any records. If I did this research years ago, what, you think I kept records? How was I supposed to know that you'd come along and badger me for them?

Ken, you'll have to do better.

I noticed YOU evaded my challenge of finding a science that was more done at the time. You can't, and it is destroying any point you may have had.

I'm done arm wrestling Thai Bo. You're shooting Blanks here.

[Unas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
I never said I kept any records.

Then your claim remains unsupported. That's all -- it's not been proven true and not been proven false. It's unsupported.

[Franko]

thaifoodkenny?

he was the first name that came up on my algorithm, but we assumed he was simply to stupid to even attempt it.

[Unas]

You're back to deleting your posts and reposting them. You do this to pretend that no one ever responded to them. It's just another example of your dishonesty.

You're a lying coward, Franko. You apparently lack the capability to be anything more.

[Franko]

... Although you have a point Whodini, with every post he is definitely getting stupider.

[Unas]

Here are three of your many lies, Franko:

You stated that Joshua claimed he was "magical". He made no such statement.

You stated that I told you that you were "crazy". I made no such statement.

You stated that Soubrette tried to censor the thread "A website for Franko". She made no such attempt.

Now, delete and repost your earlier evasions. Prove to us again that you are a lying coward.

[Akots]

Unfortunalte,y Franko has the power toredefine the things you say...

1) Franko believes non-logical activity is impossible, therefore "magical."
2) Franko sees all argument against him as supporting non-logical, free-will-based activity.
3) Atheists believe in magic.

He doesn't think you believe in magic any more than you do. He's likely just takingarguments to the extreme, assuming their inherant flaws will then become more noticable.

Unfortunately, he also happens to have an attention span and willingness to understand that enobles most goldfish...