| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2009 02:45:51 PM · #901 |
| My question to JH would be to ask what he is looking for in an answer. When I order a medical test, I always want the test to affect my decision making process. If I am going to do/think the same thing no matter what the outcome is, why am I ordering the test? In the same manner I would ask JH how someone's answer is going to alter his thinking and why? |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:52:28 PM · #902 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I order a medical test, I always want the test to affect my decision making process. If I am going to do/think the same thing no matter what the outcome is, why am I ordering the test? In the same manner I would ask JH how someone's answer is going to alter his thinking and why? |
Does it really have to alter his thinking? The question is usually asked in the context of what convinced YOU. If another doctor was convinced that a patient was allergic to oxygen, you might reasonably ask how he arrived at that particular conclusion even if you disagree and have no jurisdiction over his diagnosis. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:55:14 PM · #903 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I order a medical test, I always want the test to affect my decision making process. If I am going to do/think the same thing no matter what the outcome is, why am I ordering the test? In the same manner I would ask JH how someone's answer is going to alter his thinking and why? |
Does it really have to alter his thinking? The question is usually asked in the context of what convinced YOU. If another doctor was convinced that a patient was allergic to oxygen, you might reasonably ask how he arrived at that particular conclusion even if you disagree and have no jurisdiction over his diagnosis. |
Good point. If I felt that the asker actually respected my opinion on the level of a doctor-to-doctor relationship, I might share. I don't quite always get that feeling here in Rantland... |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:58:38 PM · #904 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Possibly because as soon as someone opens up and shares something like this they get shut down. "That's crazy. I've never experienced anything like that. How do you know it was God?" Blah blah blah. |
Absolutely. The whole WORLD is full of folks who can't wait to trivialize and "xplain away" your experiences...
R. |
How about synchronicity?
....(waiting to get bashed) :-)
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 14:59:54. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 03:03:27 PM · #905 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My question to JH would be to ask what he is looking for in an answer. When I order a medical test, I always want the test to affect my decision making process. If I am going to do/think the same thing no matter what the outcome is, why am I ordering the test? In the same manner I would ask JH how someone's answer is going to alter his thinking and why? |
As a doctor, if someone tells you they've heard the voice of God in their head telling them to do "something," what test(s) would you order to make the differential diagnosis between religious experience and schizophrenic psychosis? |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 03:43:52 PM · #906 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Possibly because as soon as someone opens up and shares something like this they get shut down. "That's crazy. I've never experienced anything like that. How do you know it was God?" Blah blah blah. |
Absolutely. The whole WORLD is full of folks who can't wait to trivialize and "xplain away" your experiences...
R. |
Probably because nobody to date has been able to explain the experiences they felt were the result of God and NOTHING else. Can you really blame people for trivializing this when every time you ask you are only supplied with vague answers that suggests no effort was made to get at the truth? I can't say I blame them. We all at one time or another want to believe in something so we don't do the investigating, we ignore facts to the contrary in order to believe in what we want to. However this doesn't absolve you from the requirements of credibility. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:24:58 PM · #907 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
A skin cell does not make another human. At no time in human history has a human been created from a skin cell. |
That wasn't in question. A skin cell is alive (the dermis anyway) and human. Pending further research announced yesterday, your contention that humans cannot be created from skin cells might not even be true. ;-) |
When a human being is created from a skin cell, then it's not a skin cell any more and I would fight for that human's rights.
Until that happens, you cannot dehumanize people into skin cells. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:26:13 PM · #908 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by Louis:
No. You said woe betide humanity for all the aborted Einsteins and Mother Theresas. I said the argument is moot, because all the aborted zygotes, fetuses--all the aborted humans, if you prefer--were never actualized human beings, were they? |
So your saying that aborted humans were never human beings? What do you think a human being is? |
I assume you read what I wrote. It's quoted above. They were never actualized human beings, so the point of discussing whether or not they could have been angels or demons, or whether they may just possibly have owned a house by age twenty and driven a Ferrari 458, or whether they would become the village's most renowned baker, is a rather pointless exercise. |
I did read it..... and I have no idea what you mean by actualized human beings. A zygote formed by the fusion of human egg and human sperm is alive (the cells are alive), and it is human (the genetics and development is human, not any other animal). I think you were referring to personhood. |
There was no denial that the zygote, fetus, etc., was human. An "actualized human" is one that has actually had the experience of being a human. An aborted fetus has not. So arguing whether or not it could have been the next Dalai Lama, or wringing your hands over the number of "good" people that have been aborted, makes about as much sense as wondering what economic gain could have been realized by all those aborted fetuses, or how many might have been killed in war, or how many would have been gay, or blond, or any number of criteria. It doesn't matter. They never were, and that's the point. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:26:53 PM · #909 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
A skin cell does not make another human. At no time in human history has a human been created from a skin cell. |
That wasn't in question. A skin cell is alive (the dermis anyway) and human. Pending further research announced yesterday, your contention that humans cannot be created from skin cells might not even be true. ;-) |
When a human being is created from a skin cell, then it's not a skin cell any more and I would fight for that human's rights.
Until that happens, you cannot dehumanize people into skin cells. |
Okay, then, no humanizing clumps of cells into humans, either. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:28:17 PM · #910 |
| I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:29:17 PM · #911 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
Hm? |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:29:41 PM · #912 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
Hm? |
The actualizing thing. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:31:09 PM · #913 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
Hm? |
The actualizing thing. |
A fetus is an unrealized person, just as a child who dies is an unrealized adult. That's bizarre? |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:33:30 PM · #914 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
Hm? |
The actualizing thing. |
A fetus is an unrealized person, just as a child who dies is an unrealized adult. That's bizarre? |
Well bizarre in the sense that "person" is a completely arbitrary definition and even this doesn't draw any distinct line between person and non-person. I'm guessing you wouldn't contend that a baby who's mother is in labor is not actually experiencing being a human. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:34:10 PM · #915 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Probably because nobody to date has been able to explain the experiences they felt were the result of God and NOTHING else. Can you really blame people for trivializing this when every time you ask you are only supplied with vague answers that suggests no effort was made to get at the truth? I can't say I blame them. We all at one time or another want to believe in something so we don't do the investigating, we ignore facts to the contrary in order to believe in what we want to. However this doesn't absolve you from the requirements of credibility. |
Look, it's very simple: it's a matter of *faith*. Faith, by definition, must be unprovable. It makes no sense to require of the faithful that they provide proof of what they believe to be true. Nor does it make sense to act all superior when face-to-face with the faithful and their beliefs. You mock their beliefs because they don't fit in with your worldview. (That's a generic "you" btw, I'm not aware that Yanko mocks anyone...) For me that mockery says more about you than it does about the quality of the belief being mocked.
Let me be clear about this: I'm NOT saying that these "belief-systems" called "religious" have any sort of equal claim, when measured alongside the relatively objective system we call "science", to be treated as objective truth. No, what I'm saying is that there's something sad about a worldview that takes sincere believers in anything and holds them up to ridicule and mockery because they cannot "prove" the integrity of their faith. That's just *wrong* in so many ways it drives me batty.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:39:18 PM · #916 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
Hm? |
The actualizing thing. |
A fetus is an unrealized person, just as a child who dies is an unrealized adult. That's bizarre? |
Well bizarre in the sense that "person" is a completely arbitrary definition and even this doesn't draw any distinct line between person and non-person. I'm guessing you wouldn't contend that a baby who's mother is in labor is not actually experiencing being a human. |
I didn't use the term "non-person", I chose to say "non-actualized human being". I thought that phrase was pretty clear, but evidently not. It doesn't deny that the thing in question is human.
If I say curds are non-actualized cheese, or a spruce is a non-actualized Christmas tree, I assume we don't have any problems. If we start ruing the use of curds in anything other than cheese on the assumption that they might make a hell of a Gruyère, it seems to me that a futile exercise is underway. Just saying. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:45:46 PM · #917 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Probably because nobody to date has been able to explain the experiences they felt were the result of God and NOTHING else. Can you really blame people for trivializing this when every time you ask you are only supplied with vague answers that suggests no effort was made to get at the truth? I can't say I blame them. We all at one time or another want to believe in something so we don't do the investigating, we ignore facts to the contrary in order to believe in what we want to. However this doesn't absolve you from the requirements of credibility. |
Look, it's very simple: it's a matter of *faith*. Faith, by definition, must be unprovable. It makes no sense to require of the faithful that they provide proof of what they believe to be true. Nor does it make sense to act all superior when face-to-face with the faithful and their beliefs. You mock their beliefs because they don't fit in with your worldview. (That's a generic "you" btw, I'm not aware that Yanko mocks anyone...) For me that mockery says more about you than it does about the quality of the belief being mocked.
Let me be clear about this: I'm NOT saying that these "belief-systems" called "religious" have any sort of equal claim, when measured alongside the relatively objective system we call "science", to be treated as objective truth. No, what I'm saying is that there's something sad about a worldview that takes sincere believers in anything and holds them up to ridicule and mockery because they cannot "prove" the integrity of their faith. That's just *wrong* in so many ways it drives me batty.
R. |
I was simply referring to an experience that is attributed to God. The way I understand, when a person claims to have felt the presence of God they are referring to an actual moment in time or a series of moments or events. I agree faith can't be proven but if we're talking about events, history, then that should be provable, IMO.
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 16:46:27. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:48:09 PM · #918 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I gotta say Louis, that is one pretty bizarre way of differentiating between fetus and person. Never heard it before. |
Hm? |
The actualizing thing. |
A fetus is an unrealized person, just as a child who dies is an unrealized adult. That's bizarre? |
Well bizarre in the sense that "person" is a completely arbitrary definition and even this doesn't draw any distinct line between person and non-person. I'm guessing you wouldn't contend that a baby who's mother is in labor is not actually experiencing being a human. |
I didn't use the term "non-person", I chose to say "non-actualized human being". I thought that phrase was pretty clear, but evidently not. It doesn't deny that the thing in question is human.
If I say curds are non-actualized cheese, or a spruce is a non-actualized Christmas tree, I assume we don't have any problems. If we start ruing the use of curds in anything other than cheese on the assumption that they might make a hell of a Gruyère, it seems to me that a futile exercise is underway. Just saying. |
Is a dream still a dream if realized? Sorry, rambling.
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 16:48:37. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:52:12 PM · #919 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I was simply referring to an experience that is attributed to God. The way I understand, when a person claims to have felt the presence of God they are referring to an actual moment in time or a series of moments or events. I agree faith can't be proven but if we're talking about events, history, then that should be provable, IMO. |
No. These are matters of faith. Not so much that they happened, as that God was involved. And what's being subjected to a demand for proof is not the event itself, but the involvement of God in it. As in: "Sounds to me like full-blown schizophrenia, PROVE that God was speaking to you or as far as I'm concerned you're a lunatic..." That kinda' thing. There's no point in this. There's no need to debunk-by-labeling.
Live and let live; it's a wonderful philosophy.
R. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:54:02 PM · #920 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Faith, by definition, must be unprovable. It makes no sense to require of the faithful that they provide proof of what they believe to be true. |
I don't disagree with your point, however requiring any truth to be unprovable tends to compel skepticism. People have the right to believe whatever they like... and also the right to inquire how someone else arrived at a given conclusion (whether or not they choose to answer). |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:56:13 PM · #921 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Live and let live; it's a wonderful philosophy. |
I agree.
That means I shouldn't have to put a sign at the end of my driveway stating that I don't want you to bang on my door and tell me mty soul needs to be saved, right?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:58:08 PM · #922 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Live and let live; it's a wonderful philosophy. |
I agree.
That means I shouldn't have to put a sign at the end of my driveway stating that I don't want you to bang on my door and tell me mty soul needs to be saved, right? |
But your soul does need to be save. EVERYONE knows that. :P |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 05:06:53 PM · #923 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Sounds to me like full-blown schizophrenia, PROVE that God was speaking to you or as far as I'm concerned you're a lunatic..." That kinda' thing. There's no point in this. There's no need to debunk-by-labeling. |
Did anyone actually do this or are YOU inferring it? Lunacy isn't the automatic alternative to real voices. You may "hear" voices in your dreams or when debating a question in your mind and be perfectly normal. So if someone hears voices that they believe to be God or Elvis or a long lost relative, is it not a fair question to ask how they know? |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 05:08:12 PM · #924 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, what I'm saying is that there's something sad about a worldview that takes sincere believers in anything and holds them up to ridicule and mockery because they cannot "prove" the integrity of their faith. That's just *wrong* in so many ways it drives me batty. |
It isn't wrong in context. The "god hates fags" people are deserving of ridicule and mockery. They should have no expectation of being taken seriously, or of having furrow-browed respect granted to them simply because they believe something. We all know that a man no less than Jefferson said that ridiculous claims deserve ridicule.
But this issue you bring up is personal for me, and brings me to something related. Often I'm accused of not having a light enough touch when talking amongst people of faith. My use of words like "delusion" and so on is called tasteless and hurtful. There is always, always a confusion of personal attack with objective observation when no such attack is implied.
The only way I can turn this around is to point out the opposite position, that of the Christian believer. An atheist is de facto damned to eternal suffering for being what he is, and there is no recourse other than to accept the faith of the believer. The believer thinks the atheist is deluded by his non-belief. That they--generally--don't vocalize this in polite conversation makes this no less a hallmark of their faith.
I probably resent being called tactless when I point out what I honestly think about religious faith as much as I resent being included in the ethos of the faithful. We both with our respective sets of beliefs hold the same view, it would seem. The difference seems only that I don't mind sharing mine.
We're discussing ideas here, not individuals. You can't be an atheist and not have Christian friends, and more than likely family. It's impossible. If I think my friends are deluded for their beliefs, are they any less my friends, and is the totality of their intersection with my life diminished? If I think a particular belief is a kind of delusion, that says nothing about what I think of a person who holds that belief, or what other kinds of things we can share.
We should be able to discuss ideas without the worry of causing offense every five minutes. It's disheartening. If I think you look terrible with that purple hair and those black spandex leotards, I'll tell you, but that doesn't mean I love you less! (Mother.) |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 05:15:24 PM · #925 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You can't be an atheist and not have Christian friends, and more than likely family. It's impossible. |
...except in the Middle East, Asia, and most of Africa. ;-) |
|
