| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2009 12:45:43 AM · #951 |
Originally posted by chalice:
I think my friend is willing to get the two sets of pictures for me, and if he is and with the appropriate releases, I'll have them looked at by experienced doctors I know who are interested in seeing them. Some of those doctors are Christians and some of them are either agnostics or atheists. Maybe someday this "anecdote" will be fully vetted in the media and elsewhere. And perhaps it won't get that far because the experts find a mistake. Time will tell. |
That is a good approach, and I would be curious as to the outcome of the investigation.
While calling you story worthless was a little harsh, I hope you understand that the reason it was summarily rejected by the non-believers in this group was that there was no independently verifiable way to confirm the account you were giving us. There may well have been something unusual going on with your friend's case - whether supernatural, or not - but, given the standing evidence on the issue of faith healing from unbiased sources, the only rational response to your story is skepticism.
Think about it this way. What if you heard a similar story, except instead of Christian prayer being the claimed method of healing it was claimed that the tumors and fracture had been cured by the touch of a Catholic healing relic, a muslim cleric's appeal to Allah, a blood sacrifice by a Haitian voodoo priest or the ritual of an aboriginal shaman? I would guess that in most, if not all, of these cases you would be skeptical - you would demand proof before you would be willing to credit the account that you had received. And you would be right to be so. You obviously do feel that we should be less skeptical of your account that we were, but the only reason that you feel your account should be more plausible than any of these others is that it falls into the socio-religious worldview for which you are familiar. Someone sitting outside of that worldview would have no more reason to credit your account of healing by prayer than they would to credit an account of healing by aboriginal ritual - that is, none without independently verifiable evidence.
Message edited by author 2009-12-14 00:56:20. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 01:10:02 AM · #952 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
There may well have been something unusual going on with your friend's case - whether supernatural, or not - but, given the standing evidence on the issue faith healing from unbiased sources, the only rational response to your story is skepticism. |
Given that medical literature discounts both the possibility of fractures healing in three days AND the effectiveness of prayer, the most likely explanation is that either there was no fracture (false positive) or that the fracture was missed the second time (false negative). Those scenarios DO occur, and allowing the patient to ponder a miracle would be preferable to admitting misdiagnosis. It'll be interesting to see if you can get the x-rays. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 02:41:23 AM · #953 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I see the principle supporting [blasphemy laws] to be no different than any limit on hate speech. Is that an insult to free thought and freedom of speech? Of course we may feel one is important and the other isn't (especially if you think the God being protected is nonexistant), but the principle behind is equivalent; the intention and meaning behind certain speech is deemed to be so offensive or problematic to a culture that it is prohibited. |
Actually, I find hate speech/hate crime laws highly problematic as well. The state should not be in the business of regulating or prohibiting speech that is merely offensive (even if the speech is highly so).
Hate crime legislation is at least somewhat more justifiable that so-called "hate speech" law, as violations are triggered by illegal action and not merely a deemed offensive intent or viewpoint. There is also some argument for laws that address or rectify specifically identified harmful tendencies within a society. For example, the German ban on pro-Nazi speech seems imminently reasonable, given that country's history, as do laws prohibiting the burning of crosses in the United States, given our own.
While I would not describe my viewpoint as holding speech "sacrosanct," I am nevertheless quite strident in feeling that we should be very suspicious of any attempts to sanction private speech. There is no right not to be offended. You have no right to demand that I hold your belief or creed in any esteem or respect, and I similarly have no right to demand that you provide any preference to my own views. Both should stand or fall based on their persuasive power. Blasphemy laws are not about protecting believers, but about silencing believers and non-believers who don't share the preferenced group's belief.
We live in a heterogenous society and that means that someone will inevitably do and say things that you don't agree with our may take offense at. If the only harm the other person's actions or words are causing is hurt feelings, then the only sensible thing to do as a society is to tell the offended party "tough, if you think they are wrong, make your argument." This is true whether we are talking about believers being offended at non-believers (or believers of another faith) telling them their beliefs are silly, harmful and/or just plain wrong, or whether we are talking about atheists having to put up with believers telling us we have no morals and are all going to hell.
Apply all the social sanctions you want, but leave the state out of it. |
Clearly you speak reason within our society. Remember I did clearly state I want no part of such laws in our country. However, if you openly allow the "reasonable" possibility for banning pro-Nazi speeech, and the burning of crosses within their respective cultures, then Blasphemy laws within a theocratic Muslim nation could be likewise "reasonable".
I also think your take on the "silencing non-believers" purpose for blasphemy laws is quite possible, but it is also quite cynical and the possibility also exists the laws are there to engender the proper respect (a la the Queen and rules of decorum example). Anyway, we don't need to get into it further. It's just a little side-trail this thread is leading us on.
To lighten the mood, did anybody catch Community last week? I'm starting to enjoy the show quite a lot for a basic throw-away sit-com (and I don't watch a ton of TV). Each character in the group wound up being of a different faith which turned off the Christian who was trying to throw a Christmas party. The best line came when Brita, the atheist, showed up.
"Ah, and here's Brita, bringing something to represent her beliefs...NOTHING!" LOL. I chuckled.
Message edited by author 2009-12-14 02:41:36. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 10:09:48 AM · #954 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The best line came when Brita, the atheist, showed up. |
"Simpsons did it!"
Flanders: "Here you go kids, it's Unitarian ice cream!" (handing kids empty cones)
Kids: "But there's nothing there."
Flanders: "Exactly."
;)
|
|
|
|
12/14/2009 10:21:48 AM · #955 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, if you openly allow the "reasonable" possibility for banning pro-Nazi speeech, and the burning of crosses within their respective cultures, then Blasphemy laws within a theocratic Muslim nation could be likewise "reasonable". |
Except that 1) I worry about the implications of even these, seemingly clear cut examples; and 2) the German and U.S. examples both exist as an attempt to constrain acts of physical intimidation and violence to a historically persecuted group (Jews and African Americans, respectively). Your example would be the case of a majority exercising the power of the state to suppress the free expression of the non-believing minority, and is not analogous.
Further, as to your example of the Queen, I would definitely expect to be able to strongly criticize the Queen within the culture - even to the point of making disrespectful and/or offensive remarks about the Queen. Since the Queen is a political, as well as a social, figure, being able to make such criticism is especially important. (Of course, if I were ever to meet the Queen or attend some formal royal function I would expect follow the rules of decorum or be thrown out on my ear. My acceptance of the social invitation would obligate me to certain reciprocal social observances.)
Message edited by author 2009-12-14 11:32:02. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 11:39:30 AM · #956 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Further, as to your example of the Queen, I would definitely expect to be able to strongly criticize the Queen within the culture - even to the point of making disrespectful and/or offensive remarks about the Queen. |
As a citizen of a country of the Commonwealth (the sitting monarch in Great Britain is our head of state), I can tell you that this is the case. Criticism of the institution itself is widespread, and mocking ridicule of the royal family is a pastime. Incidentally, have you ever heard of Spitting Image? |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 11:59:17 AM · #957 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Incidentally, have you ever heard of Spitting Image? |
You bet. Although I had not been aware that it had ran so long. As a member of "the colonies," I found the Reagan parodies particularly spot on. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 12:47:30 PM · #958 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Further, as to your example of the Queen, I would definitely expect to be able to strongly criticize the Queen within the culture - even to the point of making disrespectful and/or offensive remarks about the Queen. |
As a citizen of a country of the Commonwealth (the sitting monarch in Great Britain is our head of state), I can tell you that this is the case. Criticism of the institution itself is widespread, and mocking ridicule of the royal family is a pastime. Incidentally, have you ever heard of Spitting Image? |
But you wouldn't do it in the Queen's presence. And we know God is everywhere... ;) |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 01:28:29 PM · #959 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Further, as to your example of the Queen, I would definitely expect to be able to strongly criticize the Queen within the culture - even to the point of making disrespectful and/or offensive remarks about the Queen. |
As a citizen of a country of the Commonwealth (the sitting monarch in Great Britain is our head of state), I can tell you that this is the case. Criticism of the institution itself is widespread, and mocking ridicule of the royal family is a pastime. Incidentally, have you ever heard of Spitting Image? |
But you wouldn't do it in the Queen's presence. And we know God is everywhere... ;) |
If Liz can take it, surely the creator of the universe can let a few cracks slide. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 04:58:45 PM · #960 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Further, as to your example of the Queen, I would definitely expect to be able to strongly criticize the Queen within the culture - even to the point of making disrespectful and/or offensive remarks about the Queen. |
As a citizen of a country of the Commonwealth (the sitting monarch in Great Britain is our head of state), I can tell you that this is the case. Criticism of the institution itself is widespread, and mocking ridicule of the royal family is a pastime. Incidentally, have you ever heard of Spitting Image? |
But you wouldn't do it in the Queen's presence. And we know God is everywhere... ;) |
Actually, as seen Here a rather prominent Canadian did just that a few years back.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 10:41:35 AM · #961 |
| Understanding this thread is like trying to follow an extremely confusing dialogue between two people. At what post does the discussion begin and where does it leave off? |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 10:49:17 AM · #962 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Understanding this thread is like trying to follow an extremely confusing dialogue between two people. At what post does the discussion begin and where does it leave off? |
Yes. |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 11:19:47 AM · #963 |
| The thread is easiest to follow if you consider my posts to be the rational framework and everything else to be fantastical decorations strung about... |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 11:38:43 AM · #964 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The thread is easiest to follow if you consider my posts to be the rational framework and everything else to be fantastical decorations strung about... |
haha... nice |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 11:47:36 AM · #965 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The thread is easiest to follow if you consider my posts to be the rational framework and everything else to be fantastical decorations strung about... |
Sort of like reading Alice in Wonderland from the Mad Hatter's point of view... |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 04:24:38 PM · #966 |
I found this page, and the pages it links to, very intriguing.
Proof of atheist nations being the most peaceful
and video accompaniment:
Youtube video here
Don't worry, you won't suddenly burst into flames just for clicking the link... ;)
eta - thanks to DrAchoo for pointing out the better choice of link
Message edited by author 2010-02-09 17:54:17. |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 05:12:40 PM · #967 |
| Link to the actual page minus the peanut gallery comments. |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 06:54:15 PM · #968 |
I don't want to trump Ross, so people can talk about his link if they want, but this seems to be the appropriate thread.
I had never heard about Anthony Flew before who is another case of atheist turned theist (deist in this case). Cases like this (in either direction) are fascinating because these are people who are obviously dedicating a ton of their time exploring such ideas. It's also fascinating that, lo and behold, CS Lewis' name pops up.
The big reason for the post is to take Flew's list of things we should take "into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God". I feel somewhat vindicated that I have personally brought up 5 of the 10 items on the list. I feel that, at the very least, this asserts that I am not crazy for asking questions on these fronts. I am not saying they amass some "proof of God", but rather are reasonable questions that too often are simply struck down as the rantings of a theological stick-in-the-mud.
Items to "take into account" when discussing God:
A novel definition of "God" by Richard Swinburne
The case for the existence of the Christian God by Swinburne in the book Is There a God?
The Church of England's change in doctrine on the eternal punishment of Hell
The question of whether there was only one big bang and if time began with it
The question of multiple universes
The fine-tuning argument
The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for the development of living matter from non-living matter
The question of whether there is a naturalistic account for non-reproducing living matter developing into a living creature capable of reproduction
The concept of an Intelligent Orderer as explained in the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese
An extension of an Aristotelian/Deist concept of God that can be reached through natural theology, which was developed by David Conway.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2010 08:27:50 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I found this page, and the pages it links to, very intriguing.
Proof of atheist nations being the most peaceful
and video accompaniment:
Youtube video here
Don't worry, you won't suddenly burst into flames just for clicking the link... ;)
eta - thanks to DrAchoo for pointing out the better choice of link |
This is ridiculous... You can't claim that a country is peaceful just because it's people are mostly atheist. You also can't claim that a country is not peaceful just because it's people are mostly religious. There are so many factors that come into play with this sort of thing. For example... I took a few minutes and looked at the 30 countries from the YouTube video, and then I looked at the "political stability" ranking for each of those countries. This is what I found.
Country Political Instability (1=stable, 5=unstable)
(Predominantly Muslim Nations)
Somalia 4.75
Afghanistan 4.25
Yemen 3.5
Saudi Arabia 3
Iran 3.5
Iraq 4.375
Pakistan 4.25
Palestine (not in the list... not sure where the video guy got the info)
Nigeria 2.5
Sudan 4.75
(Predominantly Christian Nations)
Honduras 2.75
Guatemala 4.125
Ecuador 3.25
Venezuela 3.25
Colombia 2.25
Ukraine 3.125
Argentina 2.375
Cuba 2.75
Brazil 1.25
USA 1.25
(Predominantly Atheist Nations)
Sweden 1
Vietnam 2.75
Denmark 1
Norway 1
Japan 1
Czech Rep 1.5
Finland 1
France 1.25
Germany 1
Hungary 1.5
So, as you can clearly see, the countries that the YouTube video claims are peaceful (atheist nations) are clearly more politically stable than the religious nations which are supposedly less peaceful.
At any rate, you can't just claim that atheist = peace. I would argue that political stability has more to do with peace than religious beliefs. But once again, there are many factors involved. You can't just pick one of those factors and say, "That's it! That's why this country is so violent!" |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 08:39:14 PM · #970 |
Notwithstanding your cry of 'ridiculous' Johnny, you obviously did not review the available data.
As the study clearly shows, it does not just consider any one factor. I'm pretty sure the study was not designed to prove anything (other than which countries were most peaceful). It seems that only after the study, people realized
'hey, look at how the lack of religion coincides with the peaceable nations'
Please note that a LOT of factors were used in rating which nations were most / least peaceful - everything from domestic & international battles, to the amount of education received, to political and economic indicators. |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 08:45:27 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Notwithstanding your cry of 'ridiculous' Johnny, you obviously did not review the available data.
As the study clearly shows, it does not just consider any one factor. I'm pretty sure the study was not designed to prove anything (other than which countries were most peaceful). It seems that only after the study, people realized
'hey, look at how the lack of religion coincides with the peaceable nations'
Please note that a LOT of factors were used in rating which nations were most / least peaceful - everything from domestic & international battles, to the amount of education received, to political and economic indicators. |
I wasn't saying that the study is ridiculous, I was saying the YouTube interpretation that you lined is ridiculous. The study seems reliable, but that YouTube video is biased.
Message edited by author 2010-02-09 20:46:01. |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 09:11:16 PM · #972 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I found this page, and the pages it links to, very intriguing.
Proof of atheist nations being the most peaceful
and video accompaniment:
Youtube video here
Don't worry, you won't suddenly burst into flames just for clicking the link... ;)
eta - thanks to DrAchoo for pointing out the better choice of link |
So the United States is not very peaceful (83rd overall), doesn't respect human rights all that much (only a 3 rating) but hey at least we kick ass in putting a lot of people behind bars (5 out of 5 rating) so that must be were we shoot up the charts on being the best country on this planet. :/
Message edited by author 2010-02-09 21:13:00.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2010 09:35:25 PM · #973 |
The secondary conclusion is sorta silly. I pointed out to Ross in a PM, that to me it seems obvious the takehome message is that the equator causes violence. The further away from the equator you live, the more peaceful you are. The top 10 and bottom 10 clearly show this pattern.
Apparently we have "proof" that heat makes people grumpy... |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 09:38:08 PM · #974 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am not saying they amass some "proof of God", but rather are reasonable questions that too often are simply struck down as the rantings of a theological stick-in-the-mud. |
You're right they don't amount to proof. Philosophy alone is incapable of producing proofs of any kind. I suspect if someone dismisses these questions it's because of how they are being used (i.e. as potential proofs).
|
|
|
|
02/09/2010 09:40:53 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am not saying they amass some "proof of God", but rather are reasonable questions that too often are simply struck down as the rantings of a theological stick-in-the-mud. |
You're right they don't amount to proof. Philosophy alone is incapable of producing proofs of any kind. I suspect if someone dismisses these questions it's because of how they are being used (i.e. as potential proofs). |
Philosophy is quite capable of producing proofs of logic.
Anyway, take what I said at face value. These are not proofs but rather questions to be addressed in the larger context of the question of God's existence. |
|
