| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2010 01:39:20 PM · #1601 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We both guess and those guesses lead to different conclusions. |
Yes but those conclusions are not on equal ground. The atheist conclude there are no gods, santas, unicorns, etc because none have been discovered. The conclusion ends there and the atheists go about their day. Your conclusion leads to gays shouldn't marry because the Christian God says so. It would be like hearing a knock on your door and concluding it's Fonzy from Happy Days holding a Wii on one hand and baby Jesus in the other.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 01:49:18 PM · #1602 |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 01:51:59 PM · #1603 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straw Man. |
So you're conclusions don't lead to Fonzy at the door gays shouldn't marry?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 01:54:07 PM · #1604 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straw Man. |
So you're conclusions don't lead to Fonzy at the door gays shouldn't marry? |
hard to argue with a nihilist. My conclusions shouldn't lead to anything.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 02:53:13 PM · #1605 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We both guess and those guesses lead to different conclusions. |
Yes but those conclusions are not on equal ground. The atheist conclude there are no gods, santas, unicorns, etc because none have been discovered. The conclusion ends there and the atheists go about their day. Your conclusion leads to gays shouldn't marry because the Christian God says so. |
More to the point, one conclusion is drawn from what has been proven while the other is drawn from what hasn't been disproven. Those aren't equally sound arguments. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 02:54:52 PM · #1606 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straw Man. |
So you're conclusions don't lead to Fonzy at the door gays shouldn't marry? |
hard to argue with a nihilist. My conclusions shouldn't lead to anything. |
But I'm saying they do so how can I be a nihilist?
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 02:56:37 PM · #1607 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straw Man. |
So you're conclusions don't lead to Fonzy at the door gays shouldn't marry? |
hard to argue with a nihilist. My conclusions shouldn't lead to anything. |
Doc, am I missing some subtext here or did you just make a straw man argument as an objection against someone else's straw man argument against you?
And yanko, it was a straw man - religious dogma does lead some (perhaps even most) believers to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry, but there are also plenty of religious believers that support gay marriage.
(Although I don't think that Doc is one of those taking the liberal tack on this issue, and it does not mean that arguments against gay marriage on religious grounds are not a complete load of bollocks.)
ETA that by "plenty" I meant "a lot," not "enough."
Message edited by author 2010-02-25 15:04:02. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 03:23:10 PM · #1608 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Straw Man. |
So you're conclusions don't lead to Fonzy at the door gays shouldn't marry? |
hard to argue with a nihilist. My conclusions shouldn't lead to anything. |
Doc, am I missing some subtext here or did you just make a straw man argument as an objection against someone else's straw man argument against you?
And yanko, it was a straw man - religious dogma does lead some (perhaps even most) believers to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry, but there are also plenty of religious believers that support gay marriage.
(Although I don't think that Doc is one of those taking the liberal tack on this issue, and it does not mean that arguments against gay marriage on religious grounds are not a complete load of bollocks.)
ETA that by "plenty" I meant "a lot," not "enough." |
Yeah there's some subtext. He's been trying to put me in a box for a while now but hasn't been able to find the right one. I agree, my argument was a strawman but I already know he's against gay marriage so I threw that in.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 03:24:57 PM · #1609 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
... religious dogma does lead some (perhaps even most) believers to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry... |
Just out of curiousity, is it "Dogma" or "Tenet" that gives rise to the anti-gay marriage stance?
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-02-25 15:25:30. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 03:31:56 PM · #1610 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
... religious dogma does lead some (perhaps even most) believers to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry... |
Just out of curiousity, is it "Dogma" or "Tenet" that gives rise to the anti-gay marriage stance?
Ray |
Dogma, Tenet, and Doctrine
"So, I'll start with tenet which is a belief that one holds, and bears no relation to the truth of the belief or where one got the belief or what one does with the belief. Theoretically, you could hold a false tenet (a belief that has been disproved, but while one still clings too), since it is just a belief, and there is no implied requirement to impose a tenet on anyone else in any way. Dogma is a belief that may or may not be true, but one thinks it is true, still having no relation to how one got the belief or what one does with it. Perhaps this word has the greatest relation to faith, believing in an idea which cannot be demonstrably proven or disproven, but which is embraced as true, regardless, and therefore, dogmas are more abstract. This may also explain why dogma is most frequently associated with the church, and particularly, the Catholic church. Doctrine, then, is a belief that is taught, again, with no relation to the truth of the belief. We hope it is true, and perhaps by teaching it, we make it true because we have spread the knowledge far and wide, but the real distinction of this word is that it is something that is intended to be communicated to another for them to accept."
//thecommonparlance.blogspot.com/2007/04/tenet-v-doctrine-v-dogma.html
R. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 03:35:35 PM · #1611 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
... religious dogma does lead some (perhaps even most) believers to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry... |
Just out of curiousity, is it "Dogma" or "Tenet" that gives rise to the anti-gay marriage stance?
Ray |
Dogma, Tenet, and Doctrine
"So, I'll start with tenet which is a belief that one holds, and bears no relation to the truth of the belief or where one got the belief or what one does with the belief. Theoretically, you could hold a false tenet (a belief that has been disproved, but while one still clings too), since it is just a belief, and there is no implied requirement to impose a tenet on anyone else in any way. Dogma is a belief that may or may not be true, but one thinks it is true, still having no relation to how one got the belief or what one does with it. Perhaps this word has the greatest relation to faith, believing in an idea which cannot be demonstrably proven or disproven, but which is embraced as true, regardless, and therefore, dogmas are more abstract. This may also explain why dogma is most frequently associated with the church, and particularly, the Catholic church. Doctrine, then, is a belief that is taught, again, with no relation to the truth of the belief. We hope it is true, and perhaps by teaching it, we make it true because we have spread the knowledge far and wide, but the real distinction of this word is that it is something that is intended to be communicated to another for them to accept."
//thecommonparlance.blogspot.com/2007/04/tenet-v-doctrine-v-dogma.html
R. |
I'd call that more of an opinion than a definition. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 03:43:20 PM · #1612 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'd call that more of an opinion than a definition. |
Well, I didn't have an answer to Ray's question off the top of my head so I went searching, and that was what I found. Got something better? Share :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 03:50:10 PM · #1613 |
Okay, that site is going straight to my uber-nerd blogroll.
ETA: Oh crap, on closer look it appears to be short-lived and now defunct.
Message edited by author 2010-02-25 15:51:22. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 04:25:23 PM · #1614 |
I shake my two fists
God is dead! Never was at all!
But the dark still gnaws
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 04:26:36 PM · #1615 |
I'll be here all week! Tip your waiters!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 04:46:40 PM · #1616 |
| And have all of you gone out and shot your February free study?? Hmm? Get crackin' people, this is a photography website. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 04:53:16 PM · #1617 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I shake my two fists
God is dead! Never was at all!
But the dark still gnaws |
It only gnaws at your eyelids
when open the dark is no more
Or so says the waiter.
Message edited by author 2010-02-25 16:53:44.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2010 04:58:07 PM · #1618 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And have all of you gone out and shot your February free study?? Hmm? Get crackin' people, this is a photography website. |
Even a photography website maintains a shred of humani...
Never mind. |
|
|
|
02/25/2010 05:11:25 PM · #1619 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'd call that more of an opinion than a definition. |
Well, I didn't have an answer to Ray's question off the top of my head so I went searching, and that was what I found. Got something better? Share :-)
R. |
Thank you everyone... some very informative material here. Much appreciated.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-02-25 17:11:44. |
|
|
|
02/27/2010 10:09:39 PM · #1620 |
|
|
|
02/28/2010 01:49:12 AM · #1621 |
Hehe. I saw that too. But I was going to bring up this line.
"Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism..." ;) |
|
|
|
02/28/2010 11:15:18 AM · #1622 |
I will go with PZ Myers on this one: Stop Patting Yourselves On The Back
Originally posted by PZ Myers:
Show me the error bars on those measurements. Show me the reliability of IQ as a measure of actual, you know, intelligence. Show me that a 6 point IQ difference matters at all in your interactions with other people, even if it were real. And then to claim that these differences are not only heritable, but evolutionarily significantâ€Â¦jebus, people, you can just glance at it and see that it is complete crap. |
|
|
|
|
02/28/2010 11:41:22 AM · #1623 |
Ed was reading my mind. I was thinking about this in the shower and wanted to see the p-values on the results because I figured it would be an expensive study to do (at least in time). The study size that could show a significant difference between 6 IQ points would probably be fairly large (one could probably reverse engineer that number) and one would have to do a formal IQ test on each person. Formal IQ tests take at least a few hours (I had a psychology friend in residency who had to practice giving them so he would do them formally on all of us).
The problem is, the study isn't even out yet, so we'd have to wait to see if p-values were even done. The author's track record is a bit worrisome though. "In 2006 he published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, claiming that attractive people are 26% less likely to have male offspring.[3][4] In a letter to the editors,[5] Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman points out that a correct interpretation of the regression coefficients in Kanazawa's analysis is that attractive people are 8% more likely to have girls, an error that Kanazawa acknowledges."
Actually this guy seems like an interesting piece of work:
Kanazawa's theories on race and intelligence are controversial. Kanazawa has argued that Asian cultural traditions and/or character inhibit Asian scientific creativity[11] and that "political correctness" is a bigger threat to American evolutionary psychology than religious fundamentalism.[12] As a result, he has been accused of promoting "racist stereotypes".[13] In 2006 Kanazawa published a controversial paper suggesting that poor health of people in some nations is the result, not of poverty, but rather lower IQ.[14] In the British Journal of Health Psychology George T. H. Ellison wrote that the theory is based on flawed assumptions, questionable data, inappropriate analyses and biased interpretations. Ellison wrote that Kanazawa mistook statistical associations for evidence of causality and falsely concluded that populations in sub-Saharan Africa are less healthy because they are unintelligent and not because they are poor.[15]
Anyway, the press loves to report on this stuff. They have no idea what peer-reviewed likely even means. I see medical articles reported all the time that are complete crap. |
|
|
|
02/28/2010 12:02:05 PM · #1624 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hehe. I saw that too. But I was going to bring up this line.
"Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism..." ;) |
Funny, but that is how I've thought of your 'standing up for Christianity' (ie - to prove that not all Christians follow blindly, etc.)
My statement is NOT made sarcastically. Rather, to show how perception is influenced by one's viewpoint. We discussed being humble the other day, and both sides got a little irritated with the other's stance.
I posit that it is VERY humbling to realize that lifelong beliefs could be wrong... and even more so to actually let go of them. While it can eventually lead one to feeling superior, it seems more complex than it first appears. Have you ever (corrected / gotten onto / admonished) someone for a mistake that you had also made? Specifically, gone a bit overboard, then later regretted it? We sometimes act harshly, then realize we're actually upset with ourselves for not noticing our own mistakes SOONER.
Could it be that, when a believer argues against the non-believer, they are really just frustrated with themselves? Could the near-instant aggression stem from pride, from a desire to NOT recognize they might have been wrong? Especially about something so closely tied to everything they do / think / act upon? Letting go of religion is truly life altering, in every imaginable facet. The fear of the unknown, the extreme fears of blasphemy, the disassociation from peers, are all very powerful. Its no wonder that becoming a non-believer often takes years of confusion and careful consideration.
Letting go of one's pride, in order to release indoctrination, is indeed a very humbling experience.
Message edited by author 2010-02-28 13:57:23. |
|
|
|
02/28/2010 01:48:30 PM · #1625 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I figured it would be an expensive study to do (at least in time). |
Did you mean expensive or expansive?
Ray |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 02:07:13 AM EDT.
