Hi, I'm Mick

New? Introduce yourself here.
Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:08 am

FBM wrote:
Mick wrote:
FBM wrote:
Seth wrote:
FBM wrote:I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.
Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.
I'm pretty sure that he would have presented it if he had it.
You are free to check out my formal debate with lobawad in RS to see me defend an argument for God's existence.
You are free to present evidence for your god's existence here. Thank you for playing. Please try again.
You are free to present evidence for the non-existence of god here. So far you haven't even entered the game.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:08 am

rEvolutionist wrote:I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.
Pot, kettle, black... :bored:
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Animavore » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:12 am

Seth wrote:
FBM wrote:
Seth wrote:
FBM wrote:I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.
Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.
I'm pretty sure that he would have presented it if he had it.
Why should he? You're not exactly an unbiased and objective audience. Evidence has been presented to the scientific community for thousands of years now and it still not only flatly refuses to apply it's own methods and standards, it flatly rejects even the possibility that God exists by labeling anything it does not understand to be "supernatural" and therefore non-scientific.

Science, you see, is it's own form of religious dogma and belief.

Poverty of imagination runs rampant in the scientific community, and worse yet whenever someone attempts to engage the scientific method to examine theistic claims, they are shunned and derided for the attempt because theism is heresy to the scientificologist religion...even if it turns out to be true.
The majority of scientists, like the majority of people in general, believe in some god or other. Science isn't some sort of atheistic endeavor. It's theologically neutral. It's not 'heresy' to examine theistic claims, it's just that many claims aren't testable using the scientific method by definition. The ones that are testable, like prayer and outer-body experience for instance, are and have been tested. Often they fail or are inconclusive.

To say science suffers from a poverty of imagination is complete bullshit. Do you think Einstein's thought experiments were the result of a 'poverty of imagination'? Or Darwin when he made the leap from the evidence to formulate his theory? Or the scientists in Copenhagen who came up with quantum mechanics? How about Father George LeMaitre when he formulated the big bang theory?
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by FBM » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:19 am

Seth wrote:You are free to present evidence for the non-existence of god here. So far you haven't even entered the game.
Read the thread. We've been over this. This is just more rhetorical dodge-ball. If you make the claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. :bored:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:22 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Seth wrote:One can have a personal aversion to some particular sex act without hating or fearing the individuals involved. A person who feels that way about anal sex between men may feel that way about ALL anal sex and consider it to be "unnatural" and "perverted" on the perfectly rational basis that male-female heterosexual penis-vagina sex is the only "natural" form of intercourse. This belief may be based in religious belief, but it can also be based in science, because quite obviously the evolutionary purpose of sex organs is procreation and nobody's seen an anally-delivered baby yet.

Now I'm sure rEv will claim that I'm stating a "naturalistic fallacy," but in fact he will be stating the "Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy" or "anti-naturalistic fallacy."

The reason he will wrong when he inevitably states this fallacy as a way to dismiss the discussion as being merely "homophobic" is because, as we see below, in some, if not many such cases, the "ought" is inherent in the "is," as seen in McInerny's clock argument.
My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

More seriously though, there aren't really any good arguments against the naturalistic fallacy. The ones presented in the wiki link are mostly word games or attempts to debate semantics but the core concept remains. Ignoring that debate for now, the bigger problem is in rejecting the naturalistic fallacy as it contains a whole load of other problems for people and it's difficult to remain consistent.

For example, since what is natural means that it's also good (like having sex for procreation), then that means you can't use condoms. It means you can use medicine, you can't have surgery, you can't drive a car, you can't own property, etc etc. It also means that, depending on the truth of some research, it means that you think rape is a good thing.
How do you get there from the proposition that procreation is the genetic purpose of sex? It should be perfectly obvious that the genetic purpose of sex organs and sexual drives is procreation. That some organisms may do other things with those organs (like the cloaca) is not really relevant to the root proposition.
When people try to use arguments like normative claims about what's "natural" by appealing to procreation to justify their distaste for gay sex, I find that very rarely do they hold the same view towards lesbian having sex or sterile people having sex. I find the inconsistency weird - if I were to be a bigot, I'd go whole hog.
Nobody said that every person's distaste for homosexual acts is completely rational and logical or that every person is completely objective, consistent and non-hypocritical in their beliefs. I certainly didn't. I'm saying that a distaste for homosexuality, of whatever flavor, is neither inherently irrational nor inherently immoral or unethical. In most cases it's simply a matter of personal preference and belief. And just like the personal preference and belief that homosexual acts are NOT immoral or unethical, those who hold a differing opinion on the matter have just as much right to feel and express their opinion as homosexuals do to feel and express theirs.

The problem lies with the intolerance of gays and those who support gays for any sort of dissent from the "homosexuality is normal and good" naturalistic fallacy. Just because a person is gay and enjoys homosexual sex acts does not make them better or worse than anyone else nor does it impose a burden of acceptance on anyone else. At best, like everyone else who engages in some act that someone else finds offensive or displeasing, they have an exactly equal right with everyone else to demand that others tolerate their otherwise peaceable and non-coercive expressions of their sexual identity.

Demanding approval, even tacit approval by coercing association or coercing restraints on free speech or religion, is simply not acceptable behavior and especially when the government gets involved (as in anti-discrimination laws) is a gross and unacceptable violation of the fundamental right of every person to associate, or dis-associate with anyone they please, for any reason that pleases them, or for no reason at all.

The basis of a free society is freedom, and expressly the freedom to disassociate from those who engage in activities that one finds displeasing or offensive, without fear of government or private coercion.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:23 am

Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
Mick wrote:
FBM wrote:
Mick wrote:Yup.

Moving on...
I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s). :sadcheer:
Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.
I think there is no evidence for god because I have never seen any. Care to enlighten me? :tea:
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." Somebody or other.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:26 am

JimC wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Mick wrote:
FBM wrote:
Mick wrote:Yup.

Moving on...
I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s). :sadcheer:
Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.
Because you haven't posted any yet. The evidence for the lack of evidence so far, is the lack of evidence so far..
He has alluded to evidence in the sense of statements by religious people about their personal experience of god. This is the sort of thing that Seth says we must allow as evidence, otherwise we are being biased... :roll:

All subjective codswallop, of course...
Prove that those observations are "subjective codswallop." You made the claim, you provide the evidence of its truth.

I saw a tree fall in the forest the other day. Does the fact that you were not there as well provide evidence that the event did not occur?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Animavore » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:27 am

FBM wrote:
Seth wrote:You are free to present evidence for the non-existence of god here. So far you haven't even entered the game.
Read the thread. We've been over this. This is just more rhetorical dodge-ball. If you make the claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. :bored:
I've always found it weird the way theists ask atheists for evidence for no gods, yet theists never or rarely seem to ask each other this question about the gods they don't believe in. And nobody asks anything about gods of ancient civilisations any more. It's just taken as a given that they're mythology, yet no one questions this.
Theists often seem happy when they meet other theists (except the more creedal ones) and dicuss each other's gods and religions, as long as they believe in 'something'. It's only when someone says they don't believe in any of that much of them get a bee in their bonnett. I used to think this way about it myself.

I'm in the more, don't give a shite what anyone believes any more. Fucking sick of going 'round and 'round with this shit. Same arguments. Same counter-arguments.

Wake me up when someone comes out with something new :yawn:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by FBM » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:30 am

Yep. I'm tired of it, too. I wouldn't even be in this discussion, but Mick was snarky to me when I tried to be welcoming to him, so fuck 'im. Play time. ;)
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Animavore » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:40 am

The only thing I'm wondering now is, "Where do I go from here?"

I've been a theist. I've been a deist. I've been a woo-ist. I've been a vague, wispy, trancendentalist. I've been an atheist...

I think I'm going to take up golf or find something else new and interesting.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Animavore » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:43 am

I should probably give up drink too :hehe:

Night, all :drunk:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by FBM » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:50 am

Night, ani. :cheers:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:54 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
That's still a naturalistic fallacy. Why is a "natural end", whatever that is, relevant to anything at all?
Why isn't it? The "naturalistic fallacy" is not a law of physics or nature you know, although you refer to it as if it is the ultimate rebuttal to any sort of "is/ought" issue.

As I pointed out earlier, there is wide disagreement about the "is/ought" issue when it comes to the philosophical underpinnings of moral judgments. Thus it is perfectly valid to maintain the position that the "ought" of sexuality is inherent in the "is" of it's biological purpose, as in the case of the clock that "ought" to tell time because it "is" a clock.

Catholic doctrine holds that a "natural end" is preferable to artificial means when it comes to procreation. This doctrine is based on Catholic belief with respect to the commandments of God about sexuality and its proper and moral use. There are libraries full of arguments in support of "natural" heterosexual sex as the preferred social order, and that paradigm has held sway in societies planet-wide until quite recently, historically speaking.

Empirically speaking, the laws of the United States, ratified by the Supreme Court have regulated the expression of sexuality in society as a fundamental part of social order. The reasoning that has prevailed since well before the formation of the US (by thousands of years) is that unrestrained sexuality is harmful to society and particularly harmful to the stable family unit, which is extremely harmful to the society as a whole, and there are reams of court precedent explaining exactly why the government assumes authority to regulate both marriage and sexual practice in the public interest and for the purposes of maintaining social order and social stability. Only in the last few years have the federal courts accepted the equal rights argument with respect to homosexuals when it comes to regulating social order by actively supporting and advancing the "normal" nuclear family unit.

Regulation of sexual practice has been a matter deemed suitable for government regulation for a very, very long time, and whatever your or my opinion it is within the purview of government to regulate such practices. (I disagree with that, but that's another argument)

The acceptance by the courts and by the government of homosexual family relationships and sexual activity is, in my view, a good thing because there is actually little reason to presume that parties in a homosexual relationship are fundamentally any different from partners in a heterosexual relationship insofar as intrapersonal relations and family structure.

The argument about the "best interests of the child" when it comes to parenting by homosexuals is a lame one not based in any real objective evidence that I have seen. Most complaints are forms of the "ick factor" argument that maintain that a child raised in a homosexual home is likely to become homosexual. The fallacy in this argument is that it falsely presumes that homosexuality is socially or morally inappropriate, and this opinion is usually based in projected moralistic judgment based on religious beliefs. As such it is inappropriate for government to regulate homosexuality in a negative manner because doing so is, absent objective evidence of harm, merely pandering to the religious beliefs of the majority. This is why anti-homosexual advocates these days are careful to pose their objections as if they were objective science-based objections to homosexual child-rearing rather than the true motive, which is religious revulsion.

Now let it be said that religious individuals have every right to find homosexuality revolting and every right to express that revulsion and every right to disassociate themselves from homosexuals based on nothing more than their First Amendment rights to do so. That revulsion may be or may not be religiously based, but it is a protected opinion nonetheless that government may not suppress or make unlawful.

On the other hand, homosexuals have a right not to be the subject of arbitrary "ick factor" government regulation that constrains their freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to form a formal family unit that enjoys all of the relevant governmental perks and protections as anyone else enjoys.

What homosexuals do NOT have a right to demand, themselves or by using government as their proxy, is either coerced association or expressions of respect or approval of their lifestyles. At best they can demand equal protection of the law, tolerance and peaceable behavior by others because that is what every person has a right to demand from every other person.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Seth » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:55 am

Animavore wrote:The only thing I'm wondering now is, "Where do I go from here?"

I've been a theist. I've been a deist. I've been a woo-ist. I've been a vague, wispy, trancendentalist. I've been an atheist...

I think I'm going to take up golf or find something else new and interesting.
Why don't you become a Tolerist™? It has the advantage of removing all the various labels that might cause disagreement with those of varying beliefs.

I know a guy who can ordain you.... :biggrin:
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Mick
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Hi, I'm Mick

Post by Mick » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:57 am

FBM wrote:
Mick wrote:
FBM wrote:So anyway, got any evidence of this god of yours? :yawn:
I posted a link.
I'm not interested in chasing your arguments around the internet. You signed up here, bring your evidence here. Evidence. Not rhetorical word games. Otherwise, you still got nothing.
Huh? I gave you a link that takes you directly to an argument I defend for God's existence. What difference does it make if I post the words here in this forum or offer a direct link? You're just buying yourself time, and it is rather pathetic. You asked for an argument. I delivered. Now, either man up or shush up. :biggrin:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests