Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…9192949697…101

Comments

  • #2792
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,858 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    So what do you think of Roman Catholics who claim to see Mary ?
    Indeed, what do you think of people of all religions and none who have claimed to have seen apparitions/visions over the statue in Ballinaspittle, Co. Cork over the past 30 odd years?
    Your answer will show, just how supportive you are towards those who claim supernatural visions ... and by extension, how likely you would be to start proclaiming that you saw God, if He showed Himself to you.

    I am skeptical and think of them in the same way I think of people who claim to have seen yeti, aliens and other unexplainable phenomena, does not mean I wouldn't start believing in any of those things if I witnessed them with my own eyes though!


  • #2793
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    The state is very happy to receive the taxes of religious people ... and then, if you had your way, pay the money back with secular 'strings attached' ... which amount to discrimination between schools with a religious and a non-religous / anti-religious ethos.
    Even in America and France ... with long histories of state-sponsored secularism this kind doesn't even wash.

    All citizens should pay their taxes. The state should then fund secular schools. If the religious people want their children to learn about religion then let them set up their own self-funded religion schools. Problem?


  • #2794
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I am skeptical and think of them in the same way I think of people who claim to have seen yeti, aliens and other unexplainable phenomena, does not mean I wouldn't start believing in any of those things if I witnessed them with my own eyes though!
    I think you would explain it away as some kind of illusion, the same way you have just explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena.

    ... and I'll bet that you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?


  • #2795
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All citizens should pay their taxes. The state should then fund secular schools. If the religious people want their children to learn about religion then let them set up their own self-funded religion schools. Problem?
    ... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?


  • #2796
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,858 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I think you would explain it away as some kind of illusion, the same way you have just explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena.

    ... and I'll bet that you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?


    Again you presume to know me and what my reaction would be, you dismiss my words without a shred of knowledge about the person that i am :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #2797
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,858 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

    Sure isn't that how it has been for atheists in Ireland for centuries?


  • #2798
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

    In what way is providing a secular education anti-religious?


  • #2799
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    J C wrote: »
    ... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

    No. Why? Because atheists don't tend to claim to demand schools that provide an -anti-religious- point of view, they mostly in this thread at least, have wanted schools to either a) not promote religion at all (not just regarding your particular one) or b) give relatively equal time to all religions, as in teaching about them, without picking out one to insist on teaching the children as fact.

    What you want is schools that teach -your- philosophy purely because -you- believe in it. If you believed in Islam, I am sure (hey, aren't these assumptions fun!) you would be demanding that schools teach Islam. Nothing stopping you from teaching your views to your own children at home. I'm sure you can even explain why your notions of Christianity are proven fact with empirical evidence, but Hinduism isn't.


  • #2800
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Sure isn't that how it has been for atheists in Ireland for centuries?
    Hardly for centuries ... since Roman Catholics weren't allowed to set up schools (even at their own expense) under the Penal Laws.
    ... and anyway do two wrongs make a right?


  • #2801
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Again you presume to know me and what my reaction would be, you dismiss my words without a shred of knowledge about the person that i am :rolleyes:
    I have a good idea what you believe and want from interacting with you on the Boards ... but for the avoidance of doubt can I ask you:-
    Would you explain away a vision of God appearing to you as some kind of illusion, the same way you have explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena?

    Do you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?


  • Advertisement
  • #2802
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    In what way is providing a secular education anti-religious?
    Secularism is a deeply anti-religious philosophy ... wanting, as it does, the total suppression of religion and religious expression from the public sphere ... via demands for the total 'separation' of church and state ... while simultaneously demanding the complete integration of secularism within the state.
    Great stuff, I'm sure, if you're a secularist and can pull it off ... but unlikely to happen in a society where north of 90% of the population are religious.


  • #2803
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Secularism is a deeply anti-religious philosophy ... wanting, as it does, the total suppression of religion and religious expression from the public sphere ... via demands for the total 'separation' of church and state ... while simultaneously demanding the complete integration of secularism within the state.
    Great stuff, I'm sure, if you're a secularist and can pull it off ... but unlikely to happen in a society where north of 90% of the population are religious.

    But it's happening in Ireland right now?

    All states should be secular. 'Secular' definition: Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.

    How is that anti-religious?


  • #2804
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Secularism is a deeply anti-religious philosophy ... wanting, as it does, the total suppression of religion and religious expression from the public sphere

    I see specious nonsense has evolved into a different species of nonsense.


  • #2805
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Would you explain away a vision of God appearing to you as some kind of illusion, the same way you have explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena?

    Speaking for myself, I probably would. I know I have experienced hallucinations in the past; sometimes extremely vividly so. It would be breathtakingly arrogant to say "I've witnessed something, therefore it is unquestionably true".

    If God wants to make himself known to skeptics, then personal visions won't cut it. He's going to have to make himself known to everyone, and in an objectively verifiable way.

    I don't know what form that would take, because the whole idea of God makes no sense to me, but I'm sure an omnipotent being would figure it out somehow. And if he did, then sure: I'd believe in him, the same way I believe in gravity. If something is objectively verifiable, then not believing it is perverse.


  • #2806
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    But it's happening in Ireland right now?

    All states should be secular. 'Secular' definition: Not connected with religious or spiritual matters.

    How is that anti-religious?
    It all depends what exactly is meant by these ambiguous phrases ... like 'not connected with religious or spiritual matters' ... which seems to mean something like 'only non-religious ideas are officially recognised and tolerated by the state'.


  • #2807
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,927 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    J C wrote: »
    I think you would explain it away as some kind of illusion, the same way you have just explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena.

    ... and I'll bet that you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?
    I think there is a distinction between claiming to prove something & actually proving it.

    Similar to claiming you've seen an apparition. Claiming it happened in no way evidences that it actually happened.


  • #2808
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Ó
    J C wrote: »
    It all depends what exactly is meant by these ambiguous phrases ... like 'not connected with religious or spiritual matters' ... which seems to mean something like 'only non-religious ideas are officially recognised and tolerated by the state'.
    No. It's very specific. It means that religion and the state are not connected. It says nothing about non-recognition or intolerance of religion by the state.

    It's like you're afraid of a ghost that doesn't exist and you're making up your own ghost stories to prove it.


  • #2809
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Whew! I never thought I'd see so much discussion of secularism under the heading of specious nonsense!

    I'd suggest a mod move these posts to the Secularism thread, and with that idea in mind I've posted my responses to anyone who replied to my posts over there.


  • #2810
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    J C wrote: »
    It all depends what exactly is meant by these ambiguous phrases ... like 'not connected with religious or spiritual matters' ... which seems to mean something like 'only non-religious ideas are officially recognised and tolerated by the state'.

    Somewhat related, but only non-religious ideas are tolerated by science, which is very deliberate and relevant to your ideas on evolution. The existance or not of a god is something that cannot be objectively measured. Your specific ideas of creationism can be debunked, but that's because each point brought up in defence of creationism can be explained with far less leaps of logic than bringing in supernatural means (which does generally go against the "rule" of "no supernatural explanations allowed*". Worth noting that it does not specifically debunk the idea of a divine cause because the scientific method cannot address that question and firmly doesn't. (A scientist can argue that thus far all the points raised by religion that can be measured in other ways have generally been proven incorrect, mind you.)

    If a god -did- create the universe and everything in it, it seems far more likely that it would follow the general rules that it already created for the universe, which so far appear to hold true for everything else (some caveats at very very small scales) rather than just do something completely different for living creatures. The general rules of living things are explained perfectly well by the processes of evolution as observed in modern speciation and within the fossil record. The age of the earth is perfectly well explained by looking at the historical data of the natural world. To try and insist that the story of Genesis is to be taken completely at face value rather than as a foundation myth and analogy is where Creationism falls down. And ID is just creationism that was dressed up to try get it past the school boards again. It is absolutely the same rubbish and it's defended with the same arguments of "irreducible complexity" (every major example of which has so far been explained).


    *Because they cannot be proven and explaining something that doesn't yet fit away with "god did it" is lazy and almost certainly missing something.


  • #2811
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,738 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Mod: we seem to be back on track, but the Secular argument should be continued on the Secular thread, as Absolam's suggestion. I do not think it is feasible to move threads as the discussion is too interwoven.

    JC you cannot pursue an argument by blatantly corrupting the meaning of a word. However since the topic is now moved to another thread it is irrelevant in this case.

    TLDR - take Secularism discussion to Secular thread, do not continue it here.


  • Advertisement
  • #2812
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Evolution is supposedly a blind, dumb, mindless, directionless process, yet anyone who examines nature closely will see that evolution has brought about engineering feats and technologies that far surpass anything humans can come up with. Nature and evolution are clearly intelligent.

    The results of evolution are so staggering that engineers look to nature to solve problems and come up with "new" technologies--this is called biomimicry:

    "Biomimicry begins by observing life in the natural world and studying how organisms solve certain functional problems in the context of where they live. By educating ourselves about nature’s problem-solving processes, we can learn to apply those strategies to human design challenges. In its simplest form, biomimicry is taking inspiration and recipes from nature and applying it to design—it is the conscious emulation of nature’s genius."

    https://greenlivingaz.com/biomimicry-emulation-natures-genius/


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5i_QJyL3mI


  • #2813
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,858 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I have a good idea what you believe and want from interacting with you on the Boards ... but for the avoidance of doubt can I ask you:-
    Would you explain away a vision of God appearing to you as some kind of illusion, the same way you have explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena?

    Do you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?

    I will answer your questions as soon as you show me where i have done what you have claimed.


  • #2814
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I will answer your questions as soon as you show me where i have done what you have claimed.
    Will take that as a 'no' then.


  • #2815
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Samaris wrote: »
    Somewhat related, but only non-religious ideas are tolerated by science, which is very deliberate and relevant to your ideas on evolution. The existance or not of a god is something that cannot be objectively measured. Your specific ideas of creationism can be debunked, but that's because each point brought up in defence of creationism can be explained with far less leaps of logic than bringing in supernatural means (which does generally go against the "rule" of "no supernatural explanations allowed*". Worth noting that it does not specifically debunk the idea of a divine cause because the scientific method cannot address that question and firmly doesn't.
    ... so why do Atheists then disengenuously claim that they would believe in God if he were proven to exist?
    Science supposedly cannot do (I believe science can, but will not allow) investigations into the existence of God. Either way, how will God's existence be objectively proven to an Atheist ... or to anybody else, for that matter, if science is unable or unwilling to even take on the task?

    This is yet another self-serving 'convenience' that materialists and like-minded people have devised to allow them to proclaim their 'liberal open mindedness' on whether God exists, in the full knowledge that this can never be tested scientifically ... and if it is tested, they will dismiss such testing as 'pseudo-science' or 'outside science' ... or some such handwave ... and if that fails, they will go to court using 'the strict separation of church and state' idea to put their ideas legally beyond questioning ... like they do regularly in America on the origins issue and schools.
    With these methods they can 'pull up the ladder' behind them ... to put their ideas beyond reach ... so that nobody is allowed question them ... and if anybody does, they will suffer career suicide and/or legal enforcement proceedings to desist.
    ... and if they continue questioning ... there are a whole plethora of weasel words, logical fallacies and strawmen that the materialists will utilise.
    Things like saying there is no evidence for God ... while simultaneously preventing science from investigating any evidence there might be for God.
    Things like setting up and maintaining the idea of the 'strict separation of church and state' ... so that Christians are stripped of their rights of access to the state and its courts, for example, on issues in relation to the origins issue, that the materialists and their institutions enjoy.


  • #2816
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    mickrock wrote: »
    Evolution is supposedly a blind, dumb, mindless, directionless process, yet anyone who examines nature closely will see that evolution has brought about engineering feats and technologies that far surpass anything humans can come up with. Nature and evolution are clearly intelligent.

    The results of evolution are so staggering that engineers look to nature to solve problems and come up with "new" technologies--this is called biomimicry:

    "Biomimicry begins by observing life in the natural world and studying how organisms solve certain functional problems in the context of where they live. By educating ourselves about nature’s problem-solving processes, we can learn to apply those strategies to human design challenges. In its simplest form, biomimicry is taking inspiration and recipes from nature and applying it to design—it is the conscious emulation of nature’s genius."
    Spontaneous neo Darwinian evolution is indeed observed to be a blind, dumb, mindless, directionless process ... and even if this mindless process went on for billions of years ... it still wouldn't produce anything much.
    ... so the only plausible explanation for the amazing and very sophisticated designs found in nature is that they were originally intelligently designed by an intelligence of divine proportions.:)


  • #2817
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Spontaneous neo Darwinian evolution is indeed observed to be a blind, dumb, mindless, directionless process ...
    ... so the only plausible explanation for the amazing and very sophisticated designs found in nature is that they were originally intelligently designed by an intelligence of divine proportions.:)

    Any pics?


  • #2818
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,858 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Will take that as a 'no' then.

    You made a claim.about me yet you are unwilling to back it up?

    You said you know exactly what I would do because
    you have explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena

    Now please provide proof that I have done what you claim above or retract your scurrilous accusation!


  • #2819
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally possted by J C
    ... you have explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena

    Timberrrrrrrr
    Now please provide proof that I have done what you claim above or retract your scurrilous accusation!
    You made remarks comparing people who claim to have personal experience of God with people who claim to have seen yeti and aliens i.e people who are dismissed by 'polite society' as suffering from some delusion / optical illusion ... because science explains away these experiences in a similar manner:-
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I am skeptical and think of them in the same way I think of people who claim to have seen yeti, aliens and other unexplainable phenomena, does not mean I wouldn't start believing in any of those things if I witnessed them with my own eyes though!

    I think that any reasonable person reading the above exchanges would see my summary of your position as 'explaining away' other people's experiences of God as a fair and reasonable summary.
    You're the one tying yourself up in knots on this ... and the proof of this is in the above quotes ... and your refusal to answer my questions ... which would further prove I'm right in what I say about your position on this.


  • #2820
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Any pics?
    Take a selfie of yourself ... and you will see one of the amazing and very sophisticated designs found in nature that could only be originally intelligently designed by an intelligence of divine proportions.
    I can assure you that the selfie will show this ... of course, whether you choose to believe it, is entirely a matter between yourself ... and yourself !!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • #2821
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Take a selfie of yourself ... and you will see one of the amazing and very sophisticated designs found in nature that could only be originally intelligently designed by an intelligence of divine proportions.
    I can assure you that the selfie will show this ... of course, whether you choose to believe it, is entirely a matter between yourself ... and yourself !!!:)

    Good answer! Put me in my place.


Advertisement