Figleaf

Observing objects fall for pretty much humanity's entire existence, no-one ever made the assumption that it was caused by mutual attraction between matter. Newton carried out experiments and ratiocination that led him to conclude that the observed effect can be explained as a mutual attraction between matter. And his conclusion has not been falsified. Mere repetition of your claims in no way proves they are correct. Your claim of a prayer effect being caused by a deity lacks any evidence whatsoever. Newton's theory of gravity has all the evidence of many decades of observation, measurement, and testing. Yes, one could. Then one could test and measure it and find it to be true. And we would all agree that it is perfectly reasonable to claim that belief in a deity has a biological effect. And that would still prove nothing whatsoever about whether there is a deity or not, and it would not make believing in such a deity reasonable. You've been around this pole with me twice, and others too, already. Repeating it doesn't make it any more correct than it was last time. You cannot 'rationally' believe something that you are not convinced of through reason.

Well, see, that's just the reason I had to ask. This report restates the false reports of two years ago saying that he said Israel should be wiped off the map. Thing is, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. (He said it 'should vanish from the pages of history' or something like that.) And then, when it actually quotes his latest statement, in fact, HE DOES NOT appear to say that the destruction of Isreal is coming, he says the regime. [so, Scribby, you were wrong on that, too.] The Israel apologists are continually lying about what Ahmedjihad says. Are you being SERIOUS??? I meant what I said, nothing else though. A while back the media broadcast made up quotes that Adminjihad never said. The story reported above attributes a meaning to Amendjihad that isn't matched by the passage actually quoted. I conclude that you've got to take what the western media reports about Ahemjihad with a grain of salt. I 'blame' Israel apologists for contributing to the level of confusion, misinformation, and wrongheaded that continues to prevail around Middle East issues. Absolutely not. I am not anti-semitic and it's a disgusting thing for you to suggest. No.

Yes! That's the terminology we've been needing. Thank you.

True, M.Dancer is only one among several abusers who, are unable to make rational arguments and are disinclined to behave decently, and who substitute those with insults and lies. The list of these folks has gotten quite long -- to the point that I am questioning the value of sticking around the forum. I don't see why honest participants here for sensible discussions should have to put up with unremitting slanders and abuse. Maybe this forum is dying.

The theory of a deity that I described has all three of those elements. No, it does not. I lacks the first and last, and these lacks make the second difficult. Also, the insistence by the proponents of theism that it is exempt from rational examination thwarts the second as well. Nonsense. First, I say theism is not rational because it does not conform to the elements of rationality, and when critically examined, it resorts to special pleading. Second, I have never asserted that a deity 'could' not exist. Not according your the definition of evidence. Hooey. They can assume it's a rational result of praying, but nothing in your example extends it to forming evidence that a deity is responsible for that effect. They have evidence that things fall. This is evidence for the existence something that makes them fall. The word used for the something that makes them fall is 'gravity'. Ergo, things falling is evidence for the existence of gravity, although it may not be evidence for grandiloquent explanations or some claims about the causes of gravity. No matter how much you twist my arguments, you cannot escape the essential folly and absurdity of your position. It really would help these discussions if you would use words with at least some minimal level of precision. That proposition does not show gravity is 'incomprehensible'. It simply points out that gravity is not fully explained. Two much different things. There's more of Riverwind's Private Language, I guess. Yes there is -- dogma, doctrine, authority, and the principle of revelation.

How telling..... ... Telling? Yes, it tells us that M.Dancer is willing utter malicious lies and distortions in service of his campaign of stalking and character assassination.

You are the one who claimed that the theory of a deity cannot be compared to the theory of gravity because the theory of gravity is very precise. I am simply pointing out that there are many scientific theories are not that precise or repeatable. 1. You are misrepresenting my comment. I gave three elements (predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance) that distinguish a scientific theory such as like gravity from a theistic notion, and none of the three was merely 'precision'. If you won't deal with what I actually say in my arguments, please don't make the pretense that you are replying to me. Reductionist focus on one element, which you also mistate, is not a reasonable argument. 2. "Simply pointing out that there are many scientific theories are not that precise or repeatable ..." does not advance your argument. As I noted and you appear to have failed to grasp, the exercise of comparing scientific results across differently challenging subject matter tell you nothing about the differences between the endeavor of science and the claims of theism. I am simply applying your ridiculous criterion for calling something evidence. You said: " Newton had no evidence that gravity existed..." That is an unreserved absolute statement about Newton's evidence, not as you now claim, a relative assessment of MY interpretation of evidence. Your statement was a total absurdity. Anyone who has seen an object fall to the ground has evidence that gravity exists. That is a lie. Newton's experiments suggested nothing "magical" whatsoever. Furthermore, you are seemingly very ignorant of scientific history. Newton was not trying to 'prove gravity existed'. He was attempting to explain why and how things [appear to] fall. No-one at the time doubted that things actually do fall. Observing objects falling does not in any way establish that the result is achieved by the action of a magic force that we call gravity. In and of itself, your statement is correct, just like the one you juxtaposed it to. Further as regards gravity: (a) no-one is trying to claim gravity is magical, (b ) careful observation of falling objects will allow you to explain how a very commonly observed phenomenon behaves; and © multiple observations of the interactions of various astronomical bodies will allow you to formulate reliable predictive theory about how bodies can be expected to interact, and theories about the causes of that interaction which may be further tested. No, I am not. I will however assert that theist thinking respects no need to change in the face of contradicting knowledge.

Very few scientific theories related to biology have the precision and testability of gravity. Most theories related to the effect of various medicines on the body are imprecise because the same medicine won't work in the same way for every person. That entire comment is totally irrelevant. We are not comparing the relative difficulty of discovering evidence and formulating complete theories between branches of science. We are comparing the methods and outcomes of science with theism. Newton had no evidence that gravity existed... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? You're saying Newton never saw something fall, or roll downhill? And that he never conducted the experiments he recorded about gravity? River, virtually every response you have given has begun with an totally strange and totally unsupported assertion, but this one has got to take the cake! Please provide a citation for where he described the force as 'mystical'. You are merely repeating your earlier incorrect assertion, not providing any argument or support for it. Experiencing positive results from praying does not in any way establish that the result is acheived by the action of a deity. It's clear that there are numerous phenomena we cannot at this time fully measure or explain. That in no way suggests it is rational to make up imaginary explanations and assert that they are authoritative truth exempt from rational examination. That is not my universal or typical experience with educated theists.

I've heard of the Walk With Israel program. It is an annual event usually in the late spring which raises money for causes in Israel. This year's proceeds are earmarked to build a daycare centre in Northern Israel and to fund education programs for immigrants in Jerusalem. As an annual event, it does not appear likely to be conducted to connect specifically with Israeli military actions. It's more probable that it's logical positioning in late spring is simply coincidental with the military campaign season. Maybe you are confusing 'Walk With Israel' with the numerous more impromptu demonstrations Israel's supporters carry out in direct reaction to events in the ME region.

I'm not sure if they're a people, a death cult, or a zoological collection. Well, 'A people' is certainly an unorthodox usage to refer to a political faction.

You have an annoying habit of making a rediculous claim and then ignoring my rebuttal. When I pick up the topic again you act as if your original claim was never rebutted. Furthermore, I did address your criticism again in my previous post which you ignored. You describe precisely my experience with you. You don't seem to understand the difference between a proof and evidence. The correlation he observed is evidence even though it is not proof. You don't seem to understand the meaning of evidence. He has evidence that prayer helps. He has no evidence that prayer helps because a deity is doing it. It is not contradicted by the said evidence. Nor is it suggested by the evidence. On that basis alone, Ockham's Razor speaks against it. The theory is that an intangible deity is affecting the mental state of humans that believe in said deity. Why do you think there should be any physical evidence outside of the human mind? I would say, axiomatically belief in a deity is a mental state. I believed you point was much more substantial than to simply say that religious people's beleifs are mental states. I'm 100% with you there. Nope. In that respect, I am convinced that a scientifically descriptive and testable theory (lets call it the theory of gravity) has been developed and promulgated, and that this theory, while not exhaustive of all questions, explains and predicts with extremely high reliability the observed behaviour of macro-scale objects. It has nothing to do with 'magic', and it has nothing to do with 'belief' in the sense you mean it. Irrelevant. Yep. Religion affects the mental state of believers. No doubt about that. But no theory of a deity I have ever heard is anywhere remotely 'equivalent' to the theory of gravity in terms of predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance. The force proposed between objects in the theory of gravity is not 'mystical'.

Concisely put. I agree completely. Particularly #3 -- Party list members will represent no-one but their party interests. Blind party loyalty is already an unfortunate hallmark of our legislators and List Members can only exacerbate that.

I suggest the issue is that you might consider improving your reading comprehension skills. You finally made a responsive answer in post #29, and then a non-responsive answer in post #30. I didn't notice #29 until later. See my reply above.

Unity may be implied, but there was no implication of marriage in the relevant passages. There is a seeming contradiction in your position. On the one hand, you cite the Bible in support of your positions about what God wants, but on the other hand you say that assertions made in the Bible are not true. Yet, as noted above, you don't adhere to this dictum.

You have not answered it. Your pretense that you have answered is rather pathetic.

Are we to understand from the title of your post that you consider "Militant Islam" to be "A people"?

You're obviously very self-satisfied about your expertise. No doubt it will help you answer this challenge intelligibly ... You stated that God made marriage when he made Adam and Eve, and you cited certain passages of Genesis in support of that contention. But on examination, marriage is neither mentioned nor implied in those passages. Were you simply mistaken, or did you misrepresent them deliberately?

What then is the bible, in your rubric, and how does this make it amenable to being misrepresented as you did? The bible s the written part of tradition, and is the book(s) of the Church. ... ... You are evading a question. You call the Bible "the written part of tradition" and the "books of the Church". Okay, fine -- whatever these phrases may mean, how is it that you justify your misrepresentation of the quoted passages of Genesis?

Let's look back at the example of the person using prayer as a tool to deal with anger management. I fail to see what will be gained by revisiting an example that failed you so badly before. Repetition will not change that. As I told you when you first brought this up, that is simply wrong. Why are you restating nonsense that has already been dealt with? Once more for those at the back, and please don't forget this time -- His theory is NOT supported by the evidence. The fact that prayer helps his anger is totally insufficient to establish that it is the supernatural intervention of a deity rather than simply the calming influence of familiar words and cadences. The phenomena, even if true, does not establish the attributed cause [a deity]. When investigation of the attibuted cause is carried out, further evidence cannot be found. Come on, be serious.

Meanwhile, back to my responses to the OP... We shall see. Sweet mother of pearl! What a conclusion! If people who don't Believe are able to be good, then God isn't needed to resist "temptation" at all. The atheist has no desire to follow religious rules. The atheist follows rules derived non-religiously. If a rule followed by an atheist happens to be similar to a rule prescribed by a religion, that has nothing to do with the atheist's desire to follow the religion's rule. The thing about that is, atheists don't generally seek out people to tell such things to, they don't go door to door buttonholing people about it, and they don't flood the airways with such material. Hey, I've seen that exact passage somewhere already! Anyway, atheists don't ever act like all Christians want to reject evolution. There are no examples of atheists insisting that all Christians are equally extreme. That's a strawman argument. Now, as for those Christians who reject evolution, do they do so based on scientific grounds? No, they do so on religious grounds, and they thereby not only reject one outcome of science, they reject the whole of science as inferior to their religious Beliefs. I'm not. Yes, it's really very hypocritical and the height of presumption when someone who doesn't even follow their own religion tries to tell others that they should be. Further proof that it is not really the word of any God. If it is mutable, then on what basis do Christians insist on any particular dogmas? Who are they to assert that it may or may not be changed in one direction or another? Red Herring. Um, no. Neuroscience has not progressed so far. Um, no. Quantum mechanics' uncertainty principal can actually provide a theoretical basis for free choice.

I must admit that is at least an honest defence for being misinformed, inconsistent, and proven wrong. Actually I havn't seen anything proving him wrong. No doubt you haven't.

2 + 2 is defined to be 4 not 23. No, that is not a matter of purely definition. Quantity is a property of reality independent of what you name the quantities. That's true. It is ascertainable by reference to evidence and the application of reason. I'm not sure how tight you mean by 'provable' -- recall that it is perfectly reasonable to act on probabilities where certainty cannot be attained. But you can formulate an extremely reliable predictive theoretical model that requires no substantial improvements. That is not the same kind of faith as religious Faith. One (science) is based on measurable, skeptically testible, conclusions from observation. The other, (religion) is based on archaic superstitions and the claims of ancient charlatans, defended by assertions of authority. Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you. No, it is based on imagination. And the elaborate structure of claims they make is not supported by the evidence they allege. And they deny that the claims are subject to or assessible by rationality. Ergo these beliefs are not reasonable.

Well, see, that's just the reason I had to ask. This report restates the false reports of two years ago saying that he said Israel should be wiped off the map. Thing is, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. (He said it 'should vanish from the pages of history' or something like that.) And then, when it actually quotes his latest statement, in fact, HE DOES NOT appear to say that the destruction of Isreal is coming, he says the regime. [so, Scribby, you were wrong on that, too.] The Israel apologists are continually lying about what Ahmedjihad says.

Look at the electoral map I linked to. The big blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean is where the seats are going. Maybe not. I have always assumed it means southern BC, excluding Vancouver Island, but on reflection, I suppose it could have something to do with river systems. Fill me in? Last time, but how would they perceive their usual prospects in that area? Also, I hope you're not disputing that Alberta is Toryland. Clearly yes. The stated rationale is to redress population/representation imbalances. And yet, it specifically avoids doing so for the part of Canada the tories can't seem to make much headway in. Generally speaking, Appeal to Tradition is considered a fallacy. And that is, I think, a teleology. True. My poll, like all other polls, is subject to the reliability of the responses provided. I think that rules out all polls, if you assume as I do that coerced polls are at least equally invalid.

Now I'm confused. By that definition, Faith is not rational, and yet you have been arguing the opposite at some length. Are you conceding?